Bill Weintraub:

First of all, Dr Chin says that HIV prevalence worldwide is low in most places, "not because of effective HIV prevention work, but because infection rates are limited by the numbers in groups whose behaviour puts them at high risk."

That's just the truth.

You can't have an epidemic without people engaging in risk behavior.

And the primary risk behaviors for HIV are injection drug use, anal penetration, and high levels of sexual promiscuity.

Even with anal penetration, which is by far the most efficient sexual mode of transmission, the virus can't go anywhere without promiscuity.

The more promiscuity, the more the virus will spread.

Less promiscuity, less spread.

No promiscuity, no spread.

Which is why, outside of sub-Saharan Africa, "HIV is seen only in men who have sex with other men, intravenous drug users and female sex workers."

Regarding Africa, the article claims that

Dr Chin says it is only in sub-Saharan Africa, where unprotected sex outside marriage is common, that the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission is high.

I rather doubt Dr Chin actually said that.

It's not that far off the mark, but the situation in Africa is complex.

Basically, it's that married people tend to have overlapping sex networks of concurrent partners.

If you disrupt those networks -- that is, if you tell married people in particular not to be promiscuous -- the rate of new infection plummets, and HIV prevalence falls.

That's what they did in Uganda.

So while it's true that promiscuity is the problem in Africa -- it's also true that there's a particularly African form to the promiscuity -- and there may be genetic or other factors, such as vaginal flora and co-infection with diseases like malaria, which are leading to high infection rates.

Certainly the lack of male circumcision among Christian and animist Africans is one such factor -- and there may be others.

But basically, Dr Chin is right -- there's no true generalized epidemic outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and it's unlikely there will ever be one.

Prostitution is without question a problem in places like India, but the reason Dr Chin is blowing the whistle here is that, for example, HIV prevalence remains very low in the Philippines, despite prostitution and guys, like truck drivers, who make heavy use of prostitutes.

Why then -- if a generalized epidemic is unlikely anywhere outside of Africa -- is the risk and prevention paradigm being presented the way it is?

Dr Chin:

"By refusing to accept the fact that HIV is very difficult to transmit sexually without the highest levels of sexual risk behaviours, Aids programmes have avoided labelling some populations as being more promiscuous than others.

"It is a much more socially and politically correct public health message to say that sexual promiscuity exists in all populations and thus the risk of epidemic heterosexual HIV transmission to the general public, or to ordinary people can be prevented only by aggressive programmes directed at the general population, and especially to youth."

That's the answer.

It's not politically correct to draw attention to what's actually going on among, for example, gay men.

Instead, the message is that everyone's at risk and everyone must use a condom.

That message sidesteps the social issue of the huge incidence of anal penetration and promiscuity among gay men.

And we know, from our experience in the Frot Movement, that the gay male establishment is adamantly opposed to talking about anal and promiscuity.

To do so, they believe, would betray the sexual revolution and what they consider to be the gay community.

So AIDS "prevention" policy is designed to prop up and support the very two behaviors -- anal penetration and promiscuity -- which created the MSM epidemic to begin with.

And this is something we detail in our MSM HIV Timeline -- which I encourage you to visit.

Now -- let's look at the response to Dr Chin as cited in the BBC.

UNAIDS -- for whom he's worked in the past -- was characteristically cautious.

They know who he is.

They're also career bureaucrats, most of them, who know just how heavily politics influences what they're doing.

And how quickly those political winds can change:

"The Aids response has always invited a high-level of debate and discussion. UNAids welcomes this debate and stands by its scientific approach.

"Twenty-five years into the Aids epidemic has shown the world how the epidemic has continued to evolve and how the response must also evolve.

Dr Mane added: "UNAids data is not influenced by political or fundraising agendas."

Uh-huh.

"UNAIDS is not influenced by political or fundraising agendas."

Right.

As we'll see in the next article, that is not remotely true.

Which means that if Dr Mane were a little wooden boy, her nose would be growing.

Nevertheless, her response was cautious and above all, politic.

Not true of the UK activists -- who in my experience are truly rabid ideologues.

Lisa Power, head of policy at the UK's Terrence Higgins Trust [a huge and very well-funded UK AIDS Service Organization] said Dr Chin's views may have been accurate 10 to 15 years ago, but were not true now.

