Doin' Time For Spreading Disease

This is going to be somewhat controversial. Partly because it has a slight "yuck factor" and partly because it goes against accepted wisdom.

The crime for which Joe (not his real name but the name I will use) is going to spend time in jail: having sex with someone while he was knowingly HIV positive and denying that he was HIV positive. Or to put it short... giving someone the HIV. He reasoned that he thought withdrawing before ejaculating would be ok.

On one hand it can be argued that his going to jail is a travesty of justice and such a massive wrong it is almost incomprehensible. On the other hand, it can be argued that going to jail is totally deserved and a sign the gummit is doing something right. And both hands will be shown below.

The essence of what the man has been found guilty of is, knowingly risking the passing on of a virus from himself to another person.

This is, in essence, no different than a person with a virus going to work while they are sick. After all, they are also knowingly risking the passing on of their virus to all their co-workers.

It could be said that this case is different because the HIV is with you for life once you have it, whereas a normal cold or flu isn't.

Fine. Then think of the HIV like the Herpes virus - either genital herpes or cold sore herpes. Both are with the person for life. Does that mean we should jail a person for giving someone else the cold sore virus?

Another argument is that the HIV can kill you whereas the herpes virus cannot.

And here is where I have a MAJOR disagreement. For there is NO EVIDENCE that HIV kills anyone. There is NO EVIDENCE that HIV causes AIDS. So it therefore stands to reason, Joe is going to jail for passing on a harmless virus.

How can I say HIV does not cause AIDS?

Several reasons.

Reason # 1: Disease and its causes and effects is a hobby of mine. Stemming back over two decades to high school, when I wrote a research report on a newly discovered syndrome which involved loss of blood supply to the buttocks and thighs. This knowledge enables me to look upon the HIV/AIDS myth to see it for what it is.

Reason # 2: Not all people with AIDS have the HIV and not all people with HIV develop AIDS. It therefore stands to reason, that if 50% of AIDS sufferers do NOT have the HIV, then HIV is not the cause of AIDS. For how can a virus you do not have cause you to develop AIDS? Answer: It cannot.

Reason # 3: HIV can only be tested for AFTER you are immune to it. So the moment a test can reveal you had it, is the moment it cannot do anything any more because you are totally immune to it. This means, the very instant the HIV sticks its head out, it is destroyed by your body's immune system. No "ifs" "buts" or "maybes". Hence, you cannot be harmed by something you are immune to.

Reason # 4: The man to claim that HIV caused AIDS is also the man who invented a way to test for HIV immunity. And he subsequently made hundreds of millions of dollars licensing his patented test to doctors around the globe. Besides him, NO OTHER Doctor has been able to categorically link HIV to AIDS. But they do keep repeating that there is a link - even though no-one can find a link.

Reason # 5: The man who was the only one to link HIV to AIDS and who made millions of dollars from selling the test he invented, is also behind the prescribed AIDS treatment known as AZT. So now he makes gazillions of dollars from this chemical.

Reason # 6: AZT kills your immune system and not the HIV. The sole role of AZT is to kill immune system cells in a shotgun approach. The logic is, by killing millions of immune system cells, some of those cells will be the ones in which the HIV is hiding. So millions of perfectly healthy immune system cells are killed in an effort to kill a small few that contain a virus which would be destroyed by the body's immune system the moment it left the cell. Also, all the while AZT is being taken, the body is STILL immune to the HIV - you cannot be re-infected by the HIV.

Reason # 7: There are specialists whose job is the study of virus diseases and the like, and THEY also consider the "HIV causes AIDS" claim to be a myth - even the biggest hoax perpetrated on man.

Read what Peter Duesberg - Ph.D. and Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley - has to say about it on his website http://www.duesberg.com/.

And here are some other websites you might find interesting:

• http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
  
• http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/
  
• http://www.tperkins.com/aids/hivaids.htm
  
• http://www.whale.to/w/quotes.html
  
• http://aidsmyth.addr.com/index1.htm
  
• http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl09aint.shtml - AIDS: BAD SCIENCE OR HOAX?

If you bothered following any of the above links, I should hope you can also now see how the HIV = AIDS thing makes no sense at all. And that the HIV virus - which no-one has actually been able to isolate - cannot kill you.

