Saturday, 6 December 2008

AIDS Day Posts Round-up to You, Noise to Me Critics

Mood: Meta-critical mood
[Toot!] Index: 3.3333
Communism Bit: Off
Location: Entebbe



The 1st of December was World AIDS Day, and I could have passed out with pride, when I went checking the Ugandan blogging scene. I think I don’t normally know how serious/important something is until I read about it in the first person. The presonal character of this year’s blog posts on the World AIDS Day theme was nearly tear-jerking. Okay, not just nearly. I’ll list them, in no particular order.

The earliest post I saw on the issue came a whole week earlier. Hajj Zack, that guy who shows up every now and then and writes some cuneiform stuff where his name should be :o); he wrote Storm’s Eye. Urging like a battlefield colonel, “What are you doing to stop HIV/AIDS? [...] do something about HIV/AIDS today!”

Next came GayUganda, some three days before the day, in a post that is here because it mentioned access to HIV/AIDS facilities by homosexuals, and what one of the Ugandan bloggers’ favourite minister has to say about it. This post, Singing a new song?, examines Dr. Nsaba-Buturo’s change-of-heart towards homosexuals. For those not in the know, the good doctor has come out of the closet and confessed to being a hom ... :o). Anyway, Dr. Nsaba-Buturo once said our constitution should make being a homosexual illegal. For those who didn’t know, again, the Uganda Constitution doesn’t penalise being a homosexual—only homosexual acts. But now Dr. Nsaba-Buturo is changing attitude, and actually wants the oppression of homosexuals to end. And GUG is not sure how to interpret the signals. I empathise, and suggest to Dr. Nsaba-Buturo to lead the campaign to stop the oppression; deal, dear doctor?

Now, it comes to the Day, and the posts come forth inspiringly. I know there are some I don’t have here. I think Lulu and Jasmine had one each, but I may not have bookmarked them (having not yet realised the importance, you see). And, to whom it may concern, Be Silent has new pictures of her baby on her blog: run, all of you, run! :o) Back to the theme.
Pete’s Mama laments Mondays and “monthlies”, and reminds us “not to dip our willies in a pit of death”, which is quite, um, colourful, but not as much as it gets when you add the last part of that closing sentence: “and vice versa”. :o) Don’t dip pits of death into your willie. Cool, I’ll remember that. I chuckled. (Am I the only one who wants to grab a coffee when I read her stuff? What‘s the trick, PMama?)
John Powers also wrote a pertinent post. It’s his usual way of going at it: meanders a bit, smells strongly of humility and tentative optimism. Altogether a nice post from a nice blog. And for a Uganda-centric blog from a non-Ugandan (especially one not on location), it is quite free of the regurgitate-the-news syndrome, something that is not easy to pull off. (Although he did write a “newsy” falsity, that “Public discussion of homosexuality is not tolerated” in Uganda—it is, even though the (probably necessarily) militant attitude of the Ugandan gay community tends to evoke adrenaline rather than tears of compassion; and, for me, the proximity to the West is a little bit un-nerving, and makes them un-intended victims. I think that appealing to the heart rather than to logic is a better way, if a bit Machiavellian. You can’t go wrong saying “Am I Not a Brother?”, but you can see for yourself the success rate of “It’s My Fucking Right—Literally!!!”)

There was another one from a non-Ugandan Uganda-centric blogger who manages to avoid the temptation of “newsy” shit. And also not on location! Jackfruity pointed out the GVO map of HIV+ bloggers in the World. At last check, there were only two from Africa, and none from Uganda.
Now, the more-personal ones. Ariaka, writing Departed in Pain: A World AIDS Day Memoriam, about her sister, Joyce, who died of AIDS. The recount is set in pre-1990s, when we barely knew anything about AIDS, and when there was even less knowledge among us of the little that was known. This theme, of limited knowledge, is very poignant in the post. Go and read; I’ll wait.
Welcome back. Now, Antipop wrote another poignant, personal account. Three people named in her story are victims of AIDS. The rub is in the one-sentence paragraph after the three:
And many more...
There are two cousins and a father. There is mention of an adopted sister, as well. Go and read. I’ll wait.

