The African Baby Boom and Bush’s Abstinence Programs

World • Views: 3,872

The religious right’s pernicious influence in Africa isn’t limited to Uganda’s persecution of homosexuals; the Bush administration’s much-praised anti-AIDS program had a decidedly less altruistic side.

SIRAKANO, Uganda — At age 45, after giving birth to 13 children in her village of thatch roofs and bare feet, Beatrice Adongo made a discovery that startled her: birth control.

“I delivered all these children because I didn’t know there was another way,” said Adongo, who started on a free quarterly contraceptive injection last year. Surrounded by her weary-faced brood, her 21-month-old boy clutching at her faded blue dress, she added glumly: “I fear we are already too many in this family.”

On a continent where fewer than one in five married women use modern contraception, an explosion of unplanned pregnancies is threatening to bury Adongo’s family and a generation of Africans under a mountain of poverty. Promoting birth control in Africa faces a host of obstacles — patriarchal customs, religious taboos, ill-equipped public health systems — but experts also blame a powerful, more distant force: the U.S. government.

Under President George W. Bush , the United States withdrew from its decades-long role as a global leader in supporting family planning, driven by a conservative ideology that favored abstinence and shied away from providing contraceptive devices in developing countries, even to married women.

Bush’s mammoth global anti-AIDS initiative, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, poured billions of dollars into Africa but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

The restrictions flew in the face of research by international aid agencies, the U.N. World Health Organization and the U.S. government’s own experts, all of whom touted contraception as a crucial method of preventing births of babies being infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

The Bush program is widely hailed as a success, having supplied lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to more than 2 million HIV patients worldwide.

However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa’s epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world’s poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility.

“It was a huge missed opportunity to integrate HIV/AIDS and reproductive health in ways that made sense,” said Jotham Musinguzi, a Ugandan physician who heads the Africa office of Partners in Population and Development, an intergovernmental group that promotes sexual health in developing countries.

Jump to bottom

619 comments
1 Lateralis  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:15:18pm

So was the AIDS epidemic in Africa prior to Bush also Clinton's fault?

2 Obdicut  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:15:36pm

It's so sad when more children aren't a blessing, but a problem.

3 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:15:42pm

This makes my blood boil. Women as incubators.

4 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:16:39pm

First comment is a tu quoque. Gotta love that.

Tu quoque has become the standard response.

5 Jaerik  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:16:53pm

I've always wondered why pre-marital sex is a sin, but pre-marital/unplanned pregnancy is a precious blessing from God.

6 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:18:42pm

re: #5 Jaerik

I've always wondered why pre-marital sex is a sin, but pre-marital/unplanned pregnancy is a precious blessing from God.

It's all about the baybeeez... until they're born.

7 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:19:12pm
However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa’s epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world’s poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility.

Um- women all over the world are having their ability to control their own fertility undermined- not just in Africa.

8 The Left  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:19:22pm

re: #5 Jaerik

I've always wondered why pre-marital sex is a sin, but pre-marital/unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and death in childbirth is a precious blessing from God. God's punishment for having premarital/adulterous homosexual sex.

Fixed for wingnut consumption.

9 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:20:03pm

I remember when this went down. There was a little hollering from the left about the lack of birth control in the aid package, but not enough to change it obviously.

As with many things, we take for granted what others don't even know.

10 Lateralis  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:20:44pm

re: #4 Charles

I am not trying to discredit your argument but seriously with the continuous Bush bashing. I am sure there were negatives and positives about his policies that addressed the AIDS situation in Africa. I amy be wrong but I do recall he threw a considerable amount of money at it.

11 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:20:59pm

Another tragedy from the Sound-Bite culture.

"BABIES GOOD!", "Well these women are in some of the poorest countri--","BABIES GOOD!"

12 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:22:06pm
The Bush program is widely hailed as a success, having supplied lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to more than 2 million HIV patients worldwide.

However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa’s epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world’s poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility.

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

13 The Left  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:22:38pm

re: #11 McSpiff

Another tragedy from the Sound-Bite culture.

"BABIES GOOD!", "Well these women are in some of the poorest countri--","BABIES GOOD!"

More like "Fetuses Good-- Children, Feh".
(And "Women, Fuhgettabouit".)

14 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:24:15pm

re: #12 cliffster

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

Whats wrong with reviewing a program to see what was done right, and what wasn't, so we can improve it in the future?

15 Jaerik  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:24:21pm

re: #12 cliffster

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

No one (not the article itself nor Charles) said "US is bad."

More like "US has a tendency to add ideological strings to its help that have unintended consequences." Which is true. Doesn't mean the consequences outweigh the good, but being anything more than a talking soundbite dispenser for either side means being able to hold both realities in your head simultaneously.

16 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:25:13pm

re: #12 cliffster

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

You should try to look at the whole picture -- yes, the Bush administration contributed billions of dollars to African countries for AIDS medication.

But they tied this money to a prohibition on birth control, with an ill-advised "abstinence" program that came straight from the religious far right.

17 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:25:28pm

re: #12 cliffster

US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

Do you understand AIDS treatments? They require a considerable amount of knowledge and understanding to use effectively. Things like taking them at certain, precise times of day - many of the sufferers in African don't have watches. The only thing that might have some success is to prevent the spread of disease, like through condom use, that the Bush administration forbid.

18 jaunte  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:25:40pm

re: #10 Lateralis

I am not trying to discredit your argument but seriously with the continuous Bush bashing. I am sure there were negatives and positives about his policies that addressed the AIDS situation in Africa. I amy be wrong but I do recall he threw a considerable amount of money at it.

The point is that he threw a considerable amount of money at only part of the problem, in order to placate social conservatives, and it turns out to have had unconsidered negative side effects.

19 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:25:57pm

re: #12 cliffster

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

Concur. That article is a Bush-bash.

20 simoom  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:26:24pm

re: #4 Charles

In case you miss it in the old thread, I think I found out what the problem with my regex was and fixed it. PHP doesn't seem to like variable length negative lookbehinds, but seems ok with variable length negative lookaheads. So I switched it to the latter and tested it on that PHP regex site.

Here's the post:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

21 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:26:33pm

re: #14 McSpiff

Whats wrong with reviewing a program to see what was done right, and what wasn't, so we can improve it in the future?

I think Cliffster's point may have been America is damned if we do and damned if we don't.

22 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:27:37pm

I specifically remember the debate about the aid to Africa. It was ridiculous to exempt family planning from the package, then and now.

23 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:28:00pm

re: #21 Sharmuta

I think Cliffster's point may have been America is damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I don't think this has anything to do with America. I've seen the exact same criticisms leveled at the Catholic Church for the exact same reasons. Bad policy is just that, bad policy.

24 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:28:23pm

And safe sex education - forgot that.

25 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:28:33pm

re: #15 Jaerik

re: #16 Charles

Prohibition on birth control? People receiving treatment for AIDS had to agree not to use birth control?

26 kingkenrod  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:28:51pm

re: #17 allegro

Do you understand AIDS treatments? They require a considerable amount of knowledge and understanding to use effectively. Things like taking them at certain, precise times of day - many of the sufferers in African don't have watches. The only thing that might have some success is to prevent the spread of disease, like through condom use, that the Bush administration forbid.

According to this report, 7.4% of PEPFAR's budget was spent on abstinence programs.

They used the ABC method, which is "Abstain, Be Faithful, correct and consistent use of Condoms."

PEPFAR provided 2.2 billion condoms.

[Link: www.pepfar.gov...]

27 The Left  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:29:11pm

re: #12 cliffster

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

No one said "US is bad".

The facts are these: Bush did more than any other president about AIDS in Africa, and he saved literally a million lives-- but the assistance the US gave came with a mighty big condition: no talk of condoms or money to clinics that provided family planning.

Think how many more lives would have been saved if they could have talked about condoms-- but the Bush admin had to pander to the religious right.
result? The left doesn't give Bush the credit for the work he did; the right never did want to talk about it because it would freak out all the wingnuts, and finally--- the work the US did do was radically hampered by the influence of the American religious right and the need to coddle it.

28 avanti  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:29:40pm

Bush's plan seemed to come from misguided compassion. The aids program was worthy of praise, but the banning of contraceptive information was based on his personal faith, and not logic.

29 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:29:46pm

re: #23 McSpiff

I don't think this has anything to do with America.

Except Cliffster's comment was about the US being bad, so... it IS about America in this case.

Whatever- I'll let Cliffster speak for himself, but I agree it seems the US is always the bad guy whether we help or not- we can never win with our critics.

30 What, me worry?  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:30:56pm

re: #7 Sharmuta

Um- women all over the world are having their ability to control their own fertility undermined- not just in Africa.

Yes, but it's more acute in these desperately poor countries.

Oddly enough, condoms are the best ways to fight AIDS (and a lot cheaper) AND unwanted pregnancies. You'd think it was a win-win.

31 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:30:56pm

There's an old saying in the ag industry:

If you can't feed it, don't breed it.

Really, it's no different for people. Really.

No matter how much a blessing the religious types want to paint children to be, unwanted pregnancies are a burden to the mother, the family, the child itself, and everyone else that gets stuck supporting these little blessings. Finite resources vs. infinite little blessings.

"It's a uterus, lady, not a clown car."

I don't understand why religious types can't seem to fathom birth control. Humping does not necessarily need to lead to children. Pregnancy is a biological function - I don't believe there's anything divine about it. Planning pregnancy (and thumbs) is what separates us from the animals humping at will, perpetually pregnant, and filling the shelters with their doomed 'little blessings'.

32 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:30:58pm

re: #29 Sharmuta

Yes.

33 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:31:06pm

re: #26 kingkenrod

According to this report, 7.4% of PEPFAR's budget was spent on abstinence programs.

They used the ABC method, which is "Abstain, Be Faithful, correct and consistent use of Condoms."

PEPFAR provided 2.2 billion condoms.

[Link: www.pepfar.gov...]

Please note: the accurate quote from that page is:

U.S. Government has supplied more than 2.2 billion condoms worldwide from 2004 to 2008.

34 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:31:06pm

re: #25 cliffster

re: #16 Charles

Prohibition on birth control? People receiving treatment for AIDS had to agree not to use birth control?

Controversial requirements

Some critics of PEPFAR feel that American political and social groups with moral rather than public health agendas are behind several requirements of PEPFAR, pointing to the mandates that one-third of prevention spending in 2006–2008 be directed towards abstinence-until-marriage programs and that all funded organizations sign an anti-prostitution pledge. PEPFAR also does not fund needle exchange programs, which are widely regarded as effective in preventing the spread of HIV. The requirement for prevention spending was lifted with the PEPFAR reauthorization in 2008, but some critics worry that some funds could still be spent on abstinence programs. The Center for Health and Gender Equity and Health GAP outline their criticism of PEPFAR on a website known as PEPFAR Watch.

35 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:32:01pm

re: #30 marjoriemoon

Yes, but it's more acute in these desperately poor countries.

Oddly enough, condoms are the best ways to fight AIDS (and a lot cheaper) AND unwanted pregnancies. You'd think it was a win-win.

My understanding with condoms in Africa is they are not very effective because the men don't want to wear them.

36 Killgore Trout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:32:26pm

re: #10 Lateralis

I amy be wrong but I do recall he threw a considerable amount of money at it.


He did, and I give him credit for that but his spiritual beliefs prevented him for using the money wisely. The Catholic church also puts a lot of effort and money into Africa but sadly their religious beliefs hinder them from actually helping the people.

37 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:32:26pm

re: #16 Charles

You should try to look at the whole picture -- yes, the Bush administration contributed billions of dollars to African countries for AIDS medication.

But they tied this money to a prohibition on birth control, with an ill-advised "abstinence" program that came straight from the religious far right.

Telling people not to fuck is like telling dogs not to sniff each other's butts. Abstinence only works if you're married to the Quaker Oat guy.

By the way, Bush 43 promised 15 billion dollars in aid to Africa for AIDS, but only delivered about 2 billion of that over three years...it wasn't until he was called on that shortfall publicly that he started putting more money into Africa--via abstinence programs by mostly US "religious" organizations.

Imagine the amount of birth control and AIDS prevention 1/2 billion in condoms would have done (at about 3 or 4 cents per rubber).

38 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:32:36pm

re: #28 avanti

Bush's plan seemed to come from misguided compassion. The aids program was worthy of praise, but the banning of contraceptive information was based on his personal faith, and not logic.

Not just his personal faith -- the influence of the religious far right, which was everywhere in the Bush administration, and also had a very big negative effect on scientific research.

39 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:33:03pm

Didn't see this mention in the story.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

40 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:34:42pm

re: #28 avanti

Bush's plan seemed to come from misguided compassion. The aids program was worthy of praise, but the banning of contraceptive information was based on his personal faith, and not logic.

Personal faith should NEVER be a part of political, ethical, or environmental decisions. God is great for psersonal fulfillment and setting personal goals. But he/she should never be used for setting domestic/international policy. That's how we get shit like the Taliban.

41 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:35:16pm

re: #39 Cannadian Club Akbar

Didn't see this mention in the story.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Powerful stuff- thank you for posting it.

42 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:35:38pm

There's one thing you can say to the US. "Thank you for the billions of dollars you gave us to help people with AIDS."

43 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:36:11pm

I don't think that only the "religious right" disapproved of birth-control programs. If the U.S. sent massive amounts of contraceptives to Africa to be used by poor Black people, there would be the usual screams of "racism" and "genocide"

44 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:36:25pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

My understanding with condoms in Africa is they are not very effective because the men don't want to wear them.

But they will agree to just not have sex. Right. Seriously, this program had more than enough criticism from within the US to label those who rejected its obviously flawed premise and who saw it clearly for what it was, pandering to the religious right as critics of America is simply an ad hominem attack.

45 What, me worry?  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:37:17pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

My understanding with condoms in Africa is they are not very effective because the men don't want to wear them.

Right, but that's where the education comes in. Preventing the disease is a lot easier than having to go back and treat it, especially in these countries where access to clinics is limited and the meds are very costly.

46 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:37:29pm

re: #39 Cannadian Club Akbar

Didn't see this mention in the story.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Rape is an HIV risk factor for tens of millions of African women and children. It requires something more than condoms, education or "empowerment." Functioning judicial systems are the next frontier in confronting the pandemic and preventing its spread. The 24,000 activists, government officials and donors meeting this week at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto should commit the funding, ideas, technical support and personnel needed to make it a reality.

Again- thanks for a powerful read.

47 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:37:34pm

re: #42 cliffster

There's one thing you can say to the US. "Thank you for the billions of dollars you gave us to help people with AIDS."

re: #43 Alouette

I don't think that only the "religious right" disapproved of birth-control programs. If the U.S. sent massive amounts of contraceptives to Africa to be used by poor Black people, there would be the usual screams of "racism" and "genocide"

Quite Concur.

48 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:38:17pm

re: #44 McSpiff

But they will agree to just not have sex. Right.

And I didn't say that, did I?

49 What, me worry?  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:38:42pm

re: #40 darthstar

Personal faith should NEVER be a part of political, ethical, or environmental decisions. God is great for psersonal fulfillment and setting personal goals. But he/she should never be used for setting domestic/international policy. That's how we get shit like the Taliban.

Well there's Israel heh, run on Jewish law, but it's also a democracy and no one is forced into religious practice.

50 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:39:48pm

I think education is the only way out of this.
How else do you deal with men & women who think the rape of a virgin will cure a disease?

51 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:39:54pm

re: #48 Sharmuta

Sorry if I misread your "theres issues with condoms in Africa" comment. Thought you were attempting to justify the abstinence only aspects of the program.

52 avanti  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:39:54pm

re: #38 Charles

Not just his personal faith -- the influence of the religious far right, which was everywhere in the Bush administration, and also had a very big negative effect on scientific research.

I thought about mentioning that, but the religious far right only had that kind influence because apparently Bush shared their beliefs. Personal faith is a wonderful, but private thing in my mind. When you start changing programs that could cost lives to fit a religious template, you have a problem.

53 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:40:03pm

Is providing birth control to Africans a specific American obligation?

54 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:40:45pm

re: #53 Bagua

Only if you want a successful anti-AIDS program.

55 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:41:04pm

re: #50 Floral Giraffe

I think education is the only way out of this.
How else do you deal with men & women who think the rape of a virgin will cure a disease?

I heard also, rape of a child. Was that just a myth, or is that really preached?

56 wee fury  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:41:08pm

re: #39 Cannadian Club Akbar

Didn't see this mention in the story.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Informative. Thank you.

57 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:41:15pm

At least the UN is an upstanding organization...
[Link: www.washingtontimes.com...]

58 Mich-again  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:42:18pm

re: #53 Bagua

Is providing birth control to Africans a specific American obligation?


Yes apparently.

59 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:42:22pm

re: #45 marjoriemoon

Right, but that's where the education comes in. Preventing the disease is a lot easier than having to go back and treat it, especially in these countries where access to clinics is limited and the meds are very costly.

Actually- I favor the feminist route in education and not only teaching these women about birth control, but we could stop female genital mutilation as well. I'm all about empowering the women of Africa so they can control their own lives and their own bodies.

However, I do find it rather fascinating that making a statement about the lack of condom use could be as misconstrued as it was.

60 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:42:57pm

re: #50 Floral Giraffe

I think education is the only way out of this.
How else do you deal with men & women who think the rape of a virgin will cure a disease?

Hell, some of them think albino body parts have magical powers.

61 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:43:50pm

re: #54 McSpiff

Only if you want a successful anti-AIDS program.

How so? You mean it is wrong to supply AIDS medicine without also providing birth control?

62 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:43:58pm

re: #50 Floral Giraffe

I think education is the only way out of this.
How else do you deal with men & women who think the rape of a virgin will cure a disease?

Your statement is true, but I couldn't find a link.

63 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:44:15pm

re: #59 Sharmuta

Actually- I favor the feminist route in education and not only teaching these women about birth control, but we could stop female genital mutilation as well. I'm all about empowering the women of Africa so they can control their own lives and their own bodies.

However, I do find it rather fascinating that making a statement about the lack of condom use could be as misconstrued as it was.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Islam far more prevalent in Africa than Christianity?

64 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:44:37pm

re: #51 McSpiff

Sorry if I misread your "theres issues with condoms in Africa" comment. Thought you were attempting to justify the abstinence only aspects of the program.

I believe it was a statement of fact, unless you have a link that shows men in Africa embracing condom use...? That statement would seem to back up the need for African women to be the ones in control of contraception, not the men.

65 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:44:41pm

re: #57 Cannadian Club Akbar

At least the UN is an upstanding organization...
[Link: www.washingtontimes.com...]

Could someone explain why anyone wouldn't view this organization as anything but corrupt.

66 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:44:42pm

The real point: yes, it was not an entirely bad thing that the Bush administration funded AIDS programs in Africa. However, by letting these programs be tied to religious right ideology and misguided "abstinence" programs that had absolutely no chance of working in the real world, they made a huge mistake that may end up making Africa's problems much worse.

67 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:44:47pm

re: #39 Cannadian Club Akbar

That is just stunning. What a terribly brutal way of life. Everyone who claims we have no right to impose western ways raise your hand... This is hardly above cannibalism.

68 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:44:56pm

re: #55 cliffster

I heard also, rape of a child. Was that just a myth, or is that really preached?

Rape of a virgin, child or otherwise, is what I have read.
So very, very sad.

69 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:47:33pm

Just to put a number on it, is there any way to estimate how many African babies could have been prevented had Bush, or anyone else, have funded the contraception in addition to the AIDS medication?

70 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:47:40pm

re: #61 Bagua

How so? You mean it is wrong to supply AIDS medicine without also providing birth control?

It's not right or wrong. It simply matters what the goal of your program is. If you simply want to treat AIDS victims then only supplying medicine is fine. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, you block the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is an STI. So you either convince people to not have sex, or you provide them with the tools to block the spread of HIV/AIDS.

71 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:47:44pm

re: #68 Floral Giraffe

Rape of a virgin, child or otherwise, is what I have read.
So very, very sad.

And I thought bloodletting, or cutting a hole in someone's head, were bad.

72 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:47:59pm

re: #67 Rightwingconspirator

That is just stunning. What a terribly brutal way of life. Everyone who claims we have no right to impose western ways raise your hand... This is hardly above cannibalism.

I don't think you'll find anyone opposed to stopping rape. The real question is how?

73 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:48:37pm

re: #63 Alouette

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Islam far more prevalent in Africa than Christianity?

I'm not sure what the continent-wide breakdown is. Regardless, both Christian and Muslim women in Africa (and all women in Africa) would do well with some feminist principles being adopted by them and their countries.

74 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:48:38pm

Bush better than Obama on Aids in Africa

Activists are expressing disappointment with President Barack Obama’s plans for the Aids treatment programme in Africa, charging that he has fallen short of the achievements of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

“President Obama has all but failed to fulfil his commitments to wage an aggressive battle against global Aids,” a coalition of Aids-focused groups declared last week, assigning him a grade of D+ for his performance to date.

Gregg Gonsalves, a leading US anti-Aids campaigner, warned an audience in New York last week, “I am about to say something shocking: I miss George W Bush.”

In many respects, Gonsalves continued, Bush was a terrible president, but “he was exceptional in one. The President’s Emergency Programme for Aids Relief (Pepfar), despite its flaws, saved millions of lives around the world.”

Obama, by contrast, is not providing the resources needed to sustain the rate of growth in the number of HIV-positive Africans who receive ant-viral treatments through Pepfar.

That trend prompted Dr Peter Mugyenyi, director of a Uganda Aids clinic, to express fear that “the carnage of Aids will once again surge and the obvious success we have seen of Pepfar may begin to be reversed.”

Since its inception in 2004, Pepfar has provided anti-viral treatments to nearly 2.5 million people with Aids.

The programme targets 15 poor countries, 12 of them in black Africa.

75 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:48:41pm

Touchdown, New York! Giants take the lead, 31-30.

76 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:49:20pm

re: #68 Floral Giraffe

Barbaric. It's part of the anti-science mindset practiced by the uneducated and superstitious. (And seriously freaky men that need little encouragement to rape a child or woman.)

77 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:49:56pm

re: #62 Cannadian Club Akbar

Look at #60's link on albinos.
I'll go look for the virgin linky.

78 Mich-again  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:50:15pm

re: #66 Charles

The real point: yes, it was not an entirely bad thing that the Bush administration funded AIDS programs in Africa. However, by letting these programs be tied to religious right ideology and misguided "abstinence" programs that had absolutely no chance of working in the real world, they made a huge mistake that may end up making Africa's problems much worse.

I don't get how the AIDS programs could have possibly made things "much worse" than doing nothing.

79 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:50:29pm

re: #64 Sharmuta

I believe it was a statement of fact, unless you have a link that shows men in Africa embracing condom use...? That statement would seem to back up the need for African women to be the ones in control of contraception, not the men.

Sorry, I'm just use to seeing arguments like

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has elaborated on the latter point: “In the case of the AIDS virus, which is around 450 times smaller than the sperm cell, the condom’s latex material obviously gives much less security... to talk of condoms as ‘safe sex’ is a form of Russian roulette.” Cardinal Trujillo called on ministries of health to require “a warning, that the condom is not safe” on packages distributed worldwide.