What this all boils down to is... Joe is going to go to jail for passing on a harmless thing no scientist has been able to isolate to prove its existence. And which, from all observations, doesn't even make a person sick in any way, shape or form. And when tested for, over 60 different things can give a positive HIV result.

Pretty harsh punishment, right? And consider... if he can do time for passing on a harmless thing, when will we start seeing lawsuits filed against people for passing on cold and flu bugs... for coming to work knowing they are sick and infecting their co-workers. And when will we begin to see similar lawsuits filed against the parents of children who infect other children with Measles, Mumps, Chicken Pox, etc.?

Don't laugh. This "finding" has set a precedence. Has opened up the can of worms that is lawsuits for making someone sick. Mark my words. We will now start to see more of this.

Anyway, now we come to the other hand. The hand that says jail time is justified.

Joe, who thinks HIV will bring about AIDS, lied about having a positive HIV test and deliberately had unprotected sex with a woman. So in his mind, and as far as he was concerned, he was going to inflict harm on this person on purpose. The fact no harm is actually done doesn't negate the attempt.

And that is, knowingly infringing upon another person's property rights by use of deception.

To me, the attempt is no different than any other attempted crime - be it an attempted bashing, rape, murder, or whatever. That no harm was done doesn't change the intention behind the act. And in this case, he INTENDED to do harm - much like a killer might intend to kill by firing a gun, even if the gun is not loaded or the bullet does not fire.

By Joe's deception, the girl was not able to make "good for her" decisions with regard to having protected sex. And this is Joe's major crime to me... deceiving with the intent to cause long term harm.

How To Make Someone Angry Without Trying

I've stumbled upon something that will make almost every person get angry with you and lose control of their civility, without you going out of your way. And that is to

Do Not Give Them What They Ask For!
Do Not Let Them Have Their Way!
Incredible, isn't it. That such a small thing. A nothing thing as I would deem it to be. Can cause a normally rational human being to become a salivating cursing ball of anger.

Let me show you how easy it is to make people angry...

Case # 1: Guy calls me and wants to know "how much to move about two cubic meters of boxes." Which makes sense as one of my businesses is haulage. As experience shows that you can NEVER trust a word any caller makes, I ask a few questions to determine what the "job" would involve.

I ask him WHEN he needs it done (not point discussing anything if he wants it done on a day and at a time I cannot help him). I ask him WHERE he needs to move the boxes to (not point discussing anything if he needs them moved to a place I do not cover. And it is needed to help work out the price). And I ask him HOW MANY boxes there actually are.

This last question is important because what he has asked me is the equal of asking the Post Office "how much to mail a bunch of letters that would fill half a box."

He begins to get frustrated on the phone. He doesn't know how many boxes there are and yet he won't get a price until I know how many boxes there are. He asks for an "average" to which I reply there is no average.

He won't do a simple box count. Instead, he calls me a dickhead and hangs up.

Two months later he calls me again. I think he had forgotten who he had called. He asked "how much to move about two cubic meters of boxes." I said "I don't give prices on the amount of space I give prices on how many items you need moved. How many boxes are there to be moved?"

His reply was, "Oh, it's you. Fuck off" and he hangs up.

Totally uncalled for rudeness. And insulting a total stranger because he didn't get his way. Like a spoilt child throwing a tantrum.

Case # 2: Another guy calls looking for the Australian International Shipping Brokers. I told him he had dialed the wrong number. When he asked who he had dialed I informed him it was NOT the Australian International Shipping Brokers. He persisted. I told him - quite calmly - to call directory assistance and that the number he had dialed was not it, no matter what they told him.

He would NOT let up so I told him I was NOT the Australian International Shipping Brokers. Nor was I a light shop, a real estate agent, an air-conditioning store or the Australian Institute of Sport - all of which the phone company has told callers I was.

His response was, "You're a dickhead. No wonder you get so many wrong numbers" and then he quickly hung up.

It is interesting to note that his so-called witty reply did not make any sense. Oh well.

Case # 3: Guys needs a sofa-bed moved. Gives me the address. Turn up at the address and it doesn't exist. Drive up and down the street he gave and there is no address even resembling the address he gave. Call his number, told his answer machine about there being no address, and asked him to call back.

He calls back. Tells me he has been standing out the front. I told him that there is no "100 Such And Such St". And he becomes a smart ass - how come mail gets there then when it is addressed that way?

I told him that is a question he needs to ask of the post office. Because the number he gave me does not exist on the street he gave me.

