Hypocite, definition

[betsy]

People die. What's the difference between dying of hunger, AIDS, other illness....it all spells the same thing: death!

Stop being so melodramatic and be realistic! And playing favorites makes this whole good-samaritan thing really phoney!

The best way is to find a cure...then everybody gets a dose of hope! Not just children from Africa!

[Riverwind]

Yes I guess that is what Stalin and Hitler thought too.

There is a difference between standing aside and letting a disease take its course and rounding people up and killing them. You can attempt to avoid the issue if you want but the point I raised is valid: why do we need to keep people alive for the sake of keeping them alive? Can we really justify those actions in the short term if that will directly lead to even more deaths in the future?

[betsy]

Why should you lobby only for African children? What's wrong with the other children of other poor countries all over the world? THAT'S what's so hypocritical about this!

Exactly. And the April 26, 2005, Priorities for Canada and the G8 in addressing HIV/AIDS and development list that I posted was about children from all over the world.

And where was Steve when the AIDS conference was going on in Toronto in 2006? Hiding in a Northern military base.

What's the big difference whether he's there physically or not? I bet all that's really needed is his signature on some cheques that spells "foreign aid!"

And as I said, I don't know much about the other things listed...but I wouldn't hold my breath and expect much from your list. The people behind the AIDS movement are obviously disappointed with the previous government! They were all given....lip service by lippy Chretien!

Anyway, how long was Martin prime minister? What had he done other than that Apr, 2005 you've mentioned....quite timely for the coming election, wasn't it?

Using AIDS to politicize is very hypocritical! And I do hope Margrace did not start this thread solely to use it as a convenient vehicle to draw criticism on the Tories.....

[betsy]

Exactly. And the April 26, 2005, Priorities for Canada and the G8 in addressing HIV/AIDS and development list that I posted was about children from all over the world.

Yoo-hoo Margrace.....never mind bleating about Africa. Bleat about this one! It's more inclusive!

[margrace]

No one on here answered my question, have you followed any of Stephen Lewis's information. Since when did he become either Liberal or Conservative? If any of you are supposedly Christian then you will have read in the Bible that Jesus said "Even as you have done it onto these the least of my Children you have done it on to me."

[Topaz]

It seems to me that the only way these people are going to be helped out by the richer countries is for someone to find the largest OIL deposits in the world, then wars will come to see who gets the oil!!

[betsy]

No one on here answered my question, have you followed any of Stephen Lewis's information. Since when did he become either Liberal or Conservative?

Worse. He's NDP!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lewis

If any of you are supposedly Christian then you will have read in the Bible that Jesus said "Even as you have done it onto these the least of my Children you have done it on to me."

I knew it wouldn't have been long when you'll bring up the Christian thingy.

Anyway, if you're really so keen on children....what so different about the children of Africa from other children of the world?

[margrace]

yes i have delt with you on another forum haven't I.

The arguments on here about certain laws are always made from a so called Canadian Christian view. So why aren't these people trying to help.

Why don't we drop all the straw arguments and push our governments to produce generic drugs for these children, wouldn't that be a world wide thing, why do you only want to limit it to Africa?

[Argus]

Now that we know what the Liberal government was doing about global AIDS

Uh, no, all you have said is what the Liberal government talked about doing. And as we all know, the Liberals like to promise the moon for good publicity, then generally fail to carry out their promises.

[Argus]

Its too bad some of you do not listen to Stephen Lewis.

It's too bad Africa's leaders didn't either. For most of the last twenty years they've ignored AIDS. Some of them have still refused to acknowledge it exists. South Africa's enlightened leader insisted for years that anti-AIDS drugs were a western conspiracy to commit genocide and advised his people not to take them. Africa's leaders spent most of that time squirreling away money in foreign bank accounts, not worrying about their people.

If African leaders don't care why should we?

[Argus]

So its okay for Mr. Harper to continue to let 18 Million children die because you see Mr. Chretien did it. what a poor excuse, I still call it hypocritical

No, hypocritical is to stand at a podium and make grandiose promises about your love and care for Africans and all the effort you're going to put into their salvation - then going home and doing nothing once the cameras are off.

That's Jean Chretien.

I don't recall Harper making any great pledges to combat AIDS in Africa.

[Argus]

It seems to me that the only way these people are going to be helped out by the richer countries is for someone to find the largest OIL deposits in the world, then wars will come to see who gets the oil!!

Nigeria has huge oil deposits. It has not noticeably helped the people there, nor done anything about either poverty or AIDS. Wealth in Africa goes to the top, and then out of the country into foreign bank accounts. It does not get down to the people.

[betsy]

yes i have delt with you on another forum haven't I.

The arguments on here about certain laws are always made from a so called Canadian Christian view. So why aren't these people trying to help.

Why don't we drop all the straw arguments and push our governments to produce generic drugs for these children, wouldn't that be a world wide thing, why do you only want to limit it to Africa?

Eh?

You're confused. It's you who's been limiting it all to Africa!

Anyway, what is hypocritical about Canada or us? You never did explain why you came up with that title.

[margrace]

The only thing I am interested is in getting cheaper drugs for the poor people of Africa, since you and others brought up the other parts of the world why don't we all join and promote the cheaper drugs for everyone Aids patient in a poor country. Please address the question.

[betsy]

The only thing I am interested is in getting cheaper drugs for the poor people of Africa, since you and others brought up the other parts of the world why don't we all join and promote the cheaper drugs for everyone Aids patient in a poor country. Please address the question.