[Link: www.catholic.org...]

My normal reaction followed. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, pretty clear I was wrong.

80 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:50:37pm

I found this link to be illuminating.
Has Bush Been Africas Best Friend?
[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]
The abstinence program was a disaster.
With all concerns about abstinence and pro life polices in mind-I fear the alternative, no action at all would have been worse. Much so.

81 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:50:38pm

re: #68 Floral Giraffe

Rape of a virgin, child or otherwise, is what I have read.
So very, very sad.

[Link: www.avert.org...]

The virgin cleansing myth
The myth that sex with a virgin can cure sexually transmitted diseases has a long history in Europe and elsewhere. Since the emergence of the AIDS epidemic, there has been much concern that this belief might encourage the rape of children, especially in Africa where HIV is widespread. A number of horrific reports in the popular press have fuelled such anxiety.

A road sign in Zambia confronting the "virgin AIDS cure myth"
Belief in the virgin cleansing myth has been reported from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. There is no doubt that it has led to abuse of not only children but also the disabled (who are often assumed to be virgins).81 Nevertheless, the scale of the myth’s impact is disputed because it is not the only motivation behind child rape.82 83 In many cases the goal is more likely to be prevention than cure: men are seeking partners who are less likely to have HIV.

Thankfully efforts are being made to dispel the virgin cleansing myth around the world. But to effectively clamp down on child rape, such campaigns must be accompanied by changes to the cultural and legal environment that enables

82 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:50:59pm

re: #72 JasonA


I don't think you'll find anyone opposed to stopping rape. The real question is how?

Here ya go:

I Got Yer Rape Prevention Here

83 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:51:16pm

re: #81 Cannadian Club Akbar

I feel real nausea now.

84 What, me worry?  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:51:37pm

re: #64 Sharmuta

I believe it was a statement of fact, unless you have a link that shows men in Africa embracing condom use...? That statement would seem to back up the need for African women to be the ones in control of contraception, not the men.

Well yes, all woman should have control of their own reproductive systems, but that's two different conversations. I mean, contraception for women (pill, implants) is not an AIDS preventative. Condom does both. But I know where you're coming from.

85 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:51:57pm

re: #80 Rightwingconspirator

I let my mind wonder for a moment if Africa would've been better off without any help from us, but I can't come to that conclusion. It seems highly likely that our money could have been put to better uses, though.

86 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:52:27pm

re: #62 Cannadian Club Akbar

Here's a couple...
I don't know the sources, though...

[Link: www.truthorfiction.com...]

[Link: www.scienceinafrica.co.za...]

88 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:53:09pm

re: #78 Mich-again

I don't get how the AIDS programs could have possibly made things "much worse" than doing nothing.

Because it was Bush's, maybe if Cheney had initiated it they could blame him for actually developing AIDS.

89 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:53:11pm

re: #86 Floral Giraffe

See my #81.

90 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:53:22pm

re: #43 Alouette

I don't think that only the "religious right" disapproved of birth-control programs. If the U.S. sent massive amounts of contraceptives to Africa to be used by poor Black people, there would be the usual screams of "racism" and "genocide"

No. Projected possible accusations of racism mean absolutely nothing.

91 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:53:58pm

Interesting to note the rise in GDP in Kenya and Uganda.

[Link: www.google.com...]

92 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:54:11pm

re: #85 JasonA

I let my mind wonder for a moment if Africa would've been better off without any help from us, but I can't come to that conclusion. It seems highly likely that our money could have been put to better uses, though.

Exactly. No one will argue here that Bush's program didn't save lives (at least I hope they wont), but if we could save a hypothetical additional 25% at the same cost, wouldn't that be even better? What's the downside to doing that?

93 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:55:14pm

re: #76 theheat

Barbaric. It's part of the anti-science mindset practiced by the uneducated and superstitious. (And seriously freaky men that need little encouragement to rape a child or woman.)

It's shows itself in more ways than rape. This superstitious mindset has a lot of victims in Africa. I was reading of an African orphanage where children were brought when their parents thought they were witches, and abandoned! This runs deep and has many, many victims of all sorts of cruelty and pain. It's terrible, but until security and prosperity came to Africa, I doubt much of it will change.

One of the better things going for Africa is the love Her people have for Her- I worked with many Africans coming to school here, and many plan to go back to help improve their countries.

94 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:55:15pm

re: #76 theheat

Barbaric. It's part of the anti-science mindset practiced by the uneducated and superstitious. (And seriously freaky men that need little encouragement to rape a child or woman.)

That is EXACTLY why the cure is EDUCATION. The men aren't freaky, BTW, they just don't know any better, and have no access to science or medicine.

95 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:55:21pm

re: #72 JasonA

Well I'm no neocon looking to invade. I suppose it is really about societal uplift in a moral and human rights context. First making it easier to survive will help. Cut the starvation, try to buttress the failed nations with water and food and medicine. Give the kids time to learn to read. Embargo small arms and up.

96 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:55:28pm

re: #92 McSpiff

Hypothetical, isn't that what the current administration is doing with "jobs" numbers?

97 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:55:44pm

re: #92 McSpiff

Exactly. No one will argue here that Bush's program didn't save lives (at least I hope they wont), but if we could save a hypothetical additional 25% at the same cost, wouldn't that be even better? What's the downside to doing that?

Giving AIDS drugs to AIDS patients doesn't save lives?

98 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:56:30pm

re: #92 McSpiff

Exactly. No one will argue here that Bush's program didn't save lives (at least I hope they wont), but if we could save a hypothetical additional 25% at the same cost, wouldn't that be even better? What's the downside to doing that?

Actually, I feel like it is being argued that it's a net negative.

99 Mich-again  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:56:34pm

I think the real culprit in Africa is decades of humanitarian assistance from the USA that enabled unsustainable overpopulation. Why? Because, you always get more of whatever you subsidize. always.

And this is a bit from a story at the UN website..

“Occasionally,” Mr. Morris told the council, “I have thought the worst place for a hungry child to live in Africa today is a country that is at peace with its neighbours and relatively stable. Funding levels rise with the incidence of violence and media interest... In our view there are few phenomena in modern life as political as humanitarian aid.”
100 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:56:47pm

re: #92 McSpiff

My bad!!! Mis read. Sorry!!:(

101 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:57:07pm

re: #49 marjoriemoon

Well there's Israel heh, run on Jewish law, but it's also a democracy and no one is forced into religious practice.

Extremist Jews, extremist Christians and extremist Muslims are all equally problematic. It's the extremist Christians in the US who are trying to get creationism taught(also called "Intelligent Design"--aka dog crap), prayer in school, etc.

102 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:57:41pm

re: #74 NJDhockeyfan

Bush better than Obama on Aids in Africa

From the same link:

* Close to 300,000 Kenyans, 197,000 Tanzanians and 175,000 Ugandans were receiving anti-viral drugs as of September 30.
* The programme helps support care for 10 million Africans who have contracted Aids.
* Aids-related death rates in Kenya have dropped by 29 per cent since 2002, while the overall Aids mortality rate for sub-Saharan Africa has fallen 18 per cent since 2004.
* Over the past five years, an average of 500,000 people with Aids were added to the treatment roster each year
* By 2014, according to this new plan, about 4 million people worldwide will be receiving anti-viral drugs through Pepfar.
* The overall Aids mortality rate for sub-Saharan Africa has fallen 18 per cent since 2004
103 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:59:03pm

Aren't we lucky to have the time & energy to spend, discussing, on the previous thread, bottled water?

THINK ABOUT IT...

104 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:59:20pm
While global U.S. family planning funding flat-lined at roughly $430 million a year, PEPFAR's 2003 authorization of $15 billion for five years created "a giant sucking sound" as governments and relief agencies rushed to grab chunks of the new AIDS funds...

If I understand his correctly, the word "flatline" means there was no increase but that funding remained at $430 millions a year for global birth control? And Bush dramatically increased the AIDS spending, but did not increase the birth control?

McClatchy seems locked in its Bush Derangement Syndrome role.

105 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 7:59:40pm

re: #94 Floral Giraffe

Sorry, but I don't buy that a child or woman screaming and protesting being raped isn't enough of a deterrent to a man that just needs a little more education to know it's wrong.

106 golgoth  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:00:11pm

While it has been stated before, The Catholic church bears most of the responsibility for this issue.

What the US did do is unnecessary suffering on an already terrible situation, but the actions of Benedict XVI, and John Paul II and their decision to undercut condoms in their effective capacity that the Catholic church has in Africa and Latin America, is a mindless catastrophe.

The catholic church as I am still aware of it, is still not commenting on the Ugandan bill that would foist a genocide into reality.

107 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:00:12pm

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth".

108 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:00:56pm

re: #107 cliffster

"Never look a gift horse in the mouth".

Unless it is from George Bush.//

109 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:01:02pm

re: #95 Rightwingconspirator

Don't forget a functioning justice system. It needs to include serious consequences, not to mention some significant chance of the person being caught. Hell, even then all you need to do is watch an episode of To Catch a Predator to wonder just how well that works...

110 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:01:36pm

re: #84 marjoriemoon

Well yes, all woman should have control of their own reproductive systems, but that's two different conversations. I mean, contraception for women (pill, implants) is not an AIDS preventative. Condom does both. But I know where you're coming from.

I agree about the condoms, but if the men think it's an insult to their manhood to wear it, we're going to have both AIDS and pregnancy. I think the women will be more receptive to contraception, and education on that front will be easier than changing the mindset that condoms aren't an insult to the penis.

111 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:01:57pm

re: #105 theheat

Wow. Sorry to hear that.

112 swamprat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:02:00pm

re: #85 JasonA

I let my mind wonder for a moment if Africa would've been better off without any help from us, but I can't come to that conclusion. It seems highly likely that our money could have been put to better uses, though.

When Ethiopia was communist, they prevented the people affected by drought to go elsewhere, thus killing off excess population. Russia did similar feats. Russia and Ethiopia did not have Bush's ideologies.

Maybe ideologies are the problem.

113 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:02:56pm

re: #100 Cannadian Club Akbar

Seeing as I was already guilty of that in this thread, its all good.

re: #98 cliffster

Well, let me clearly and plainly state that I don't feel it was in any way. It's most likely the single most successful anti-AIDS effort to date. It was just painful to see Bush ignore advice from the experts, and ignore such a low cost item (condoms) while being the truly compassionate man he was, be more than willing to fund the more expensive (AIDS drugs).

I know in my heart Bush wanted to save as many as he possibly could. And he saved more than most, but not as many as he could have. I'm not angry or bitter at him or the United States. I'm thankful he did what he did. But if the US plans to continue funding the fight against AIDS, which I pray they do, then I'm also going to speak out and make sure that that money saves as many as it possibly can, politics be dammed.

114 golgoth  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:03:38pm

re: #102 NJDhockeyfan

In all seriousness, you are absolutely right. Obama should be doing more than Bush and offer more aid.

115 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:03:43pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

I agree about the condoms, but if the men think it's an insult to their manhood to wear it, we're going to have both AIDS and pregnancy. I think the women will be more receptive to contraception, and education on that front will be easier than changing the mindset that condoms aren't an insult to the penis.

Circumcision may prevent AIDS

Let's send an army of mohelim to Africa

116 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:04:50pm

re: #115 Alouette

Circumcision may prevent AIDS

Let's send an army of mohelim to Africa

I remember that because it was a thread at LGF!

117 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:05:20pm

Estimated GDP of African nations for 2009:

$1,184,891,000,000

Also see:

Africa GDP to grow 5.5-6 pct in 2010: AfDB

118 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:05:25pm

South Africa's new approach to AIDS will save countless lives

South African President Jacob Zuma's 180-degree revision of best practices for AIDS prevention gives fresh appreciation for the 1968 advertising phrase "You've come a long way, baby."

Zuma once claimed that taking a shower after sex prevented AIDS. This week, he announced government plans for earlier and expanded treatment for all HIV-positive babies.

The new policy represents a sea change in urban Africa's attitudes about AIDS that have been steeped in cultural fears and traditions, not to mention distrust of the medical intentions of outside influences. For instance, former President Thabo Mbeki's health minister mistrusted drugs and instead promoted garlic and beet treatments. A Harvard study concluded those policies led to more than 300,000 premature deaths.

The new changes are in line with guidelines from the World Health Organization that call for HIV-infected pregnant women to be given drugs earlier and continue with the treatment while breast-feeding. Survival rates should improve for the youngest citizens in South Africa, one of 12 countries where child mortality has worsened since 1990, in part due to AIDS.

Although HIV infects one in 10 South Africans, Zuma's change of heart can be credited to the improved health of HIV patients and decreased death rates linked to modern medical practices.

119 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:05:39pm

re: #114 golgoth

In all seriousness, you are absolutely right. Obama should be doing more than Bush and offer more aid.

Much like Bush was against birth control, Obama seems to be all about abortion rights and granting these women access to abortion will help with the overpopulation problem, but not the spread of AIDS.

120 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:06:02pm

I don't see why it should be controversial at all to provide Africans with the best possible means of birth control. This is a complete no-brainer, unless you're grinding an ideological religious axe.

121 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:15pm
122 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:25pm

re: #119 soxfan4life

Much like Bush was against birth control, Obama seems to be all about abortion rights and granting these women access to abortion will help with the overpopulation problem, but not the spread of AIDS.

You must provide a link for something like that. It's not true.

123 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:34pm

re: #119 soxfan4life

Obama seems to be all about abortion rights and granting these women access to abortion will help with the overpopulation problem, but not the spread of AIDS.

Link, please.

124 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:42pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

I agree about the condoms, but if the men think it's an insult to their manhood to wear it, we're going to have both AIDS and pregnancy. I think the women will be more receptive to contraception, and education on that front will be easier than changing the mindset that condoms aren't an insult to the penis.

I'd wear them if they just made one big enough for me. ;) ///*10^23

Seriously, the only men who are worried about wearing condoms are the assholes in congress who are too busy fucking their mistresses on C street without protection and pretending to be Christian models that make something as simple as teaching birth control and contraception sound like a problem. Fucking pricks.

125 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:43pm

re: #109 JasonA

So much of all this has to come from within. Obama has the mindful heart of it right, but the whole globe must step up as per AGW, terrorism etc.

Failed states are as much to blame as GWB, or the Catholic church. None of this would be necessary with basic governance. If South America can do it so can Africa. Honestly I think the crux is Failed States. not Bush. Not abstinence or abortion policy.

Failed states are the cancer of starvation, aids, terror, and tyranny.

126 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:07:46pm

re: #120 Charles

I don't see why it should be controversial at all to provide Africans with the best possible means of birth control. This is a complete no-brainer, unless you're grinding an ideological religious axe.

True, but it is a load the US shouldn't have to shoulder. At least not to the tune we are now, let every country share in the costs.

127 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:09:21pm

re: #126 soxfan4life

True, but it is a load the US shouldn't have to shoulder. At least not to the tune we are now, let every country share in the costs.

If the issue you have is cost, shouldn't you support the most cost affective program possible? Condoms are a hell of a lot cheaper than AIDS drugs.

128 Mocking Jay  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:09:26pm

re: #125 Rightwingconspirator

Can't disagree with a word you said there.

129 golgoth  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:09:40pm

re: #119 soxfan4life

Then he should be working on that too.

Seriously criticize Obama if he is making a mistake, so that he can improve.

130 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:09:54pm

re: #123 allegro

Link, please.

This is a link. I DIDN'T READ IT! From the Presidents website.

[Link: www.barackobama.com...]

131 laZardo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:10:01pm

More proof that conservatism has not been and will not be of any benefit to the United States and the world at large.

/also good morning.

132 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:11:09pm

re: #127 McSpiff

PIMF: effective. Hopefully Cato misses that one..

133 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:11:58pm

re: #70 McSpiff

It's not right or wrong. It simply matters what the goal of your program is. If you simply want to treat AIDS victims then only supplying medicine is fine. If you want to stop the spread of AIDS, you block the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is an STI. So you either convince people to not have sex, or you provide them with the tools to block the spread of HIV/AIDS.

From the results it looks like Bush's AIDS program has done a great deal to deliver medicine to those suffering and to reduce the infection rate. No doubt more can be done, but this looks like an attempt to find some sin of omission in one of the most altruistic acts by any American President in history.

All Americans should be proud of what George Bush and America has done to help ease the suffering in Africa.

We should also all support doing more, including providing more birth control and other food and medicine. And indeed the rest of the world should step up and lend a hand and perhaps even the Africans need to take some responsibility as well for their own lives. Though I'm not at all convinced that it is America's responsibility to provide unlimited condoms to all the men in Africa.

134 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:12:31pm

re: #124 darthstar

The Pope May Be Right

In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.

Why not?

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.

135 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:13:52pm

re: #130 Cannadian Club Akbar

This is a link. I DIDN'T READ IT! From the Presidents website.

I did read it. It has nothing to do with abortion that soxfan4life was speaking of.

136 What, me worry?  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:13:52pm

re: #110 Sharmuta

I agree about the condoms, but if the men think it's an insult to their manhood to wear it, we're going to have both AIDS and pregnancy. I think the women will be more receptive to contraception, and education on that front will be easier than changing the mindset that condoms aren't an insult to the penis.

LOL But if you're going to use condoms as an AIDS preventative, not just contraception, you pretty much have to convince the fellas to cover their little fellas.

I'm assuming ribbed-for-her-pleasure has little to do with this discussion.

137 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:13:57pm

All I know is this: I will not volunteer to put condoms on people in Africa or anywhere else, regardless if they are free. They can do it themselves.

138 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:14:06pm

re: #122 Stanley Sea

You must provide a link for something like that. It's not true.


Reversal of the Mexico City Policy.


[Link: www.lifenews.com...]

139 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:15:00pm

re: #137 Cannadian Club Akbar

Ooops, let me see if I can get that application back, for you...
///

140 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:15:06pm

re: #133 Bagua

From the results it looks like Bush's AIDS program has done a great deal to deliver medicine to those suffering and to reduce the infection rate. No doubt more can be done, but this looks like an attempt to find some sin of omission in one of the most altruistic acts by any American President in history.

All Americans should be proud of what George Bush and America has done to help ease the suffering in Africa.

We should also all support doing more, including providing more birth control and other food and medicine. And indeed the rest of the world should step up and lend a hand and perhaps even the Africans need to take some responsibility as well for their own lives. Though I'm not at all convinced that it is America's responsibility to provide unlimited condoms to all the men in Africa.

No disagreement here at all.

141 What, me worry?  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:15:10pm

re: #124 darthstar

Oh baby.

142 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:15:36pm

re: #120 Charles

I don't see why it should be controversial at all to provide Africans with the best possible means of birth control. This is a complete no-brainer, unless you're grinding an ideological religious axe.

True. And if you run a campaign with that purpose, you are doing good. Also, if you run a campaign with the purpose of delivering AIDS treatments, and you feel it right to make darn sure that that's all your money gets spent on, you are still doing good.

143 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:16:02pm

re: #135 allegro

I did read it. It has nothing to do with abortion that soxfan4life was speaking of.

Soxfan4life was speaking of spreading AIDS.

144 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:16:46pm

re: #139 Floral Giraffe

Flirt...
//

145 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:17:06pm

re: #131 laZardo

More proof that conservatism has not been and will not be of any benefit to the United States and the world at large.

/also good morning.

Well, without conservatism, liberals would have any other people's money to spend.

146 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:18:17pm

re: #143 Cannadian Club Akbar

Soxfan4life was speaking of spreading AIDS.

Soxfan4life was speaking on Obama promoting abortion.

Much like Bush was against birth control, Obama seems to be all about abortion rights and granting these women access to abortion will help with the overpopulation problem, but not the spread of AIDS.

147 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:18:18pm

re: #145 cliffster

Well, without conservatism, liberals would have any other people's money to spend.

They are spending money they don't have now. Not having a tax base to draw from would hardly stop them.

148 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:18:48pm

re: #142 cliffster

True. And if you run a campaign with that purpose, you are doing good. Also, if you run a campaign with the purpose of delivering AIDS treatments, and you feel it right to make darn sure that that's all your money gets spent on, you are still doing good.

This is true. But it's also not what Bush he did. He gave millions to abstinence only education. Thats what people in this thread are taking issue with (and what many people took issue with at the time).

149 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:19:45pm

re: #133 Bagua

From the results it looks like Bush's AIDS program has done a great deal to deliver medicine to those suffering and to reduce the infection rate. No doubt more can be done, but this looks like an attempt to find some sin of omission in one of the most altruistic acts by any American President in history.

All Americans should be proud of what George Bush and America has done to help ease the suffering in Africa.

We should also all support doing more, including providing more birth control and other food and medicine. And indeed the rest of the world should step up and lend a hand and perhaps even the Africans need to take some responsibility as well for their own lives. Though I'm not at all convinced that it is America's responsibility to provide unlimited condoms to all the men in Africa.

For starters, teach these woefully ignorant people to read and to understand English. Then they can get the information and decide for themselves. Let's stop treating these folks like stupid animals.

150 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:20:36pm

re: #26 kingkenrod

According to this report, 7.4% of PEPFAR's budget was spent on abstinence programs.

They used the ABC method, which is "Abstain, Be Faithful, correct and consistent use of Condoms."

PEPFAR provided 2.2 billion condoms.

[Link: www.pepfar.gov...]

Interesting, I also found this from State:

Chapter 1 -- Critical Intervention in the Focus Countries: Prevention


The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: First Annual Report to Congress
Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator
May 23, 2005

The approach endorsed by the Emergency Plan ABC: Abstain, Be faithful, and, as appropriate, correct and consistent use of Condoms - employs population-specific, targeted interventions that emphasize abstinence for youth and other unmarried people, including delay of sexual debut; mutual faithfulness and partner reduction for sexually active adults; and correct and consistent use of condoms by those whose behavior or circumstances place them at risk for transmitting or becoming infected with HIV.

Building on the mechanisms developed to support bilateral programs for reproductive health, the Emergency Plan is now utilizing the Commodity Fund, which was established at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in fiscal year 2002. This fund has provided between $25 million and $28 million each fiscal year to procure male and female condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention and to ensure their expedited delivery to countries.

More at link.

151 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:21:01pm

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I'm thinking we just stop all fucking aid everywhere, and let the natural course of evolution step in.

152 swamprat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:21:23pm

re: #147 soxfan4life

They are spending money they don't have now. Not having a tax base to draw from would hardly stop them.


No prob. China will supply our habit.

153 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:21:23pm

re: #148 McSpiff

This is true. But it's also not what Bush he did. He gave millions to abstinence only education. Thats what people in this thread are taking issue with (and what many people took issue with at the time).

Yes. He gave billions of dollars to treat AIDS. He also gave money to promote abstinence. If they don't want it, then they can not take it.

154 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:21:45pm

re: #151 Racer X

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I'm thinking we just stop all fucking aid everywhere, and let the natural course of evolution step in.

Might just reverse some of that AGW as well.

155 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:21:54pm

re: #149 Spare O'Lake

For starters, teach these woefully ignorant people to read and to understand English.

!!! How about the information being provided in their language. Are you so woefully ignorant to not speak theirs?

156 laZardo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:22:03pm

re: #145 cliffster

Well, without conservatism, liberals would have any other people's money to spend.

