HIV discriminates. It is a racist and a bigot.

Do you remember those well-meaning please that HIV does not discriminate, that AIDS is not racist, and so on.

I wonder how many people untruths like that killed

Genetic Trait Boosts AIDS Risks in Blacks – US News and World Report
WEDNESDAY, July 16 (HealthDay News) — New research suggests that people of African descent are much more likely to have a genetic trait that makes them more susceptible to infection with the HIV virus.

Scientists estimate that the trait — which also provides protection against a form of malaria — might account for 11 percent of the HIV cases in Africa, the continent hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic.

Overall, the finding shows how the past history of evolution and disease still affects people today, said study co-author Matthew J. Dolan, of the Wilford Hall United States Air Force Medical Center and San Antonio Military Medical Center. “The benefit that the Africans got from a mutation that gave them some resistance to malaria has, statistically at least, rendered them some increased susceptibility to HIV,” he said.

The attack by on scientists by ideologues is old. From Trofim Lysenko to Richard Lewontin to many AIDS and education activists, the only acceptable scientific knowledge is what they wish it to be.

Too bad.

Smart stuff. Too late.

Is there any quote that sums up the worst of both the Bush II (George W.) and Bush III (Barack H.) campaigns than “Smart stuff. Too late“? Both Bush and Obama, lacking the deep knowledge typical of experts, have to fly by the seat of their pants, trusting their instincts and their own self-assuredness. This eventually gets them to the right answer (backing the surge, stopping the friendly fire to The New Yorker), but wastes their most valuable asset: time.

The more Obama blunders around, the less worried I am about him on the issues of globalization. Bush II was great for America. Except for his support of cultural leftism, Bush III (Obama) won’t be bad, either.

Obviously Obama will surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban, but we never invested much in that country in the first place, so small change, I guess.

Barack Obama, the Candidate of the Establishment (on the Surge, as with everything else)

Barack Obama is the candidate of the Establishment, “Dr. No-Change,” who will flip and flop with the views of the Establishment of the government and the Democratic Party. This might be a good thing. Having a smart, intelligent, and ambitiousness President would lead to changes, some of which may be harmful. As it is, Obama’s plan to coast on our greatness isn’t half bad.

The deception angle of it is annoying, however. Obama was against the surge, before he was for it, not that you would know it.

A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.

The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared. John McCain and Obama have been going at it heavily in recent days over the benefits of the surge.

The Arizona senator, who advocated the surge for years before the Bush administration employed it, says the resulting reduction in violence is proof it worked with progress on 15 of 18 political benchmarks and Obama’s plan to withdraw troops by now would have resulted in surrender.

It wasn’t just Obama’s website that contradicts itself. Obama’s surrogates contradict Obama, as well:

In The Post American World Fareed Zakaria argues that America’s (relatively) incurious, unintelligent, and small-minded political class hurts American competitiveness. Certainy this is true to a point. But having a country where the best and brightest shun politics has it advantages. When changes do come, they have an inevitable and irreversible quality to them. Similarly, a country where the best and brightest stay out of politics is where truly ambitious government programs are — thankfully — unlikely.

I’ll take an ambitious business-climate over an ambitious government-climate any day.