Say Anything Blog

Move_Zig posted on Net Neutrality earlier today and linked to this article from The Nation:

And so, unless there’s some effective opposition, the several-headed vendor that now sells us nearly all our movies, TV, radio, magazines, books, music and web services will soon be selling us our daily papers, too--for the major dailies have, collectively, been lobbying energetically for that big waiver, which stands to make their owners even richer (an expectation that has no doubt had a sweetening effect on coverage of the Bush Administration). Thus the largest US newspaper conglomerates--the New York Times, the Washington Post, Gannett, Knight-Ridder and the Tribune Co.--will soon be formal partners with, say, GE, Murdoch, Disney and/or AT&T; and then the lesser nationwide chains (and the last few independents) will be ingested, too, going the way of most US radio stations. America’s cities could turn into informational “company towns,” with one behemoth owning all the local print organs--daily paper(s), alternative weekly, city magazine--as well as the TV and radio stations, the multiplexes and the cable system. (Recently a federal appeals court told the FCC to drop its rule preventing any one company from serving more than 30 percent of US cable subscribers; and in December, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.) While such a setup may make economic sense, as anticompetitive arrangements tend to do, it has no place in a democracy, where the people have to know more than their masters want to tell them.

So let’s look at the single biggest beef that prompted the Net Neutrality movement in more detail. 

This article lays out the problems that cable customers are having with their data downloads:

Markey filed a bill along with U.S. Rep. Charles Pickering (R- Miss.) in support of Net neutrality, the idea that network providers shouldn’t discriminate against Web sites or various types of traffic. The FCC is investigating complaints that Comcast Corp. has interfered with peer-to-peer traffic associated with file-sharing sites…

“Respect for the free flow of information was bred into our country from its founding,” said Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein. “We must preserve the open and neutral character of the Internet, which has been its hallmark from the very beginning. It is clear consumers don’t want the Internet to be a another version of old media dominated by a number of giants.”

Gilles BianRosa, CEO of Vuze Inc., a video service that uses peer-to-peer technology, said that while his company competes with Comcast in the delivery of content, the latter company holds an unfair advantage. “What we have here is a horse race, and Comcast owns the racetrack,” he said. “I agree the market should decide which services win ... but there is no market without basic ground rules and transparency. ... We believe corporate assurances of good faith are not enough.”…

“This hearing is not about technical details of managing networks; it’s about the future of online TV and the Internet,” Ammori said. “By targeting P2P, Comcast is disrupting investment and innovation in its online competition.”…

“Comcast does not block any Web site, application or protocol, including P2P. Period,” he said. He said that the company “manages” protocols, such as P2P, during limited periods of heavy traffic; does so in limited geographic areas; only manages uploads, not downloads; and delays, but does not block requests for uploads.

Comcast isn’t some standalone company.  It is part of a mega-corporate holding company with AT&T:

Comcast was first incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania in 1969. On November 18, 2002, Comcast and AT&T Broadband combined to form the new Comcast Corporation.

Now, let’s put this in perspective.  What if DirecTV was owned by Viacom and Viacom decided that it wanted to promote its networks on its own system.  In order to do that, they refused to carry HD Feeds of other networks.  Therefore, those other networks were of inferior quality.  And they went one step further, they purposely degraded the signal of their competitors.  Suddenly viewership for CBS and CBS News increased while NBC, ABC and so on suffered because CBS was higher quality.

That is what Comcast is doing.  They are effectively degrading peer to peer communications and other communications on their network so that they free up the bandwidth for their own multimedia services.  They are pushing their content onto consumers by ensuring that their content is of higher quality than the competition.

The idea of net neutrality is that of packet neutrality.  Packets from one source get treated the same as other packets.  Peer to peer packets get treated the same as packets intended for Amazon or Comcast or E-Bay or Sayanythingblog.com.  Net neutrality prevents ISPs from degrading services for sites or protocol in favor of their preferred protocols.