Do you have any source other than your claim that nothing is being done?

[margrace]

Stephen Lewis inteviewed the other night and said nothing has been done about cheaper drugs.

[hiti]

Now that we know what the Liberal government was doing about global AIDS

Uh, no, all you have said is what the Liberal government talked about doing. And as we all know, the Liberals like to promise the moon for good publicity, then generally fail to carry out their promises.

How much did you get paid for that spin? How often do you have to repeat it?

The records show: On November 21, 2005, the Liberal government announced over $60 million in funding to fight HIV/AIDS globally over the next six years. Of this, $15.2 million was intended to enable Canada to meet its commitment to provide four percent of the core component of the UNAIDS budget for 2006 and 2007. Another $12 million was to support the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative for 2006, as its previous funding expired in December 2005.

In fact, from 2000 to 2005 the Liberal Government committed more than $800 million to combat HIV/AIDS globally. This includes our contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria -more than half of which goes towards combating HIV/AIDS. -end quote

And then in August 2006, Steve allowed Tony Clement to announce a “new formal partnership arrangement with the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS),” when in fact, an agreement has been in place since June 17, 2003.

Yes Steve keeps on blathering about what he is doing but much of that is recycled Liberal aid and programs.

[Renegade]

The only thing I am interested is in getting cheaper drugs for the poor people of Africa, since you and others brought up the other parts of the world why don't we all join and promote the cheaper drugs for everyone Aids patient in a poor country. Please address the question.

It was very easy for Chretien to give away what wasn't his. He basically tried to give away the intellectual property of the pharmaceutical companies. If he wanted to be upfront, he could have had the government buy the drugs at market prices and donate them to countries in need. He didn't do that did he? It would have been a cost that the Canadian public would not be willing to bear. What does that tell you?

margrace, maybe people will start addressing your question, once you start addressing the ones put forth by other posters instead of avoiding them.

[Riverwind]

It was very easy for Chretien to give away what wasn't his. He basically tried to give away the intellectual property of the pharmaceutical companies.

Intellectual property is important, however, allowing companies to produce generic drugs for Africa does not cost the drug makers anything since the people in Africa cannot afford to pay the 'market' price. IOW - there are no lost sales or lost opportunity costs. So it is really not fair to say that it is equivalent to having the taxpayers pay the 'market' price for the drugs and then sending the drugs to Africa.

[Renegade]

Intellectual property is important, however, allowing companies to produce generic drugs for Africa does not cost the drug makers anything since the people in Africa cannot afford to pay the 'market' price. IOW - there are no lost sales or lost opportunity costs. So it is really not fair to say that it is equivalent to having the taxpayers pay the 'market' price for the drugs and then sending the drugs to Africa.

No I did not mean to suggest it was the equivalent. Obviously Africa cannot pay the same price as a Western country, but that doesn't mean the IP has no value in Africa. The fact is that it has some non-zero value even in Africa. What the government does, is give away that value without compensating the companies who own the IP. We can dispute what the dollar amount of that value, but in essence it was not borne by the taxpayer.

[margrace]

It was listed somewhere that of the top 10 big money companies in the US, 6 were drug companies. Shareholders control those companies, could this be the reason generic drugs are not wanted?

[Renegade]

It was listed somewhere that of the top 10 big money companies in the US, 6 were drug companies. Shareholders control those companies, could this be the reason generic drugs are not wanted?

Shareholders control generic drug companies too. Even generic drug companies seek to maximize shareholder value, as they should. What is your point?

[betsy]

Stephen Lewis inteviewed the other night and said nothing has been done about cheaper drugs.

Given his background as an NDP, I am more inclined to think he speaks as one. Have you ever notice that nothing seem to satisfy this socialist party? They're always shooting for more....wether it be on social programs, benefits, anything they percieve as for the good of the common people. And they are so ridiculously anti-businesses and corporations....that incidentally create and give jobs to the common people!

Am I right to assume that drug companies fund break-through medical research/experiments, drug-wise?

If there is nothing lucrative for companies, why would they spend billions making new drugs?

And if there are no incentives to discover, make or improve drugs....just think how many people world-wide would've been dead or dying of diseases that we just take for granted as simply common nowadays!

[mikedavid00]

It was listed somewhere that of the top 10 big money companies in the US, 6 were drug companies. Shareholders control those companies, could this be the reason generic drugs are not wanted?

I think your younger. Insteading of making everything into a conspiracy, why don't you first find out why.. never mind.

[madmax]

Worse. He's NDP!

Anyway, if you're really so keen on children....what so different about the children of Africa from other children of the world?

He may well have been NDP. But Stephen Lewis is possibly the best western authority on the Aids Crisis in Africa. While any child suffering is a shame of society, the problem in Africa could very well become desperate. It is hard to run a society when the middle class is being decimated by aids. The middle class is the heartbeat of the nation. Africa's heartbeat is very troubled.

There is a telling story of a government program that was set up, that they were showing off to the UN body. They marched the troupe of officials out to see a project run by women with aids. They grew vegetables, and other such things, and then the most healthy ones would take these goods to the market. Ofcourse women with aids are ostricized so this is like an old style leper community. So the UN officials thought this was a wonderful project. And just what do you do with the profits, what do all these working women with aids do with the money they earned?

It was to purchase their coffins.

I don't know if we are hypocritical or not?