Actually, you can stop here, because from here on, I’ll be replying to some criticism that’s been slung my way. It may not be neat, and it may make things long. So you have permission to stop right here. :o) Go, go, run along. I’ll even put a split here.
I know there is nothing to be gained by offering facts and logic and figures to 27th, but it worries me that he writes long-ass blogs about American conspiracies to exterminate Africans [...] but no one writes the opposite.
Where did you see that, if you read more than a negligible number of Ugandan blogs? If you read our blogs, you should have seen that, as it featured on a high-traffic one, one of my favourite blogs. Get it all here. It is usually a sign that there is going to a good case built to argue some point, when one shifts an argument to one’s own blog. Keyword is usually, because it isn’t always the case. Sometimes, you see, it becomes a case where a whole post is taken to build up a dismissal, not of the point with which one disagrees, but of the one who argues it. And it’s not the GIFT at work here, since there is no real anonymity involved. Get it all here.

While I said “critics” in introducing this part of the post, I think I mean the singular form of the word. For better or for worse, some of the other critics stick to my mailbox. In any case, usually they are about the points I raise, not me. But I liked this last one to which I link, because it is fashioned as—nay, it is—literary criticism. In short, it is a post that says me writing is trash. I have a perverse liking for negative literary criticism, towards me or to others, and I mete it out, too, with only very little that approaches mercy. I think the finest literature ever written is as negative criticism of literature (“the wide margins are the most-enjoyable part of the book”—or blog, in my case). And Ernest Bazanye didn’t disappoint—that post is written beautifully. Then again, this is Ernest Bazanye. Such lit crit is easier to write when one knows one is elevated above the possibility of enduring it oneself. Have you seen what Salman Rushdie said of John LeCarré? And it is a form of graduation when you get beautiful negative crit coming at you from a good writer. As such, most of that post is agreeable to me (especially now that I’m planning to become a full-tilt writer, rather than programmer). I’d even incite more, if that post had ended well. You see, at the end, it sends us on to some Alexander Pope verse that, in short, says, “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” This, if you think about it, is wrong.

How much do you know about your biro? Your computer? Your web browser? Your flash disk? Your mouse? Your shoes? Your shoe’s rubber sole? You epidermis? Your endodermis? Your hair? Your cotton shirt? How is that a bad thing all those times? I’ll, in my turn, quote Thomas Alva Edison (and you can choose who to follow):
We do not know a millionth of one percent of anything.
The dude invented modern electricity, so there you are. But these are merely conjectures, we shall try to prove logically (forgetting, if only for a while, that Baz said logic does nothing for me) that it is impossible to know any more than just little of anything in this universe:
Since everything in the universe depends on something, there is something above the universe on which there is ultimate dependence; we shall call this the First Cause. To know more than little about something, one ought to know about the things on which said something depends. Since the chain of dependence ultimately leads to an infinite entity (the First Cause) that, moreover, is outside the universe (and therefore probably beyond having enough knowledge about), it is necesarry to know about the First Cause to know about anything. It is impossible to know any finite magnitude about infinity (since any value is neglibibly-small in the neighbourhood of infinity); it is impossible to know more than just little, at best, about infinity. By induction, it is impossible to know more than just little, at best, about anything. Q.E.D.
If you’ve noticed that I use inductive proofs, then you’re not as sloppy a student of formal logic as I am, and two points for you. Chances are that Baz won’t say of you what he said of me.
If you’ve noticed that I fondled the bossom of the cosmological argument in a seedy manner, two points for you. :o)
If you noticed the name of some other geek weblog[1] in that prose, two points for you, and tell me why the fuck you’ve been reading it. :o)
If you show my proof to be flawed, then four points to you, and may The First Cause curse your bottom. :o)

Back from that mental auto-eroticism, we have to notice that Alexander Pope was wrong, and that Thomas Alva Edison was right. Yet to lob such a line at an adversary is too good a move that one doesn’t pause to make such boring, kill-joy considerations. When you sit before your keyboard every day, but couldn’t tell how it works, you are like me, and you should realise that a little knowledge is the norm, and not a bad thing. We don’t even know more than just a little about how breathing works, but it doesn’t harm us to use the little knowledge we have to avoid breathing under water.