Considering that AOL-Time Warner is one of the largest cable internet providers, how would you like it if AOL-TW degraded users’ connections when they tried to access content from Viacom and vice versa?  Do you want AOL-Time Warner or Comcast or any other ISP discriminating against packets that they don’t like?

Move_Zig was really off the mark to compare this to the Fairness Doctrine or Hillary’s previous remarks.

Arizona’s Senate is debating a new law to combat college shootings:

Legislation that would allow people to carry guns on Arizona community-college or public-university campuses advanced Monday, 11 days after a gunman killed five people and himself in an Illinois university lecture hall.

Members of the Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee passed the legislation along a party-line 4-3 vote. Democratic senators Ken Cheuvront, Albert Hale and Richard Miranda voted no.

Senate Bill 1214, which would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry a gun at community colleges and Arizona’s three public universities, next heads to the Senate Rules Committee.

Gun owners must be 21 or older to obtain a permit.

Sen. Karen Johnson, the bill’s lead sponsor, originally introduced legislation that would allow guns at all schools, including elementary, middle and high schools. But facing pressure from some Republican colleagues, the senator was forced to narrow the bill’s scope to apply only to higher-education institutions.

“It’s not the bill that I wanted because I still feel our little kindergartners are sitting there as sitting ducks,” said Johnson, a Mesa Republican and Judiciary Committee member. But she added that the revised bill has a better chance of moving forward...

Police chiefs from Arizona's three public universities - Arizona State University, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University - said allowing guns on campuses could create greater confusion and lead to the loss of additional innocent lives when police respond to a school shooting. Officers could shoot the wrong person, they said.

In short--HELL YEAH.  I want my kids safe.  This law does more to ensure their safety than all the “Zero Tolerance” bans could ever accomplish.

And I like the idea of allowing guns in all schools, not just colleges.

Welcome to Texas.  You wanna start shooting people, you might get a few rounds off before your ass is done.  Over.  Toast.  Makes you think twice about a shooting rampage at a school.

But the last part about police chiefs' concerns that they might shoot the wrong person--ok, shoot the one person that is going to be pointing a gun at police when they arrive 15 minutes after the rampage started. In actuality, that person will already have committed suicide or if the other students are armed, he/she will be dead. Then all the police need to do is say "put your weapon on the ground". The chiefs are basically saying that their officers are incapable of distinguishing between a murderer with a weapon and your average law abiding citizen with a weapon who responds to commands and doesn't point it at police.

That really says something about the competence of police. I am glad that they are there to keep us all safe. It sure worked at VA Tech and at Northern Illinois.

Those damned things are expensive:

HAGATNA, Guam - A B-2 stealth bomber plunged to the ground shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on Saturday, the first time one crashed, but both pilots ejected safely, Air Force officials said.

The aircraft was taking off with three others on their last flight out of Guam after a four-month deployment, part of a continuous U.S. bomber presence in the western Pacific. After the crash, the other three bombers were being kept on Guam, said Maj. Eric Hilliard at Hickham Air Force Base in Hawaii.

At least one B-2 bomber had taken off safely from Andersen Air Force Base but was brought back when another aircraft plunged to the ground.

There were no injuries on the ground or damage to buildings, and no munitions were on board. Each B-2 bomber costs about $1.2 billion to build.

Pilots are safe.  That is the good news.  The fact that $1.2B is smoldering in wreckage is the bad.

CBS News reports on some real threats of climate change, just not of global warming.  What if the world cools and experiences a mini-ice age?  We are getting first hand experience as we go through our worst winter in decades.

A winter that saw the first snow in Baghdad in memory:

Snow fell on Baghdad on Friday for the first time in memory, and delighted residents declared it an omen of peace.

“It is the first time we’ve seen snow in Baghdad,” said 60-year-old Hassan Zahar. “We’ve seen sleet before, but never snow. I looked at the faces of all the people, they were astonished,” he said.

