Sorry for the decline in the number of posts, but I have been in the thick of battle.  Here's whats been going on.

First, The Aggie Reporter got approved for TAMu recognition.  It should serve as a way for student leaders to communicate their ideas and to get organized.  TAR staff also has a radio show on KANM student radio.  The radio station has been scheduled to broadcast at 1580AM in ~ 2.5 weeks.

Second, theres alot of important news going on.  Aggie Dems are having their elections two weeks from yesterday.  KANM are having thiers soon too (next week I believe.)

As for news and info, the morning after pill doesn't increase the rate of unprotected sex.

Scientists pull off an amazing rate of success with the SARS virus.  They now have a vaccine that works in mice.  (I haven't read the actual scientific literature on the issue, but am sure to comment on it once I do).

Good ol Canada is comin' through for us progressives.  They have decided that swapping music online is legal.  If you are wondering what this matters for the US, then you should consider other major cases where SCOTUS has cited Canadian court ruling as evidence of the correct legal answer.

Still on the international note, OPEC has decided to cut production, but Norway refuses.  I'm not very familiar with the history of Norway's participation in the OPEC efforts to control the oil industy.  From what I understand, OPEC controls about 1/3 of the world's output of oil.  OPEC consists of UAE, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq (which doesn't follow OPEC regulations, DUH!), Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nicaragua (I think)...and maybe a couple others.  Anyways, the summer months tend to be an annual period of lower sales of oil, world wide.  Thus, OPEC is lowering output to try and raise the already high gas prices.  So far, OPEC is having difficulty.

On a more loal note, google announced that it is going to launch a new free email service (similar to hotmail or yahoomail).  The catch is that each user acct will have 1 gig of storage space!  Another benefit is that it will have state-of-the-art anti-spam software running.  In comparison, Yahoo offer 4 megs of data storage, with a weak anti-spam filter.

If you were wondering if Bush was focused on Iraq before 911, this article may be of interest.  It basically says that he wasn't; that he was really focused on misstle defense.

well, by tonight (i think 12a) we'll begin hearing who won seats in student gov't.  We'll also hear who the next SBP is.  Maybe we can organize a way for student leaders to publish information that they deem important.  This way students can see what their leaders are saying.

Today, I would like to begin addressing an issue that is very dear to me....AIDS.

I don't want to focus on AIDS in America per se mostly because the majority of the world's struggle with AIDS doesn't concern America.  The problem is AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.  As a side note, I should mention that when I research the issue, I tend to focus on AIDS in South Africa. 

The problems facing South Africa's AIDS epidemic is very complicated; compounded by political, social, and scientific factors.  As for political reasons the most problems are caused by South African political upheaval due to the disease.  Most politicians use the issue to try and increase their piece of the power pie.  This has lead to a long-term denial of the epidemic in South Africa.  It wasn't until last semester that the South African gov't even acknowledged the issue publicly.  I've read statements by heads of state there saying things along the lines of: "Everyone talks as if the AIDS issue is so endemic that our country barely runs.  And we all know how ridiculous THAT is."  Other statements of disinformation include the idea that the United States is spreading the disease for American benefit.  These claims often explain that Americans benefit from the perception of an AIDS epidemic for different reasons some of which include profits and an increase influence of American hegemony.  The other political problem that exacerbates the AIDS issue is domestic in nature.  American politics has become increasingly used to using the AIDS issue as a way to get heard.  Instead of politicians actually doing something to help the AIDS issue, they just talk about it along with other points they make.  This is effective because of the wide-spread American sympathy for AIDS patients...especially foreign AIDS patients.  One great example of this is Shrub's State of the Union from ~18 mos ago.  In the speech he claimed to have budgeted $15 billion for HIV/AIDS over the next few years (I can't remember if he said 5 or 10 years).  I was surprised when he made the statement, as were experts in the field (as were African heads of state that were present at the speech).  To this day, as of my knowledge, the amount of money American has committed to the crisis has decreased, not increased to the $15 billion promised by Bush Jr. 
The domestic issue is going to get interesting especially if the Democrats lose this next presidential election.  If they lose, Hillary Clinton will run in 2008 and Hillary has an ace in her sleeve: Slick Willy.  Since the end of his second term, Bill Clinton has done nothing (hardly) but help advance the effort of the Clinton Foundation.  One of the biggest projects under his Foundation is helping to alleviate the suffering associated with the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.  Bill has helped broker a deal between pharmaceutical companies and the South African president, Mbeki, to build desperately needed pharmaceutical industry infrastructure.  The infrastructure, with the help of the South African gov't, will provide anti-retroviral drugs to patients at cost.  Three companies have been allowed to setup shop in South Africa.  Each companies' drug regimens are being subsidized by the S. African gov’t, a move that lowered the costs of the drugs from $1200/yr to just below $300/yr.  The remaining cost is said to be completely picked up by the Clinton Foundation.  This way, all drugs produced by this company will be given to AIDS patients for free.  If Hillary gets to run in 2008, I am sure that Bill's efforts will surface, and will force the republicans to answer to what they haven't done: fulfilled their promise to help HIV/AIDS patients in Africa.

The second issue complicating AIDS in Africa is social problems.  The first is rape.  South Africa has one of the highest incidences of rape in the world, 1.2 million cases alone were reported last year, 40% of which resulted in a new HIV infection.  The social stigma associated with infection has lead to the development of some very strange behavior.  One popular misconception is that an HIV positive male can cure himself by sleeping with a virgin.  Another misconception is that HIV doesn't spread through anal sex (HIV actually spreads at a higher rate when anal sex is used as opposed to vaginal sex.  The reason is that HIV infects macrophage, i.e. white blood cells.  The tissue damage normally associated with anal sex recruits white blood cells to the site of the wound which results in a higher probability that a white blood cell will become infected with a viral particle.) 