"He is overstating his case. Sub-Saharan Africa is not the only place to have heterosexual epidemics and most AIDS activists no longer espouse a one-size-fits-all approach to HIV prevention work.

"Some authorities are wrong to misrepresent their HIV epidemiology in order to maximise public interest in the issue.

"But Chin is doing a similar disservice by misrepresenting current HIV planning and thinking in order to maximise public interest in his book."

Ms Power said there was a need for campaigns targeted at high-risk groups and more general information to ensure better public understanding of HIV and sexual health in order to tackle the stigma surrounding the disease."

"most AIDS activists no longer espouse a one-size-fits-all approach to HIV prevention work."

Yes they do -- it's a one-CONDOM-fits-all approach to HIV prevention work.

Don't believe me?

All you need do is read the articles which came out of the most recent International AIDS Conference to see the emphasis on condoms -- to the extent of making dresses made out of condoms -- and on issues which have nothing to do with AIDS epidemiology such as poverty, stigma, and gender inequality.

Ms Power: "Some authorities are wrong to misrepresent their HIV epidemiology in order to maximise public interest in the issue."

Good -- I'm glad she agrees.

She then accuses Dr Chin of being a publicity hound for daring, after years of talking very privately and very cautiously about these issues, to take his views and his FINDINGS before the public.

That's a HUGE no-no among these AIDS bureaucrats and activists.

If you don't agree with a policy, you must NEVER say so publicly.

That's forbidden.

Which is another reason they don't like us -- or Dr Green.

Then we get this, which gives the lie to everything else the spokesperson for Terrence Higgins Trust has said:

Ms Power said there was a need for campaigns targeted at high-risk groups and more general information to ensure better public understanding of HIV and sexual health in order to tackle the stigma surrounding the disease.

Uh-huh.

That's a lot of gobbledy-gook, but here's the essence of it:

Ms Power says, We need to target the high-risk groups -- and that's EXACTLY what Dr Chin said:

In a new book, [Chin] says people in the general population outside Africa are unlikely to contract HIV/Aids, as it is restricted to certain high-risk groups.

"high-risk groups"

You really have to laugh sometimes at people like Ms Power.

Dr Chin says "We have to target high-risk groups."

Ms Power accuses him of trying to sell his book at the expense of the public health, and then says, "We have to target high-risk groups."

Really -- and I mean it -- I don't know whether to laugh or vomit.

What I do know is that Dr Chin would point out that years of targeting high-risk groups, particularly gay men, have shown virtually no success.

Which no doubt is something Ms Power and her mates in the UK AIDS establishment would dispute for five minutes, and then agree with.

So, to get back to the present, having agreed with Dr Chin that high-risk groups are the problem and NOT the general population, she asserts that we need to "ensure better public understanding of HIV and sexual health in order to tackle the stigma surrounding the disease."

Stigma.

As we'll see in a subsequent article, the UK branch of AIDS Inc / ANAL Inc has decided to make "HIV stigma" a priority.

DESPITE THE FACT, AS WE REPORTED ON THIS BOARD, THAT NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY HAS EVER DEMONSTRATED A LINK BETWEEN HIV STIGMA AND HIV PREVALANCE.

NONE.

There's no link.

Doesn't exist.

You'd probably do better claiming a link between HIV infection and phases of the moon.

Or maybe sunspots.

Don't believe me?

Please read the original research, which is titled HIV, Stigma, and Rates of Infection: A Rumour without Evidence.

There's no relationship between HIV, stigma, and infection rates.

That's just the truth, and that's exactly what Dr Chin is talking about.

Programs which have NOTHING to do with HIV prevention, being presented as HIV prevention, in order to advance SOMEONE ELSE'S POLITICAL AGENDA.

In this case, stigma is code for prejudice against homosexuals -- and to some degree prostitutes -- and the promiscuity and in the case of gay men, ANAL PENETRATION, which is associated with those groups.

That's what this is about.

Let me also point out that just as Dr Chin has been accused of being a publicity hound -- so have I.

In my case, for daring to say that Frot is safe.

Just doing that ipso facto makes me a publicity hound in the eyes of the analists.