Leaving the UN to deal with the dim reality that despite their reports and conferences in Bali to the contrary, maybe the earth isn’t warming anymore.  Perhaps 1998 was the warmest year we will have and that the trend is downhill from here:

The United Nations is stepping in to try to rescue Tajikistan from a social catastrophe brought on by severe winter weather. But even if an emergency UN appeal for assistance generates a robust international response, it is questionable whether Tajikistan will be able to avoid entering a downward spiral, featuring pestilence and widespread hunger.

On February 18, the UN issued a “flash appeal,” calling for an immediate international infusion of $25.1 million in assistance to Tajikistan. “At least 260,000 people are in need of immediate food assistance,” the appeal stated grimly. “Moreover, the government reports that up to 2 million people may require food assistance through the end of the winter, if limited food and fuel supplies in rural areas are not replenished.” In all, almost one-third of the country’s population of just over 7 million is in need of some form of assistance.

But the bigger threat is in China:

China’s inflation accelerated in January to 7.1 percent - its rate highest in more than a decade - amid snowstorms that fueled a spike in food costs, according to data reported Tuesday.

The sharp rise in consumer prices was driven by an 18.2 percent increase in food costs from the same period a year ago, the National Bureau of Statistics reported on its Web site…

But economists have raised their inflation forecasts for the first half of 2008 after freak snowstorms battered China’s south, killing millions of farm animals and wrecking crops.

Chinese leaders are especially worried about the political impact of rapidly rising food costs, which hit the country’s poor majority hard.

Rising ocean levels?  Warmer temperatures?  We have no idea what will happen.  But we are getting a glimpse of the VERY REAL THREAT OF HALF OF THE WORLD’S PEOPLE LIVING IN NEAR FAMINE CONDITIONS BECAUSE CROP YIELDS DROP DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. The political instability caused by starvation and famine is beyond measure.  Snow in Baghdad?  Huge food shortages in Asia?  Where is Al Gore and his gigantic CO2 Powered furnace when we need it?

And at that point, I resign from the Alumni Board of Directors and stop sending any funds to the school whatsoever.

From the Arizona Repugnant:

An Arizona State University committee considering ways to improve campus safety in the wake of recent campus shootings may suggest that students be required to disclose their mental health histories.

Lawmakers and university administrators in other states, particularly Virginia and Florida, have been pushing measures to open students’ private psychological records to schools and police.

The ASU committee is considering the requirement along with several others as a way to boost security, said Sharon Keeler, a university spokeswoman. The committee was formed last spring after a disturbed student shot and killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.

It hasn’t decided whether to include the mental health disclosure requirement in its final report, Keeler said. Details of any plan, if adopted, still need to be hammered out.

First they provide scholarships to illegals without them having to disclose their illegal status or pay out of state tuition, then they want to peek into people’s mental health histories.  It is beyond disgusting.  As if this whole issue is because people see psychologists.  Not because people decide they want to murder a bunch of folks.

Tomorrow night is a lunar eclipse:

The moon will be full, Saturn will be closer to the moon, and the Earth will cast shadows on the moon, and there will be less conflicting or reflected light, causing it to be darker, Haynes said.

The lunar eclipse should be viewable in the Western United States, Haynes said.

“Anyplace you happen to be, you can see it where you are, that part is rare,” Haynes said. “Next year, it could only be viewable in the summer in China.”

The next lunar eclipse for the western United States will be in 2010.

And on a side note--the Phoenix Suns play the Lakers.  Shaq-Kobe for the first time with Shaq as a PHX Sun.  It is go time.  Stretch run.  I will try to sneak out and see it at halftime.

Arizona recently passed Prop 300 that denied benefits to illegals and enforced stricted employer sanctions.  Liberals and Academics decided to thwart the will of the voters and instead used private funds from ASU’s donors (of which I am one) to pay for scholarships for illegals that lost their financial aid due to the law.  Well, those days are over:

A controversial scholarship which benefited Arizona State University students who are in the country illegally has quietly faded away.  As many as 200 students who graduated from Arizona high schools received the private scholarship money through the university this year.

