According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
The cumulative estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS through 2003 in the United States is 929,985. … The cumulative estimated number of deaths of persons with AIDS through 2003 is 524,060, including 518,568 adults and adolescents, and 5,492 children under age 13.
That's almost a million infected people, more than half of them already dead. Two decades earlier, in 1983, the number of HIV-infected people in the United States was still below 1,000. Nevertheless, its spread had already been recognized as an epidemic. It was also clear that a cure for it was going to remain beyond our reach for the foreseeable future and, therefore, alternative containment measures were urgently needed. Two such measures, isolation of infected US residents and refusal of entry to infected foreigners, were firmly rejected by the liberal establishment as undemocratic. We don't lock up innocent people. We don't discriminate based on one's skin color, sex, life style, or health. All persons are born equal. Give me your tired, you sick and perverted. The majority of us remained silent as usual. Without pressure from us to do what's right, the government never attempted defending the country from AIDS. It hasn't done anything practical beyond needle exchange programs and condom distribution to children. Beyond that, the policy was “just say no, today, tomorrow, and for all the eternity“. The CDC statistics above show how effective that was.
People proudly calling themselves liberals, instead of doing something constructive, made highly lucrative careers of AIDS activism, blaming conservatives for not doing enough to stop the epidemic. All the while, the were quietly praying that a suddenly discovered cure would not put them out of business. People proudly calling themselves conservatives didn't do anything constructive either. They blamed the epidemic on the liberals, but with no reciprocal passion. AIDS didn't worry them too much, because it was just a gay cancer, and they were all straight; and when they weren't, they used condoms; and when they didn't it didn't matter because they were screwing their fellow conservatives. I was told that politically diverse same-sex unions, whether fleeting or persistent, are fewer than vegetarians who voted for Bush. Meanwhile, the pharmaceuticals succeeded in discovering very expensive wonder drugs that didn't cure AIDS, but allowed the sufferers to live longer and infect more people, which guaranteed steady growth of their customer base.
All this, by the way, was easily predictable in 1983. One thousand sick people is a small number for a country like ours. Had we decided to isolate them at the early stages of the epidemic, not only 1 million human beings would not have been sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, but we would have saved billions upon billions of dollars, even if the quarantine included luxurious accommodations and amenities that most of us cannot afford.
Has AIDS taught us anything valuable? It most certainly has. We've learned to effortlessly glide through other people's suffering and death. The ongoing jihad is bound to prove that skill truly precious. Chances are, you and your family will not be on the very top of their extermination list, so you will be able to spend the remainder of your time on earth in relative emotional comfort, unless, of course, the stock market crashes, in which case you won't be able to avoid at least some anxiety.
Ironically, jihad today is roughly where the AIDS epidemic was two decades ago. We have suffered thousands of casualties, but we are not yet defeated, and so something can still be done to stop the enemy, win this war, and make this jihad the very last jihad in the history of our planet. Can we do it? With the military budget just slightly below of that of the rest of the world combined, we sure can. But will we? South Korea spends more than three times as much on its defense as North Korea. Does that mean, if war breaks between them, the South will beat the North three times over and still have some money left to celebrate their victory? I don't think so. I am afraid we should expect a directly opposite outcome. When it comes to defense budget, it's not the size of it, and it's not just because ours is the only army in the world that buys $400 toilet seats and $700 hammers. Nor is it the fact that China, for example, received the results of our very expensive R&D practically free of charge, for a donation to Clinton's electoral campaign. In addition to all that, there is a factor that's simply impossible to translate into dollars. That factor is the will to win. Why do you think the United States, with its apocalyptic military capabilities, has not won a single war in the last 60 years, with the notable exception of our epochal victories in Panama and Grenada? The Chinese military budget is just 14% or ours, but if, God forbid, there is a direct military confrontation between the United States and China, we will end up singing hosannas to whoever happens to be sitting on Chairman Mao's throne at the time of our inevitable defeat.
I wrote earlier that our War on Terror was lost the moment our Commander-in-Chief announced that Islam was not the enemy. Actually, I was wrong. It was lost even before that. While Mr. Bush's speechwriters were still struggling to camouflage the obvious absurdity of that statement, while the number of 9/11 casualties was still everyone's guess, while all the civilian flights were still grounded and the skies over the United States were almost as empty as they were before the Wright Brothers engaged in their rewarding hobby, chartered airplanes were already carrying dozens of Osama bin Laden's relatives from this country to their native Saudi Arabia.
The war was already on. In a war, you would expect the president to do whatever advances the war effort. If you have a theory on how smuggling the family of the enemy's leader away from the FBI, the CIA, and the military intelligence could advance our war effort, I would love to hear from you. Until then, I am forced to assume that such measures were contrary to the US national interests. George W. Bush's carefully tailored image conveys an appealing message: “I may be simple, but at least I am honest,” which is much more than most of his not so simple opponents can claim. Why would Honest George commit an act of obvious treachery?