That's where fiscal responsibility would come in.

157 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:22:18pm

re: #151 Racer X

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I'm thinking we just stop all fucking aid everywhere, and let the natural course of evolution step in.

I've said that. Didn't go over well. But "ding" from me.

158 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:22:20pm

re: #138 soxfan4life

Reversal of the Mexico City Policy.

[Link: www.lifenews.com...]

Thank you for providing link. This is the dilemma - it's a pro-life publication. It seems to be biased, my fault for not wanting to research the actualities to prove it wrong.

Your original statement was all encompassing though, stating that Obama is going to promote abortions in Africa which I feel was inflammatory and incorrect!

159 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:23:36pm

re: #144 Cannadian Club Akbar

Glad you found it funny!
I was regretting the post!
A lot...

160 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:24:47pm

re: #153 cliffster

Yes. He gave billions of dollars to treat AIDS. He also gave money to promote abstinence. If they don't want it, then they can not take it.

The bottom line:

The Bush administration committed to and provided AIDS medication, as well as abstinence education in Africa.

Why does the full burden of this effort fall on the U.S.?

Are there not nations with more liberal governments who could have stepped up to the plate and decided well, if the U.S is going to provide the most costly item, the medications, WE then will provide the birth control inforamation and condoms?

Why does the African AIDS epidemic seem to be viewed as strictly a responsibility of the U.S.?

161 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:25:26pm

re: #154 soxfan4life

Might just reverse some of that AGW as well.

AGW is a part of the evolutionary process. It might very well have negative side effects, but is still part of the process.

162 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:26:04pm

re: #160 reine.de.tout

The bottom line:

The Bush administration committed to and provided AIDS medication, as well as abstinence education in Africa.

Why does the full burden of this effort fall on the U.S.?

Are there not nations with more liberal governments who could have stepped up to the plate and decided well, if the U.S is going to provide the most costly item, the medications, WE then will provide the birth control inforamation and condoms?

Why does the African AIDS epidemic seem to be viewed as strictly a responsibility of the U.S.?

Excellent point.

163 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:26:24pm

re: #160 reine.de.tout

Why does the full burden of this effort fall on the U.S.?

Are there not nations with more liberal governments who could have stepped up to the plate and decided well, if the U.S is going to provide the most costly item, the medications, WE then will provide the birth control inforamation and condoms?

Why does the African AIDS epidemic seem to be viewed as strictly a responsibility of the U.S.?

I was wondering this myself earlier. Where are the Europeans to hand out condoms?

164 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:26:36pm

re: #162 Racer X

Excellent point.

I can't help but wonder where the U.N. is?

165 laZardo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:26:38pm

re: #148 McSpiff

The problem with telling people they "can't" do it is that it's going to be nigh impossible for them to keep that in mind amidst all the hormones raging through their bodies at the most sexually active time in their lives. Barring anything drastic, the only thing you can really do is make sure that when they do exercise their hormonal urges, that they don't spread anything nasty in the process.

Where I live, abortion is still illegal and the local Catholic Church stands fervently against contraception. And yet somehow we're expecting our population to effectively double before the end of the century.

"Go forth and multiply," they said.

166 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:26:43pm

re: #155 allegro

!!! How about the information being provided in their language. Are you so woefully ignorant to not speak theirs?

Wrong, Congobreath. They need English so they can register at LGF.

167 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:03pm

Found this from the Presidents page. Not sure what has been done.

Reauthorize and Revise PEPFAR: The U.S. has dramatically increased funding for global HIV and AIDS
programs through the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), but the program has faced
controversy. Obama believes that our first priority should be to reauthorize PEPFAR when it expires in 2008
and rewrite much of the bill to allow best practices – not ideology – to drive funding for HIV/AIDS programs.

168 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:04pm

Then again in 2006:

Chapter 4: Gender and HIV/AIDS -- Responding to Critical Issues
The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: Second Annual Report to Congress
Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator
February 8, 2006

Empowering women to make healthy choices

The Emergency Plan supports interventions to enhance women's decision-making capacity in their personal lives and their capacity to provide leadership to community and national HIV/AIDS efforts. Support groups for women are valuable organizations that receive significant Emergency Plan support. For example, PEPFAR supports activities which link HIV-positive pregnant and postpartum women to psychosocial support groups run by peers. These support groups provide educational information on a range of topics from infant feeding to family planning, and provide a supportive space for women to talk with peers about coping with their HIV status.

A South African partner, Mothers To Mothers-To-Be (M2M2B), has created a support network with activities for pregnant women who have just learned their HIV status. The network helps to mentor, educate and encourage mothers to seek out ART, select the most appropriate feeding and family planning methods, and support women in their choice to disclose their HIV status and in coping with stigma. The Emergency Plan supports womens civil society organizations that provide leadership support for PLWHA helping to build their organizational capacity to deliver services, and strengthening their linkages within broader health care networks.

Emergency Plan interventions are also linked to USGsupported family planning activities. For example, in Rwanda and Tanzania PMTCT programs train providers in family planning to help ensure that HIV-positive clients receive access to information and family planning services. The Emergency Plan also provides key support for expanding access to female-controlled methods of HIV/AIDS protection. PEPFAR-supported programs provide female condoms, and USG funding is contributing to research into microbicides, as noted in the chapter on Prevention.

Increasing women's access to income and productive resources

For many disadvantaged women and girls, transactional sex is one of the few options available for survival. The Emergency Plan supports efforts to ensure more sustainable livelihoods for women and girls in order to enable them to escape prostitution, protect themselves from HIV/AIDS, and deal with the disease's impact. Programs also provide education and condoms to allow women who continue to engage in transactional sex to protect themselves. Several programs, including public-private partnerships, are under way to address this critical issue. Additionally, linkages between Emergency Plan and other USG-supported education, economic development, and microfinance programs are being strengthened.

169 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:10pm

re: #160 reine.de.tout

Thank you.

170 generalsparky  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:11pm

re: #160 reine.de.tout Why does the African AIDS epidemic seem to be viewed as strictly a responsibility of the U.S.?


And don't forget the Catholic Church!

171 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:12pm
Why does the African AIDS epidemic seem to be viewed as strictly a responsibility of the U.S.?

Who is suggesting that?

172 swamprat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:36pm

re: #156 laZardo

That's where fiscal responsibility would come in.

I remember when fiscal responsibility meant republicans. Now it means..
Uh
something from the distant past.

173 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:27:38pm

re: #158 Stanley Sea

Well here's a few more maybe more sympathetic to the left websites saying the same thing.

/abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1


[Link: www.usatoday.com...]

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Now if he really wanted to stop it, he could have kept the funding ban in place.

174 avanti  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:03pm

re: #120 Charles

I don't see why it should be controversial at all to provide Africans with the best possible means of birth control. This is a complete no-brainer, unless you're grinding an ideological religious axe.

I always fall back on a Ayn Rand sort of quote when I hear "provide" comments. She said something like it's a moral choice to save a drowning man if you are out in a boat and see one, but you need not row around the world looking for drowning people to save.
I think it's wonderful that we do so much around the world to help, but deep inside, I know we can't save the planet alone. Bush should get praise for doing what he did, even if he could have done more, or done it better. Discussions like this can help us do better, but should not diminish the fact that we do a hell of a lot of compassionate works around the planet.

175 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:15pm

It's not America's responsibility to provide anything to anyone. But the fact is that the Bush administration DID provide this funding for anti-AIDS medication, but they also specifically tied it to anti-birth control programs. It's not just that they didn't provide the birth control -- they made it harder for birth control programs to be implemented.

176 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:18pm

re: #171 allegro

Who is suggesting that?

It was Reine's opinion the situation is viewed as such.

177 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:20pm

re: #164 reine.de.tout

I can't help but wonder where the U.N. is?

I believe they were too busy making money in Darfur.

178 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:41pm

re: #171 allegro

Who is suggesting that?

No one here has suggested it.

But I do wonder what other countries have done anything.

179 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:44pm

re: #164 reine.de.tout

I can't help but wonder where the U.N. is?

re: #57 Cannadian Club Akbar

At least the UN is an upstanding organization...
[Link: www.washingtontimes.com...]

180 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:28:49pm

re: #153 cliffster

Yes. He gave billions of dollars to treat AIDS. He also gave money to promote abstinence. If they don't want it, then they can not take it.

Fair enough. It's not my tax dollars being spent. If it were, I'd demand to see the most cost effective program possible. If America would rather play politics with some of the most desperate people on the planet, there's really nothing I, as someone who is neither African or American can do other than donate to groups I do agree with, and push my government to do what it can.

181 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:31:16pm

And the Bush administration tied anti-AIDS funding to abstinence programs (and NOT birth control of any kind) for one reason only -- to placate the religious right.

182 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:32:08pm

re: #175 Charles

It's not America's responsibility to provide anything to anyone. But the fact is that the Bush administration DID provide this funding for anti-AIDS medication, but they also specifically tied it to anti-birth control programs. It's not just that they didn't provide the birth control -- they made it harder for birth control programs to be implemented.

And that is just plain evil.
no sarc

183 avanti  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:34:13pm

re: #175 Charles

It's not America's responsibility to provide anything to anyone. But the fact is that the Bush administration DID provide this funding for anti-AIDS medication, but they also specifically tied it to anti-birth control programs. It's not just that they didn't provide the birth control -- they made it harder for birth control programs to be implemented.

We agree 100%. If we decide for what ever reason to help, do it the best way possible, and keep religion out of it.

184 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:34:45pm

re: #180 McSpiff

If America would rather play politics with some of the most desperate people on the planet, there's really nothing I, as someone who is neither African or American can do other than donate to groups I do agree with, and push my government to do what it can.

OH, PUHLEASE! Every country on the earth plays politics with the third world, whether it's Africa or North Korea or Central America, so spare me painting Americans as uncaring assholes when there is enough political posturing with desperate people around the world to go around.

185 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:34:55pm

re: #175 Charles

It's not America's responsibility to provide anything to anyone. But the fact is that the Bush administration DID provide this funding for anti-AIDS medication, but they also specifically tied it to anti-birth control programs. It's not just that they didn't provide the birth control -- they made it harder for birth control programs to be implemented.

Quoted from the post:

Bush’s mammoth global anti-AIDS initiative, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, poured billions of dollars into Africa but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

The money provided by the US anti-AIDS effort could not be spent on birth control programs, and those budgets then "flat-lined".

That does not seem to me that all birth-control efforts were to be made unavailable, only that the US anti-AIDS money could not be spent on birth control programs.

I'm not saying the decision to prevent the dissemination of birth-control information was a good one.

I am curious, though, why did those budgets flat-line? Why didn't some other country (or other countries) step up to the plate to provide the birth control education and supplies?

186 wee fury  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:35:06pm

Then, there is this article from 2007
South Africa - Condom recall hurts prevention drive

The condoms were recalled on 23 August after media reports alleged that Sphiwe Fikizolo, a testing manager at the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS), which is responsible for assuring that all condoms produced in the country conform to World Health Organisation standards, had accepted money from the manufacturer in return for certifying defective condoms.
187 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:35:19pm
188 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:35:27pm

re: #173 soxfan4life

Thank you, I appreciate that - I'll be honest, it helps to read in a more left leaning pub! I really did miss this (because it was done quietly I guess) but do note in the WaPo article:

"Known as the "Mexico City policy," the ban has been reinstated and then reversed by Republican and Democratic presidents since Ronald Reagan established it in 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office."

I still reiterate that your statement (paraphrased) that Obama was going to be pushing abortions in Africa is incorrect and inappropriate when we are talking about AIDS prevention and overpopulation.

189 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:35:29pm

This is the key section of the article I quoted:

Bush’s mammoth global anti-AIDS initiative, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, poured billions of dollars into Africa but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

190 Ulairi  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:36:11pm

Charles, you're fishing:
[quote]
Promoting birth control in Africa faces a host of obstacles — patriarchal customs, religious taboos, ill-equipped public health systems — but experts also blame a powerful, more distant force: the U.S. government.
[/quote]

Even from your own article it lists many things prior to the U.S. government policy. The outrage you are showing is a small portion of it, and from your earlier post:
[quote]
U.S. Government has supplied more than 2.2 billion condoms worldwide from 2004 to 2008.[/quote]

So the U.S. government under Bush did supply condoms to people. So, could it be your anti-religous bent is clouding your judgement a little bit.

Also:
[quote]
According to this report, 7.4% of PEPFAR's budget was spent on abstinence programs.

They used the ABC method, which is "Abstain, Be Faithful, correct and consistent use of Condoms."

PEPFAR provided 2.2 billion condoms.

[Link: [Link: www.pepfar.gov...]...]
[/quote]

Less than 10% of the money wen to abstinence programs so the funding wasn't tied to it and it follows the ABC method which as been proven to work. Remember that Hitchens video you posted with him going after the Catholic Church? did you watch what Fry said? the ABC method works and that's what Bush followed. I mean, you're really digging here.

191 rurality  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:36:45pm

I would think part of the often flogged (but never implemented) goal of fiscal responsibility, would be spending money smartly. When we try to impose our beliefs without understanding the society we are hoping to help--or reality, it's just plain stupid. The teen abstinence program in this country, costing millions, was also deemed a 'failure'. So if we cannot sway the children of our own culture, why in the world would that seem a viable strategy in foreign countries, often where women have much less power and need tools beyond the lame, just say no.

192 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:36:59pm

re: #180 McSpiff

Fair enough. It's not my tax dollars being spent. If it were, I'd demand to see the most cost effective program possible. If America would rather play politics with some of the most desperate people on the planet, there's really nothing I, as someone who is neither African or American can do other than donate to groups I do agree with, and push my government to do what it can.

Sure. We all donate to groups we agree with.

193 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:37:00pm

re: #181 Charles

And the Bush administration tied anti-AIDS funding to abstinence programs (and NOT birth control of any kind) for one reason only -- to placate the religious right.

A repost. Those in the story don't care about safe sex or anything like it. And certainly not abstinence.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

194 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:37:45pm

re: #192 reine.de.tout

Sure. We all donate to groups we agree with.

Wouldn't that be playing politics too? ///

195 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:37:52pm

re: #189 Charles

This is the key section of the article I quoted:

That's the same section I quoted. I'm reading it a bit differently than you are.
re: #185 reine.de.tout

The money provided by the US anti-AIDS effort could not be spent on birth control programs, and those budgets then "flat-lined".

That does not seem to me that all birth-control efforts were to be made unavailable, only that the US anti-AIDS money could not be spent on birth control programs.

I'm not saying the decision to prevent the dissemination of birth-control information was a good one.

I am curious, though, why did those budgets flat-line? Why didn't some other country (or other countries) step up to the plate to provide the birth control education and supplies?

196 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:38:50pm

re: #190 Ulairi

Are you kidding? Please read it again, because you're either misunderstanding or deliberately distorting it.

The Bush administration:

prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

The point isn't that the Bush administration funded abstinence programs -- they specifically prohibited using the money for ANYTHING ELSE.

197 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:39:05pm

If someone gave me money to buy a nice car, and told me I couldn't spend the money on a lake house but only on the car, I wouldn't talk disparagingly about that person. I'd say thank you, I'm enjoying my nice car.

198 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:39:20pm

re: #189 Charles

but prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning servicesor counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

Because there was a shortage of starving babies in Africa.
//

199 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:39:20pm

Top 10 green living myths

2. What they tell you: Buy a greener car

What they don't tell you: If you definitely need a new car, it makes perfect sense to buy a small, super-efficient model with low CO2 emissions. However, making a new car – including mining and processing the metals and manufacturing and assembling the components – takes a huge amount of energy. According to an expert at the Stockholm Environment Institute, the production of a typical modern car causes around 8 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to driving 23,000 miles. Because of this, unless you currently drive a lot in a highly inefficient car, it will often be greener to stick to your existing vehicle than to sell it and buy a new one.

200 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:40:13pm

re: #197 cliffster

If someone gave me money to buy a nice car, and told me I couldn't spend the money on a lake house but only on the car, I wouldn't talk disparagingly about that person. I'd say thank you, I'm enjoying my nice car.

Wow, that's a rather... callous analogy

201 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:40:20pm

It's not exactly abstinence:

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

202 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:40:24pm

re: #189 Charles

This is the key section of the article I quoted:

Understood.

This is the CS Monitor in 2003:

Africa's family-planning funding drought

So while they were allowing condoms there was also a lot of background work to refuse funding for family planning due to their stance on abortion.

203 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:40:59pm

re: #200 ignoranceisfatal

Wow, that's a rather... callous analogy

Why?

204 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:41:03pm

re: #184 Sharmuta

OH, PUHLEASE! Every country on the earth plays politics with the third world, whether it's Africa or North Korea or Central America, so spare me painting Americans as uncaring assholes when there is enough political posturing with desperate people around the world to go around.

Every nation does, for sure. I'm playing politics here too. I'm just saying ill push my nation in the way I feel is correct. And I'll give to groups I feel are correct. The idea that just because America is giving the most cash means that I or the rest of the world can't question how that money is being spent is absurd to me. I won't treat US Aid as a sacred cow. But I am more than willing to point out what I think are its success as well as its failures, as I feel I have done in this thread.

205 laZardo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:42:01pm

re: #187 Racer X

Is there an Alien Xenomorph counterpart as well?

206 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:42:08pm

re: #190 Ulairi

So, could it be your anti-religous bent is clouding your judgement a little bit.

And this comment is simply bullshit. I do not have an "anti-religious bent." I have a reasoned opposition to far right religious ideologies that are causing great harm in this country and in others.

207 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:43:17pm

re: #200 ignoranceisfatal

Wow, that's a rather... callous analogy

re: #203 soxfan4life

Why?

A new car and lake house, both luxuries, aren't really comparable to programs aimed at saving the lives of Africans.

208 rurality  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:44:08pm

re: #200 ignoranceisfatal
re: #197 cliffster

re: #200 ignoranceisfatal

He likes a heaping helping of gratitude with no criticism for gifts with strings.

209 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:44:44pm

re: #207 ignoranceisfatal

A new car and lake house, both luxuries, aren't really comparable to programs aimed at saving the lives of Africans.

That's why it's called an analogy. The analogy isn't that it's a luxury, it's that one is getting something one wouldn't otherwise have.

210 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:44:54pm

re: #197 cliffster

If someone gave me money to buy a nice car, and told me I couldn't spend the money on a lake house but only on the car, I wouldn't talk disparagingly about that person. I'd say thank you, I'm enjoying my nice car.

Good point.

I'm sorry I can't get all worked up over this issue. George Bush poured more money into Africa than any other president in history. More than any other government in history. The aid came with strings. They could have said "No", or another aid agency could have stepped in to fill the condom gap. I'm thinking some did.

211 jaunte  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:45:02pm

You can have a nice new car, but you can't spend any money putting brakes in it.

212 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:45:50pm

re: #211 jaunte

You can have a nice new car, but you can't spend any money putting brakes in it.

You have a lot of people that are alive. They would otherwise be dead. We suck.

213 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:45:57pm

re: #204 McSpiff

The idea that just because America is giving the most cash means that I or the rest of the world can't question how that money is being spent is absurd to me.

Please continue- we Americans are quite accustomed to our charity never being good enough. We'll still give it to you anyways.

No need to thank us! I mean- why start now?

214 jaunte  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:46:39pm

re: #212 cliffster

We don't suck, it was just an unreasonable restriction given the circumstances.

215 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:47:06pm

re: #213 Sharmuta

Please continue- we Americans are quite accustomed to our charity never being good enough. We'll still give it to you anyways.

No need to thank us! I mean- why start now?

Please Sharm, post the numbers for American aid to Canada. I'd love to see those numbers.

216 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:47:41pm

re: #213 Sharmuta

Please continue- we Americans are quite accustomed to our charity never being good enough. We'll still give it to you anyways.

No need to thank us! I mean- why start now?

We gave it for a REASON. It was a targeted gift. You don't want to use the money that way, that's ok. Don't take the money.

217 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:47:44pm

re: #214 jaunte

We don't suck, it was just an unreasonable restriction given the circumstances.

It was an unreasonable restriction -- because it wasn't based on any kind of rational policy. It was based on religious ideology, ignoring the reality.

218 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:47:59pm

Dear Reine-

I found this looking for info on European AIDS spending in Africa:

G8 leaders reach $60bn Aids deal

G8 leaders meeting in Germany have vowed to deliver on pledges to Africa, and agreed a $60bn (£30bn) package for fighting Aids, malaria and TB.

Officials said half of that amount would come from the United States.

219 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:48:29pm

re: #215 McSpiff

And, Canada needs help in any way shape or form like Africa, exactly how?
Help me out here...

220 laZardo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:48:41pm

Brb, lunch.

221 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:48:44pm

The point Charles is making that there was a political decision made that was based on a desire to placate a religious group is well taken, and seems to have been the beginnings of the religious right's influence in the politics of this nation.

The topic has expanded now to include questions about the role of other nations. If this country makes decisions to spend the money of the taxpayers, our money, yours and mine, on efforts such as this African AIDS-epidemic, whatever we do will NOT be perfect nor will it solve every problem. I still wonder what role, if any, other countries think they need to play in this, to help alleviate the terrible suffering of these folks.

222 rurality  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:49:35pm

re: #212 cliffster

And they probably arent going to be appreciative enough for all the food aid we send to feed all the children born to mother's that might have chosen to have smaller families if they had the knowledge. And they might just call us bad names again.//

223 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:50:11pm

re: #190 Ulairi

I've been posting here for more than 2 years now, and I have never detected an anti-religion "bent" from Charles, though I keep seeing people try to claim there is. Individual posters have their opinions and express them. But Charles is NOT anti-religion.

224 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:51:07pm

The attitude "well, if you don't like the strings, don't take the money!" misses the point entirely. I'm sure most of the African nations who received the money were very grateful to have it. What is now being questioned is whether a greater amount of good could have been done with the same money if there hadn't been these ideologically driven restrictions in place. That is fair to ask.

225 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:51:19pm

re: #217 Charles

It was an unreasonable restriction -- because it wasn't based on any kind of rational policy. It was based on religious ideology, ignoring the reality.

I'm sorry boss, I'm not that worked up over this. Bush has strong religious beliefs and is against abortion. He stuck to his beliefs, wrong as they may be. The down side is more babies? I'm thinking the upside negates that.

IMHO.

226 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:51:52pm

re: #217 Charles

It was an unreasonable restriction -- because it wasn't based on any kind of rational policy. It was based on religious ideology, ignoring the reality.

And now we're beginning to see the consequences of this unreasonable policy. The US may have done some good at fighting the African AIDS epidemic -- but at the cost of contributing to and encouraging a baby boom that these countries simply can't support.

227 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:52:16pm

re: #219 Floral Giraffe

And, Canada needs help in any way shape or form like Africa, exactly how?
Help me out here...

She said America will continue to give it to me. My point is exactly that, my country doesn't receive American aid. The entire world isn't begging for American mana to rain down from the skies. Some of us view America as our partner, not a benevolent provider.

228 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:52:20pm

re: #225 Racer X

I'm thinking the upside negates that.

What upside? Seriously.

229 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:52:37pm

re: #215 McSpiff

I'll get that to you right after the international uproar over how Canada spends its aid.

230 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:52:54pm

re: #228 allegro

What upside? Seriously.