But now the money is spent, and ASU is advising students who depended on it to “seek private funding sources.”

The scholarships were a response to Proposition 300, a voter-approved law that requires illegal immigrants to pay the out-of-state tuition rate at the state’s public universities and colleges.  The proposition also prohibits those students from receiving any type of financial assistance that is funded with taxpayer money.

In September, ASU President Michael Crow, said the university was helping students with private money already in the school’s coffers. Based on Crow’s estimate that 150-200 students would receive the aid, the total amount disbursed was approximately $1.8 million…

ASU will provide a list of private funding sources for interested students. Included on the list are some sources that do not take citizenship status into consideration of scholarships and grants.

State Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, is thrilled ASU will no longer be providing money to these students.

“The university should never have been complicit in bypassing the will of the voters,” Kavanagh said. Prop. 300 passed in 2006 with the support of nearly seven of 10 . “They were given tuition breaks to illegal immigrants.”

I am an alum of ASU (Go Devils).  I voted for Prop 300 along with 70% of Arizonans.  And to have Michael Crow and the academics give me the middle finger after I not only donate to the scholarship funds, serve on the board of directors of my college’s alumni association, and pay his salary just pisses me off.  I like President Crow, but this was just plain out and out disrespect for citizens that do not share his enlightened view.  He is by no means a Liberal, but he is an academic all the same.  Already, the law has been attacked by outright legal challenges, but these sort of underhanded backdoor challenges by government agencies intent to ignore the will of the people are among the most blatant abuses of government power possible.

(more...)

The plight of the poor migrant worker worsens with Employer Sanctions Law sending more and more illegals searching for work in Texas:

HOUSTON - Illegal immigrants are coming into Texas, but not from where one might think.  The rush is coming from Arizona, Oklahoma and other states - places that have recently passed tough new anti-illegal immigrant laws.  The two toughest measures are in Arizona and Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma statute, which took effect in November, makes it a crime to transport, harbor or hire illegal immigrants. Effective Jan. 1, the Arizona law suspends the business license of employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. On a second offense, the license is revoked.

Anecdotal information seems to indicate that illegal immigrants are leaving these states in growing numbers.

“They’re really tightening the screws,” said Mario Ortiz, an undocumented Mexican worker [wtf does “undocumented” mean] who came to Houston after leaving Phoenix last year. “There have been a lot coming - it could be 100 a day."…

Enrique Hubbard, Mexico’s consul general in Dallas, said a dozen Mexican families from Oklahoma have applied for consular documents listing their new homes in the Dallas area. He expects more to arrive because jobs are available in north Texas.

Texas’ reputation as a welcoming destination has experts predicting more immigrants will come to Houston and other cities in the state. Texas has not passed any statewide law targeting the employment of undocumented workers.

Ortiz, a native of southern Mexican state of Tabasco, said he left Phoenix eight months ago working 60 to 70 hours a week as a nursery worker. While now he can only pick up two to three days a week of yardwork and barely earns enough to send back to his family, he prefers to be in Texas.

“Here, they let you work. Over there, they won’t. There is a lot of racism, but here there isn’t - it’s better,” Ortiz said of Houston.

Ah, “undocumented” workers experience “racism”.  I guess we are racist for wanting people to have “documents” to get a job.  You know--things that Federal Law mandates, like social security numbers and identity documents proving who you are.  I wonder how many folks would like an "undocumented" sex offender sneaking into their neighborhood? Or how about an "undocumented" doctor performing surgery on them?

Have fun in Texas.  Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

More fallout from Arizona’s hiring laws:

Arizona’s employer-sanctions law is driving illegal immigrants to leave the state, as intended.

The departures were first felt at stores and businesses that cater to such immigrants. Sales suddenly dropped.

Now, apartment complexes, especially those with affordable rents in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations, are feeling the effects. Individuals and entire families are moving, leaving behind empty apartments that can’t be filled.