If you believe it was a humanitarian gesture designed to provide safety to a bunch of innocent foreigners, you must be out of your mind. In the almost 4 years since 9/11, I haven't heard of a single window broken in an Arab-owned grocery store anywhere in the US. A bunch of Saudi billionaires living in guarded, walled compounds where normal people have absolutely no access, were safer here than you or I will ever be, even if jihad suddenly ended by itself. There must be another reason.
To venture a guess, let us look at precedents. Sadly, there are precedents. Highly respected leaders have betrayed their countries at the time of war and got away with it. Some even got away with a Nobel Peace Prize. The most recent example of such betrayal, although in this particular case I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a Nobel Prize, was provided by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to surrender, without a battle, Israeli territories to Israel's mortal enemies. I don't believe Israel is going to survive this surrender, although I am still hoping for a miracle that will prove me wrong. But why would Sharon kill the country for which he had fought so valiantly? Because he got himself in trouble not that different from Kofi Annan's, but with much worse odds in favor of getting away with it. Thanks to peculiarities of Israel's political universe, his blatant betrayal gave him a chance to avoid prosecution, which leads me to conclude that national heroes must be shot in the back of the head immediately upon receiving their medals. Or, at the very least, sent to Brussels to stand trial for the crimes they did not commit.
It seems unbelievable today, but not so long ago, Arik and W. were buddies. Arik took W. on a helicopter tour around his tiny country. W. reciprocated by inviting Arik to his enormous ranch at Crawford, TX. Of course, Bush's situation is much better than Sharon's. At least, as long as oil continues to flow, Bush will never have to surrender parts of his hacienda to the Mexicans. I knew from the very beginning of his electoral campaign in 2000 that his apparent simplicity was just a mask. George W. Bush is a very intelligent man who can be a formidable opponent to anyone on the wrong side of an issue. So, why wouldn't he simply smite the enemies of this country? He certainly has the power to do it.
Probably, because the enemies have something on him. It could be as murky as Chappaquiddic or as plain as oil business, the principal occupation of the Bushes in between presidencies and governorships. I am inclined in favor of the latter. Whatever it is, it is strong enough to have persuaded Papa Bush in 1991 to send our soldiers to die in Iraq in order to bail out Kuwait's ruler. It is strong enough for Baby Bush, instead of simply destroying our enemies in one powerful blow, to start a pretend war with no end in sight and no chances of ever producing any benefits for this country, but a war that could and did remove the main obstacle that was preventing the Saudis from becoming the unifying force of the Arab world.
There was news recently that the International Atomic Energy Commission led, by an interesting coincidence, by an Arab, has declared Saudi Arabia exempt from inspections. If there were news that the United States protested that decision, I must have missed them. So, the big picture can be described in one short statement: The President of the United States is helping our enemies the Wahhabis to unify our enemies the Arabs and acquire nuclear weapons. And we were naïvely looking for WMD in Iraq! Considering that the Wahhabis are spearheading jihad, Bush might have expected to join the Nobel club, had he not been so hated all over the world. Can he at least hope to have a monument erected in his honor in the capital of the future Caliphate? Don't hold your breath; no matter how much he contributes to its creation, he remains an infidel, a Christian. Although, considering the amazing elasticity of his convictions, I don't see what would stop him from eventually converting to Islam. After all, Islam is not his enemy.
In 2009 he will be replaced in the White House by his successor. It may be Hillary Clinton, or John McCain, or Newt Gingrich or someone else who hasn't yet announced his or her presidential ambitions. It doesn't matter. The AIDS of Islam has already poisoned this country. The antidote is available but nobody is willing to administer it. The world as we know it is coming to an end, and I don't see what can be possibly done about it. Maybe you can think of something?
And that brings me to your personal role on these final stages of history of the civilized world. How did you feel by lunchtime on September 11, 2001? Oh, I know, your appetite was ruined; you were in shock. You couldn't believe what you were seeing on TV. But were you angry? Did you want to fight? Did you want to do anything besides sticking an American flag in the window of your SUV? You weren't and you didn't. The country has failed to wake up.
I am not calling for anti-Muslim pogroms, but I am truly puzzled by the fact that not even once was a shameless celebration of our national tragedy? openly conducted on 9/11 in every Arab community in the United States, was interrupted by angry citizens. Not a single mosque has gone up in flames. Not a single brick flew through the window of an Arab-owned store. Not a single Dr. Baruch Goldstein has announced his tragic, heroic presence among 300 million Americans. And you are still hoping for a future?
Imagine a remote island that enjoys an abundance of everything its inhabitants need to lead happy, productive lives: bountiful farms, dedicated police force, best doctors in the whole world. But the doctors have decided that spilling blood is immoral, and now their patients are dying of perfectly trivial ailments, like appendicitis. The policemen have renounced violence, and now they are only handing out traffic tickets, while crime is rampant. And the farmers have sworn to never slaughter another innocent animal again, and as a result, everyone is starving. Needless to say, the islanders are doomed, but what a joy it must be for them to know that they are dying with clear conscience! Our planet is exactly such an island. And we are a herd of lethargic sheep on the way to the slaughterhouse.
Does that mean we deserve what's coming to us?
Russian version