Aid for the sick in Africa sounds like a great idea, but there are considerations beyond wiping out diseases.

When there was a famine in Ethiopia (when wasn't there a famine in Ethiopia, but this one was worse than normal), the U.S. sent in lots of grain to feed the hungry. It worked (at least a bit) in the short-term, but cause other problems later.

1. Many of the people it "saved" had had their physical and mental growth so stunted by humger, they were incapable of being productive members of society.

2. Many of those who would have died in childhood lived to have children, who they couldn't support.

3. The interruption of the (admittedly terrible) reduction of the population assured the already arid, over-used land had no time to recover so it could produce crops and support animal herds.

4. Then the aid was cut off and the people were in worse shape than before.

Same thing has happened over and over — with food, medical supplies, military support and all kinds of things to alleviate suffering — and bleeding hearts never seem to learn. They argue for intervention, then when we do, they say we shouldn't have tampered with the recipients' "culture and way of life."

Make up your goddamned minds!

I think somebody needs to sort out the difference between preserving existance and preserving life and start a little hard-nosed triage. Help those with a good chance of survial after the help and let the walking dead stop walking.

cheers,

david