Some renters are handing over their keys and breaking leases because they’ve lost their jobs due to the sanctions law and can’t pay the rent. Others are simply skipping out in the middle of the night.

“Most folks aren’t even telling us; they are just leaving,” said Estela Bojorquez, manager of the Villa de Sonora apartments in west Phoenix, which is trying to fill 59 vacant apartments out of a total of 156. Bojorquez attributes half of the vacancies to illegal immigrants moving out of the state because of the sanctions law. Job losses because of a slowdown in the economy - especially in housing construction, which employs many immigrants - also are contributing to the departures.

It’s the same story across town at the Mountain Vista apartments in south Phoenix. The 190 apartments at the complex off Roeser Road were 99 percent full just a few months ago, before the sanctions law went into effect Jan. 1. Now, 19 apartments, or about 10 percent of the total, are vacant.

As a result, many immigrants are leaving, either to other states where they think it will be easier to get jobs, or back to Mexico, where the majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from.

Fidel Covarrubias, 28, was renting a two-bedroom apartment at the Villa de Sonora complex on Thomas Road near 59th Avenue for $690. On Monday, he and his wife and four children were packing up their bags in preparation to move to Texas. He turned in his apartment keys the same day and told the manager they were moving.

The construction worker explained that his hours had been cut to just one or two days a week because housing construction is so slow. His wife, meanwhile, lost her job cleaning restrooms at Metrocenter mall at the beginning of the month because of the sanctions law. With the first day of February approaching, they decided to move to Dallas, where they have relatives.

Unintended fallout from the employer sanctions law--slum lords are stuck with a glut of apartments that they formerly knowingly rented to illegals.  Check cashing stores, Mexican markets and businesses… all are suffering.

Perhaps the worst part of all--if my kid gets sick, the hospitals are probably struggling to keep their ER’s filled with illegals and their kids with little more wrong than stuff noses.  What will the hospitals do without their flood of ER patients?  Will the hospitals go out of business like the slumlords are?

This is interesting stuff for those that support Bush and have their doubts about whether to vote for McCain or Romney:

McCain once again won those who are disenchanted by the Bush presidency. Most Florida Republicans (68%) approve of the Bush administration. Romney won them, 35% to 31%. McCain, however, scored an overwhelming, 22-point victory among the 32% of voters who disapprove. I think this is one of the evolving stories of the Republican contest. If you like Bush, you are inclined to Romney (or one of the other candidates, all of whom but Ron Paul do better among Bush supporters than Bush opponents). If you dislike Bush, you are inclined to McCain.

McCain won voters for whom the economy is their top concern, 40% to 32%. Remember that McCain won them by a nose in New Hampshire. Isn’t that strange, given Romney’s message? Not necessarily. If we step back and look at it from a broader perspective - this can start to make sense. While it is true that Romney’s campaign message has been about fixing the economy - Romney won voters who think the economy is healthy. McCain won voters who think the economy is sick. So, it should come as no surprise that the voters for whom the the economy is tops went for McCain, given these divisions. If you think the economy is healthy, it is probably not your top concern…

Third, Romney won voters who said that cutting taxes was the higher priority, 35% to 29%. McCain won those who said reducing the deficit was more important, 42% to 27%. This, I think, shows the potential of a campaign - Romney has definitely developed some tax cutting bona fides with the Republican electorate.

And this plays out in the race.  If you like Bush, like tax cuts, and think the economy is on the right track, you tend to be a Romney supporter.  If you don’t like Bush, don’t support tax cuts and think the economy is in the toilet, they you tend to support McCain.

McCain shows contempt for Conservatives, Free Speech, Immigration Laws, Bush, and Tax Cuts.  That is who he is.  Rudy is gone.  Huck isn’t a viable candidate (and hasn’t been since his Iowa win) and Ron Paul is Nuckin’ Futs. 