The second post (chronologically, that is; the first I linked to) uses this weblog as an example of what Baz percieves as a fascist cancer that’s eating our media outlets, while the more-moderate do nothing. Now, I can’t be accused of being moderate, but I hesitate to accuse Ernest of this, either. His post begins by calling those whom he disagrees with “the worst” and “evil men”. It is sheer enough that he notes it in the second paragraph, and the justification becomes “they have implied far worse things about us”. I don’t know if this is how you deal with the name-calling bunch, but I know the moderate lot would be into more of turning the other cheek. A better quote would be the one that sits on the side bar of Hajj Zack’s blog, due to Desmond Tutu:
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppresor.
But it lacks pointed words that are supposed to one-up the rest of us, you see. You should see the reply that Ganzi puts in the comments. After you’ve been led to think he’s calls them (whoever the “us” was about) worse things. It’s measured and respectful—far from declaring people who hold different views “the worst [...] evil men”. And it isn’t lost on us, the non-righteous, that Baz calls his group “the best”.
But all who fight for a cause are, unfortunately, convinced of their righteousness. From the exterminationist Nazi to the one who drops a nuclear bomb on the wives and children of those who may have allied with the exterminationist Nazi. We’ll not settle this thing about who is the righteous one, and certainly not in this post. I won’t go into why I think I’m the one who is fighting the oppressor, whoever I may percieve that to be. I leave room to be wrong, knowing the axiom I just stated; it won’t stop me from hunting down my oppressor, though. Baz is on the less-cautious side—he chose the evil ones, and is certain who they are; I happen to be one of them. (What I examine here may be why the poem Baz quotes says “the best lack all conviction”, emphasis mine. Maybe having conviction makes you better or worst, but never best: lacking conviction being what you require for the “best” slot. I hope Baz doesn’t just quote whatever may earn him karma points without really thinking it through, as that is a sad habit of the lower animals, and I don’t know many men I respect half as much as I do him; I don’t want that injured.)

“I think it is time for Uganda to develop a tradition of liberal activism. Because blogs and commentary pages and radio shows are overrun by reactionaries and bigots and people who spew with force and passion, but spew in the wrong direction,” says Baz. It’s supposed to be me who doesn’t consider numbers, as per this post, not Baz. Really, is my viewpoint (verbosely put across in these posts) the mainstream? Uganda has the highest concentration of FM radio stations in the whole World. Baz wants me to believe they are all saying the extreme kind of stuff I say. The truth, of course (if enough of us care for it) is that Baz’ view is actually mainstream. That is why, for example, Baz has, in three posts (that I bothered to count) only my blog and SAGE’s as the machines against which to rage. This persecution complex is not borne out by the fact that SAGE’s last post was nearly a year ago. There is only one post for this year on that weblog; posted in February. The offending post is more than one whole year old. This is only the second (and last, by the way) of the blogs that represent this evil that is eating up the blogs.

SAGE’s sin is suggesting that the country is better-off run by religious people. Theocracy, or a preferrence thereof, if you hadn’t noticed, is an un-acceptable sin in Baz’ books, even though this attitude that he has just displayed has a name: religion. It’s why, in my comment there, I warned him about the more-likely possibility that his “liberal activism” brigade can easily establish a new dictatorship, a dictatorship of “freedom”. Put yourself in SAGE’s position, you believe something, and are labelled “evil man, the worst” for it, by someone who says “Liberal Activism”—you’d notice that you’ve been caught by a dictatorship that enjoys the approval of all who watch, because it says the right thing (though does the other). This rage against the machine of theocracy (clearly not based on any real urging, but merely on something once written on a chronologically-distant blog) certainly has its roots outside of reason. (I feared to say “logic”, to avoid turning into graphite while I try to impale Medussa—thank Vulcan for shiny bronze shields!) It is very likely that Baz hates the hint of theocracy due to a personal experience. Overly-religious parents can be a cause (for the preacherman’s kids that I’ve seen in rebellion, for example), or having done time in a religious school. I did some time in a religious school—they are worse when they mention saints and prophets in their names, or when the religion is old enough to have accumulated lots of ritual that is performed in dead languages (like Roman Catholicism) or new and filled with the fire-brand idealism of youth (like Seventh-Day Adventist). Obviously, there aren’t more people calling for theocracy in Uganda than either the complacent or anti-theocratic. Even if there were, I now see that they would be in a dangerous situation: the dictatorship of freedom doesn’t want them.