Babies 'r us just opened a new store in Luanda!

// inappropriate?...

231 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:53:21pm

re: #228 allegro

What upside? Seriously.

Really? The billions of dollars spent accomplished nothing in your eyes?

232 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:53:24pm

re: #196 Charles

prohibited groups from spending any of it on family planning services or counseling programs, whose budgets flat-lined.

It would seem from the article that American expenditures on family planning "flat lined" at $430 millions a year for global birth control. Yet the term "flat-lined" is chosen to suggest it died.

While I agree more money should be spent on birth control in Africa, does any nation on earth come close to the American expenditure on "global birth control" on a per capita basis?

233 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:53:35pm

re: #227 McSpiff

Some of us view America as our partner, not a benevolent provider.

Some view us as the pot to piss in.

234 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:53:39pm

re: #218 Sharmuta

Dear Reine-

I found this looking for info on European AIDS spending in Africa:

G8 leaders reach $60bn Aids deal

OK. Was that a separate effort? It mentions malaria and TB as well as AIDS.

235 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:53:49pm

re: #214 jaunte

We don't suck, it was just an unreasonable restriction given the circumstances.

We gave Africa money to spend on AIDS treatments. The money was for that and that alone. Not birth control, and not for highways for that matter. For AIDS treatments. I may not agree with the narrow distribution, but there is absolutely no room for anyone to complain about what the US did to save lives.

236 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:54:09pm

re: #227 McSpiff

She said America will continue to give it to me. My point is exactly that, my country doesn't receive American aid. The entire world isn't begging for American mana to rain down from the skies. Some of us view America as our partner, not a benevolent provider.

Sharm said "you." No as in you personally. Or Canada. Re-read, please.

237 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:54:28pm

re: #224 ignoranceisfatal

The attitude "well, if you don't like the strings, don't take the money!" misses the point entirely. I'm sure most of the African nations who received the money were very grateful to have it. What is now being questioned is whether a greater amount of good could have been done with the same money if there hadn't been these ideologically driven restrictions in place. That is fair to ask.

I see your point - we could have done better.

wouldashouldacoulda.

238 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:55:37pm

re: #235 cliffster

We gave Africa money to spend on AIDS treatments. The money was for that and that alone. Not birth control, and not for highways for that matter. For AIDS treatments. I may not agree with the narrow distribution, but there is absolutely no room for anyone to complain about what the US did to save lives.

You're completely missing the point. The money was given ON THE CONDITION that it not be used for any kind of family planning or birth control, even though it's quite obvious that these issues are all inter-related.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

239 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:55:56pm

re: #230 ignoranceisfatal

Babies 'r us just opened a new store in Luanda!

// inappropriate?...

Was Madonna and Angelina Jolie there?
//more inappropriate?

240 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:56:13pm

re: #231 Racer X

The down side is more babies? I'm thinking the upside negates that.

I was addressing your post. You seem to state that more babies is a good thing.

241 jaunte  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:57:24pm

The Lancet:

The loss of funds from the US will require IPPF to reduce its London-based and field staff from 220 to 165, close several field offices in developing countries, and cut country grants by $7 million. Efforts are being made to mitigate the effects on family planning services for those in greatest need in the poorest developing countries, particularly those in Africa. An international fundraising campagin is projected to recapture the shortfall. IPPF has pointed out that the US decision to withdraw aid for family planning programs will have the very effect US policy seeks to avoid. Women who are unable to obtain contraceptive services can be expected to resort to abortion in increasing numbers

.[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

242 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:57:50pm

re: #226 Charles

And now we're beginning to see the consequences of this unreasonable policy. The US may have done some good at fighting the African AIDS epidemic -- but at the cost of contributing to and encouraging a baby boom that these countries simply can't support.

Whoa, not so fast.
Is there any evidence that the African birth rates rose as a result of this US policy? Were they using condoms and birth control pills before the program was instituted, and if so did such use lessen?

243 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:58:13pm

Let me add a little shade of gray to the issue of helping Africa. I'll link to this, and although I don't know much about the organization, it seems that this would be a common opinion of many Africans, that what they direly need is electricity, a highly functioning electrical grid.

It seems that the issue is being phrased that President Bush was willing to help to a point. And his "point" was identified as his religious convictions. Fine.

Does that mean that folks are willing to help Africa regardless of the consequences--because there is a horrible human tragedy occurring on that continent every moment of every day. Are we willing to support whatever it takes to stop the very preventable daily death toll? I'm just asking.

Here's the opinion piece.

244 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:58:49pm

Bush lied, African babies were born.

245 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:58:56pm

re: #227 McSpiff

Fair enough & well said.
Thank you.

246 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:59:23pm

re: #240 allegro

I was addressing your post. You seem to state that more babies is a good thing.

Uh- more babies IS a good thing, but only for those who want them.

247 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 8:59:29pm

re: #229 Sharmuta

I'll get that to you right after the international uproar over how Canada spends its aid.


Believe me, we get shit on for how we spend our aid money too. And sometimes the criticism is totally off the mark, and sometimes we really do screw up and spend money on dumb things. It happens.

re: #233 Sharmuta

Some view us as the pot to piss in.

Some people are simply nationalists, some are jealous. Some view America as the greatest nation on the face of the planet. It's pretty hard to make generalizations about the 90% of the population that lives outside America's borders.

248 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:00:00pm

re: #241 jaunte

The Lancet:

.[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

I've actually been following this issue for some time, although I haven't posted on it before tonight. The "abstinence only" policy has been criticized by many people, and by many organizations that actually work in Africa.

249 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:00:11pm

I'm not sure if we're looking at the right program then. This could be the result of the restoration of the Mexico City Policy:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Restoration of the Mexico City Policy

The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993.

It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad. It is therefore my belief that the Mexico City Policy should be restored. Accordingly, I hereby rescind the "Memorandum for the Acting Administrator of the Agency for International Development, Subject: AID Family Planning Grants/Mexico City Policy," dated January 22, 1993, and I direct the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to reinstate in full all of the requirements of the Mexico City Policy in effect on January 19, 1993.

GEORGE W. BUSH

250 swamprat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:00:11pm

re: #244 Bagua

condoms shorn!
babies born!

251 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:00:50pm
252 Bill Jefferson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:00:58pm

"Shied away from"? If he'd vetoed something, they might have a point. But the fact that a program meant to spend billions fighting AIDS actually spent billions fighting AIDS is not objectionable to me.

The fact that there are large families to complain about -- rather than Mother Nature's family planning, women who give birth twenty times to end up with two or three children living to adulthood -- suggests that other efforts to improve lives and health for Africans have been working.

253 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:01:08pm

Then in 2003:

2003: President Bush partly abandons Mexico City policy:

On 2003-JAN-28, President George W Bush announced his AIDS relief plan for Africa and the Caribbean in his JAN-28 State of the Union address. He did not describe the program in detail at that time. Some lawmakers subsequently asked Secretary of State Colin L. Powell about the funding, in view of the "Mexico City" policy that Bush has reinstated. The proposal is to authorize the distribution of $15 billion dollars over the next five years to 12 African countries, Haiti, and Guyana -- nations with some of the highest rates of AIDS infection. The money would not fund abortions or abortion counseling. However it would go to some non-governmental organizations which also have additional, unfunded, programs which provide abortion counseling. The president was faced with a moral conflict:

If he denied funding to those groups, then countless numbers of additional people would die from AIDS. This is because in many African and Caribbean nations, family planning services, abortions, and AIDS assistance are often provided by a single agency. Banning of all funding to such groups would cripple AIDS programs.

If he granted funding, then no money would go to fund abortions, or to provide abortion counseling, or to advocate abortion access legislation. But some funding would support anti-AIDS programs by organizations in one country, even though the same organization also conducted family planning activities that included abortion counseling in another country. 3 Meanwhile, an estimated 7 million new AIDS infections would be prevented, and two million HIV-infected people would receive with advanced antiretroviral treatment.

An anonymous senior White House aide said: "Any agency that provides treatment for AIDS will get the money - as long as none of the funds are used for family planning purposes or for abortions - except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger."

254 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:01:30pm

re: #238 Charles

You're completely missing the point. The money was given ON THE CONDITION that it not be used for any kind of family planning or birth control, even though it's quite obvious that these issues are all inter-related.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

I grasp it, I just don't agree with the negative spin. So if I were doling out the money, I would probably dole it out differently. But money was given to treat people who are dying, and that's a good thing no matter how you look at it. People keep talking about strings. We didn't say, "you can have this money, but you have to promise not to use condoms". We just said, spend this on treatments, and only on treatments.

255 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:01:31pm

re: #240 allegro

I was addressing your post. You seem to state that more babies is a good thing.

No.

256 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:02:15pm

re: #244 Bagua

Bush lied, African babies were born.

And they'll die by the millions in poverty and misery.

257 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:02:30pm
258 Surabaya Stew  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:02:32pm

re: #63 Alouette

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Islam far more prevalent in Africa than Christianity?

Islam & Christianity are about equal in numbers for Africa as a whole. Sub-Saharan Africa is slightly tilted towards Christianity, with a noticable north-south general divide between the 2 faiths.

259 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:02:37pm

re: #247 McSpiff

What is the Canadian funding level per capita for global birth control? Does it even come close to the American generosity?

What is the Canadian funding level for AIDS treatment in Africa? How does that compare with U.S. generosity?

260 swamprat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:03:37pm

condoms spurned!
ovum _ _ _ !

261 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:15pm

re: #256 Charles

And they'll die by the millions in poverty and misery.

Damn you George Bush! Damn you to hell!

262 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:20pm

re: #254 cliffster

I grasp it, I just don't agree with the negative spin. So if I were doling out the money, I would probably dole it out differently. But money was given to treat people who are dying, and that's a good thing no matter how you look at it. People keep talking about strings. We didn't say, "you can have this money, but you have to promise not to use condoms". We just said, spend this on treatments, and only on treatments.

Concur. Could we have done better? Yes. However, the policy did more good than harm and that needs to be said.

263 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:20pm

re: #241 jaunte

The Lancet:

The loss of funds from the US will require IPPF to reduce its London-based and field staff from 220 to 165, close several field offices in developing countries, and cut country grants by $7 million. Efforts are being made to mitigate the effects on family planning services for those in greatest need in the poorest developing countries, particularly those in Africa. An international fundraising campagin is projected to recapture the shortfall. IPPF has pointed out that the US decision to withdraw aid for family planning programs will have the very effect US policy seeks to avoid. Women who are unable to obtain contraceptive services can be expected to resort to abortion in increasing numbers


.[Link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]

Jaunte - I understand what that says. What I don't understand - instead of IPPF reducing its family planning services because of a reduction in US aid, WHY WASN'T THERE AID AVAILABLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?? I wonder what results they got from their international fundraising campaign?

264 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:34pm

re: #259 Bagua

What is the Canadian funding level per capita for global birth control? Does it even come close to the American generosity?

What is the Canadian funding level for AIDS treatment in Africa? How does that compare with U.S. generosity?

I've been trying to find that out for a bit now. I know per capita that it is lower than American, but I can't for the life of me find a link to show it

265 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:37pm

re: #246 Sharmuta

Uh- more babies IS a good thing, but only for those who want them.

That isn't the issue here. Most of these women don't know that there is a way to prevent pregnancy when they already have children they can't feed. To withhold that information and the means to prevent those pregnancies, is a damn shitty thing to do.

266 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:04:49pm

Goodnight, Lizards. As always, good conversation. See ya'll on the LNDT.

267 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:05:54pm

re: #256 Charles

And they'll die by the millions in poverty and misery.

Do we have a number on how many babies could have been prevented without this restriction?

I agree that Africa has a serious population problem, but I'm not convinced that it is America's unique responsibility to provide a supply of condoms to combat it. Also, every baby born doesn't die in poverty and misery, or there would not be a population problem.

268 Page 3 in the Binder of Women  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:06:03pm

re: #266 Cannadian Club Akbar

Goodnight, Lizards. As always, good conversation. See ya'll on the LNDT.

Ditto. Its been fun!

269 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:06:08pm

re: #263 reine.de.tout

No matter, the Great Satan(America) is to blame for any and all problems.

270 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:06:14pm

re: #263 reine.de.tout

Jaunte - I understand what that says. What I don't understand - instead of IPPF reducing its family planning services because of a reduction in US aid, WHY WASN'T THERE AID AVAILABLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?? I wonder what results they got from their international fundraising campaign?

The fact that other countries have less money, or are less willing to donate to fight AIDS in Africa has nothing to do with the fact that the US could have done more with its money.

271 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:07:22pm
272 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:07:27pm

re: #264 McSpiff

I've been trying to find that out for a bit now. I know per capita that it is lower than American, but I can't for the life of me find a link to show it

Here ya go. Nighty..

[Link: www.oxfam.ca...]

273 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:07:36pm

re: #264 McSpiff

I've been trying to find that out for a bit now. I know per capita that it is lower than American, but I can't for the life of me find a link to show it

OK, just to be clear that you are criticising the American effort at charity without even knowing what your own country is doing.

274 jaunte  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:08:04pm

re: #263 reine.de.tout

Jaunte - I understand what that says. What I don't understand - instead of IPPF reducing its family planning services because of a reduction in US aid, WHY WASN'T THERE AID AVAILABLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?? I wonder what results they got from their international fundraising campaign?

The answer is likely buried somewhere in these pages:
[Link: www.oecd.org...]

275 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:08:23pm

re: #270 ignoranceisfatal

The fact that other countries have less money, or are less willing to donate to fight AIDS in Africa has nothing to do with the fact that the US could have done more with its money.

But it does raise the question of why we always have to set up to the plate. Let someone else do the extra work for once.

276 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:08:46pm

re: #267 Bagua

I agree that Africa has a serious population problem, but I'm not convinced that it is America's unique responsibility to provide a supply of condoms to combat it.

And again, you're ducking the point. It's not simply that we didn't provide birth control methods -- the Bush administration specifically obstructed birth control programs in Africa.

277 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:08:59pm

Honestly, I can see the outrage over the flip side of this. Say the Bush administration had focused on providing abortions and handing out condoms, the outrage would have been deafening. Brown baby killers and all.

278 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:09:19pm

re: #265 allegro

That isn't the issue here. Most of these women don't know that there is a way to prevent pregnancy when they already have children they can't feed. To withhold that information and the means to prevent those pregnancies, is a damn shitty thing to do.

I know what the issue is here. However, I get a little tired of seeing babies used in such a callous way as to suggest they are "bad things". That's an awfully broad brush.

279 McSpiff  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:09:24pm

re: #273 Bagua

OK, just to be clear that you are criticising the American effort at charity without even knowing what your own country is doing.

I wasn't aware that this thread was closed to non citizens. I'll be happy to leave if thats the case.

280 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:09:51pm

Wow. I guess there are a lot of people who just don't want to see what was really going on.

281 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:09:55pm

re: #269 soxfan4life

No matter, the Great Satan(America) is to blame for any and all problems.

Ya know, I don't think that's at all what Charles was trying to say.
The point was that the political decision on the spending of these funds was made for religious reasons, not rational ones. Point taken.

But it seems to me that it was the AIDS money that could not be spent on birth control efforts - I don't see anything that says an African who got AIDS meds would have to restrict himself or herself from getting whatever birth control education or supplies were available from OTHER SOURCES. I keep trying to figure out why there doesn't seem to have been any other sources.

282 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:11:11pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout

My response was to the IPPF fund closing down on programs because of a drop in US funds, not to what Charles was saying.

283 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:11:25pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout


I keep trying to figure out why there doesn't seem to have been any other sources.

Of course there were/are other sources. It's just that access to some of those sources was curtailed by US policy.

284 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:11:30pm
285 reine.de.tout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:11:34pm

re: #274 jaunte

The answer is likely buried somewhere in these pages:
[Link: www.oecd.org...]

Oh, uh-uh.
I'm not diggin' through that.
LOL.

I think I've used up my .02 for tonight, and perhaps should get my beauty sleep. See ya'll tomorrow.

286 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:12:02pm

re: #163 Sharmuta

I was wondering this myself earlier. Where are the Europeans to hand out condoms?

Europeans have allowed advertising of condoms on TV for years. They have no problem with contraception, and in fact encourage it because it cuts down on unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

The issue isn't European support for birth control, it's the absence of US support for birth control.

287 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:12:11pm

If a high-schooler knocks on my door asking me to chip in for their band trip and I say no, am I obstructing their band trip?

288 soxfan4life  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:12:17pm

I'm out, see y'all on the flip side

289 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:12:32pm

re: #278 Sharmuta

However, I get a little tired of seeing babies used in such a callous way as to suggest they are "bad things". That's an awfully broad brush.

A baby that is destined to die of starvation and disease at a young age due to a severe lack of resources is a bad thing to me. If that's a broad brush, so be it.

290 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:12:45pm

re: #276 Charles

And again, you're ducking the point. It's not simply that we didn't provide birth control methods -- the Bush administration specifically obstructed birth control programs in Africa.

OK, that's what I have been asking. Is this obstruction simply saying that the $15billion provided for AIDS can't be spent on birth control, or was there some other active obstruction of the $430 million that the US spent per year on global birth control?

BTW, I agree that the restriction should be lifted and that more money should be spend on birth control in Africa, I'm just not sure it is a sin of omission to not spend that money when no one else in the world spends a similar amount.

291 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:14:22pm

re: #279 McSpiff

I wasn't aware that this thread was closed to non citizens. I'll be happy to leave if thats the case.

I'm just saying those non-citizens should consider the beam in their own eye when pointing out the mote in America's eye.

292 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:14:58pm

re: #289 allegro

A baby that is destined to die of starvation and disease at a young age due to a severe lack of resources is a bad thing to me. If that's a broad brush, so be it.

I was talking about women who wanted their babies, not women birthing more and more children because they're unaware of birth control and have no means to care for them. You think women who can't feed their children want more of them?

293 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:15:04pm

re: #280 Charles

Wow. I guess there are a lot of people who just don't want to see what was really going on.

No, sir, I do see. I simply reckon it of secondary import. The programs Bush launched did more good than harm and that matters most to me.

294 rurality  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:15:27pm

re: #280 Charles

You've already been called a RINO, think you soon going to be accused of BDS and then you will be tuned out like Al Gore.

295 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:15:57pm

re: #290 Bagua

OK, that's what I have been asking. Is this obstruction simply saying that the $15billion provided for AIDS can't be spent on birth control, or was there some other active obstruction of the $430 million that the US spent per year on global birth control?

BTW, I agree that the restriction should be lifted and that more money should be spend on birth control in Africa, I'm just not sure it is a sin of omission to not spend that money when no one else in the world spends a similar amount.

13 billion of the 15 billion originally promised wasn't sent...at all. When it finally was sent (two or three years later), it was tied to abstinence only education (i.e. "Fucking is bad. Don't fuck.")

296 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:16:28pm

re: #12 cliffster

I almost can't believe I'm reading this. AIDS epidemic is killing Africans to the tune of 50% of the population in some places. US ships AIDS treatment to millions in Africa. US is bad. Typical.

I thought the issue at hand was birth control, not AIDS?

297 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:16:31pm

re: #280 Charles

Wow. I guess there are a lot of people who just don't want to see what was really going on.

I get it, I really do. I'm just not that outraged over it.

298 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:16:38pm

re: #286 darthstar

Europeans have allowed advertising of condoms on TV for years. They have no problem with contraception, and in fact encourage it because it cuts down on unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

The issue isn't European support for birth control, it's the absence of US support for birth control.

Great- why didn't the europeans provide the condoms to Africa?

299 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:16:49pm

It's a very good point. Do you think it violates the Establishment Clause?

Not that a whole lot of other stuff doesn't.

300 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:17:24pm

re: #295 darthstar

13 billion of the 15 billion originally promised wasn't sent...at all. When it finally was sent (two or three years later), it was tied to abstinence only education (i.e. "Fucking is bad. Don't fuck.")

Would you be comfortable with a "fuck only one person" campaign?

301 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:17:30pm

re: #290 Bagua

OK, that's what I have been asking. Is this obstruction simply saying that the $15billion provided for AIDS can't be spent on birth control, or was there some other active obstruction of the $430 million that the US spent per year on global birth control?

BTW, I agree that the restriction should be lifted and that more money should be spend on birth control in Africa, I'm just not sure it is a sin of omission to not spend that money when no one else in the world spends a similar amount.

It wasn't because of birth control. It was because of abortion. This is because Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy which cut aid to any abortion funding under USAid. The birth control providers in Africa were also tied in with abortion funding. That policy cut off USAid to those groups that provide both birth control and abortions.

302 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:17:36pm

re: #280 Charles

I think I understand your point, but the history of Africa is filled with interventions by outside nations that always ended up hurting a great deal of people. If Bush wasn't so influenced by the religious right then he could have allowed the aid to flow more freely and save many lives. That's the issue, yes? If the issue is defined as only that, that's one way of looking at it. However, you can also look at what it is going to take to truly stop the tragedy of death and disease on that continent--because everyone wants to help to a point, it seems. And the consequences of not stopping at a certain point usually end in great misfortune.

303 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:17:36pm

World population control is a big issue, when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering from poverty, malnutrition, AIDS, and eventually Global Warming, many of these have yet to be born.

304 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:19:02pm

re: #295 darthstar

Do you have a link to support that? And is it really necessary to be vile so often? You're here a week and half the vulgarity is in your posts.

305 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:20:09pm

re: #292 Sharmuta

I You think women who can't feed their children want more of them?

I understood the whole point of this thread to be aid to Africa. Those women who can afford more children and desire them would not be the recipients. The women we are speaking of are those who do not have access to health care, contraception, and information that would help them plan, and prevent, pregnancies. The Bush policy prevented providing birth control information along with AIDS medication.

306 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:20:22pm

re: #303 Bagua

World population control is a big issue, when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering from poverty, malnutrition, AIDS, and eventually Global Warming, many of these have yet to be born.

Fertility rates go down when the standard of living goes up. What these countries need is economic development. That's hard to do when the country lacks security.

307 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:21:02pm

re: #298 Sharmuta

Great- why didn't the europeans provide the condoms to Africa?

They do provide assistance in Africa. Medicines Sans Frontiers is one such organization largely supported by Europeans...Just because US media doesn't cover International support for third world countries doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What we hear is that the US is the world's cop, the world's doctor, and the world's counselor. But that's because it affects us here in the US. And it sells advertising. Otherwise, the US media wouldn't report on that, either.

308 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:21:20pm

re: #305 allegro

My bad. In the future I will refrain from speaking of children as positive.

309 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:21:37pm

re: #280 Charles

Pardon me. I meant that the consequences of stopping at any given point result in tragedy regarding Africa. That's the way it usually goes.

310 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:21:51pm

re: #302 Bob Levin

I think I understand your point, but the history of Africa is filled with interventions by outside nations that always ended up hurting a great deal of people. If Bush wasn't so influenced by the religious right then he could have allowed the aid to flow more freely and save many lives. That's the issue, yes? If the issue is defined as only that, that's one way of looking at it. However, you can also look at what it is going to take to truly stop the tragedy of death and disease on that continent--because everyone wants to help to a point, it seems. And the consequences of not stopping at a certain point usually end in great misfortune.