Romney’s conservative credentials on social issues are disputable.  He presided over Mass when the Dems in the legislature forced healthcare onto the state.  He presided when the Supreme Court there used some dirty backdoor tactics (how you like that Proof) to legalize gay marriage.  He said that he would support a Choice in 1994 when he ran against {hick-up} Ted Kennedy.  Those may be a tough sell for some.  But his credentials on the economy, business, taxes, and leadership are undisputed. 

Of the remaining viable candidates, we have three Senators who have never had real jobs outside of government (although Hillary’s cattle futures trading and Whitewater billing I guess counts as a real job as does Obama representing slum lords).  Romney has a distinguished private industry track record as well as executive experience leading.

It is time to decide whether perceived electability trumps McCain being a “Maverick” and media darling--but a thorn in the side of Bush and Conservatives.

Heath Ledger of Brokeback Mountain fame was found dead today:

The actor Heath Ledger was found dead this afternoon in an apartment in Manhattan inhabited by the actress Mary-Kate Olsen, according to the New York City police. Signs pointed to a suicide or an accidental overdose, police sources said. Mr. Ledger was 28.

At 3:31 p.m., a masseuse arrived the fourth-floor apartment of the building, at 421 Broome Street in SoHo, for an appointment with Mr. Ledger, the police said. The masseuse was let in to the home by a housekeeper, who then knocked on the door of the bedroom Mr. Ledger was in. When no one answered, the housekeeper and the masseuse opened the bedroom and found Mr. Ledger naked and unconscious on a bed, with pills scattered around his body. They moved his body to the floor and attempted to revive him, but he did not respond. They immediately called the authorities.

The police said they did not suspect foul play. Officials said they believed Ms. Olsen, 21, was in California and that Mr. Ledger had been living in her apartment. Ms. Olsen attended the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, for the premiere of “The Wackness,” a film in which she stars with the actor Ben Kingsley. It was not clear where she went after the film screening.

Jake Gyllenhaal was nowhere to be found.

A lot is made of the exit polls and right now, my single biggest issue is the economy followed by immigration and WOT.  I know that there are social conservatives that want to talk about Abortion and Gay Marriage and moral decay, but at the end of the day, what Planned Parenthood does in the inner city has not a bit of relevance on me paying my mortgage, keeping my job, or sending my kids to college.  At the same time, having my kids blown to bits by a mushroom cloud might hurt my plans too.  And I live in Arizona making the high cost of illegals a central issue for me.

On the issues:

--Economy.  Romney wins hands down.  Not a populist like Huck.  Not against the Bush tax cuts like McCain.  And Romney is probably the single smartest candidate left (since my choice Fred is gone).  Rudy is a close second and I really like his tax plan, but the issue of Rudy’s complete lack of momentum diminishes him as a viable candidate compared to Romney.  Rudy must win Florida to even merit consideration.

--Immigration.  Romney wins again by default.  He isn’t a co-sponsor of legislation with Kennedy’s name on it.  He doesn’t believe God commands him to give illegals instate tuition.  Rudy ran a sanctuary city.

--WOT.  McCain wins this followed by Rudy if he is still alive and kicking in two weeks.  Huckabee stayed at a Holiday Inn Express on this and that disqualifies him. 

With Fred gone, I am wholeheartedly supporting Romney.  But I am a businessman making $100k plus and I am exactly the Wall Street, Big Money conservative that Romney appeals to.

The campaign trail is littered with corpses right now.  I am pronouncing Fred DOA after a horrible 3rd place statistical tie with Romney who didn’t even campaign in SC.

Huckabee is out of money and taking second in SC after being unimpressive in Michigan, NH, and Nevada does absolutely nothing to capitalize on his win in Iowa.  This was a state that he HAD TO WIN.  It is going to dramatically hamper his fundraising efforts and at this point, that is what the game is all about.  He lacks the money to campaign in a nationwide race and we have already seen that the Evangelical vote isn’t monolithic and all it is cracked up to be.