And the analists and their HIV establishment pull the same shit with me as Ms Power just did with Dr Chin -- they say I'm wrong, and then five minutes later say he's right -- Frot is safe.

But Weintraub's a publicity hound or a Masculinist or whatever so we won't work with him and we won't publicize Frot because that would damage the gay community.

In some mysterious way.

A barebacker like Andrew Sullivan can pimp for big pharma all he wants -- but if I dare say that Frot is very hot and very low risk and FREE -- I'm a publicity hound and an all-round bad guy -- like James Chin.

I don't think so.

Now, the UNAIDS spokesperson claimed that "UNAids data is not influenced by political or fundraising agendas."

Is that true?

Oh my goodness gracious no.

There's now a HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY to be made via AIDS Inc.

And obviously, the more dangerous and urgent the AIDS situation is, the more money you can raise.

And not just money.

You can live -- not just well -- but truly high off the hog if you're an AIDS bureaucrat.

Senator Coburn's staffer -- and, full disclosure here -- I don't like Senator Coburn, who toes the evangelical line on all things sexual -- sent out an email with this subject line: "Global AIDS Fund spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on limousines, expensive meals, boat cruises, champagne, and other luxuries."

You know what?

I don't like the Senator and his mealy-mouthed abstinence campaigns, but that header is right on the -- money.

Just take a look at this article in the Boston Globe -- which is not a stooge of the religious right.

Boston Globe

February 5, 2007

Disease-fighting fund's expenses hit

Report asserts donations used for meals, limos

By John Donnelly, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- The executive director of a $7 billion fund to fight deadly diseases in the world's poorest countries has made extensive use of a little-known private bank account, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on limousines, expensive meals, boat cruises, and other expenses, according to an internal investigation.

Dr. Richard G.A. Feachem, the leader of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria , also frequently dipped into the office's petty cash, once spending $225.86 to rent a suit for a wedding involving the Dutch royal family -- and then double-billed the organization for the suit, the report said.

The Global Fund, which started in 2001 when then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called for an emergency response to the AIDS pandemic, has funded programs in 136 countries.

The US government has contributed $1.9 billion so far, and the US House of Representatives approved an additional $724 million last week. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private donor, pledging $650 million.

The internal report, completed in August by the Global Fund's inspector general, found that Feachem's spending habits created "potential risks," including loss of donor confidence because of "inadequate internal controls over funds."

Spending charity money on entertainment and limousine rides "could be perceived as unnecessarily lavish by donors," the report said.

Feachem, 59, was knighted last month by Queen Elizabeth II for his leadership of the Global Fund. He declined numerous requests for comment.

Global Fund spokesman Jon Liden disputed the context, tone, and several facts in the inspector general's report.

"When you read through the entire report, it becomes clear we are dealing with a report of extraordinarily poor quality in terms of accuracy, context, and fairness," Liden said in an interview last week.

But Liden did not dispute 37 specific limousine charges in cities across Europe and the United States, dozens of entertainment and meals expenses, and the suit rental, among other expenditures the inspector general deemed excessive.

"We have nothing to hide," Liden said.

A separate investigation, overseen by the World Health Organization, also raised concerns about the use of the private bank account, finding what it called "abnormal" payments that WHO probably would not have approved as part of a legal agreement to oversee Global Fund expenditures from its Geneva staff. Those items included lump-sum payments of $5,000 to seven fund managers described only as back pay and about 30 payments to help staff members find homes.

The findings of both the inspector general and WHO reports have not been previously reported.

For years, Feachem has cut a dashing and authoritative figure on the international circuit of public health summits and high-level meetings. He has been dean of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, director of the World Bank's health programs, and founder of the Institute for Global Health at the University of California-San Francisco.

He is known for his eloquence and his relationships with rock stars and royalty, many of whom have been key supporters of the Global Fund. Colleagues describe him as a proud and an exacting figure, and note that he paid close attention to the terms of his compensation. His first contract with the Global Fund took months to negotiate, as did his terms of departure, which is expected next month.

He has earned roughly $320,000 a year *tax-free*, including a housing subsidy of more than $70,000 -- modest for a corporate CEO package, but unprecedented in public health. UNAIDS director Peter Piot , by contrast, earns $230,000 and receives no housing subsidy; US global AIDS Ambassador Mark Dybul earns roughly $145,000 in taxable income and also receives no housing subsidy.