Sure, there are plenty of problems in Africa, and no one program is going to solve all of them. But I'm going to keep repeating this until it sinks in: the tying of anti-AIDS funding to "abstinence only" programs was an unrealistic, destructive policy that was put in place for ONLY one reason -- to placate the religious right in America. The people behind this crazy policy could not have cared less about what would truly help the African people -- their sole focus was on a strange kind of religious "purity" that elevates dogma over people's lives.

That's why this policy was put in place. There's no rational reason for it otherwise, and plenty of rational reasons NOT to have it.

311 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:22:04pm

re: #306 Sharmuta

Fertility rates go down when the standard of living goes up. What these countries need is economic development. That's hard to do when the country lacks security.

I linked to the GDP of Uganda and Kenya. They're both climbing. Projections are for 5 to 6 percent nominal growth for African nations overall. So we are seeing positive indicators on that end.

312 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:22:06pm

re: #301 Gus 802

It wasn't because of birth control. It was because of abortion. This is because Bush reinstated the Mexico City Policy which cut aid to any abortion funding under USAid. The birth control providers in Africa were also tied in with abortion funding. That policy cut off USAid to those groups that provide both birth control and abortions.

Ok, thanks. But the article suggests $430 million a year was still spent on global birth control, which presumably includes abortions. No doubt there are cuts in some places, perhaps more in others. How many global abortions do you propose the American taxpayers pay for? Loads of people can't even afford their rent.

313 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:22:39pm

re: #310 Charles

Agreed.

314 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:23:33pm

re: #294 rurality

You've already been called a RINO, think you soon going to be accused of BDS and then you will be tuned out like Al Gore.

No one's crying BDS. The point is that right-wingers insist that no money be given for birth control, and that's an example of the far-right exerting influence that is not helpful.

315 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:23:59pm

re: #298 Sharmuta

Great- why didn't the europeans provide the condoms to Africa?

I haven't read all the previous, but the problem was that the Europeans and US donate through the same channels (It would be stupid to duplicate them), but when the US says that it won't donate anything to groups providing any birth control (ostensibly because it might also include abortion) it throws the whole system out of whack.

316 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:24:12pm

re: #312 Bagua

Ok, thanks. But the article suggests $430 million a year was still spent on global birth control, which presumably includes abortions. No doubt there are cuts in some places, perhaps more in others. How many global abortions do you propose the American taxpayers pay for? Loads of people can't even afford their rent.

No abortions under the Mexico City Policy. Birth control under that policy could include any contraceptive devices including condoms which we've seen had been dispersed in Africa under the AID/HIV programs. Any group associated with abortion would be cut off from aid.

I can't answer the abortion question.

317 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:24:12pm

Can't win with America critics.

318 ignoranceisfatal  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:24:35pm

re: #310 Charles

They could not have cared less about what would truly help the African people -- their sole focus was on a strange kind of religious "purity" that elevates dogma over people's lives.

I might temper that a little bit. I can accept that these people truly believed that abstinence would be helpful. After all, it seems logical (at least on the surface) that if fewer people are having sex, then there will be fewer STDs. Of course, this view is simplistic, naive, and unsupported by scientific research. Hence the problem.

319 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:24:37pm

re: #310 Charles

Sure, there are plenty of problems in Africa, and no one program is going to solve all of them. But I'm going to keep repeating this until it sinks in -- the tying of anti-AIDS funding to "abstinence only" programs was an unrealistic, destructive policy that was put in place for ONLY one reason -- to placate the religious right in America. They could not have cared less about what would truly help the African people -- their sole focus was on a strange kind of religious "purity" that elevates dogma over people's lives.

That's why this policy was put in place. There's no rational reason for it otherwise, and plenty of rational reasons NOT to have it.

And what was Bush to have done? A politician who ignores his base soon finds himself with no power. Both Bush and Obama have played to their respective bases' dogmas. Its a game all presidents must play.

320 Cobdenite  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:25:24pm

re: #12 cliffster

Part of the reason you're having trouble with this is because you're not reading it throughly. The reason so many people in Africa die of AIDS is twofold - unprotected sex, and unprotected sex leading to mass quantities of children also infected with AIDS from their mothers' effluvia (milk, saliva, blood). The Bush program gave Africans more drugs with which to fight AIDS, but also strongly undermined their ability to control population levels and the sexual transmission of AIDS. In leftist terms, this would mean that they weren't attacking the "root of the problem". They were attempting to mix charity and Christian morality, and what they're going to get is a cycle where ever increasing amounts of drugs are needed to stamp out an increasingly large population infected with AIDS. Population control and contraception are clearly the cheaper and less destructive form of aid here.

321 jaunte  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:25:30pm

When our politicians claim they want to help solve a multifaceted health problem and refuse (not for practical reasons but because of ideology) to spend any of the allocated money on one of the facets, then they have wasted part of our money on an incomplete attempt.

322 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:25:40pm

re: #306 Sharmuta

Fertility rates go down when the standard of living goes up. What these countries need is economic development. That's hard to do when the country lacks security.

That's correct. And "aid travels with a bomb, watch out." Misguided charity has destroyed many local trades in Africa that would otherwise provide the basis for economic development.

What local industry in making cloths is there, when there is a huge market in donated clothes? This repeats in farming, and many other areas.

323 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:26:36pm

re: #319 Dark_Falcon

No no. You play to your base on issues such as, should our state have a lottery. You don't play to your base when human lives are at stake. You just save the lives.

324 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:26:40pm

They shouldn't be allowed to spend our money on all this shit anyway

325 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:27:02pm

re: #320 Cobdenite

Don't patronize me and tell me I'm not reading it thoroughly. I get it, I disagree. Why do some people think that if you disagree, it means you don't understand?

326 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:27:57pm

re: #310 Charles

They could not have cared less about what would truly help the African people -- their sole focus was on a strange kind of religious "purity" that elevates dogma over people's lives.

I do not agree with this statement. It seems to me the Bush administration did indeed care about what would truly help African people. They could have done better, or provided additional care and supplies, but to say they did not care implies something nefarious.

327 Daniel Ballard  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:28:51pm

re: #281 reine.de.tout

That place can only sometimes afford food and water, let alone any medicines, or anything else at all. Until Charles leveled the charge Bush was obstructing other birth control efforts I did not see the big deal. Any charity has the right to manage how its money is spent. Each chooses its focus. We do not criticize water infrastructure grants becuse they say only for water not for highways or food.

Im interested to hear follow up on the serious charge that Bush obstruvted birth control efforts apart from restricting the use of the money he was sending.

328 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:28:51pm

re: #325 cliffster

Maybe because you think it will work next time

329 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:29:08pm

re: #304 Bagua

Do you have a link to support that? And is it really necessary to be vile so often? You're here a week and half the vulgarity is in your posts.

Abstinence is about fucking...or not fucking, however you want to look at it. It's not a bad word(fucking). It's not even vulgar. Anyone who has completed their fifth year of elementary school is already familiar with it (I learned it in the fourth grade at parochial school). As far as links go, no...I'm simply reciting from memory as I was surprisingly impressed when President Bush pledged 15 billion toward AIDS in Africa. It was when I learned that only $2billion actually went to Africa and that the rest was 'tied up' while the US negotiated 'abstinence only' programs with the people in need of assistance that I got pissed off.

330 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:29:26pm

re: #306 Sharmuta

Fertility rates go down when the standard of living goes up. What these countries need is economic development. That's hard to do when the country lacks security.

It is impossible to have the standard of living rise if the rate of population growth is always several percentage points ahead of the wealth growth, not to mention that what growth there is tends to be controlled by the ruling group.

331 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:29:39pm

re: #318 ignoranceisfatal

I might temper that a little bit. I can accept that these people truly believed that abstinence would be helpful. After all, it seems logical (at least on the surface) that if fewer people are having sex, then there will be fewer STDs. Of course, this view is simplistic, naive, and unsupported by scientific research. Hence the problem.

Good point. Fewer people having sex means fewer babies. If the result was more babies, then perhaps the intent was good, but the desired result was not achieved.

332 allegro  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:30:28pm

re: #308 Sharmuta

My bad. In the future I will refrain from speaking of children as positive.

Whoa. Serious stretch from the conversation.

333 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:30:32pm

re: #323 Bob Levin

No no. You play to your base on issues such as, should our state have a lottery. You don't play to your base when human lives are at stake. You just save the lives.

Sometimes you don't get that choice. Your base decides that only direction A is acceptable. Go in direction B, and they go fishing next election day. The worst thing in America right now is that both parties's bases want to go in directions that scare me. I'm starting to think that the USA is just plain out of luck.

334 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:31:19pm

The religious right loves to put abortions and contraception on the same level, and also represent abortion is used as a method of contraception much more often than not. It is through these misrepresentations they deny funding for family planning. If one red cent of this pays for even one abortion...

Birth control pills and condoms are not abortion, although some extremists say any type of contraception is an affront to the 'miracle' of conception.

Part of Africa's problem is that 'miracle' of conception happens far too often, with far too few resources to support the children being born. Children are born to perpetual poverty, ignorance, hunger, and disease, in a country ill-suited to take care of the population it has.

Consequently, Africa has become America's favorite 'no kill' animal shelter, teeming with unplanned and unsupported children. Rather, America should spend some of its African aid money on a viable spay and neuter education and family planning program, and stop misrepresenting abortion as prevailing contraception. It's a bullshit argument, and a bullshit reason to deny family planning services.

335 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:32:24pm

re: #329 darthstar

You do a lot of "reciting from memory" and you insistence on vulgarity suggests immaturity.

I am asking for proof that only $2 billion of the $15 billion attributed to Bush was spent. Without that your opinion is just hot air.

336 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:32:25pm

African nations need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

337 Kewalo  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:32:29pm

re: #158 Stanley Sea

Here is the Executive Order referenced in the article.

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

Maybe it's just late, but I can't make heads or tails out of it.

338 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:33:28pm

re: #333 Dark_Falcon

You do get that choice, and part of that choice might be finding a job or creating your own job in the private sector. You can't be saying that it's a genuine dilemma, save a life our lose and election, can you?

339 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:33:31pm

re: #334 theheat

Who are the ones speaking out most against contraception? Last I checked it's Catholics, which is different from the "Right".

And major downding for comparing Africa to the city pound.

340 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:33:47pm

re: #332 allegro

Whoa. Serious stretch from the conversation.

Was it? You chastised Racer X about babies being a good thing (which he didn't say, BTW). I'll be sure not to do so in the future.

341 avanti  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:33:52pm

re: #319 Dark_Falcon

And what was Bush to have done? A politician who ignores his base soon finds himself with no power. Both Bush and Obama have played to their respective bases' dogmas. Its a game all presidents must play.

OK, that is a valid point, and I think part of what Charles is getting at. Much of Bush's base does not want money given to any organization that dose not promote the failed abstinence policies, or mentions abortion as a option. That's a policy based on the faith of the base, and should not influence public policy. I will admit that Bush had to pander to that base, but that does not change the issue of the religious rights influence on public policy.
To take it to the extreme, some missionary's

342 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:35:58pm

re: #336 Gus 802

African nations need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

They need economic development, not welfare.

343 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:36:59pm

re: #335 Bagua

You do a lot of "reciting from memory" and you insistence on vulgarity suggests immaturity.

I am asking for proof that only $2 billion of the $15 billion attributed to Bush was spent. Without that your opinion is just hot air.

Insert appropriate profanity here

The White House's other major new aid initiative hasn't proven to be much more effective. The Millenium Challenge Corporation, first launched in 2002, was supposed to be a new kind of aid program, one that selected recipient nations based upon a range of indicators that show their ability to govern well. But MCC has also suffered from going it alone. According to one study by the Center for Global Development, the leading Washington think-tank focusing on aid, although experience had shown that donors worked best when they coordinated their efforts in a country, "MCC tended to steer clear ... much to the dismay and frustration of other donors." With few staff and little organization, the MCC moved very slowly. In fiscal year 2007, according to another analysis by the Center for Global Development, the MCC only disbursed 6.8 percent of the money it was allocated. Worse, it clearly has drained funds from longtime, critical aid programs: In 2007 the administration slashed aid for extreme poverty programs, like child survival initiatives in Africa.

344 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:37:15pm
345 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:38:28pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

you mean property rights and the rule of law

346 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:38:28pm

re: #338 Bob Levin

You do get that choice, and part of that choice might be finding a job or creating your own job in the private sector. You can't be saying that it's a genuine dilemma, save a life our lose and election, can you?

Bush was saving lives. His program has many lives. And given that this was a program started in his first term, yes what you suggest is what I'm saying. We were already at war, keeping his base placated was the price of being able to fight that war. Think about how fucked we would be had Kerry won in 2004.

347 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:39:18pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

I linked to an article about that above. I was asking about whether folks are willing to allow the consequences of that economic development--because there are quite a few folks in the world who don't want that. That particular set of consequences from economic development is that point at which their support would stop. But you're right, they do need economic development.

348 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:39:25pm

Bush's African Legacy - January 2009

Bush launched the $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world's estimated 33 million AIDS infections.


Congress last year passed legislation more than tripling the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with the GOP and Democrats alike hailing the program as a success


[…]

"The Bush regime has been divisive ... created bitterness – but not here in Africa. Here, his administration has saved millions of lives," Geldof wrote in Time as he accompanied Bush on an Africa trip last February.

Desperately poor Rwanda now has more than 100 centers where people can receive AIDS testing, counseling and treatment.

In Rwanda, 71 percent of those in need of AIDS drugs received them in 2007, up from 1 percent in 2003. In Namibia, the rate shot up to 88 percent, from 1 percent.


[…]

Dybul, whose title is now U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, concurs. "It's the largest international health initiative in history for a single disease," he says. "In any other circumstances, he [Bush] would be getting a Nobel prize."

349 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:40:08pm

re: #343 darthstar

Aw, shit...that's just over 1%, NOT 2%...sorry...I'm sure that other percentage point is around here somewhere. But that was 2007...I'm sure President Bush is doing much better in 2009.

350 Achilles Tang  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:40:41pm

Geminids meteor shower tonight. I just stepped outside for 13 posts and saw a nice one immediately. Signing off to catch some more.

351 darthstar  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:41:42pm

re: #348 Bagua

Bush's African Legacy - January 2009

He promised a lot to Africa...sadly, he didn't deliver. That was my point. I was pleased with his promises. It was what he actually accomplished that I have a problem with.

352 Killgore Trout  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:41:58pm

I've been checking but we're pretty socked in by clouds.

353 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:42:12pm

re: #342 Sharmuta

They need economic development, not welfare.

Big time. Unfortunately economic development is frowned upon in certain circles because aid to Africa has become an industry in itself and this includes the NGOs and the diplomat class. The ruling oligarchs have also amassed enormous riches from this aid. One of the greater ironies is that some African nations have seen a recent spike in their GDP from oil development.

354 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:42:44pm

re: #346 Dark_Falcon

I see your point. I'd say, then, that he could have used another strategy, another program to help Africans. There are so many ways that nations can help. Sharmuta spoke of economic development, which means building a modern infrastructure. That way he could have saved many lives AND placated his base.

355 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:43:45pm

re: #347 Bob Levin

I linked to an article about that above. I was asking about whether folks are willing to allow the consequences of that economic development--because there are quite a few folks in the world who don't want that. That particular set of consequences from economic development is that point at which their support would stop. But you're right, they do need economic development.

You're right. There are quite a few such "tax eaters", who feed on the money handed out for welfare and international aid. And here's the fun part: Last year one of those tax eaters was elected President of the United States. And the fact that he was a tax eater is a big reason why I dislike Barack Obama.

356 Surabaya Stew  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:44:16pm

re: #350 Naso Tang

Geminids meteor shower tonight. I just stepped outside for 13 posts and saw a nice one immediately. Signing off to catch some more.

Happy meteor hunting! I'll be signing off myself to do some sheep counting....

357 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:44:46pm

re: #353 Gus 802

Big time. Unfortunately economic development is frowned upon in certain circles because aid to Africa has become an industry in itself and this includes the NGOs and the diplomat class.

It's not surprising. One might even wonder if it's racist to keep a continent oppressed as perpetual welfare recipients. You can't expect responsibility if you only teach dependency.

358 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:44:52pm

re: #339 cliffster

It certainly is not just the Catholics. In fact, just recently this was one of the 'tests' proposed to qualify as True Conservative by the religious right. To heap this on the Catholics is dishonest.

359 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:45:05pm

re: #356 Surabaya Stew

Sign back on and let us know when you get to 1,000,000

360 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:45:36pm

re: #354 Bob Levin

I see your point. I'd say, then, that he could have used another strategy, another program to help Africans. There are so many ways that nations can help. Sharmuta spoke of economic development, which means building a modern infrastructure. That way he could have saved many lives AND placated his base.

That I'll upding.

361 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:46:06pm

re: #357 Sharmuta

teach a man to fish?

362 Surabaya Stew  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:46:22pm

re: #359 cliffster

Sign back on and let us know when you get to 1,000,000

Thanks for the bedside chuckle!

363 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:46:57pm

re: #358 theheat

It certainly is not just the Catholics. In fact, just recently this was one of the 'tests' proposed to qualify as True Conservative by the religious right. To heap this on the Catholics is dishonest.

The Pope has relaxed his stance on contraception? I missed that article. Also, I have a lot of Baptist friends (and relatives). Southern. Doesn't get any more hard-core than that. On the pill. Married, of course, but nonetheless, it's not anti-contraception for them. That is indeed a Catholic thing.

364 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:47:14pm

re: #343 darthstar


He promised a lot to Africa...sadly, he didn't deliver.

That 6.8% was for The Millenium Challenge Corporation, not the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)

But don't let little details like facts get in your way.

Again: do you have anything to back up your claim that only $2 billion of the $15 billion for AIDS was spent?

365 mikhailtheplumber  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:47:17pm

Mr. Johnson et al,
OT comment. I don't want to sound particularly obsessed with Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia (although I gladly admit that they give me hours of fun, satisfaction and, depending on the occasion, nausea), but the last XKCD comic seems to be tailor-made to make fun of Mr. Schlafly's blind and stupid attempts to disprove the Theory of Relativity using logical fallacies and the Bible.
Check it out.

366 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:47:42pm

Hey Lizards!

IIRC, it is not birth control that was not given funding in the international version of (Title IX ??"), but abortion. Unfortunatly, the way it was worded, the two are lumped together and the religious right would not fund abortion. No one can seem to come up with the bright idea to separate the two ideas, at home or abroad and women are left with out proper medical care.

I followed this at the time it was being enacted, but can't remember the specifics only my outrage.

How are you-all this evening?

367 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:48:27pm

re: #357 Sharmuta

Yep. There is very little modern African history that isn't a blatant display of racism.

368 generalsparky  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:48:37pm

re: #358 theheat

It certainly is not just the Catholics. In fact, just recently this was one of the 'tests' proposed to qualify as True Conservative by the religious right. To heap this on the Catholics is dishonest.

Link?

AFAIK, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the only large churches that do not believe in artificial birth control. What mainstream Protestant churches are anti-ABC?

369 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:49:53pm

re: #365 mikhailtheplumber

Mr. Johnson et al,
OT comment. I don't want to sound particularly obsessed with Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia (although I gladly admit that they give me hours of fun, satisfaction and, depending on the occasion, nausea), but the last XKCD comic seems to be tailor-made to make fun of Mr. Schlafly's blind and stupid attempts to disprove the Theory of Relativity using logical fallacies and the Bible.
Check it out.

I just read it. Its very good.

370 schnapp  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:50:16pm

i don't think that it is an unreasonable policy. the US gives hundreds of billions of dollars to third world countries every year when 13% of Americans live below the poverty line, millions are homeless or live in bad neighbourhoods plagued by drugs and violence and have no decent chance in life, not to mention those who can't afford health care . . . so isn't it reasonable for the president to impose one condition on how that money, which he could put to good use in his own country, is spent?

371 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:50:35pm

The point, for me, is that religious fundamentalist with power will try to keep women down and sexually repressed, no matter where they are in the world. But when this group has the ear of a powerful leader like the President of the United States, this means the fundie view can work it's way into policy, and the drawbacks of this influence are now being felt in Africa, where they can sorely afford to pay for the American Religious Right's unintended consequences.

372 generalsparky  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:50:38pm

re: #363 cliffster

The Pope has relaxed his stance on contraception? I missed that article. Also, I have a lot of Baptist friends (and relatives). Southern. Doesn't get any more hard-core than that. On the pill. Married, of course, but nonetheless, it's not anti-contraception for them. That is indeed a Catholic thing.

Yep.

And my husband would probably be overjoyed if the Pope said ABC/condoms would be ok. NFP can be a real PITA sometimes. Heh.

373 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:51:44pm

re: #357 Sharmuta

It's not surprising. One might even wonder if it's racist to keep a continent oppressed as perpetual welfare recipients. You can't expect responsibility if you only teach dependency.

I always remember criticizing movie regarding some African nation in the 80s and 90s in which the protagonist was always a white European. To me that always reflected a prejudice in that it was always those that felt guilty came to save the poor Africans. It was never the Africans themselves that came to their own rescue.

And now? Well, I think we're going to see business as usual if not worsening from what I am reading from the COP15 talks:

African Union threatens to scuttle a deal

African Union climate negotiator Meles Zenawi has sought Chinese and Indian backing if the African demands are not being taken seriously.
Rie Jerichow 13/12/2009 14:00

"If Copenhagen is going to be about an agreement that simply rides roughshod over Africa, then we will try to scuttle it, and I think we have reasonable assurance we can scuttle it if our concerns are not addressed," says Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who represents the African Union at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, according to US government funded Voice of America.

According to Bloomberg, Meles had received assurances from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in a telephone conversation earlier this week that China won’t sign any climate change agreement in Copenhagen unless African demands for compensation for the effects of global warming are met....

They're now being manipulated by China. This could be perhaps to be compensated not for the effects of global warming. I think the effect of any proposed agreement would be the nullification of any future oil development in Africa of which China profits from while exchanging arms and/or monies for said deals.

374 Cobdenite  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:52:22pm

Ironically, Bush did exactly what Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry criticized the Catholic Church of doing in Africa. That is, using charity to undermine contraception.

The question here isn't "did they care or did they not care", but rather, "what does religious charity care about?" And the answer is it cares more about your soul than it does about your body or physical existence. Material aid is a means to save your soul and promote conversion. It's rather irrelevant to a Christian whether a million more Africans are going to die of AIDS because of anti-contraception policies, as long as their deaths are not marred by a cardinal sin like murder (abortion/prevention of contraception). Prioritizing the soul destroys the body. Contraception is effective, but to someone practicing religious charity, it makes a sinful life - and therefore one really not worth living.

375 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:53:12pm

ABC news - Jan 2009


Besides PEPFAR, Bush has launched a five-year, $1.2 billion initiative to cut malaria deaths in 15 African nations by half.

Dybul also says it is unfair to accuse the U.S. of overemphasizing abstinence because PEPFAR is a major supplier of condoms to the targeted African countries. For instance, PEPFAR figures show 60 million condoms going to Zambia, 40 million to Rwanda, 145 million to Ethiopia in the past five years.