So after South Carolina mortally wounded Fred and Huck, I am making the assumption that Florida will mortally wound Rudy.  I don’t see how his momentum is going to turn around at this late stage.

AIDS is by and large a preventable disease.  These risk factors account for almost 100% of the infections:

--IV drug use
--Promiscuous sex habits (especially with gay men)

Let’s not sugar coat things, AIDS is nasty stuff and for demographic groups that engage in these type of activities, it poses a very real threat to their members.

But it is not the public health crisis that it used to be, yet the amount of funding thrown at it hasn’t decreased, proving again that once a government program is introduced, it never really goes away.

But with revised numbers downsizing the pandemic - along with an admission that AIDS peaked in the late 1990s - some AIDS experts are now wondering if it might be wise to shift some of the billions of dollars of AIDS money to basic health problems like clean water, family planning or diarrhea.

“If we look at the data objectively, we are spending too much on AIDS,” said Dr. Malcolm Potts, an AIDS expert at the University of California, Berkeley, who once worked with prostitutes on the front lines of the epidemic in Ghana.

Problems like malnutrition, pneumonia and malaria kill more children in Africa than AIDS.

“We are programmed to react quickly to small children with AIDS in distress,” Potts said. “Unfortunately, we don’t have that same reaction when looking at statistics that tell us what we should be spending on.”

The world invests about $8 billion to $10 billion in AIDS every year, more than 100 times what it spends on water projects in developing countries. Yet more than 2 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitation, and about 1 billion lack clean water.

In a recent series in the journal Lancet, experts wrote that more than one-third of child deaths and 11 percent of the total disease burden worldwide are due to mothers and children not getting enough to eat - or not getting enough nutritional food.

“We have a system in public health where the loudest voice gets the most money,” said Dr. Richard Horton, editor of Lancet. “AIDS has grossly distorted our limited budget.”

Color me surprised.  Malaria, malnutrition, lack of sanitation--these kill far more people than AIDS, the previous worldwide crisis that required the entire world to unite and throw endless amounts of money at it to save the human race.  Guess what--the next worldwide crisis requiring a complete unification of all world governments to combat its destruction of the human race is GLOBAL WARMING.  We should have learned from the AIDS crisis that the end game for combatting a problem that is going to destroy the human race is to find a way to live manageably with it.  It is manageable--see Magic Johnson.  It is a chronic disease that never goes away, but can be managed by medication.  Sounds kinda like asthma to me.  Or diabetes.  Take care of yourself and try to prevent the spread to other folks.

Aside from southern Africa, most of the continent has relatively low rates of HIV, and much higher rates of easily treatable diseases like diarrhea and respiratory illnesses. Yet much of the money from the West, especially from the United States, goes into AIDS.

Halperin recently wrote a commentary in the New York Times on the imbalance and said he was astounded by the response. Most were positive, he said, with many AIDS experts agreeing it was time to re-examine spending.

Most AIDS officials say the solution is to boost the budget for all of public health.

“Why does the public health budget have to be so limited?” asked Tom Coates, a professor of global AIDS research at UCLA. “Let’s not drag AIDS care and prevention down to the level of every other disease, but let’s bring everything else up to the level of AIDS.”

This is important to note.  Let’s not cut AIDS funding because it may dry up my grant money and force me to research something less lucrative and lay off the 50 Research Assistance that scurry around my lab and get me speaking fees as the global AIDS expert so I can travel to exotic destinations for academic conferences.  The number of folks with AIDS was estimated to be 40M worldwide, but that was revised downward to 33M just this year.  That is a decrease of almost 20% from what estimates were.

Guess what--not a damned person has died from global warming.  People dies of Malaria, starvation, and all the wonderful diseases that folks in the developing world get from lack of sanitation.  Yet we fund AIDS research and Global Warming research while folks in the 3rd world die of preventable diseases.