The inspector general's report suggested that Feachem's heavy spending was shared by other managers. "Senior management failed to convey and reinforce the need for careful and prudent use of donor funds," the report said.

...

[emphases mine]

Bill Weintraub:

Do you get the picture?

BIG BUCKS, guys.

Which is what Dr Feachem likes.

"he paid close attention to the terms of his compensation. His first contract with the Global Fund took months to negotiate, as did his terms of departure, which is expected next month."

"He has earned roughly $320,000 a year *tax-free*, including a housing subsidy of more than $70,000 -- modest for a corporate CEO package, but unprecedented in public health"

"TAX-FREE"

"UNPRECEDENTED IN PUBLIC HEALTH"

And on top of that, there have been hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on LUXURIES.

Like LIMOUSINES.

Why does a public health officer need a limousine?

What's wrong with a cab?

Or the subway?

Let's get real.

AIDS at present is an affliction of some of the poorest people on this earth.

A thousand dollars goes a long way among such people.

Yet an internal inspector found HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars WASTED on limousines and fancy meals.

Dr Feachem's behavior is SCANDALOUS.

While some skank at the Global Fund insists that "we have nothing to hide."

And no sense of shame either.

It's outrageous.

And I ask you to consider those figures when I'm out here BEGGING for $10 a month from the handful of you that might actually part with some spare change.

Really.

Think about it.

Because those limousines and expense account meals are used to IMPRESS folks who will then further the AIDS Inc / ANAL Inc agenda which is analist and gender feminist.

That's what it is, that's what it's about.

AIDS has become a huge and very succulent gravy train for these people.

Now:

When you've got an AIDS establishment which is in denial about how HIV is spread and doesn't care to look at the difference between what constitutes a legitimate public health concern and what is actually politics -- other people have to step in to try to rein in the epidemic and protect the public.

And that's what's been happening on a variety of fronts.

For the moment, and given that this is a long post, let's look just briefly at the criminal justice system.

Over the last month or so, in three countries, Denmark, Canada, and the UK -- none of them religious or cultural right -- prosecutors have successfully gone after people who knowingly spread HIV.

In Denmark,

An HIV-positive Danish man was jailed for two and a half years for exposing his male partners to the AIDS virus, infecting at least two of them, a Copenhagen court said.

Judge Thomas Lohse ruled the 23-year-old man was aware of the risks he exposed the three Danish men to whom he had sex with between 2000 and 2005.

Two of his partners, who were unaware that he was HIV-positive, contracted the virus, the court said.

The third man was also found to be carrying the virus, but could have contracted it elsewhere, the court found.

Then there were two cases of heterosexual transmission which were succesfully prosecuted.

In Canada,

Canadian with HIV found guilty of assault for not warning lovers

Feb 8, 2007

OTTAWA (AFP) - A former linebacker in the Canadian Football League who is HIV-positive was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault for having unprotected sex with two unwitting women.

Trevis Smith, 30, was accused of not telling the women that he carried the virus that causes AIDS and of lying to one of them who even pressed him about persistent rumors of his malady.

Smith denied the allegations, saying both women were jilted lovers.

But Saskatchewan Provincial Court Judge Ken Bellerose chose to believe his accusers and a nurse who testified Smith told her the two women were kept in the dark about his condition.

"He was found guilty on both counts," a court clerk told AFP.

One of the women testified she had a relationship with Smith over a three-year period, and did not use a condom during sex on numerous occasions after November 2003, when Smith tested positive for HIV.

The other woman said she had a casual sexual relationship in 2000 which was rekindled in 2005. They had unprotected sex on three occasions since.

Sentencing in the case is expected on February 26. Smith faces possible life in prison, the provincial court clerk said.

Neither of the women has tested positive for HIV, said reports.

And in Scotland, which is part of the UK,

Italian convicted of infecting British girlfriend with HIV

Feb 7, 2007

LONDON (AFP) - An Italian chef was found guilty in Scotland of deliberately infecting his girlfriend with the HIV virus.

Giovanni Mola, 38, "aggressively" refused to wear a condom during sex with a woman, who was a virgin before the relationship started, the High Court in Glasgow heard.