A more-tempting conclusion is that this anti-theocratic knee-jerk reaction is merely an example of one doing what he is told is the cool thing to do—by the West. The West, having endured the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, the religious bloodshed in Britain, et cetera, is rightly justified in fearing a merger of Church and State. Here, it is different (and may explain our reluctance to go whole-hog into atheism and the like); religions only became a warring point after the Westerners came (you know, that battle in Kampala between Catholics and Protestants, only comprehended by the Western colonialists at the time). But Baz has been told that the cool thing is to scrunch up one’s face at the mention of theocracy, even though his history (history) doesn’t show it to be bad. (By comparison, the “democracy” he sings erotic songs about is a failure in his history, but this time, being cunningly-selective, he chooses to blame the practitioners, not the paradigm.) At this point, you should run to the population post he is complaining about, and read my take on this issue again. There is a whole load of people who have been well-trained in the delicate art of inheriting concern from the West, taking it with the fervour of new cult converts. While our own history points at theocracy, in fact, as beneficial and non-oppressive (I’ll prove this, if called upon), there is a whole group of people who have been schooled to fear it—because the West says it’s bad (likely due to their experience with it, which, by the way, is unique and a minority in all history).

It is in light of what I’ve said above that this stuff that Baz says sounds a lot like just a whole load of blind self-love, a lot of deeming oneself “the best”, as it could have been written by one of our frothing-at-the-beak types: “Meanwhile, those of us who understand that things are not always black and white, those of us with a sense of nuance, those who see the value of asking questions as greater than the act of proclaiming guesses as certain answers just shrug and tut and go away.” You know, the people he screams against seem to be a set that includes him. I guess “the best” are extremists who, as Orwell warned, make sense with things like “Freedom is Slavery!” We are allowed to be whatever we want, as long as it conforms to what the “good men” want us to do. That is freedom, that is what the liberal activism will bring about. (Liberal comes from liber, the Latin for free, just so we are on the same linguistic page.)
Baz would do well to study that all the most-oppressive dictatorships start out with this tired, clichéd chant. And they, like him, were unaware that they were going to create a dictatorial problem. The better of them went into it knowing that they are going to establish a dictatorship. (I hate to admit that these are mostly, but not exclusively, in the West, in contemporary history.) It moves from touching naïveté to worrying fanaticism, as you realise that Baz doesn’t know he is treading a well-troden path, and making the classical mistake of thinking he is starting up something new, inventing something (something good, at that) while at it! If you indulge me a wee bit more narcissism, here’s me talking about this phenomenon in another post (which is so revolting in its refusal to chant the party line, that you can‘t get to the second paragraph of it):
You see, human rights are not in the danger everybody pretends they are in. It is the way of humanity to steer communities towards more respect for human rights. (Our generations are allowed to think they invented the idea, of course. This may be instinctive, and necessary to keep the passion for rights among humans burning brightly millennium after millennium.)
Baz would also benefit from reading the last line in George Orwell’s The Animal Farm.

Usually, it is bad when I have to reply to something. I get verbose, and I reply to sentences with paragraphs. It gets huge. I expect no more than two people to finish this. But I’m jumping to the end, now, skipping the part that doesn’t concern me. I show up next in the sentence that says “Rev wrote a bilious tirade based on a very slight grasp on the issue of overpopulation vs large population.”
I may be wrong, but I thought I knew what over-population meant and what large population meant, as well. And, in the post he refers to, I offer what I think are ways around the inevitable nature of our ecosystem’s preferrence for high fertility at the equator. That is migration, and it has happened since the beginning of movement, and, most importantly, it progresses as a reduction of population in places like this, places where breeding is inevitably easy (we live at the equator, there is a reason our flora and fauna is more-numerous and more-diverse than you find in Iceland).
You would do well to read the comments he put on that blog post, Baz, and see how much of it is merely a lot of “You are just wrong. Entirely wrong.”, with no attempts at providing proof. It’s mostly the same chant, even with the occassional change in words. There is a word for this, by the way: bulverism.
I’ll repeat that Uganda is neither with big population nor over-populated, and leave the burden of proof to Baz. (Even the population people don’t ever say this: they just worry about the rate of growth, not the current numbers.)
Baz and the like-minded say we can’t handle our population growth because the country is, by some metric, very corrupt. I don’t know what you’d do: my car can’t run because there is no fuel, so cut back on the need to travel? They back a reduction in population (growth) because some people are corrupt. Read those comments and tell me what you think. It’s interesting to note that he mentioned only corruption (“corruption and inefficiency and theft”, which is all corruption).
let C be the corruption problem.
let P be the situation where a big population is good.
let F be the set of factors affecting whether or not a population is good.
We know, from Baz and friends’ axiom, that corruption makes a big population a bad thing. With formal notation:
F = {C}
C → ¬P
∴ ¬C → P
Q.E.D.