376 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:53:47pm

re: #371 Sharmuta

That relates to the comment above about an implied nefariousness. There probably wasn't any nefarious intent--but when dogma subtly raises itself over reality, that's when problems and frequently tragedy end up being the consequences.

377 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:56:09pm

re: #375 Bagua

Well shit, Bono likes him...

378 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:56:37pm

re: #363 cliffster

I was speaking about the aid money being contingent upon birth control, which may or may not include abortion. Not contraceptives exclusively. It was the religious right's idea to promote abstinence education over contraception, particularly if there is even the most remote chance abortion may be an option. This was not strictly a move on the part of the Catholic church.

379 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:58:10pm

I am Pro-Choice, but do not have a problem with denying funding for abortion.

What I DO have a problem with is denying funding for Contraception.

Technically speaking, if everyone used Contraception, abortion wouldn't be the issue it is.

IMHO, abortion is a medical decision. Unfortunately, many use it today as a form of birth control. Which is so unnecessary with the variety of contraception available.

This fight between the Right and Left in this country affects the whole world --the women of any country needs our funding is denied proper medical care because the Right won't give-up on the abortion issue and the Left won't separate it with contraception in the wording of legislation.

380 theheat  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:58:37pm

re: #372 generalsparky

See #378.

381 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 9:59:11pm

re: #376 Bob Levin

That relates to the comment above about an implied nefariousness. There probably wasn't any nefarious intent--but when dogma subtly raises itself over reality, that's when problems and frequently tragedy end up being the consequences.

I'm sure the taliban didn't think their intent was nefarious either. That's the point with religious fundamentalism- they think it's the will of God to live a certain way, and that will be best for everyone. What could possibly be nefarious about that, in their mind?

382 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:00:25pm

re: #373 Gus 802

Probably not. This has been a primary issue for African nations for some time. They want to modernize, they want a functional infrastructure--but that would mean their carbon output would increase exponentially. They don't care. All they know is that millions of people on the continent are dying every day from diseases that are preventable with modernization. And they have a point. In this case China is riding the coattails of the African Union.

383 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:02:06pm

re: #371 Sharmuta

The point, for me, is that religious fundamentalist with power will try to keep women down and sexually repressed, no matter where they are in the world. But when this group has the ear of a powerful leader like the President of the United States, this means the fundie view can work it's way into policy, and the drawbacks of this influence are now being felt in Africa, where they can sorely afford to pay for the American Religious Right's unintended consequences.

There is a time and place to make the point. Making the point of oppression, in the midst of enormous charity, is not the time.

384 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:03:06pm

re: #382 Bob Levin

Probably not. This has been a primary issue for African nations for some time. They want to modernize, they want a functional infrastructure--but that would mean their carbon output would increase exponentially. They don't care. All they know is that millions of people on the continent are dying every day from diseases that are preventable with modernization. And they have a point. In this case China is riding the coattails of the African Union.

Africa at night.

They need electricity if they're going to make a better future for their children. How do we electrify Africa without hurting the climate?

386 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:05:02pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

Africa at night.

They need electricity if they're going to make a better future for their children. How do we electrify Africa without hurting the climate?

How do we get rid of malaria without using DDT?

387 generalsparky  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:05:45pm

re: #375 Bagua

ABC news - Jan 2009

But I thought the uproar upthread was that PEPFAR was abstinence only? How can it be called abstinence only if they gave away millions of condoms under that program?!?

388 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:06:10pm

re: #383 cliffster

There is a time and place to make the point. Making the point of oppression, in the midst of enormous charity, is not the time.

I also don't like American charity seemingly unappreciated, but I don't think that's what Charles is doing. I also don't like seeing babies discussed as if they're terrible, but I don't think that means I'm supporting overpopulation in the third world either. Interesting thread.

389 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:06:19pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

Africa at night.

They need electricity if they're going to make a better future for their children. How do we electrify Africa without hurting the climate?

And how do they maintain growth with a positive GDP like all developing and developed nations. If any agreement effectively stops mining or oil production what then can provide that revenue? Tourism?

390 schnapp  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:06:55pm

re: #385 ggt

It is totally fair. There are people in America who desperately need help. People can't afford health care and 13% of the population live below the poverty line in the wealthiest country in the world. It is fair that the president imposes certain restrictions which he believes are right if he could have spent that money to benefit his own people.

391 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:07:15pm

re: #388 Sharmuta

Yup.

392 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:07:33pm

re: #374 Cobdenite

Ironically, Bush did exactly what Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry criticized the Catholic Church of doing in Africa. That is, using charity to undermine contraception.

The question here isn't "did they care or did they not care", but rather, "what does religious charity care about?" And the answer is it cares more about your soul than it does about your body or physical existence. Material aid is a means to save your soul and promote conversion. It's rather irrelevant to a Christian whether a million more Africans are going to die of AIDS because of anti-contraception policies, as long as their deaths are not marred by a cardinal sin like murder (abortion/prevention of contraception). Prioritizing the soul destroys the body. Contraception is effective, but to someone practicing religious charity, it makes a sinful life - and therefore one really not worth living.

I agree with your basic points, but you should note that not all Christians believe or act this way. This is primarily an attitude you find on the fundamentalist religious far right.

393 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:09:58pm

re: #384 Sharmuta

You've got the essence of the problem. Me, I put a lot of stock in the ripples of increased economic activity. As economic speed increases, so does invention and innovation. I wouldn't be shocked if the solution to the global energy problem came from a researcher at an African University that could keep its lights on all night. It's just ironic enough to work out like that.

394 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:10:00pm

re: #385 ggt

Bush said that he is expanding the 2001 order "because family planning grants are awarded by the Department of State outside of USAID, as well as through USAID." According to the Times, Bush believes that U.S. taxpayer money should not be used to provide financial assistance to international groups that provide abortion-related services (Los Angeles Times, 8/30).

Saying that it was Bush's policy to deny birth control isn't quite correct. It was his policy to deny a certain form of birth control not all forms.

That indeed is the origin. It was from the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy which has since been reversed. I mentioned this a couple of times. It wasn't because of birth control, it was because of the USAid abortion policy.

395 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:11:52pm

Perhaps the point is elections have consequences- sometimes far wider than we can possibly imagine.

396 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:13:10pm

re: #393 Bob Levin

You've got the essence of the problem. Me, I put a lot of stock in the ripples of increased economic activity. As economic speed increases, so does invention and innovation. I wouldn't be shocked if the solution to the global energy problem came from a researcher at an African University that could keep its lights on all night. It's just ironic enough to work out like that.

Africa would be a prime candidate for solar farming so to speak. They could make a killing on selling electricity to Europe.

397 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:13:14pm

re: #395 Sharmuta

I think we're still feeling the effects of the 1976 Presidential Election, I'm sorry to say.

398 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:13:39pm

re: #395 Sharmuta

And for countries, other than where the election was held.

399 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:13:52pm

re: #390 schnapp

It is totally fair. There are people in America who desperately need help. People can't afford health care and 13% of the population live below the poverty line in the wealthiest country in the world. It is fair that the president imposes certain restrictions which he believes are right if he could have spent that money to benefit his own people.

As I said, I don't have a problem with denying funding for abortion, I do have a problem with denying funding for contraception and education. Bush wouldn't give-in on the abortion issue, the Left would't drop the word "abortion" from the legislation. It's a stalemate that has to stop.

What is the poverty line in this country compared with 3rd world countries? don't necessarily agree with that arguement because I don't think it compares apples to apples.

400 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:14:13pm

The comments at Breitbart.tv for this video featuring Lord High Denier Christopher Monckton talking to a Greenpeace activist are just stunning:

[Link: www.breitbart.tv...]

These people seem to think that Monckton came off well in this video! What?! Almost everything Monckton says is a flat-out lie!

They're living in a completely different universe from the real one.

401 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:14:31pm

re: #398 Floral Giraffe

Great- so now I can feel guilty for voting or not voting.

402 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:14:41pm

re: #396 Gus 802

IF you could get the support & transmission facilities to work.

403 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:14:51pm

re: #396 Gus 802

Africa would be a prime candidate for solar farming so to speak. They could make a killing on selling electricity to Europe.

How would they get the electricity from Africa to Europe?

404 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:15:22pm

re: #392 Charles

I don't think you can call it fundamentalist. That is pretty basic to religion.

405 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:15:32pm

re: #395 Sharmuta

Perhaps the point is elections have consequences- sometimes far wider than we can possibly imagine.

And that is indeed a profound point, and one worth always bearing in mind.

406 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:15:43pm

re: #396 Gus 802

That's happening, but it's not happening easily.

407 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:15:56pm

re: #403 cliffster

How would they get the electricity from Africa to Europe?

The old fashioned way. Transmission lines and then underground cabling at the Mediterranean Sea.

408 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:16:08pm

re: #405 Dark_Falcon

And that is indeed a profound point, and one worth always bearing in mind.

I was considering not voting anymore, but now I feel guilty for that too.

409 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:16:11pm

re: #401 Sharmuta

No, none of us need to feel guilty. We ALL do the best that we can, with the knowlege that we have at the time. We all do our best.

410 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:16:30pm

re: #407 Gus 802

ha ha ha ha, right

411 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:16:37pm

re: #394 Gus 802

That indeed is the origin. It was from the reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy which has since been reversed. I mentioned this a couple of times. It wasn't because of birth control, it was because of the USAid abortion policy.

Yes, I just got to this thread and haven't reviewed all the posts.

I'm concerned over the wording of "Bush's anti-contraception policies". He had a "anti-birth control" policy or more specifically an "anti-funding of abortion" policy.

Misinformation is dangerious and below Lizard standards.

412 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:16:48pm
413 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:16:50pm

re: #400 Charles

Viewers seem uninterested in actual facts and data when they have their biases appealed to, it's all about perception.

414 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:17:55pm

re: #410 iheartbolton

Are you some kind of moby or something?

415 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:18:43pm

re: #408 Sharmuta

I was considering not voting anymore, but now I feel guilty for that too.

You need to vote.
I believe EVERYONE needs to vote.
Voting is the foundation of our civilization in the West.
Besides, if you don't vote, IMHO, you don't get to criticize!

416 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:19:11pm

re: #415 Floral Giraffe

I don't have anyone to vote for.

417 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:19:20pm

re: #414 Sharmuta

Or something, my 2 cents.

418 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:21:02pm

re: #416 Sharmuta

I don't have anyone to vote for.

Me neither.

419 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:21:08pm

re: #417 Floral Giraffe

yeah right.

i did fail that revolutionary quiz from last week though, So maybe

420 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:21:47pm

re: #416 Sharmuta

Look again.
And again & again.
I understand you don't LIKE the options, I don't either.
I think it's more common to vote "against" rather than "for" which is really sad. But, that is the best that our DEMOCRACY has to offer. And, it's better than any other political system, so far.......

421 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:22:41pm

re: #410 iheartbolton

Gus was making a decent suggestion, jerk. Show some respect.

422 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:23:13pm

re: #419 iheartbolton

yeah right.

i did fail that revolutionary quiz from last week though, So maybe

And, you are here to contribute, exactly what?
Please, DO share!

423 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:23:17pm

re: #410 iheartbolton

ha ha ha ha, right

You find that humorous? Let's see. Africa has almost 10.0 hours per day of sunshine in many nations. Wide expanses of land which is easily converted to solar energy production.

Even if they didn't completely cable electricity they could be a part of battery recharging production which could be trucked or transported by rail to points north.

You do know that we have undersea telephone cables which were done many decades ago right? We also installed a series of Pacific Ocean microphones during the cold war with a vast network of cabling.

424 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:23:30pm

re: #420 Floral Giraffe

I don't recall ever voting 'for' anyone--but I've voted 'against' folks, every time.

425 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:24:06pm

re: #424 Bob Levin

I don't recall ever voting 'for' anyone--but I've voted 'against' folks, every time.

The Adversarial System --somehow, it works.

426 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:25:09pm

re: #419 iheartbolton

You suck

427 Racer X  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:26:19pm

Italian Leader Hospitalized After Attack

An attacker hurled a statuette at Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, striking the leader in the face at the end of a rally Sunday and leaving the stunned 73-year-old media mogul with a broken nose and bloodied mouth.

Police said the 42-year-old man accused of attacking Berlusconi as he signed autographs in Milan was immediately taken into custody. The Italian leader was rushed to a hospital where he was being held overnight.

428 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:26:21pm

re: #425 ggt

I like to think so. Then how did we manage to elect the top 500 or so worst problem solvers to Washington? I wonder about that a lot lately.

429 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:27:58pm

re: #427 Racer X

Italian Leader Hospitalized After Attack

An attacker hurled a statuette at Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, striking the leader in the face at the end of a rally Sunday and leaving the stunned 73-year-old media mogul with a broken nose and bloodied mouth.

Police said the 42-year-old man accused of attacking Berlusconi as he signed autographs in Milan was immediately taken into custody. The Italian leader was rushed to a hospital where he was being held overnight.

And you thought our politics are nasty? Thankfully, that's unlikely to occur here thanks to the Secret Service.

430 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:28:12pm

re: #424 Bob Levin

Isn't that sad?
Don't you wish you had an "I can win!" candidate?
I sure wish I'd had one of those.
Sadly, the Republicans haven't had one in a while.
And don't look likely to be fielding one soon.

I would SO love to see a smaller government republican, who wasn't a religious pro-lifer enter the ring.
I don't see anyone on the horizon.

431 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:28:12pm

re: #428 Bob Levin

I like to think so. Then how did we manage to elect the top 500 or so worst problem solvers to Washington? I wonder about that a lot lately.

Because we accept the status quo and don't insist we get people we can vote for.

432 iheartbolton  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:28:25pm

re: #423 Gus 802

What, how far do you really think electricity can be transmitted without losing too much?

433 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:30:13pm

re: #428 Bob Levin

I like to think so. Then how did we manage to elect the top 500 or so worst problem solvers to Washington? I wonder about that a lot lately.

Perhaps they aren't as bad as we like to make them out to be. They are working in a system and playing their part. I will say that when I watch C-SPAN I am often impressed with the individuals.

I thik it takes a political scientist to understand the scope of how government works. WE only see little bits, not the whole picture. Keeping this country going is a complex job, I don't begin to admit to understanding the dymanics involved. I only know it won't work if the individual citizen doesn't try.

434 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:30:18pm

re: #421 Dark_Falcon

Gus was making a decent suggestion, jerk. Show some respect.

Thanks DF. You know, the more I think about it the more I like it. I think this might have some serious potential.

435 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:31:42pm

re: #432 iheartbolton

What, how far do you really think electricity can be transmitted without losing too much?

Could go HVDC for 3000 miles then reconvert to AC.

436 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:31:44pm

re: #431 Sharmuta

Also a reply to Floral.

It could also be that if you are a very good problem solver, Washington is like Kryptonite. But, it's still the best system. You can either laugh or cry at that. Free choice.

437 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:32:07pm

re: #434 Gus 802

Thanks DF. You know, the more I think about it the more I like it. I think this might have some serious potential.

I think somewhere around 55% of energy is lost moving it along the wires. I'm pulling this from memory so might be totally off-mark there. But getting it that far, it seems like it would dissipate.

438 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:32:48pm

re: #437 cliffster

I think somewhere around 55% of energy is lost moving it along the wires. I'm pulling this from memory so might be totally off-mark there. But getting it that far, it seems like it would dissipate.

There's always batteries.

439 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:33:11pm

re: #435 Gus 802

Could go HVDC for 3000 miles then reconvert to AC.

I think we need a science fiction answer.

Store it in crystals and then beam the crystals to the destinations.

440 Charles Johnson  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:34:01pm

Stalkers are accusing me of racism for posting this article, in one of the most twisted distortions that brain-damaged moron Rodan has come up with yet.

441 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:35:27pm

re: #438 Gus 802

There's always batteries.

I saw you'd mentioned that after I made my post. Interesting idea. I don't know enough about it to speak intelligently.

442 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:35:41pm

re: #440 Charles

Stalkers are accusing me of racism for posting this article, in one of the most twisted distortions that brain-damaged moron Rodan has come up with yet.

RACISM?

Charles, don't pay attention to the stalkers --they are crazy and will only draw you into their insanity.

:)

443 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:37:13pm

re: #440 Charles

Stalkers are accusing me of racism for posting this article, in one of the most twisted distortions that brain-damaged moron Rodan has come up with yet.

That man sees everything through a lens of "Hate Charles". I'd call it pathetic, but I'm worried about the danger it presents.

444 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:37:34pm

re: #433 ggt

We definitely have to be informed, properly informed--and very knowledgeable. I think the framers of the Constitution thought of that as a given. There's a lot of talk about the religiosity of these guys--but they were Enlightenment men inside and out. Rational, scientific, and could definitely recognize a slippery slope argument. I can easily see them arguing for days about the precise wording of the Bill of Rights.

445 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:39:02pm

re: #440 Charles

Heh! Rodan!
Consider the source. Nah, your time is worth a LOT more than spending it on that.
Next?

446 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:39:44pm

re: #440 Charles

Stalkers are accusing me of racism for posting this article, in one of the most twisted distortions that brain-damaged moron Rodan has come up with yet.

I'm sorry for that. You work too hard at being fair to deserve that sort of treatment.

447 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:40:21pm

re: #441 cliffster

I saw you'd mentioned that after I made my post. Interesting idea. I don't know enough about it to speak intelligently.

If we reduce the demand. Perhaps converting to all DC current. Batteries would be easily transportable and it could be a modular adaption on vehicles.

Short of that Africa could still provide a vast network of solar power for their own production facilities.

448 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:41:01pm

re: #444 Bob Levin

We definitely have to be informed, properly informed--and very knowledgeable. I think the framers of the Constitution thought of that as a given. There's a lot of talk about the religiosity of these guys--but they were Enlightenment men inside and out. Rational, scientific, and could definitely recognize a slippery slope argument. I can easily see them arguing for days about the precise wording of the Bill of Rights.

I always liked the term "Providence". It was used a lot in the "Founder's" era.

I sometimes think that the politics of today is child's play compared to what when on in the late 1700's.

449 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:41:36pm

re: #447 Gus 802

Africa's been raped enough by the europeans- let them supply themselves and europe can fix their own energy needs.

450 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:43:09pm

re: #447 Gus 802

If we reduce the demand. Perhaps converting to all DC current. Batteries would be easily transportable and it could be a modular adaption on vehicles.

Short of that Africa could still provide a vast network of solar power for their own production facilities.

The second point alone would be a great boon to the standard of living there.

451 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:43:22pm

I think the rest of the world needs to leave Afrika alone. The people there are not idiots and can take care of themselves quite well if we'd let them.

452 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:44:47pm

I have to sleep.

weet dreams, Lizards!

453 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:45:10pm

re: #448 ggt

I marvel at our ancestors, everyone's ancestors. Just surviving, let alone starting a country, pulling together the rabble that made up the population of North America....just amazing. And then there is the stories of 20th century immigrants. Yeah, providence is a good word.

454 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:45:40pm

Why racism?

455 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:46:12pm

re: #454 Bagua

It's rodan, so understanding the "logic" is futile.

456 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:46:23pm

re: #451 ggt

I disagree, not that they can't take care of themselves, but that they could advance exponentially with some help/advice/listening from the west. Well, and use of the West's cash, or incentives.

457 Bagua  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:47:53pm

re: #455 Sharmuta

It's rodan, so understanding the "logic" is futile.

Agreed, no value in trying to understand their obsessive and unjustified hatred of Charles. Weirdos.

458 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:49:08pm

re: #440 Charles

Stalkers are accusing me of racism for posting this article, in one of the most twisted distortions that brain-damaged moron Rodan has come up with yet.

Was this while Rodan was admitting to supporting the genocide of Bosnians, Albanians, and the shooting of Arabs in the United States? Or was he boasting about being in the Leftist gang The Latin Kings? I find it odd that they're listening to a former gang banger that got help from a neo-Maoist group like the Latin Kings.

459 Dancing along the light of day  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:50:59pm

Good night, Lizards, I will seek out my favorite rock, in the sun , tomorrow morning. You are welcome to challenge me, the place in the sun, but you'd best be prepared to fight. Sleep tight, and see you all around the block!
{{{Lizardim}}}

460 Cobdenite  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:54:09pm

re: #392 Charles

Charles,
I certainly agree that not all Christians believe this. However, the Catholic Church is a far more "mainstream" organization than the American fundamentalist religious right. Concerns with the soul over the body are somewhat endemic to Christian history and ways of thinking. Of course, Christian charity has assisted many people over a great span of time. But in this case, the religious goal of saving souls is clearly interfering with a more secular vision of raising the African standard of living by - if nothing else - decreasing the impact of such a crippling disease. AIDS is particularly pernicious here because while a major epidemic (for example the Black Death) may wipe out a portion of society and leave the rest to recover, this disease leaves countless people to linger on, infect others and use up significant resources.

Bush's approach emboldened those who believe that you can solve Africa's AIDS problem through the magic of abstinence (and drugs, which are in this case fighting a rearguard action) rather than population control and contraception.

If a more effective HIV medication/vaccine is discovered, I have no doubt that people and governments would pour money into it as a morality-free solution. At this point though, the harder decision between body and soul must still be made.

461 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:57:01pm

Human Kindness...

462 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:58:23pm

re: #460 Cobdenite

Would you be agreeable to a program that advocated monogamy in Africa?

463 Gus  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 10:59:50pm

re: #419 iheartbolton

yeah right.

i did fail that revolutionary quiz from last week though, So maybe

After further review I think you nickname fits.

464 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:03:21pm

re: #17 allegro

Do you understand AIDS treatments? They require a considerable amount of knowledge and understanding to use effectively. Things like taking them at certain, precise times of day - many of the sufferers in African don't have watches. The only thing that might have some success is to prevent the spread of disease, like through condom use, that the Bush administration forbid.

I've always thought that the only thing that might work with retrovirals and such would be to have a village crier in charge of tracking meds. Doing it as a community activity. There are places where that could never happen, but there are some where it might work.

465 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:03:36pm

You have it right with modernization. Notice that industrialized countries also have low birthrates. And less disease--I mean no plagues, as opposed to the common cold. And better nutrition, and more fertile farms. And better education. Long list. I'll leave it there at 2AM. I'm at the 2 minute warning here on the east coast.

466 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:04:59pm

So all that aid and money the Bush Administration sent to Africa is some sort of sooper seekrit dominionist plot to take over Africa? And those countries can't be backwards and mysoginist without help from the religous right?

And Bono (notorious right-wing shill tht he is) was in on it this whole time?

Well, we've already established that life under the most anti-science eVar Bush Administration, with its insidious donations to poor countries, was akin to life in the dark ages.

What exactly did the Bush administion do right? Anything? Anybody wanna take a shot at viewing 2000-2009 through the magical 20/20 hindsight glasses?

467 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:08:53pm

re: #466 Fenway_Nation

From your link:

Bono did, however, acknowledge that Bush's programme requires up to a third of the funds to be spent on abstinence education instead of safe sex campaigns. He adds, "Condoms are a part of the solution; they just are."

And according to the Washington Post, so are monogamy campaigns.

468 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:09:46pm

re: #466 Fenway_Nation

So all that aid and money the Bush Administration sent to Africa is some sort of sooper seekrit dominionist plot to take over Africa? And those countries can't be backwards and mysoginist without help from the religous right?