"I feel like it's murder. I know it's a bit extreme, but I'm waiting to die," the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told the court.

Mola was convicted of culpably and recklessly failing to tell the woman that he carried the infection and endangering her life and health between September 2003 and February 2004.

Judge Lord Patrick Hodge told Mola, who claimed to have had 200 lovers, that the indifference he had shown to his victim had been "deeply disturbing".

"While you've been struck by tragedy in acquiring HIV and hepatitis C from a former girlfriend, it's deeply disturbing that you should have been prepared to show such indifference to the health and welfare of Miss X," he said.

Mola, who lived in Edinburgh, had insisted throughout his trial that he had always worn a condom for sex during his five-month relationship with the woman.

After being arrested over the offences, he went on the run back to Italy before being extradited last summer to face trial.

He originally came to Scotland in 1999 to flee unspecified charges in his homeland.

He will be sentenced on March 7.

[In a previous article there was testimony cited that this guy had claimed to have slept with 200 women.]

So in three countries, prosecutors are attempting to stem the tide of new HIV infections by holding people who are positive or who, as we've seen, may have reason to believe that they're positive, to ordinary standards of criminal guilt and civil negligence.

What's the response of AIDS Inc and of the UK "AIDS activists"?

They protest.

We first looked at this in the message thread titled Brit buttboy guilty of infecting boyfriend; UK "HIV activists" protest

That was in April 2006, and the response of the AIDS establishment hasn't changed.

This is an article written in response to the case in Scotland by the head of a Scottish AIDS Service Organization:

HIV awareness important to us all

David Johnson, director of Waverley Care, which supports people in Scotland living with HIV, says we must all learn lessons following the case of Giovanni Mola and Miss X.

A 38-year-old man has been convicted of knowingly infecting a former partner with HIV.

David Johnson says we all have a responsibility to look after ourselves

The case of Mr Mola potentially gives rise to a number of important issues for all people living with HIV.

Waverley Care works with more than 300 people annually living with HIV and one of the biggest challenges for them is public stigma and discrimination.

Taking people to court to investigate their sex lives does not feel a useful way to deal with such a sensitive public health issue and compounds the prejudices surrounding the illness.

People rightly ask why HIV is singled out for this kind of action.

For people living with HIV, disclosing their status is never an easy undertaking.

The case clearly demonstrates the impact of an HIV diagnosis on many people - confusion, despair and possible denial.

How easy is it then for people to seek basic human needs for comfort, affection and relationships? From my experience it is not at all easy.

People can feel that the only thing that defines them is their HIV status and the rest of their humanity is denied.

Certainly most people living with HIV feel that the onus is on them to protect not only themselves but also their sexual partners. And most people do just that.

However, that does not absolve the rest of society from taking a similarly responsible approach to safer sexual practices.

We all have a moral responsibility to look after ourselves as well as others.

Anonymous testing

Every time a case such as this comes to court there is a danger that the principle of shared responsibility in sexual relationships is undermined as the focus is almost entirely on the person living with HIV.

...

We are long overdue a renewed public health campaign reminding people that HIV has not gone away, there is still no cure and we all have a responsibility to protect

The danger exemplified by some of the statements made in this and similar cases is that we may well be moving to a situation where even the wearing of a condom is not seen as sufficient evidence of the intent to take safety measures.

...

[emphases mine]

I can only take so much of this guy's prose.

However, the operative phrase is this one:

"the principle of shared responsibility in sexual relationships"

Which inevitably leads to what President Museveni rightly called a culture of mistrust.

Mr Johnson is saying that people who are HIV positive should have no legal responsibility not to spread the disease.

Why?

He says they're being "singled out."

No they're not.

In our society, if you knowingly and callously cause someone harm which you could have easily prevented -- you're held legally responsible.

This is not complicated.

In point of fact, people infected with HIV have been singled out -- for years, they've been given preferential treatment on the question of culpability for spreading the virus.

It's only now, when condom campaign after condom campaign has failed, and the courts can see that the public is no longer inflamed around the issue of HIV, that the courts are stepping in to prevent even more infection.

Mr Johnson also says this:

we may well be moving to a situation where even the wearing of a condom is not seen as sufficient evidence of the intent to take safety measures.