He starts getting frustrated and agro. Starts cursing. Fucking this and fucking that. Fucking idiot and on. To which I calmly replied... I don't appreciate being sworn at, find someone else to move your sofa... and hung up.

The interesting thing about this is, HE got the street wrong. The address does exist (I found out later) but not on the street he gave me. But, like all these things, it is never the person's incompetence which is to blame, it is my fault for not being able to read their mind, or let them have their way.

Case # 4: Woman calls about 9pm. Needs to move some stuff within the next hour. I was in the middle of taking care of a deadline involving another one of my businesses and told her I couldn't help her. She said "but your ad says 'any time." I said, "Yes it does. But I cannot help you within the next hour." She calls me an asshole and hangs up.

A few minutes later she calls back!? She hysterically screams... "you're a fuckwit"... and hungs up.

She didn't get what she asked for. She didn't get her way. So she got angry and insulted me.

Now think back to any time you have called a government department. Undoubtedly, you will not have made any progress. Your rational call will have been met with incompetence and automaton droids devoid of all responsibility. You will have become frustrated bordering on anger. Maybe you even got angry. And all because you weren't able to get what you asked for... because you didn't get your way.

It seems to me, this anger reaction is becoming more and more prevalent these days. And I blame it on the "there are no losers" garbage, schools are trying to get into the children. With such dumb ideas as not keeping score in sport - because the losing child might get upset at losing. And we have to pander to everything otherwise the child might get upset or disappointed.

They fail to realize, it is only by experiencing disappointment and not getting what we want and not getting out way, that we learn to cope with it. If we don't learn to cope with it, the result is adults chucking tantrums - by cursing at the person denying them their request or their way.

And it's kind of ironic, that by letting children have their way when they are young and chucking tantrums - otherwise it might upset them and/or disappoint them - you end up with people who have never learnt to deal with it. Then as adults, because they don't know how to handle it, they lose their temper and are advised to take "anger management" classes.

If the children hadn't been messed with by the interfering leftist teachers and feel-good do-gooders, there would be no need for anger management classes.

Abortion Made Simple

Abortion. The word brings out the emotions on those for and against it. And to help muddy the waters, both sides play the language of illusion game.

For instance: Pro-Life could also be Anti-Abortion or Anti-Choice. And Pro-Choice could also be Anti-Life or Pro-Abortion. And which term you use normally (but not always) depends on which side of the abortion fence you reside on.

And it is interesting to note, that many on the Anti-Life side are also Anti-Death-Penalty. And many on the Pro-Life side are also Pro-Death-Penalty. Which means, many on both sides of the argument are hypocrites.

For if you are Pro-Life, than you have to be Pro-ALL-Life not just Pro-Some-Life. And I can guarantee you, many on the Pro-Life side are also supporters of war - which kills a great many lives. So are hypocritically Pro-Some-Life.

To try to convince the public to their side of the moral/emotional argument, both sides use celebrities.

On the Pro-Choice side you have people like Melissa Etheridge, Julianne Moore, Christina Aguilera, Morgan Fairchild, Alanis Morissette, Jennifer Aniston, Calista Flockhart, Janeane Garofalo, Pink, Helen Hunt, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman and so on.

And on the Pro-Life side you have people like Kathy Ireland, Mel Gibson, Brooke Shields, Margaret Colin, Dolores O'Riordan (lead singer of The Cranberries) Michelle Malkin, and so on.

I find it interesting to listen to the arguments from each side about why THEY are right and the other side is wrong. And notice that ALL their arguments are based on emotion and morals. None of their arguments are based on logic devoid of emotion.

For instance: going against abortion you hear stuff like: abortion is killing a living thing and killing a living thing is wrong. Or "abortion is murder and murder is wrong." But nothing backs up these statements.

On the "for abortion" side the arguments are based on "women's health" and "rights".

Ignoring the little-publicized FACT that before abortion was legalized, a woman whose health was in danger due to pregnancy was legally able to have an abortion anyway. And said abortions were carried out in government hospitals!

Anyway. Here are some things to consider about abortion. Then I will tell you my personal stance...

Consideration # 1: Conscious life is important. Protoplasm in a womb is not conscious life.

Consideration # 2: Those who are not responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, are likewise not responsible enough to be able to decide to abort it.