If, by modus ponens, our population growth is a bad thing, then they are all solving the wrong problem. As Baz said, “spewing with force, but spewing in the wrong direction”. Reason tells us to just negate corruption (C) in order to remove the negating effect on the goodness of a big population.
I realise I’ve been an asshole for providing such gratuitous rigour, and I’ve committed another sucide (it’s possible), but I’ve of late rediscovered my liking for those things; that’s bad enough for my coolness points. To make it worse, I’m not a liberal activist.

It’s interesting to note that there is nothing that Baz’ blog cites as something the liberal activists should rise up against. Indeed, there is nothing on this blog that they can rise up against. It may be a case of having a title looking for a subject, or having an effect looking for a cause. A solution hunting viciously for a problem. I did ask, in the comments, what about my blog the liberal activists should rise up against, and his answer was that “My point [...] was that I wish there were blogs and newspaper articles to counterbalance you and Ganzi.” When you realise there is no stuff for a “liberal activist” even in the Ganzi article (leave alone me blog), you realise that we have a case of an answer looking for a question. It may be that he’s doing what he urges them to do: write about being a liberal activist—gratuitously. It should have benefitted from a better title, like Truth-in-Newspapers Activism and the Occassional Name-Calling, which is something I’d be able to relate to the post (and, heck, even support). Better titles include How to Defend the Consumption of Porn and Rage Against Theocracy in One Post and How to Conflate Standards of Journalism with Ideas You Don’t Agree With And Just Spew With Force And Passion (Hopefully Spewing in the Right Direction). I’d support either, but that doesn’t speak well of them, does it? :o)

It’s not lost on me that the content of my post, hinting as it did on journalists being the agents of brain-wash, may have rubbed the journalist in him the bad way, and he had to strike out. To strike out, with eyes closed, even as the enraged cat does, hoping that the paw will get what the eyes don’t get. If you want my opinion, by the way, Baz is a good journalist, and an even-better columnist. He is accursed he who didn’t show dedication to Baz’ columns in his life. They, ironically, taught me a certain disrespectful writing style that, in a nice dance of the green-eyed goddess of irony, seems to have come back to chew on Ernest’s back-side. :o)
The truth, though, is that the post was against people who rush to condone without having given it harder thought. Journalists are but a subset of this group. This group could pass off a semblance of freedom that is, in fact, a dictatorship. It’s those people that the post rages against. It’s those people who pick on what sounds good (usually because it has been wiped clean and smooth my its repeated application—argumentum ad nauseum) and just pass it on as the good thing, without thinking if it really holds water. They couldn’t even explain why it is good, if they accept it as good. This bunch are the problem, and that post also tries to explain why we are over-run by them, as it were (and not by people who dare to say the non-mainstream, as Baz claims). Indeed, it is dangerous, as Baz has demonstrated while passionately arguing the opposite, to be of the minority viewpoint. I dealt with why our viewpoints are less visible in this short post: Newton’s Third Law of Motion. In short, people like Baz, filled with that righteous fire that enables them to spit “evil, worst” at those of differing mind, have managed to censor all dissenting viewpoints, favouring only their definition of right and wrong, their definition of freedom—Freedom is Slavery.
This regurgitation, sans really thinking, this phenomenon over which that post worries, is given a catchy name in George Orwell’s 1984: duckspeak.