We can only hope.

Given what's known about condom failure rates, we could indeed argue that "the wearing of a condom" is not "sufficient evidence of the intent to take safety measures."

Sex is not a right, nor is it a necessity of life.

If you're infected with HIV, you shouldn't be having sex with anyone who

1. doesn't know you're infected; and

2. isn't willing to risk being infected.

Fact is, if people like Mr Johnson and Dr Feach and Ms Power were doing their jobs -- and focusing on the ACTUAL BEHAVIORS WHICH SPREAD HIV -- the courts wouldn't have to get involved.

Because HIV infection rates would be declining.

But when you've got people who are infecting multiple partners, and the response of the AIDS establishment is to tell everyone that it's the partners' fault -- it's not unreasonable of the courts to say -- NO.

It's the fault of the person who ejaculates in your rectum or vagina, knowing full well that he's got HIV.

It's HIS fault.

The idea that there should be NO TRUST in intimate relationships -- is NUTS.

It's crazy.

The courts and society in general would be remiss if they didn't demand a culture of trust, and support a level of trust between people in relationships.

Beyond that, it's all blaming the victim.

Think about it.

If a woman goes to sleep with her bedroom window open, and a man climbs in that window and rapes her -- should we blame the woman?

No.

She has a right to security and safety in our own home.

Men who know they have HIV and infect sexual partners must be held responsible.

And in a very real sense, that's what DR CHIN -- to come back to him -- is saying.

That you can't let political correctness get in the way of disease control.

It makes no sense after all to promote gay rights over the dead bodies of US and UK gay men.

Or gender equality over the dead bodies of African women.

Fact is -- and it's risible -- the same people who are demanding that we focus on gender inequity and violence against women in Africa and Asia -- are blaming Miss X -- the Scottish victim -- for not insisting that her boyfriend wear a condom.

And that sort of inconsistency is actually the norm among "AIDS activists."

For example, we're constantly told that poverty causes AIDS.

Unless the AIDS is occuring among wealthy first-world gay men.

Then homophobia causes AIDS.

Or stigma.

Or something.

And it goes on and on.

A third-world woman whose boyfriend refused to wear a condom would be considered a victim of sexism -- and colonialism -- and probably patriarchy too.

While the Scottish Miss X is effectively told by Mr Johnson that it's her fault for not demanding that Mr Mola use a condom.

Which is it?

FACT:

Dr Chin has written a reasonable and responsible book.

And we would do well to look at those who *don't* like his message.

Because they're the people who, in the name of preventing AIDS, are making sure that the epidemic will be forever with us.

Bill Weintraub

PS When I say DONATE -- I mean it.

How many articles do I have to post about AIDS agencies spending hundreds of thousands of dollars not on client services and prevention campaigns, but on LUXURY HOTELS AND LIMOUSINES -- for you to get the message?

These people have money to burn.

We're barely alive.

The way you hold on to your pennies, we don't have a chance against these people -- and it's YOUR FAULT.

It sure as hell isn't mine.

DONATE.

FIGHT BACK.

Bill Weintraub

© All material Copyright 2007 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Greg Milliken

Re: Dr Chin gets some ink; AIDS honcho gets called on his expense account; barebackers get some prison time; UK activists protest

2-15-2007

The US government has contributed $1.9 billion so far, and the US House of Representatives approved an additional $724 million last week. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private donor, pledging $650 million.

So the government is spending YOUR money on this tripe, and you guys won't do the one thing you can to stop it:

Donate.

If Bill's message gets out and reaches more people, the work of people like Dr. Green and Dr. Chin will gain support from a group that can actually promote their message.

And maybe the Congress will stop wasting YOUR money on more of the same that's been tried and doesn't work.

$724 million.

How much do you pay in taxes each year?

$10,000?

$100,000?

Whatever it is, you know where it's going.

It's being wasted on a check that's being cut to some big bureaucrat so he can ride around in a fancy limousine and tell people about how condoms are so wonderful.

You lose $10,000 or more on this deal every year.

But you won't donate $10 a month to put an end to it.

$120 a year.

$10,000 or $120.

I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure most of you would rather pay the $120 and put an end to this government-subsidized garbage.

So donate, and save yourself some money.