Republican Radio

I had a very interesting experience on the way back from Breckenridge today. I actually listened to part of a conservative talk show. There was this host, I can't remember his name, comparing the torture of terror suspects to an incident where a man supposedly tested positive to HIV then tested negative. The host also threw emminent domain in, why unless to have a point on which most of us agree, I have no idea. He then wrapped the whole thing in basic ethics with the basic point: It is equally okay to torture a terrorist to save millions as to forcibly take samples from the supposed HIV survivor as to take someone's property to build a Wal-Mart parking lot.

I'll get to the factual errors later. The comparison of forcibly taking a blood sample from an HIV survivor to torturing a terrorist to save millions is, firstly, a false comparison. No one is going to torture the HIV survivor and the HIV survivor has something tangible to offer. Should he be forced to give up a DNA swab or some bodily fluids? I think so. The terrorist, on the other hand, has information and, as John McCain so aptly put it, a tortured man will say or do anything he thinks the captor wants to hear to stop the torture. But our hypothetical terrorist has information that could save a million people. Is it a good thing to torture the information out of him? Most of us would probably agree that if torturing one man would save a million people, it would be a good thing. How about five hundred thousand, then? A hundred? Fifty? Three? Where do you draw the line, even assuming you can get reliable information from a tortured man, historical evidence aside? Many have explored the theme of doing evil to do good in literature and the general consensus is that you can't do good by doing evil. It is small lapses that lead to great evil because every small lapse, every violation of principles make the next one easier.

Now to the facts about the gentleman who supposedly got over HIV infection. I Googled the theme and got the following information: The story broke in the Daily Mail on November 13th, not exactly yesterday's news. The gentleman tested positive, then fourteen months later tested negative. This is, in the words of a caregiver quoted in the article "rare," not "unheard of." Finally he told the paper, "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. There are 34.9 million people with HIV and if I have something to contribute, then I am willing and ready to help." That's a far cry from the resistance to further testing the talk show host reported but then again, someone resisting doing good for his fellow man just because fits with the pessimistic Conservative world view far better than it does with an informed, progressive one.