And Bono (notorious right-wing shill tht he is) was in on it this whole time?

Well, we've already established that life under the most anti-science eVar Bush Administration, with its insidious donations to poor countries, was akin to life in the dark ages.

What exactly did the Bush administion do right? Anything? Anybody wanna take a shot at viewing 2000-2009 through the magical 20/20 hindsight glasses?

I still say that Bush was a better president than we're likely to see in Obama.

469 cliffster  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:11:47pm

Agreed, DF, and good night, everyone.

470 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:13:13pm

re: #469 cliffster

Nightey night, cliffster!

I mean.......-ster of the steep, sheer vertical precipice persuasion.

471 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:13:25pm

re: #469 cliffster

Agreed, DF, and good night, everyone.

Goodnight, friend.

472 Cobdenite  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:15:55pm

re: #462 Sharmuta

Sharmuta,
I really doubt that would work. Attempting to restructure an entire way of existing, polygamy often being the basis of village and tribal communities, would take a rather long time. Much longer than simply advocating basic economic and medical self-interest (use a condom, produce less kids = less poverty/less disease). That kind of self-interest works better in the short-term, and allows the accumulation of wealth to the point where Industrial age demographics can take over.

Also, birth rates were very high in monogamous pre-industrial Europe. Usually a family could produce lots of children through serial monogamy. A mother would give birth to 6-12 kids, die from exhaustion at 25-30, the father would re-marry and start the process over again. In some cases, the father could re-marry 3-4 times and produce around 20-30 kids total (of whom about 15-20% died from the very high infant mortality rates).

473 Cobdenite  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:17:26pm

re: #467 Sharmuta

Interesting. I'll have to read this article. Thanks for the link.

474 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:21:32pm

re: #470 Fenway_Nation

Nightey night, cliffster!

I mean...-ster of the steep, sheer vertical precipice persuasion.

Just saw your post on Steinbrenner. Wow, you really hate that man! What has he done to you, other than keep the Red Sox from winning more World Series?

475 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:24:02pm

re: #468 Dark_Falcon

I still say that Bush was a better president than we're likely to see in Obama.

I say the facts on the ground will indeed bear that observation out, D_F. However, the sychophanitc MSM will try and market the 0bama administration as some sort of 'Camelot', or if the fuck-ups are too collossal to omit from the history books then they will be the sole responsibility of his predecesor, and the problems so grave that they could not be overcome by the charisma, sincerity and determination of the noble Obama White House.

/but he tried, so 'A+' for effort.

476 Bob Levin  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:24:50pm

re: #466 Fenway_Nation

Last post of the night, and it's been fun. We aren't far enough into the future to take a fair look at the Bush Administration. I think we're likely to see a few things, though, when those books are written. We'll see a furious fight with the State Department--it's good that he fought that battle. Unfortunately, he lost it badly. I don't fault him for that. Who could have known how viciously the State Department would fight a sitting President?

His public persona, not a strength generally, was quite strong after 9/11. For a brief moment he had a clear view of the threat posed by Islamic Fundamentalism--not the ideology, that's been around for a long time. Rather, the Wahabists managed to devise a strategy and embraced a technology that could penetrate the boundaries of the US. He forced the Jihadis to look elsewhere for targets. That's the most he could do.

He wanted to remake the Middle East. I don't think that could have been accomplished, but I don't fault him for trying.

Each President has to meet a test of history. If that President meets it, they've done a good job. I think he successfully passed this test.

477 Cobdenite  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:26:09pm

From Sharmuta's WaPo article:

"So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners."

This is still not abstinence. However, this does give something for the Christain charity worker to be able to support with a clear conscience. Hopefully religious charities will be able to use these findings constructively.

478 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:32:39pm

re: #475 Fenway_Nation

Fenway, please send me an email, nic is blue. I need to ask you something.

479 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:35:23pm

re: #474 Dark_Falcon

What? Nothing to say regarding one Ms. Bettie Mae Page?

All of those observations are true (except for preventing the Red Sox from winning a WS- already happened twice in my lifetime and during many of those years, the Boss was his own worst enemy with his overbearing and egomaniacal ownership style). I tend to loathe the Yankees organization and their fans because until 2004, taunting us about our dead relatives was fair game for a good number of them.

Yet my post was very tame and off-the-cuff compared to what some of the guys at Sons of Sam Horn, Boston Dirt Dogs or Soxaholix can come up with next to no notice.

480 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:37:34pm

re: #477 Cobdenite

This is still not abstinence. However, this does give something for the Christain charity worker to be able to support with a clear conscience. Hopefully religious charities will be able to use these findings constructively.

I didn't say abstinence, but I do find it interesting that it was highly effective. You raise a good point about religious charities being able to support this.

481 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:40:16pm

re: #203 soxfan4life

Why?

Because most people don't need either of those to live.

482 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:41:32pm

re: #479 Fenway_Nation

What? Nothing to say regarding one Ms. Bettie Mae Page?

All of those observations are true (except for preventing the Red Sox from winning a WS- already happened twice in my lifetime and during many of those years, the Boss was his own worst enemy with his overbearing and egomaniacal ownership style). I tend to loathe the Yankees organization and their fans because until 2004, taunting us about our dead relatives was fair game for a good number of them.

Yet my post was very tame and off-the-cuff compared to what some of the guys at Sons of Sam Horn, Boston Dirt Dogs or Soxaholix can come up with next to no notice.

Fair enough, and your post on the Nyack Brinks robbery was absolutely spot on.

483 palomino  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:48:11pm

re: #475 Fenway_Nation

I say the facts on the ground will indeed bear that observation out, D_F. However, the sychophanitc MSM will try and market the 0bama administration as some sort of 'Camelot', or if the fuck-ups are too collossal to omit from the history books then they will be the sole responsibility of his predecesor, and the problems so grave that they could not be overcome by the charisma, sincerity and determination of the noble Obama White House.

/but he tried, so 'A+' for effort.

Except that he gives himself a B+, so I think the media will probably hold off on the A+. link...

And here we go with the "mean old MSM" again?...if only the MSM hadn't been there to bring Bush down (like before the Iraq War) we would all realize his greatness.///

484 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:50:07pm

re: #483 palomino

Buzzkill, meet downding.

485 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:51:51pm

re: #482 Dark_Falcon

TY.....it was something I had percolating in my noggin since that motherfucking cockroach Ayers had the spotlight shone on him again last year.

Feel free to leave a comment if you want.

PS- The Steinbrenner post was satire along the lines of earlier ones I did where Obama was named Playmate of the Year or Khalid Shiekh Mohammed was going to be tried in federal court in NYC for carrying inadequate health insurance.

/also, check your inbox.

486 palomino  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:53:28pm

re: #484 Dark_Falcon

Aww, don't like anybody raining on your end-of-thread parade, huh?

The Bush cheerleaders are deluded. He didn't even attend the 2008 GOP convention, unprecedented by the way. He's not gonna be rehabilitated from that abyss.

487 Sharmuta  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:55:59pm

re: #486 palomino

He didn't even attend the 2008 GOP convention, unprecedented by the way.

Because of a hurricane!

488 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:57:32pm

re: #483 palomino

And here we go with the "mean old MSM" again?...if only the MSM hadn't been there to bring Bush down (like before the Iraq War) we would all realize his greatness.///

I know I'm just a feeble minded bitter clingey right-winger repeating himself, but at the risk of repeating myself again, ever since January 2009, whenever I see an article in the MSM about how shitty we had it under the Bush Administration (i.e. Bush wanted the US Army to invade Buffalo to catch the Lackawana 6, Bush burning heretics and scientists at the stake during the Dark Ages his Administration) I can't help but wonder what steaming turd President Obama is getting ready to step in- or already putting his foot in.

Call me cynical.

489 Fenway_Nation  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:59:11pm

re: #486 palomino

Aww, don't like anybody raining on your end-of-thread parade, huh?

No, because you come off as a smarmy little fuck-up- that's why.

490 SixDegrees  Sun, Dec 13, 2009 11:59:37pm

re: #16 Charles

You should try to look at the whole picture -- yes, the Bush administration contributed billions of dollars to African countries for AIDS medication.

But they tied this money to a prohibition on birth control, with an ill-advised "abstinence" program that came straight from the religious far right.

Quite true. But the US nonetheless provided and enormous, unprecedented amount of money and other resources to the continent. And the US is not the only prosperous nation on earth. If there were gaps in the funding, did any other nation step in to fill them? France? Germany? Russia? The EU? China? Not to mention private donations.

I think a lot of people would have liked to have seen a more comprehensive response, if they were aware of such efforts at all. I would have. But I've never seen the point in carping about free money, even when it comes with strings attached.

I guarantee that, had the money included provisions to fund abortions or birth control of any sort, it would have faced an uphill battle during it's passage through Congress, and that would be just as true today as well. Whether you agree or not, a huge number of people in the US do not want to see their tax dollars used to fund such things; that's just a fact. Politicians can either ignore them, accommodate them or find some pitch that will convince them to change their minds, and while I find the first solution unacceptable and would definitely prefer the last, I don't know what that pitch is and I'm not seeing anyone else coming up with suggestions. That leaves accommodation, which allows at least something to be accomplished.

I suppose there's yet a fourth alternative: to do nothing at all. Somehow, that seems unacceptable as well.

491 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:00:48am

re: #487 Sharmuta

Because of a hurricane!

What a bullshit excuse!

EVERY other Republican managed to get there. Was the hurricane tracking Bush and Cheney.

492 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:02:22am

re: #489 Fenway_Nation

Well said. Looking forward to conversing with you in the future. Go Sox! Cheney/Palin 2012!

493 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:05:37am

re: #492 palomino

Looking forward to you slipping on a banana peel on the subway stairs or forgetting to look both ways before running out onto Commonwealth Ave!

/Don't be a stranger!

494 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:06:08am

re: #492 palomino

Go back to the Daily Kos, you liberal troll. They like bullshit artists like you there.

495 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:09:14am

re: #491 palomino

Riiight! That must be why liberals were hoping to make political hay from a natural event- because it was a bullshit excuse! Asshole- the democrats pushed it as another possible Katrina and would have crucified President Bush if he'd left the White House to go to Saint Paul. Asshole.

496 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:11:44am

re: #494 Dark_Falcon

Go back to the Daily Kos, you liberal troll. They like bullshit artists like you there.

Sorry, honey, but LGF is no longer a bush-criticism free zone.

What's the bullshit? Bush could have flown to MN for the convention, and didn't because the party didn't want him.

Plenty of space for you at Free Republic or Red State--their revisionist history won't allow badmouthing W.

497 SixDegrees  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:13:24am

Abraham Lincoln ('Abraham' - isn't that wunna them Biblical names?) didn't get rid of slavery fast enough. Dominionist bitch.

498 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:13:30am

re: #495 Sharmuta

Since when did Bush give a shit what liberals thought of him, douchebag?

The party didn't want him and his 24% approval rating weighing down their fun.

499 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:18:10am

re: #498 palomino

Since when did Bush give a shit what liberals thought of him, douchebag?

The party didn't want him and his 24% approval rating weighing down their fun.

Bush didn't want to be portrayed by the LameStream Media as being callus by attending a political event while New Orleans was under threat. He stayed in DC to do his part for his Nation and his party by being ready to meet any threats that emerged. But don't let that get in the way of a good Bush-Bash.

PS, LGF has never been a "bush-criticism free zone". But it is a No Bullshit Zone, and that makes your load of crap unwelcome. That's why my response is so hostile.

500 SixDegrees  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:18:49am

re: #496 palomino

Sorry, honey, but LGF is no longer a bush-criticism free zone.

I don't know that it ever was such a place.

It has, however, been a refuge from the rampant incivility of much of the blogosphere. The uncivil aren't welcome here, and generally don't last long without adopting a more gracious presentation.

If all you have to offer are ad hominem attacks, canned propaganda and snark, you're in for a rough ride, and you'd probably be a lot more comfortable elsewhere.

501 Bagua  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:20:43am

re: #498 palomino

You take great liberties for someone who has been here just over a month.

Apparently you enjoy being odious and offensive, pitiful really.

502 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:20:47am

re: #498 palomino

Oh wow.....so let me get this straight. Last year, Bush's approval ratings had to be brought up at every opportunity in 2008 but wait......let me guess. 0bama's numbers are tanking after less than a year in office, but those poll numbers are either
A) meaningless OR
B) tilted and biased against the President.

Do I have that right? Am I thinking like a good little progressive now?

503 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:23:22am

re: #499 Dark_Falcon

When the president's own party is happy he skipped the convention, then something didn't go right. Thus rehabilitating his image is nearly impossible.

I'm not questioning his motives--yes, I think he sincerely cared about the people of NOLA even before Katrina. But I don't think he all of a sudden cared what the MSM thought of him, not that late in his presidency.

504 Bagua  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:24:44am

re: #503 palomino

{gaze}

505 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:25:21am

re: #500 SixDegrees

I was called an asshole, bullshit artist and worst of all liberal before I said anything of an ad hominem nature.

506 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:26:26am

re: #502 Fenway_Nation

If Obama's ratings are in the 20's in 2016, the Dems probably won't want him at their convention either.

507 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:27:37am

re: #505 palomino

I was called behaving like an asshole, bullshit artist and worst of all liberal before I said anything of an ad hominem nature.

Fixed that for ya.

/Another martyr cookie?

508 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:28:02am

re: #503 palomino

He cared about what the LSM thought because he wanted to prevent another orgy of Bush-Bashing that could have hurt John McCain. George W never craved the limelight, and he gave it up willingly so that the LSM wouldn't have target.

509 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:28:30am

re: #505 palomino

Yeah- I called you an asshole, and I rarely call people names here. You earned it with your BDS, imo.

510 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:28:42am

re: #507 Fenway_Nation

Well played, sir. Facts don't matter, create your own reality.

511 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:29:34am

re: #505 palomino

Your number 483 was a snarky slap at Fenway. Those kinds of comments earn you a downding from me.

512 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:29:49am

re: #510 palomino

I would say criticizing President Bush for staying where he was needed instead of attending a political function is pretty asshole-ish behavior.

513 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:30:20am

re: #506 palomino

BWA HA HA HA HA! Don't know how to break it to you, sport, but I get the feeling we don't have to until 2016 for 0bama's approval numbers to get in the 20s and teens at this rate.

Unless you maybe meant 20:16 military time sometime this week.

514 SixDegrees  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:30:41am

re: #505 palomino

I was called an asshole, bullshit artist and worst of all liberal before I said anything of an ad hominem nature.

That doesn't excuse your behavior. Coming in late and not being particularly interested in backtracing a thread filled with nothing but snark, you're the one I see. And your antagonists are normally some of the most tolerant, even-handed posters here, adding to your woes.

515 Bagua  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:30:59am

re: #505 palomino

And you were harshly criticised by long time regular posters who rarely lash out harshly. Wear the cap, it fits you.

516 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:31:22am

Here's my point. The GOP convention of 1988 and Dem convention of 2000 were lovefests for Reagan and Clinton. The 2008 GOP version, not so much. The idea that his image can be resurrected just isn't realistic.

517 Bagua  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:32:36am

re: #516 palomino

Here's my point. [...]

Your point is no longer relevant as you have earned gaze status.

518 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:33:03am

re: #516 palomino

And yet Nixon is held up as a Statesman for going to China. What were his poll numbers before leaving office?

519 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:34:10am

Instead of going to a party, President Bush stayed in DC to oversee efforts to deal with a hurricane. What a jerk and get a rope!

520 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:35:02am

re: #514 SixDegrees

That doesn't excuse your behavior. Coming in late and not being particularly interested in backtracing a thread filled with nothing but snark, you're the one I see. And your antagonists are normally some of the most tolerant, even-handed posters here, adding to your woes.

Guess what, you're right. I apologize for the late thread snarkiness.

My point's not to bash Bush. My opinion of him has actually improved, partially by listening to what people here have to say about him.

But I don't see his legacy turning around--too much from his second term will continue to hang around his neck. Unfair, maybe, but that's how I see it.

521 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:36:33am

re: #516 palomino

Here's my point. The GOP convention of 1988 and Dem convention of 2000 were lovefests for Reagan and Clinton. The 2008 GOP version, not so much. The idea that his image can be resurrected just isn't realistic.

You're right.....I mean total fucking Dark Ages. The Bush legacy is beyond any hope of a semblance of redemption.

Since the Bush Administration was such a spectacular failure on so many different levels, I'm sure you can come up with an abundance of how repressive and backwards a place these United States of America were during the lost years of 2000-2008. I'm sure many of Bush's disastrous policies affected you firsthand as well....

So don't hold back- go on.......name me just a couple of examples of how America was so much more radically backwards and intolerant during that horiffic regime.

522 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:38:28am

re: #520 palomino

Guess what, you're right. I apologize for the late thread snarkiness.

My point's not to bash Bush. My opinion of him has actually improved, partially by listening to what people here have to say about him.

But I don't see his legacy turning around--too much from his second term will continue to hang around his neck. Unfair, maybe, but that's how I see it.

Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. If he can recover, Bush can. Though given Bush's low key personality, he'll have a hard time of it.

523 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:40:59am

re: #520 palomino

President Bush- like all men- is flawed. He did some things right and he did some things wrong. At LGF, he's been given praise for what he's done right and criticism for what he's done wrong. This is true for the entire history of LGF, and not just from Charles but the community as well. You can see this on this very thread- from President Bush being criticized for pandering to the religious right concerning Africa, to getting praise for helping with AIDS medicines.

Just so you're not shocked in the future- expect to see President Obama treated in the same regard, as he already has been praised and criticized both at LGF since taking office.

524 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:41:53am

re: #521 Fenway_Nation

They listened in to me calling my Granny! ///

525 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:42:24am

re: #521 Fenway_Nation

You're right...I mean total fucking Dark Ages. The Bush legacy is beyond any hope of a semblance of redemption.

Since the Bush Administration was such a spectacular failure on so many different levels, I'm sure you can come up with an abundance of how repressive and backwards a place these United States of America were during the lost years of 2000-2008. I'm sure many of Bush's disastrous policies affected you firsthand as well...

So don't hold back- go on...name me just a couple of examples of how America was so much more radically backwards and intolerant during that horiffic regime.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Didn't say anything about his repression (though his AG's prosecutions of med. marijuana, bong sales and porn were misplaced.)

My point only relates to what I see as a very slim prospect of reconfiguring his legacy.

526 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:44:17am

re: #524 Sharmuta

They listened in to me calling my Granny! ///

The one in Islamabad or Kandahar?
/

527 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:44:49am

re: #522 Dark_Falcon

Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. If he can recover, Bush can. Though given Bush's low key personality, he'll have a hard time of it.

Problem is, Nixon didn't recover.

But Nixon was FAR more hated than Bush, so I'll admit there's a possibility for Bush--just see it as very unlikely.

And Bush himself doesn't seem to mind, very much unlike Nixon who tried hard for years to re-make himself.

528 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:45:23am

re: #525 palomino

My point only relates to what I see as a very slim prospect of reconfiguring his legacy.

Oh! That was your point? You might want to tighten your scope, because you laid a pretty wide swath there, what with demonizing a President for staying on the job instead attending political functions and all. Something you might want to consider working on in the future.

529 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:46:48am

re: #526 Fenway_Nation

The one in Islamabad or Kandahar?
/

The one in Omahabad.

530 Bagua  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:47:37am

re: #525 palomino

[...] marijuana, bong sales and porn [...]

Now we know were your priorities lie. All the more reason to gaze at you political commentary.

531 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:48:36am

re: #523 Sharmuta

I EXPECT Obama to get criticized here; that's why I read LGF where the criticism is reasonable.

Ironically much of that criticism of Obama comes from the left, who feel betrayed. They're afraid Obama might be as moderate as he often came across.

532 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:48:38am

re: #525 palomino

I think you mean water smoking device.

533 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:50:13am

re: #531 palomino

Ironically much of that criticism of Obama comes from the left, who feel betrayed. They're afraid Obama might be as moderate as he often came across.

You didn't read the KSM trial threads, did you?

534 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:50:45am

re: #528 Sharmuta

Oh! That was your point? You might want to tighten your scope, because you laid a pretty wide swath there, what with demonizing a President for staying on the job instead attending political functions and all. Something you might want to consider working on in the future.

I WASN'T "demonizing" Bush, merely saying that he was not something the GOP wanted to highlight at their convention with an election coming up. And then using that point to suggest that his rehabilitation is an unlikely prospect.

535 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:52:14am

re: #534 palomino

I think it was demonizing for you to say a hurricane was a bullshit excuse after Katrina.

536 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:53:08am

re: #530 Bagua

Now we know were your priorities lie. All the more reason to gaze at you political commentary.

Wow, OK, you've deftly undone all my posts. Screw civil liberties.

537 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:53:34am

re: #531 palomino

I EXPECT Obama to get criticized here; that's why I read LGF where the criticism is reasonable.

Ironically much of that criticism of Obama comes from the left, who feel betrayed. They're afraid Obama might be as moderate as he often came across.

Perhaps you're not as bad as you seemed. I'll give you another chance. But first impressions count for a lot, palomino, and you have made a bad one. Having said that, I will view your comments with an open mind. But now I've got to get to bed. Sleep well, all.

538 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:55:57am

re: #536 palomino

Wow, OK, you've deftly undone all my posts. Screw civil liberties.

Don't get started flinging snark again. If you want the fight to stop, back away. Don't respond to posts in a hostile manner.

539 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:56:45am

re: #535 Sharmuta

I think it was demonizing for you to say a hurricane was a bullshit excuse after Katrina.

You're right. I shouldn't have said that.

Just meant that in terms of electoral implications a lot of the GOP felt that it was actually better not to have him in attendance.

540 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:57:20am

re: #537 Dark_Falcon

Perhaps you're not as bad as you seemed. I'll give you another chance. But first impressions count for a lot, palomino, and you have made a bad one. Having said that, I will view your comments with an open mind. But now I've got to get to bed. Sleep well, all.

thanks, man, seriously.

541 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:03:11am

re: #533 Sharmuta

You didn't read the KSM trial threads, did you?

Doubtful. He probably would've noticed this at some point. Especially in any thread with The Last True American Patriot LVQ.

542 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:04:24am

re: #537 Dark_Falcon


G'nite, D_F!!

543 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:05:17am

re: #533 Sharmuta

You didn't read the KSM trial threads, did you?

No, I haven't. What's the gits?

Just started following JGF recently.

544 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:05:43am

re: #543 palomino

What's JGF? ;)

545 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:07:53am

re: #544 Sharmuta

What's JGF? ;)

sorry. sliced my finger open while cooking dinner, now can't type.

i assume the threads argue that obama is far left?

546 ryannon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:10:39am

re: #151 Racer X

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

I'm thinking we just stop all fucking aid everywhere, and let the natural course of evolution step in.

Given the mathematical uncertainty of outcomes, this could just as well result in the disintegration of our own civilization and our devolution into an ever-diminishing sub-group of flea-bitten primates attempting to survive on a level even lower than those who we decided to stop 'aiding' a few short decades earlier.

Darwinism contains surprises that most people can't imagine - especially when they have the hubris and short-sightedness to imagine that they're on the winning side of it.

