The Great Clinton Speaks About Abstinence

oH, Clintone, how you doth tickle the proverbial funny bone:

'U.S. President George W. Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief requires recipients to adopt a policy of opposing prostitution to receive funding and sets aside 30 per cent of funding for abstinence-only prevention campaigns.'

' "I'm not so sure that this anti-prostitution provision hasn't caused more practical trouble than the set aside of money for abstinence," Clinton said.'

' "I wish they would just amend the law and say, 'We disapprove of prostitution, but here's the money, go save lives,' " since the sex trade is one of the main ways HIV spreads, he said.'

' "They are people, too, and they deserve a chance to be empowered and to save their lives and to keep from infecting others." '

I will leave the inevitable prostitution Lewinsky jokes to the Howard Stern's of the bloggin' verse. But you know that if they aint already come it's just a matter of time before the vulgarity ensues.

The most amazing thing about the Great Clinton is that the man believes he can speak about issues like abstinence with any credibility at all. His ego is just so large and so all encompassing that truly only one person can compete with that amazing Napoleon complex: the Mrs Clinton.

In the end though all of that is just large fluff.

You have to boil past the hypocrisy if you want to fair with people in this life. And when you do you learn that the Great Clinton is saying one thing: who cares what the "recipient" of AIDS funding believes in or supports so long as some of the money ends up going to good stuff then what we've done in the end is a GOOD thing.

Now funding from the US on this score can come in three ways. The first is by donations to UN programs or funds. Those maybe dubious and they may end up giving money to brutal Hitlers. But that's another story. The second way is by giving money to governments. Again the ripe armpit like stench of corruption seeps through when you think about giving money to possibly bad governments. Then you have the third option which is giving the cash to good ol' NGOs.

Whichever the avenue you are confronted by the possibility that these "recipients" may believe in what some would call "morally reprehensible stuff." And if they do, they may promote said "stuff" coming from money that they have in their bank accounts. That money was put their courtesy of the US government trying to fight AIDS possibly.

When that happens you get into the problem of having your tax money going to stuff like encouraging abortion, prostitution, and a whole host of things you may personally not agree with.

The Great Clinton says "who cares? So long as the end is good." And that's the kicker. The means, to the Great Enlightened Clinton, is justified by the end.

So, using that logic, it must've been well more than justified to fund the Taliban in the fight against the Commies and the Red Scare? Surely the ends justified the means in that case?

Or how 'bout when the US gave money to Hussein?

The end never justifies the means. But who am I to disagree with the Great Clinton that can do no wrong with his Oprah Winfrey saxophone playing powers?