Consideration # 3: Other people are not your property - and their lives are not yours to micro-manage. Changing a law to what you want, forces other people to live according to your rules, as if they are your slaves. That the govt does the enforcing is of little consequence. It is still slavery. By pushing to change laws to what you want you ultimately infringe upon other people's property rights.

Consideration # 4: Putting abortion onto the public health system forces other people to pay for abortions against their will. Because the govt uses part of their tax dollars to pay for the abortion. See consideration # 3 above for why this is wrong.

Consideration # 5: While a man might not think it fair he has no say in whether a woman has an abortion, it is not fair that his say should be forced upon the woman either - least he be guilty of hypocrisy and think the woman is his slave.

Let me now elaborate a little on some of the above points.

Point # 1: Conscious life is important. In fact, it is the most precious life their is and NOTHING should place it in danger. Undergoing surgery - of any kind whatsoever - is placing the conscious life in danger. Hence, surgery is to be avoided at all costs. Conclusion is, no abortion as it places the conscious life in danger.

For those who claim an abortion is a routine operation I say, "There are no routine operations." Surgery, by its nature, interferes with the body's natural biological system. Nerve synapses are disrupted, unconsciousness is forced onto the being, artificial chemicals and gases are put into the being's blood stream - and the blood circulates throughout the body including the brain and liver.

And this is just for starters before anything has been cut - causing the body' undue amounts of stress as it must now fight like the dickens to try to combat the assault it is undergoing. We might know this as "healing" but that implies massive damage was done first.

Everyday around the planet people die from so-called routine operations. Be it due to infection, wrong anesthetic, allergic reaction to prescribed recovery drugs, blood poisoning, and so on.

Disrupting the body's normal biology, subjecting the body to intrusion, rupturing skin and other protective elements, all in an environment full of sick people spreading their sickness into the air, is a danger to the conscious being. Hence it is to be avoided in the first instance.

IF, a greater threat exists to the conscious being by leaving the fetus to gestate, then it should be removed. And while undergoing the necessary surgery, the conscious being's life is the main concern at all times.

Point # 2: If you aren't responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy you aren't responsible enough to have an abortion. Deciding to place one's self in a dangerous life-threatening situation is not a decision to be taken lightly. If such flippancy is shown with regard to getting pregnant in the first place, it stands to reason the "new mother" is not of able mind to make a decision about aborting the pregnancy.

As this decision should thus be made with regard to Point/Consideration # 1 - conscious life is important - then the pregnancy should go full term. If the baby is not wanted it can be given up for adoption.

Adoption is a value to many childless couples who otherwise would not be able to have children. As adoption laws require a couple to PROVE the ability to support the child, almost all adopted children are better off. As anyone can get pregnant without proving they are able to support a child.

Because the couple is so respectful of the child they now have, they take quite good care of the child.

Hence: An adopted child is looked after by parents who want it more than anything, and likewise love it dearly. It is raised in an environment where it is not going without. And as a result will enjoy greater health - which is less risk to the conscious life it has become. And the birth mother is relieved of having to raise a child she neither wanted nor had the ability to support anyway.

Jointly this also frees up government resources as tax dollars are not taken from the rest of us to support the unwanted baby.

Point # 3: Other people are not your property. This means nobody - not you or me - has the right to force another person to abide but how we may see it. And likewise - as consideration # 4 alludes to - does it allow someone who wants an abortion to force you or me to fund it.

What this boils down to is, if you want to have an abortion and put your conscious life at risk, then go right ahead. We do not have the right to stop you. But note, you must fund this surgery yourself and should not expect the rest of us to fund it via the taxes we pay.

If you cannot afford an abortion, then carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption. Plain and simple. Your conscious life is not risked and everything works out for the best in the end as shown above.

Point # 4: Men having a say. Some men think that because the protoplasm is half theirs, they should have a say in whether it is aborted or not. This comes back to "other people being your property" mentioned earlier. Whether you want to keep the child or abort it, it is NOT up to the man to decide and the man should play NO PART in the decision making process. It is the woman's choice. And to want/think otherwise is to condone slavery - as masters controlled the lives of their slaves.

What does this all come down to?

My personal take is pretty clear to see above. I think conscious life is the most important thing. And anything - anything at all - that puts that in danger is to be avoided at all costs. Therefore, abortion is not even a consideration, unless the conscious life is in danger due to the pregnancy. And while this is how I Personally feel, I have no right to enforce anyone to follow my way.

