A Cure for Aids!!!

Well, not really. :/
But, I'll tell you why I chose that as the heading for this blog. Oh, fair warning, this will definitely be another controversial blog so prepare yourself. So, I was googling myself.........right. I've done absolutely nothing in this world that would afford me to be on google's search engine but a couple of minor programs, but I did it anyway because I was bored. What came up though, was a response I had written to an article in the New York Times about human trafficking in India (that still is a huge problem by the way). I had did it for my Economics class during my senior year of high school. You want to know the relevance between my Economics class and human trafficking in India? There is none. Its just that my teacher for that class was socially conscious, so he integrated projects in the class that entailed social issues that he thought were important for us to explore and think about. I'd probably do the same thing. Anywho, what that response reminded me of was a debate I got into (like I always do) in one of my classes during senior year about how we should deal with AIDS. I caught hell that day in class because I offered a very interesting (meaning controversial) solution that upset most people for reasons that I will explain later.

My solution to rid society of AIDS was this: The government should issue a commission to encourage all people nationwide infected with AIDS and people with potential to be infected with AIDS( extreme irrevocable stage of HIV) to gather at a harbor or port. Then, the government should send all of the AIDS and potential AIDS victims to a designated tropical island in the Caribbean Sea. The island would only be inhabited by these people with no exceptions. They will be surveilled heavily to ensure security and safety. Allow them to live at this designated island for the remainder of their lives or coerce them to stay on the island for the entirety of their lives. Provide them with a lifetime supply of all kinds of food. Treat them medically as necessary and give them all of the modernized technology and other resources that the collective group of people desire. Stipulate the law of the island so that the people do not have to pay taxes or work. There will be no free trade on this island as there would be no currency, however, there will be an equal distribution of resources. (Shades of Communism?) Let them die there. The hope is that AIDS and potential AIDS victims will emigrate to the island because of the lifestyles and freedoms they'll still be able to enjoy. They could lead normal lives, just as they would in the place they were living preceding their move to the island. Now, of course they won't be afforded the liberty of travel which counters my argument that they would be able to lead normal lives just like anyone else on the planet. Although they won't be able to enjoy those freedoms, they would be doing their native countries, and the world at large, and invaluable service by contributing to the cause of ridding our society of a macabre disease.

This proposal definitely has a million loop holes because its just a rough sketch of what the plan might actually be. If I were politically savvy enough, I might be able to meticulously conduct an actual plan of action that would be in-depth and refuted any counter arguments that I think may appear after the discerning of my plan. Though, I highly doubt that I would be able to prove the pundits wrong after they carefully destroy my proposal with ethical and moral suppositions. But, I think you could implement this plan in effort to quell all life-threatening diseases and illnesses. It could potentially be....... a panacea, if you will. I certainly think its better than Eugenics and Compulsory sterilization. But the bottom line is that its still morally and ethically wrong just as those two programs were.

There are tons of moral and ethical questions emanating from my proposal. And that's where I got into a bunch of quarrels with my classmates. They said my plan was heartless and wrong; and I was unconscionable to actually suggest something like this. And, they're probably right. Call me unscrupulous if you want, but I thought and still do think that it was a pretty shrewd idea even though it probably violates every natural, human and inalienable right in the books. Maybe it just needs to be modified a little bit. Oh well....

Parting Thoughts:
I really don't want to be the second coming of the young Spike Lee in the early days of his film making career. He sort of mellowed out as he got older, but he still is speaking out.
I don't want to be a young volatile pretentious filmmaker who becomes galvanized at the inkling of any comment(s) that could/would conjure controversy. <----verbose. :/
That's definitely how Spike was when he was a young film maker, spry and ready to defend his ideas. Though, because of my nature, I don't think I'll be able to elude that kind of controversy. I just hope that my films are my primary form of discourse and my mouth is the last. Sigh....
It's great to be smitten.
It's better when two people smite each other. <----Affinity at its best.
The Sean Bell verdict was disgusting, but totally not surprising. (I might blog about it)

Oh yeah, Do The Right Thing.