Ending World Poverty by 2015: What's the Score

SO it's a little league (the UN) vs the New York Yankees (every sovereign state and global conglomerate).... I'd say the Yankees are having an easy time with their perfect game. It's somewhere in the 7th or 8th inning and none of these initiatives have been close to getting to first base.

So the score is ... what 0 - 16 in favor of the Yankees.

(This coming from a Boston Red Sox fan and true hater of the NY Yankees).

The UN has no power to enforce its UN Declaration of Human Rights and it has no budget to enforce these programs. Why do they even try to sound so optimistic when they can never accomplish anything of value?

I think you're touching on some important points:
Is the UN relevant?
Should the significant players: North America, China, EU, India, or Japan concern themselves with the UN? Or maybe more significantly fear handing their respective citizenship to the UN, as some do.
Will the End Hunger by 2015 campaign prove to the world that the UN is useless?

What should be included is population decrease as population increase brings in war, disease, poverty and famine (the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalype)

That's a smoking gun that no one in politics will ever touch. It's a necessary part of the equation and probably one of the best solutions to the collective world's problems. Yet it's realization into global and cultural policy will likely never be accepted let alone properly debated.

So my father-in-law is a MRSA carrier. If one researches MRSA they'll find that it is a disease resistant to all known antibiotics, and typically contracted in hospitals. (My father-in-law is 92 and often in the hospital at this time.)

Doesn't it always seem that no matter what man does to prevent death, death always comes back with a new way of killing?

I believe that at the core of man is pride. I believe that many believe that they, or man, have the ability to defeat death, and maybe some go so far to believe they can create life.

There are a lot of people who would like to prove that Nature is controllable.

As always I just watch, because in time all things are tested and proved as to their validity.

Does it not reflect on the hospitals doing a poor cleaning job? A sloppy cleaning job leaves traces of diluted anti-biotics upon which bacteria can grow resistance as they split their cells every two seconds thus in a day several generations of bacteria have grown and if this sloppy cleaning has been going on for years the bacteria would be super-resistant. India has super resistant bugs in their hospitals indicating their hospitals cleaning staff were either not provided with adequate cleaning equipment or they were sloppy.

I would guess that it is impossible to be clean enough. And maybe, as some suppose, we're too clean, because, they say, our bodies have over zealously histamines reactions when presented with mild environmental stimulus. But even if we cleaned better I assert that it would not be good enough to protect us from disease and dying.

It is my opinion that man has an over inflated ego. Many suppose that we may destroy ourselves and our world. I think this is a prideful position and fails to acknowledge that nature supersedes us. Of course we're bound to eradicate some species as we muck about this planet, but many of these species weren't that successful, not like the cat or dog that is successful by virtue of its cuteness and companion ship. Humans believe they can control rats, cats, dogs, cockroaches, bacterium, lice, mice, wolves, salmon, kudzu, dandelions, grass, and on and on. The control is an illusion.

I know of people who've worked in field hospitals, and in places where there was no sanitation. If faced with loosing a leg to gangrene or dying many patients will choose the operation even if the hospital has to use washed bandages, has dim to no lighting, and there are flies everywhere. The one person that I'm thinking of worked in Pakistan for 25 years in such conditions.

One person I know gave up his job to become a homeless person in America, starting in Florida, moving to Washington, and then to Alaska. He told me he never got sick.

Because of incidents like these I'm inclined to not believe cleanliness and sickness are strictly inversely proportional. A healthy immune system must have some factor in the equation, and immunities are acquired through disease.

Florence Nightingale became famous for identifying that hospitals in battle zone areas were filthy and most of the soldiers died not from the war but from wounds not properly treated and the unsanitary conditions.
Personal hygiene is a separate matter. Being cheap by having untrained personnel in the cleaning staff or not providing the proper equipment and not carrying out thorough cleaning has consequences.

Florence Nightingale's environmental theory:
Pure or fresh air
Pure water
Sufficient food supplies
Efficient drainage
Cleanliness
Light (especially direct sunlight)
Any deficiency in one or more of these factors could lead to impaired functioning of life processes or diminished health status.

I'd be inclined to value each of these as good health practices. My only concern is what HMO's would charge me for them.

You are talking about personal hygiene whereas I am referring to hospital improper practice.