In short, I am against it but you feel free to go do it if you want. I will think you are an utter moron. But I have no right to stop you or control you for endangering your own conscious life. All I expect is that you fund it yourself.

As you have read the above you will note I have kept all emotion out of my deductions. And have not used the fanciful term of "murder" to justify anything. I know there will be people who disagree with me... and who think abortion should be against the law. To those I say, please re-read consideration # 3 "Other people are NOT your property and their lives are not yours to micro-manage" And then state your case without breaking this fundamental rule of freedom. And if you are to tell me it is wrong because it is murder, I will ask for further explanation and for you to explain why murder is wrong - you cannot say abortion is wrong because it is murder without explaining why it is murder and why murder is wrong. (Saying murder is wrong because it says so in the Bible is not an answer. The Bible is just a book.)

He's Lay'n In A Coffin And He's, Gone And Got Buried

The Granddad (Godfather) of Terrorism (Yaser Arafat) is dead. Some will be happy. And many - specially those in the elite media - will be upset. The U.N will have to figure out new ways to fund the terrorist's murdering activities against Israel. And the millions of dollars they give the Palestinian Authority (as if naming them an "authority" somehow legitimizes them) will have to be given to them via some other person who will skim millions off the top to line his own pockets - like Arafat did.

I've seen some of the footage of the public show of emotion/support/whatever going on in what the media calls Palestine. And some of the footage with the arrival of worm-food Granddaddy Terror. And something stands out. (Something apart from the difference between the civil nature in which Ronald Reagan was buried compared to this uncivil melee.)

In the 1974 movie Blazing Saddles, Cleavon Little, playing sheriff Bart, says to two KKK members, "Hey, where the white women at?"

And I thought of this watching all the MEN gather around Arafat's coffin. I wondered where all the women were at?

Could they be secretly fleeing the country while their abusive men folk sobbed at not being able to boof Arafat? Maybe they were conducting clandestine meetings and gathering arms to shoot their "all women are slaves of men" husbands when they came back from the "We want to boof Arafat" meeting. Or maybe, as is most likely the case, they were locked, bolted and chained inside their crumbling homes, being watched over by uncle Mahmoud who did a bit of raping while he watched over them - which was all the women's fault, of course.

So what gives with the constant all male gatherings? The men are the ones you see praying at the mosques - whenever you see mosque footage. The men are the ones you see in the streets - shaking their fists in the air and shooting bullets to show how tough they are. The men are the ones you see everywhere.

The elite media never raises this issue which is so painstakingly obvious. It reports about "groups" of Palestinians. There is no "how come women don't play any part in any positions of power that matter" coming from them - like they complain about in their own country. They don't cry out for "affirmative action" in the Islamist Slave States that repress women like second class citizens - like they push for in their own countries.

To the elite media, the Islamo Slave Masters can do no wrong. They are as pure as fresh snow. Innocent like a daisy. Being hard done by because no-one understands them and everyone only wants to repress them and steal their oil - or some such bullshit.

If anyone - anyone at all - treated women over here (US, UK, Aust, NZ, Can, etc.) like the Islamo Slave Masters treat their women over there, there would be an outcry unlike any outcry you have ever heard before. The elite media would be all over the slave masters. Condemning them for their backward brutal ways. For how dare they treat another person this way - for that other person has rights, you know.

But it isn't happening over here. It is happening over there. And the same elite media that would crucify anyone over here for doing it, ignore it over there. Not even bringing it up in brief. Just totally ignoring it. Bastards.

And also watching the footage, there were quite a few people shooting into the air. And they were not shooting blanks. Which means, those bullets will be coming back down and probably right onto someone's head, killing them. Then they can blame the Israelis for killing more people - which is their style. They won't ever reveal that their reckless shooting into the air killed anyone. Bastards.

The U.N. funds the Palestinians - which ultimately means WE fund them because the U.N. is funded by its member states making contributions, and those contributions come from our tax dollars. They then use those funds to buy guns, rocket propelled grenades and explosives to make suicide bombs so they can go and blow up some Israeli children on a bus. They lock their women away and treat them like slaves. But, in the eyes of the media, they can do no wrong. Go figure.

Oh. And as for Arafat?

Good riddance to him. Now if only the head of Syria and North Korea will quickly follow suit. Then all the Ayatollahs. And the multitude of Saudi "Royals". That'd be a good start.