“I know there is nothing to be gained by offering facts and logic and figures to 27th, but it worries me that he writes long-ass blogs about American conspiracies to exterminate Africans [...] but no one writes the opposite.”
Has it occured to our friend that the reason nobody writes retorts is because the opposite views are mainstream, that they don’t need re-inforcement? I hope it has. There was a need for Galileo to write about the Earth not being flat, because the silent consensus was that it was flat. There would be a need for one to scream about the Earth being flat, if one discovers it to be, since the silent consensus is that it is round. This should be simple.
I also doubt that there is much to be gained by offering facts, logic, and figures to me (I’d not say nothing, though—surely enlightenment is possible?), but it worries me that I fail to trim my posts to be small. The thing is, I don’t try much. First of all, I want to stop writing long shit. But I want to write everything I’m thinking, so I (for now) choose to sacrifice being read by the rushing lot in order to gain having all my thoughts put in writing. For the one reader (myself) to whom completeness matters, this is a better deal.
About the Americans trying to exterminate us, I spent the post on arguments for why cutting back on population growth is neither the optimum, easy solution, nor the time-tested one. I spent part of this post pointing out why it is neither the logical solution. I noted that the Americans know this, but they ignore it. This is proof that it is all exterminationist in nature. The burden of proving me wrong and proving my allegations silly lies squarely on Baz’ shoulders. I hope he does—it would help me sleep better. But if I have any indicators thus far, I’m going to get just a lot more bulverism.
And on the necessity of long posts, I’ll quote everybody’s favourite American “left-winger”:
The beauty of concision is that you can only repeat conventional thoughts. If you repeat conventional thoughts, you require zero evidence, like saying Osama Bin Laden is a bad guy, no evidence is required. However, if you say something that is true, although not a conventional truth [...] people are going to rightfully want evidence, and a whole lot of it as they should.
~ Noam Chomsky
It may not be entirely lost on Baz that this requiring us to write one-liners to argue our case may be an insidious form of censorship; we’d sound like lunatics. When we say it all, we only leave room for bulverism and dogding our questions. Baz, repeating the commonly-accepted views, doesn’t need more than one sentence. The rest of us have to unwork the damage done by the people who repeat the party line over and over. Baz says that there is this big movement of people like me, yet (in my comments) he manages to remember one particular case that I know too (and so does everybody): look, that doesn’t happen with mainstream views. Which guy was that who said people should take a shower often to be healthy? Which guy was that who said people should never shower at all in their lives to be healthy? Q.E.D. Where Baz gets this idea he tosses around, I know: the news. Puts a new spin to my worry in that population post, no? See, nobody is immune from these things I worried about, so we shouldn’t shut up about them.
Q.E.D.

[1] The weblog is over here, and most of the arcane stuff there leaps right over my head, but it is good to know it is out there, if I ever really, really need to understand it (or die).

12 comments:

Ashy said...

I was used to the sunday post... not read fully but I will be back.

John Powers said...

Thank you for the mention, and, well, not eviscerating me. Really Comrade 27TH you are essential. Off topic but the post I read just before yours was Hillary Putman on Respectful Contempt. I like the distinction made in that post between respectful contempt and contemptuous respect. You manage the former consistently, something I find rare and wonderful.

Erique said...

Critique of a critique. Should be interesting. Mic over to you, Baz.

The 27th Comrade said...

@Ashy: Yeah, it used to be Friday, then moved to Sunday, and was Saturday this time. Usually "weekend" is a better word for it. :o)

@John Powers: Nice link. :o)

@Erique: Yes, meta-critical. Critical of the critical, you know. :o)

Ashy said...

Am back.

..."reply to sentences with paragraphs." Such zeal.

petesmama said...

Thank you, Comrade.

the antipop said...

Tx comrade.
Now the award for most hardworking blogger ought to go to you. where do u get the energy to write all this stuff? Hop u r ok. cheers

Mudamuli said...

Eh, Comrade you are unique. Indeed, thank you for putting these ideas into writing.

Minty said...

You write well, you argue passionately, you reason lopsidedly, you lose badly. And it is noise, by the way. Just because others can't do the same does not mean you are right.
I think your post manages to have both respectful contempt and contemptuous respect. Like putting sugar in a broth of offals.

Zack (ألاسمحاجّ) said...

Once again I will laud your effort for highlighting the AIDS problem on your blog, even criticquing the rest of the bloggers' reaction to the 01st Dec World AIDS Day. Looking back at more than 20 years of the global AIDS epidemic, it is clear that as a human race, we are still short of sufficient resources in the response to AIDS. One more voice calling on others to take action (for those who haven't yet) or even better action (for the few that have) is a welcome spoke in the wheel of checking the devastation wrought upon hundreds of thousands of households around the world affected by HIV/AIDS. In more ways than one, you are wearing your red ribbon proudly and I hope this post is not hijacked by the non-issues. Let the ISSUE remain the issue. HIV/AIDS - What is everyone else doing about it?

mphoebe said...

It should indicate something that I only managed to read this post (after three previous trials) in between short breaks of the Armenian Genocide documentary (Andrew Goldberg)..... Now i go off to find my coat and that uplifting coffee place around the corner.

ARIAKA said...

Comrade, critiquing blogs? That is a new one. And you did quite a job of it, cheers to that. A little correction though, ARIAKA is a he. Hmmm!!! no second guesses. Aids was slim in 80's and the villages have stories of heroes that has never been published. Thought PRIMO deserved that.