Just think if he had put this much effort into helping defeat terrorism in Iraq.

There are so many things wrong with Jack's little brain spew. Where to begin?

1. If money were the cure for AIDS it would have been cured long ago.

2. A tax -- the perfect Euro-government solution to everything. The EUros love taxes. All those government programs, all those government benefits -- contracting AIDS will suddenly become an important option in your financial planning.

3. Ok, now there's a great big pile of $10 billion dollars. What are you going to do with it? Hhhmmm, well, if Jack had his way it will go to the UN to be properly "administered". Let's see, that's aboout .05¢ on the dollar to actual AIDS victims. Not a nickel, but five one-hundredths of a cent.

4. Trust us, if $10 billion is collected and there are only programs in place that can spend half that, all $10 billion will somehow be "spent" and Jack will be back next year, a little fatter, a little jowlier, asking for twice as much.

5. Before Jack passes the collection plate could he perhaps point to any humongous international AIDS program that is effective? Could he please point to anything anywhere that can be scaled up to handle his AIDS booty. Oh, hello, America?

Here's our zero-tax program for combating the spread of AIDS: gents, keep it in your pants; ladies, cross your legs. Of course this suggests a correlation between sexual license and AIDS. Oh, how simpliste !

DGB

Damian,
I agree with you, but your common sense solution will only save thousands of lives until a cure is found, so you can't expect anybody to take it seriously.

With liberal thinking, throwing money at a problem = caring about the problem = solving it.
If you disagree with this, it means you don't care about the problem, because ALL problems are due to a lack of funds.

It's been a long while since I saw the numbers so they may have changed a bit but it was something like money spent on cancer research per cancer death: $3,000. Money spent on AIDS research per aids death: $50,000.

I'm pretty sure I'm rounding down on both, but on a per death basis there was already about 15 times as much spent on aids as cancer. Aids doesn't need more money.

Especially considering in nearly all cases it's an avoidable, self-inflicted disease. I like to smoke and I like to drink - you don't hear me whining about more money for liver research or lung cancer research.

To decrease the rate the disease spreads in Africa, they need to end the grotesque practice of pharonic circumcision practiced on their women.

Liberal thinking also stipulates that genital stimulation trumps all, and any suggestion that it be curtailed is nothing short of barbaric. Only a veritable neanderthal would suggest that you not poke winkies everywhere.

Remember - self-control is an anachronism. You should not be responsible for the outcomes of your actions, governments should. You are entitled to any and all forms of gratification without liability or detriment.

That aside though, this is nothing short of Jack's effort at getting his fingers into more people's pockets. Having milked France dry, perhaps he's seeking greener pastures. That, or he owes some high-salary sinecures.

"The United States is not inclined to support international taxation schemes," said a Treasury Department sposesman.

Even Bill Clinton is against this idea, joining in with "It seems to me, we don't want to get diverted into debating that," the former President said.

And the head of the Cato Institutes project on global economic liberty: "It seems like [Mr. Chirac] is just creating headlines for himself," Mr. Vasquez quipped.

In a related "taxing issue" I read that GlaxoSmithKline PLC Europe's biggest drug maker, received a notice from the IRS for $1.9 BILLION in taxes that the IRS says it owes.

Seems to me that this is the kind of "international tax" we should be concerned with...