Probably the most damaging social problem associated with HIV/AIDS in S. Africa is general denial.  The stigma of being infected has so many ramifications (abandonment by family/parents/society, or beatings) that many who become infected just deny it wholly.  They often avoid getting tested for fear of discovering their HIV positive status (and why wouldn't they - some areas of sub-Sahara Africa are more than 70% HIV positive?).  Being ignorant of their status is used as an excuse to lead a 'normal' life, which is consequently laden with risky sexual behavior.

As for scientific reasons why HIV is a problem, there are many.  I won't go into much detail here, mostly because this site is for a discussion of political/social issues.  But one of the largest scientific concerns (and there are MANY scientific difficulties associated with HIV/AIDS) is the development of drug-resistant strains of HIV.  If patients, it is argued, have access to drugs (maybe if they are cheap/free for example) and don't take them regularly, closely following the orders of their physician, it is highly probable that drug-resistant strains of HIV will develop.  Scientists have tried to curb the effects of this by developing drugs that aren't just one drug, but are pills containing 3-4 drugs.  (These drug 'cocktails' are the same drugs being produced by the pharmaceutical companies in South Africa under that help of the Clinton Foundation.)  This means that for a virus to become resistant to the particular drug, it will have to actually evolve to three individual drugs all at once...a feat that is highly unlikely even if patients do not take their drugs regularly.

Even though the AIDS issue is complex and filled with many different players, it is still of supreme importance.  Just be sure to help the AIDS issue/cause in every way you can.  Some really simple ways to help are to 1. Educate people about the virus and how it is spread, 2. Donate to non-profit foundations that help fight the cause, 3. Vote regularly in support of politicians who do something (as opposed to talk about doing something), and even 4. Just educate yourself.  There is no reason to take my word for what is going on in the world.  Be pro-active, and take a look for yourself.

If you have any questions about the details that I have outlined above, email me at libordeath@hotmail.com.  You can also email me if you have any questions about the epidemic, the disease, or how to get involved.  I'd love to talk about it.  Thanks for listening. Jason.

This is my theory on spreading democracy in Iraq.  Its kind of a long story, so bear with me.  I'll go step by step.

The first step requires a little history on Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld's right hand man).  First, Wolfy spent time in Bush Sr., Clinton, and is now in Bush Jr's administration.  While in Bush Sr.'s admin he wrote up a report discussing the international relations strategy that the United States should adopt to retain the title of the world's sole superpower.  You see, Wolfowitz is a strategist.  He's the son of a math professor.  He himself has a BS in math, and then went on to the University of Chicago to study for his PhD in political science.  He wrote his thesis on nuclear strategy (he was doing his PhD at the height of the cold war).  He worked his way up the academic ladder and found himself the What&Whatever Chair of Political Strategy at Johns Hopkins.  That's when he got picked up by Bush Sr.  So, he wrote up this really hawkish document explaining that the US should adopt an aggressive strategy to help ensure its place as the world's only superpower.  He suggested the idea of pre-emptive strikes (though he didn't say 'pre-emptive strikes' specifically).  The document was shuffled up to Bush Sr. and was kind of blown off.  Sr. thought that it was too hawkish and had problems with the fact that it didn't allow the administration to consider international opinion (Bush's opinion on the article is speculative, but it is known that he didn't like the document in general because its policies were not adopted).  The document was placed on the back burner.  Wolfowitz waited until he got a job within the Clinton administration, where the document came up again.  Clinton hated the idea, but was a little passive-aggressive about the issue, and instead of addressing the document's weaknesses directly…well, let’s just say the policies where passed-up.  Wolfowitz waited again, and got hired again.  This time, he was hired by Bush Jr (Shrub - credit for the name shrub or 'little Bush' to Molly Ivins).  Bush, being a hawk himself, liked the strategy implored in the document and supported its ideas.  Now knowing that the current administration planned an invasion of Iraq before 911, it wouldn't be surprising to find out that the Bush team was picked to follow through with a hawkish plan such as what was outlined by Wolfowitz' document.  By the time the document got to Bush Jr it used the word 'pre-emption' explicitly.

Now, a little theory about international relations.  First, there aren't many laws in the social sciences, at least not the same kind of steadfast laws that exist in science.  One of the few seemingly steadfast laws of social science is the idea that democracies do not get in wars with each other.  A democracy will fight with a non-democracy, or two non-democracies will tango, but no two democratic nations have ever had a serious conflict.  This fact has led some international relations experts to claim that a way to move toward world peace is to spread democracy.  This would be true because if no two democracies fight, and everyone is a democracy, then no one would fight.

So, given the hawkish nature of Bush Jr., and his strange association with religion and morality, maybe shrub thinks an attack on Iraq is like killing two birds with one stone (the stone is the war, bird 1 is keeping America the world's only super power while bird 2 is moving toward world peace by spreading democracy).  This plan is one of my pet theories about why we could be involved in Iraq.  I really don't think it’s about getting oil (though there might be some truth to this, I'll explain later).

That's my tidbit for the day.  I'll try to come across links that talk about the important points such as the document and Wolfowitz's involvement in the different administrations.  I know that the document was topsecret (and still is) but was leaked out to the press during the Clinton admin if I remember correctly.  Again, I'll try to find links to support my claims.  That way you can see the truth for yourself.