The actual exit poll results were very interesting in MI.  First, Romney won among non-evangelical Republicans, far outpacing Huck and the others.  Dramatically winning among non-Evangelicals almost 2-1.  Second, Romney won 36-29 among self described Evangelicals over Huckabee which caused Gene to go nuts and claim that any Evangelical that voted Romney doesn’t deserve to be called a Christian--they are CINOs or Christians in Name Only.  Sorry Gene, but if Romney won among non-Evangelicals and among CINOs, there ain’t enough people in your pigeon-holed category of Huckabee voters to win the election.  So Romney wins dramatically among Republican non-Evangelicals and wins among Evangelicals too.  How come it was close?

McCain won among Dems and Independents.  It is odd that the media and Democrats and Independents have so much influence in choosing the Republican nominee.  It is clear that Dems and Independents want McCain.  That should speak volumes about why he should not be the Republican nominee.

What is unclear is how large of a role Evangelicals will play from here on out.  If they do not vote overwhelmingly for Huckabee (like almost 3-1 for him), he has ZERO support among non-Evangelicals and is as good as done.  He can only win split decisions (if he can win those without overwhelming Evangelical support) where his plurality based on almost unanimous support from Evangelicals is sufficient to overcome a dilluted field.  McCain can only win in open primaries where Dems and Independents can vote.  Which explains each of their wins in Iowa and NH.

The bigger question is how long Rudy stays in.  His support is almost gone in Florida.  He is not competitive in SC.  And Fred’s goose is probably cooked if he doesn’t win SC, and honestly, he is probably fading anyway. 

So here is the summary of the hows and whats for each candidate:

Huckabee:

--CAN WIN IF: Evangelicals vote 3 or 4 to 1 for him over all other candidates and the votes for the rest of the candidates are sufficiently split that he has a larger plurality of votes.  Or in very heavily Evangelical states in the South.

--WON’T WIN BECAUSE: There just aren’t enough Evangelicals and their support is not unanimous enough to carry him.  Sorry, Gene, but there are too many “CINO’s” out there.

McCain:

CAN WIN IF: He can overcome McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy among Conservatives or in states where there are open primaries.  He is polarizing among Conservatives and Republicans and unless there is a plurality and Dems and Independents can vote, he cannot win.

WON’T WIN BECAUSE: McCain-{insert Liberal co-sponsor here}.  Every piece of legislation that bears his name is unpopular with Conservatives.

Fred:

CAN WIN IF: I just don’t know.  He is my horse in the race and I have money riding on him, but most folks don’t watch debates and most don’t read blogs.  He doesn’t have Romney’s money.  He doesn’t have Huckabee’s Jesus.  He doesn’t have McCain’s Democrats and Indies.  I am trying to imagine a scenario where he wins the Powerball and can buy ads and wins every debate and gets some Ensure and Caffiene and makes a comeback.

WON’T WIN BECAUSE: Perceptions overpower substance.  It ain’t fair, but it is life.

Rudy:

CAN WIN IF: He regains momentum in Florida and wins all of the remaining big states on Super Tuesday.

WON’T WIN BECAUSE: His momentum is gone.  He has dropped 20pts in Florida in the last two months.  He is running out of money and momentum.

That leaves Romney:

CAN WIN IF: He continues to get strong support among non-Evangelicals and continues to pick up a solid share of Evangelicals from Huckabee.  He will do especially well in closed primaries because he is the viable candidate for voters dissatisfied with Liberal Huckabee and McCain.  Plus he has sick mad phat cash to spend on ads while other candidates are struggling to raise funds.  Romney is getting some serious help by folks like El Rushbo who is hammering on his opponents for their Liberal positions.  He needs momentum and Fred and Rudy to struggle so that folks will unite behind him as the not-McCain/Huckabee.

WON’T WIN BECAUSE: The only scenario that hurts him is a continued plurality between him, Thompson and Rudy splitting votes, If he cannot win the nomination outright and gets to a brokered convention, who knows. 

I think Romney with his money and his momentum is in the best position to win it.  It is a war of attrition and Romney’s personal fortune significantly help his chances.