547 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:13:52am

re: #545 palomino

No....accoring to one supposdly respected poster, anybody who opposes a civilian trial for KSM is so far to the left that they regularly take a dump on the Constitution and the he and he alone should be the ultimate judge of who must report for deporation to Pyongyang.

548 palomino  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:22:24am

re: #547 Fenway_Nation

No...accoring to one supposdly respected poster, anybody who opposes a civilian trial for KSM is so far to the left that they regularly take a dump on the Constitution and the he and he alone should be the ultimate judge of who must report for deporation to Pyongyang.

that's totally screwed up. sounds like the opposite--in the extreme--from what one would expect to hear.

the whole "you're destroying the constitution" line of attack needs to be put to rest. i heard this from liberals for 8 years, and now i'm hearing it from the right. it usually just signifies a lack of ability to respond substantively, so the "trump" card gets played.

this is one of those issues where there's a lot of disagreement among reasonable people. but i don't think obama is necessarily inviting world war iii.

549 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 2:15:17am

re: #548 palomino

the whole "you're destroying the constitution" line of attack needs to be put to rest. i heard this from liberals for 8 years, and now i'm hearing it from the right. it usually just signifies a lack of ability to respond substantively, so the "trump" card gets played.

this is one of those issues where there's a lot of disagreement among reasonable people. but i don't think obama is necessarily inviting world war iii.

In this case the "You're destroying the constitution" and "How long have you hated baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet?" argument did not originate from the right. It was directed at those of us on the right for questioning Obama or Holders wisdom of granting the rights of a US citicizen to a foreign national detained on foreign soil by a foreign security agency by a supposedly intelligent, rational and respected poster here. Prior to his arrival, the pro-civilian trial was making their Jack McCoy arguments while the anti-civilian trial contingent were making their Jack Bauer arguments.

The the Last True Patriot comes in and drops deuce at post #353 and doesn't let up.

550 ryannon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 4:15:21am

re: #451 ggt

I think the rest of the world needs to leave Afrika alone. The people there are not idiots and can take care of themselves quite well if we'd let them.

Yes and no. They are not idiots. In fact, they can often bring fantastic outside-of-the-box solutions to problems. At the same time they literally have so little to work with - so few means - that accomplishing anything takes incredible motivation, courage, imagination.

Here's a little example, both heart-breaking and full of hope, which illustrates the yes/no paradox:

Despite all the odds, it worked out beautifully for him. Not so much, I fear, for hundreds of millions of others.

[Link: www.ted.com...]

551 ryannon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 4:26:32am

re: #396 Gus 802

Africa would be a prime candidate for solar farming so to speak. They could make a killing on selling electricity to Europe.

They could generate enough for all of Europe:

[Link: www.timesonline.co.uk...]

552 ryannon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 4:30:41am

And to finish up: Surface area required to power the world using various zero-emission technologies - and propositions as how to do it:

[Link: www.landartgenerator.org...]

553 Annar  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 4:42:29am

I'd worry more about the harmful religious superstitions (strict Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam) that pervade the African continent than the evangelist wackos in the U.S. After all it hardly matters how many condoms you distribute if the priests tell the believers that hell awaits those that use them.

Outsiders recommending population control always risks negative interpretation by local demagogs.

554 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 5:20:45am

re: #530 Bagua


Ashcrofts Changing Priorities.

[Link: www.criminology.fsu.edu...]

Before 9/11 he put counter terrorism spending on the back burner to focus on other things - losing momentum gained under the last years of Reno.

Also, Ashcroft covered up a statue because of tittys - he didn't attend a meeting with Clintons counter terrorism czar, instead he did choose to spend his time making statues modest. Hey - at least he laid out his priorities....................

555 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 5:22:43am

re: #554 wozzablog

and

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

556 koedo  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 5:30:44am

So Bush is responsible for the private decisions of Africa's people now? People who culturally have valued large families for thousands of years.

"However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa’s epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world’s poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility."

The people directly involved only 'think' it is so. It's one thing to show a community a condom, it's another thing to get them to use it and reverse their thinking on the subject of large families.

Bush is on the hook for many things, imho, this is not one of them.

557 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 5:33:54am

re: #556 koedo

`The Bush administration actively discouraged safe sex in areas where STDs and AIDS were endemic.

He's on the hook for that.

558 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:00:01am

re: #557 wozzablog

`The Bush administration actively discouraged safe sex in areas where STDs and AIDS were endemic.

He's on the hook for that.


That's such bullshit. Catholics are the primarily anti-contraceptive branch of Christianity. Bush doesn't believe that.

Stop reading the guardian as your primary source. Bush didn't want to fund family planning clinics that promoted/advised on abortion, which is most of them. That's not in any way the same as "bush was against birth control".

Shame on the local clinics for saying "ok, we'd rather be funded and promote birth control/AIDS awareness than retain our right to advise on abortions."

Only catholics and a few very minor protestant denominations have any beef with married folks using birth control.

559 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:01:01am

re: #558 Aceofwhat?

That's such bullshit. Catholics are the primarily anti-contraceptive branch of Christianity. Bush doesn't believe that.

Stop reading the guardian as your primary source. Bush didn't want to fund family planning clinics that promoted/advised on abortion, which is most of them. That's not in any way the same as "bush was against birth control".

Shame on the local clinics for notsaying "ok, we'd rather be funded and promote birth control/AIDS awareness than retain our right to advise on abortions."

Only catholics and a few very minor protestant denominations have any beef with married folks using birth control.

pimf

560 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:03:12am

re: #558 Aceofwhat?

He threw the baby out with the bathwater on that one, though.

/probably not the best choice of metaphor.

561 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:06:06am

re: #560 Obdicut

He threw the baby out with the bathwater on that one, though.

/probably not the best choice of metaphor.

are you kidding? hilarious metaphor. updinged.

562 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:08:02am

Here's the US Govt website

[Link: www.pepfar.gov...]

Where it says very clearly...

The “ABC” approach tailors behavioral messages to the local epidemic context: “A” behaviors include abstinence, including delay of sexual debut for youth; “B” includes faithfulness to one partner or reducing the number of sexual partners; “C” emphasizes correct and consistent condom use, where appropriate. PEPFAR, in partnership with host countries, seeks to build on these successes by establishing local programs and partnerships that support the uptake of these key prevention behaviors.

So...where was Bush against birth control again? ABC sounds pretty reasonable to me.

563 davesax  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:11:40am

re: #16 Charles

This really gets under my skin.

I work for a respected, highly regarded, NFP that did research into abstinence programs to determine their effectiveness at influencing behaviour, and the results showed that these programs have no effect on behavior whatsoever.

The Bush administration knew about these findings but ignored them, instead choosing to throw over a hundred million dollars into domestic abstinence programs.

Abstinence programs are big business for the religious right. These organizations that pass out flyers in public schools rely on government money, yet conservative politicians have no problem with it.

And before anyone on here accuses the company I work for of being just another "liberal" NFP, the Bush administration supported findings we came up with that linked healthy, married families to academic and social welfare.

564 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:14:40am

re: #563 davesax

So pairing abstinence with birth control messages is completely worthless?

565 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:30:33am

re: #558 Aceofwhat?

The Bush Administration pushed abstinence relentlessly.

[Link: www.newser.com...]

[Link: www.usnews.com...]

The Abstinence movement is far beyond just the Catholic orthodoxy - "The Silver Ring Thing" and myriad other programmes were being pushed by Bush's Department of Faith Based Initiatives and now encompass a growing area of the Evangelical church.


[Link: tennesseerighttolife.org...]

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

566 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:35:53am

re: #565 wozzablog

and looooookkkkkkk - none of the above links are to the guardian website.

(oh my)

567 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:36:40am

re: #565 wozzablog

I know. Irrelevant to my posting on PEPFAR.

568 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:37:26am

re: #566 wozzablog

and loookkk - none of the above links are to the guardian website.

(oh my)

looookkkk - none of them are about africa, either

oh my

569 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:43:43am

re: #568 Aceofwhat?

WOWZER - you didn't even scan the first two sentences of the first link..... or you would have seen this:

(Newser) – President Bush urged Congress today to “stop squabbling” and renew his global AIDS program, which provides medication and treatment for millions and earmarks funds for abstinence efforts. In Tanzania, his African tour’s second stop, Bush signed a $700 million aid package, saying, “We don’t want people guessing on the continent of Africa whether the generosity of the American people will continue.”

So - you are changing your tune about Bush not believing in abstinence?


Glad to hear it.

Also - my reply wasn't referencing the reply you accused me of ignoring, as i was still writing it when you posted your follow up.

570 Wozza Matter?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 6:46:24am

re: #567 Aceofwhat?

On that - and i will get around to the pepfarb stuff - later days.

571 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:05:48am

re: #569 wozzablog

How in the name of El Diablo did you read what i wrote as "Bush doesn't believe in abstinence."

Hmm. how can i write "Only catholics and a few very minor protestant denominations have any beef with married folks using birth control" more clearly...

Bush believes in abstinence.
Bush does not think that birth control is forbidden by God.
Ergo, the government promoted both.

Is that clear enough?

572 captdiggs  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:09:18am

So "Bush" is responsible for the population growth in Africa?

7% of PEPFAR funds were designated for these "abstinence" programs. They also distributed billions of condoms.
The reason that PEPFAR urged the use of condoms as opposed to non barrier methods of birth control is obvious. Non barrier methods do not prevent transmission of STDs. Promotion of pharmaceutical methods would have done nothing to lower the incidence of HIV.
Granted, perhaps the 'abstinence" programs were a waste of money, but millions of lives have been saved through the program.

Then again, lives saved can be overlooked when people suffer from BDS.

573 bunnymud  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:10:19am

Thank GOD for this article. Now I can cry about Bush Jr. and ignore the incredible failure we currently have in office.


"WAAAHHHHHHHH BUSH WAHHHHHHHHHH KILLER BUSH WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

574 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:21:41am

To be fair to Bush, this aid was supposed to be tarted at stopping the spread of AIDS. If it could be diverted to things like birth control and abortion, that would dilute its effectiveness against its actual target. This was not a solve-every-problem package. It was specifically for fighting AIDS.

As somebody who works tangentially in the field, I know a lot of stuff that goes unsaid because of political correctness, even among doctors, but there is a lot of frustration on the front lines when the people you are trying to save go to great lengths to circumvent your efforts and go on spreading AIDS.

The leaders of these countries go on to tell their people that these drugs are part of a Zionist plot to shrink their penis. They are told that the only way to cure AIDS is to drink urine or to rape infants. Yes, infants. They tell them that immunization programs are CIA-run genocides. We are dealing with a surreal horror that most people refuse to acknowledge. Let's not pretend that suddenly telling people held in the darkest depths of ignorance will suddenly be plucked into the modern age if we let them spend AIDS funds on birth control pills.

In fact, that would be counterproductive. The people we are dealing with would assume that these pills would not only prevent birth, but that they would prevent AIDS. We even have to have disclaimers on such products even in this country!

And to be frank, aside from any religious nonsense, abstinence is the ONLY way to totally avoid spreading AIDS. Condoms are great, but they are not foolproof by any means, and beyond that, until there's a vaccine, AIDS is unstoppable. It would be dereliction of duty to not push abstinence, just from a medical perspective.

Too many babies is not the issue. Too many babies born with AIDS: that's the issue.

575 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:28:02am

re: #573 bunnymud

Thank GOD for this article. Now I can cry about Bush Jr. and ignore the incredible failure we currently have in office.


"WAAAHHH BUSH WAHHH KILLER BUSH WAAAHHH

Look, as you can see, i think it's a stretch to say that PEPFAR or the government was against promoting birth control as one among many fronts in this battle. But your post makes me want to hurt myself. Be cogent or be quiet.

576 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:32:08am

I am still proud of Bush's efforts.

577 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:35:19am

re: #16 Charles

This is from the WHO Regional Director for Africa:

Heterosexual contact is the main mode of HIV transmission in Sub Saharan Africa and we need to invest more in primary HIV prevention. I call upon health care workers at all levels to use every opportunity to counsel and encourage safe sex behaviours which include abstinence or delay of age at first sexual intercourse, faithfulness, and the correct and consistent use of condoms.

http://tinyurl.com/ybx5vw2

I understand the impression that this policy has anything to do with religion, since abstinence is such a loaded word. But it is also the only guarantee against spreading or acquiring STDs, including AIDs.

The problem with these messages is that because of the dictatorships and corrupt bureaucracies of these countries, and the enforced ignorance of their populations, no message can ever get through. Doctors have been trying to get primitive peoples to stop bathing and drinking in the same water that they deficate in. This advice is considered the equivalent of the evil eye. You can't force people to protect themselves.

578 Aceofwhat?  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:42:22am

re: #576 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I am still proud of Bush's efforts.

Likewise. Although there's nothing wrong with reasonable debate about the effectiveness of the program in question, after reading most of the thread i felt like many had developed an idea of the program that didn't jive with the facts.

579 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:57:08am

re: #578 Aceofwhat?

Likewise. Although there's nothing wrong with reasonable debate about the effectiveness of the program in question, after reading most of the thread i felt like many had developed an idea of the program that didn't jive with the facts.

Concur. The program was flawed but it did succeed at its primary objective.

580 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 8:31:49am

This is the actual law:

Under the original 2003 act Congress required that PEPFAR money should be divided in the following way:

55% for the treatment of individuals with HIV/AIDS
15% for the palliative care of individuals with HIV/AIDS
20% for HIV/AIDS prevention (of which at least 33% is to be spent on abstinence until marriage programmes)
10% for helping orphans and vulnerable children.

The 2008 reauthorisation act does not specify in such detail how the money should be spent, though there are still some guidelines:

Over half of the funds are to be spent on treatment programmes, including antiretroviral treatment, care for associated opportunistic infections and nutritional support for people living with HIV/AIDS.
In countries with generalised HIV epidemics, at least half of all money directed towards preventing sexual HIV transmission should be for ‘activities promoting abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy, fidelity, and partner reduction’. If this is not complied with then the Global AIDS Coordinator must report to Congress within 30 days on the reasons behind the shortfall.
The 10% figure directed towards helping orphans has remained.

From

[Link: www.avert.org...]

These guidelines sound pretty reasonable to me, and you can't send billions and billions of dollars to African despots without restrictions. Otherwise, you might as well spend in on Washington call girls. That would be just as effective in combating AIDS as sending over a blank check.

As I see it, only the U.S. can mount a campaign as immense as fighting AIDS in Africa. The UN is a joke. The EU doesn't have the drugs or the funds or the ability to get anything out of committee. Russia and China? Crickets chirping. And Bush was the only one willing to just get the damn thing done. And he actually did it, too. Didn't just make tear-jerking promises about it. And he did it fast, too, which counts in life-threatening situations.

Actual Africans love Bush. How refreshing to see somebody promise one thing and deliver... well, what do you know: the same thing!

The EU and the UN and a thousand groups who love nothing more than birth control can spend all they want on sending the pill to Africa. Nothing's stopping them. And that's something they CAN do, unlike a real battle against AIDS. Why should the U.S. government take all the easy jobs? Let somebody else do their small part. And compared to AIDS drugs, the pill is pretty darn cheap, and very available.

It is a mightly low blow to use the baby boom in Africa as a way of diminishing what will certainly be Bush's legacy in Africa. If Bush mounted a campaign to save the blue whale, McClatchy would declare that his policies had caused massive krill casualties.

581 astronmr20  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 8:51:13am

re: #27 iceweasel

No one said "US is bad".

The facts are these: Bush did more than any other president about AIDS in Africa, and he saved literally a million lives-- but the assistance the US gave came with a mighty big condition: no talk of condoms or money to clinics that provided family planning.

Think how many more lives would have been saved if they could have talked about condoms-- but the Bush admin had to pander to the religious right.
result? The left doesn't give Bush the credit for the work he did; the right never did want to talk about it because it would freak out all the wingnuts, and finally--- the work the US did do was radically hampered by the influence of the American religious right and the need to coddle it.

1000 updings.

582 Basho  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 8:59:13am

So... where was the tea party when Bush used billions of taxpayer money to give a foreign continent free healthcare?

583 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 9:32:16am

re: #580 Korla Pundit

Abstinence-until-marriage doesn't work. Spending money on it at all is insane.

584 Slap  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 9:49:49am

Look, anybody who wants to use this as a "bash bush" is just being selective. He was merely the most recent Repub to change the Mexico City policy from the previous Dem admin, and Obama is the latest Dem to pull the turnaround. In that sense, it's politics as usual.

The issue here, for me, is the utterly irrational prohibition on ANY discussion of abortions. Note that the restriction isn't merely to not fund abortions, but to not "promote" them, as well -- and the last is open to a WIDE interpretation. I must apologize upfront for not having a link handy -- and maybe someone else remembers, pretty please? -- but there were stories of family planning clinics who did not provide abortions being denied funding because they had the temerity to display a brochure that indicated abortion would be considered a viable option by some.

I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent on an indigent mother's ability to choose what happens to her body and family and to accept whatever physical or spiritual cost to herself as a result. And that's as far as I'm willing to restrict things. IMHO, family planning is about information and choices. If one chooses to provide money for "family planning and disease prevention", then one should make it just so. If, on the other hand, the funding comes with ideological restrictions, then call it "family values planning". Restricting access to information does no one any good in sexual matters.

This issue does push my buttons (for the benefit of the unobservant....). It smacks of a Thanksgiving about 10 years back where a "church" in Vacaville gave a free thanksgiving meal to the less fortunate -- on the condition that they attended services.

585 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 9:50:26am

re: #563 davesax

This really gets under my skin.

I work for a respected, highly regarded, NFP that did research into abstinence programs to determine their effectiveness at influencing behaviour, and the results showed that these programs have no effect on behavior whatsoever.

The Bush administration knew about these findings but ignored them, instead choosing to throw over a hundred million dollars into domestic abstinence programs.

Abstinence programs are big business for the religious right. These organizations that pass out flyers in public schools rely on government money, yet conservative politicians have no problem with it.

And before anyone on here accuses the company I work for of being just another "liberal" NFP, the Bush administration supported findings we came up with that linked healthy, married families to academic and social welfare.

Couldn't agree more. The "abstinence" programs are nothing but a sop to the religious right. They do NOT work. The people pushing them are more concerned with an imaginary moral issue than they are with people's real lives.

586 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 9:53:44am

re: #572 captdiggs

So "Bush" is responsible for the population growth in Africa?

7% of PEPFAR funds were designated for these "abstinence" programs. They also distributed billions of condoms.

And again, since it's been pointed out several times already in this thread but you're still bringing it up:

1) those "billions" of condoms were distributed worldwide, not just in Africa, and that number is over the course of several years.

2) the point is NOT that "only" 7% of the funds were designated for abstinence programs. The funds were tied to a restriction on OTHER forms of birth control, including family planning. So the fact that only 7% went to abstinence programs is completely irrelevant.

587 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 9:59:14am

re: #574 Korla Pundit


And to be frank, aside from any religious nonsense, abstinence is the ONLY way to totally avoid spreading AIDS. Condoms are great, but they are not foolproof by any means, and beyond that, until there's a vaccine, AIDS is unstoppable. It would be dereliction of duty to not push abstinence, just from a medical perspective.

Too many babies is not the issue. Too many babies born with AIDS: that's the issue.

Sorry, but to be frank, the logic of abstinence doesn't even work in the USA so promoting it anywhere else is purely a feel good effort, largely based on religion, by the promoters.

Too many babies are the issue when it guarantees that they will be poor.

588 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:22:59am

re: #587 Naso Tang

Sorry, but to be frank, the logic of abstinence doesn't even work in the USA so promoting it anywhere else is purely a feel good effort, largely based on religion, by the promoters.

Too many babies are the issue when it guarantees that they will be poor.

Promoting anything in Africa is mostly going to fall on deaf ears, like anyplace else in the world. Promoting the drinking of clean water doesn't work either, but it's the only way to avoid parasitic worms.

If educating people that avoiding sex with multiple people is useless, then what education would be useful? Telling people to use condoms? That's fine, too, but just as prone to failure for various reasons: many refuse to use them, many can't use them properly, and even if they did, condoms are not a cure-all.

It is important to stress how the disease spreads, and how to avoid it. Don't let the word abstinence bring to mind old church ladies and Pat Robertson. It is a scientific fact that AIDS will continue to spread as long as people have sex with multiple partners, unprotected or not. And letting a distaste for religious fundamentalism distract you from science is just as bad as letting religion itself get in the way of science.

I'm as atheist as the next guy, and I don't have problems with people swinging from the chandeliers if that's their thing. But if your goal is to educate the masses on not getting AIDS, then your concern is not going to be birth control.

If you want to blame people for causing suffering in Africa with good intentions, there are countless deaths that can be pinned on the church of Rachel Carson, whose followers continue to ban DDT.

589 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:24:18am

re: #588 Korla Pundit

Abstinence education doesn't work, at all. Condom education does, somewhat.

590 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:25:58am

re: #589 Obdicut

Abstinence education doesn't work, at all. Condom education does, somewhat.

Links, please.

591 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:28:12am

re: #590 Korla Pundit

Dude, that's weak.

But here you go:

Just one study.

I'm a financial conservative. I like knowing things work when funding them.

592 Sharmuta  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:29:45am

re: #477 Cobdenite

P.S.- I sure am glad you said a monogamy campaign wouldn't work before you looked at the evidence that it does work.

593 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:31:30am

re: #588 Korla Pundit

You are waffling and doing nothing except list why the solution is not easy.

594 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:33:43am

re: #592 Sharmuta

P.S.- I sure am glad you said a monogamy campaign wouldn't work before you looked at the evidence that it does work.

Probably it does work, to the same degree that monogamy applies to and works for the minority of Americans.

/

595 Basho  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:40:24am

I've never seen a rock with an STD. Why do living things insist on having sex?

596 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:44:36am
The Bush program is widely hailed as a success, having supplied lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to more than 2 million HIV patients worldwide.

However, researchers, Africa experts and veteran U.S. health officials now think that PEPFAR also contributed to Africa’s epidemic population growth by undermining efforts to help women in some of the world’s poorest countries exercise greater control over their fertility.

“It was a huge missed opportunity to integrate HIV/AIDS and reproductive health in ways that made sense,” said Jotham Musinguzi, a Ugandan physician who heads the Africa office of Partners in Population and Development, an intergovernmental group that promotes sexual health in developing countries.

How much better for Africa it would have been had Bush not been influenced by religious right's disdain for contraceptive devices. That is the bottom line here.

597 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:44:56am

re: #588 Korla Pundit

If educating people that avoiding sex with multiple people is useless, then what education would be useful? Telling people to use condoms? That's fine, too, but just as prone to failure for various reasons: many refuse to use them, many can't use them properly, and even if they did, condoms are not a cure-all.

You're missing the point, again. Of course no single solution is a cure-all. The thing that I find unconscionable and wrong is that in this case, the anti-AIDS funds were specifically tied to blanket restrictions on family planning and birth control options.

It's not simply that the Bush administration wanted to provide options -- they didn't. They wanted to close off avenues that would almost certainly have been very helpful in preventing a population boom that these countries cannot support, and that will inevitably lead to death and misery.

598 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:49:52am

re: #597 Charles

You're missing the point, again. Of course no single solution is a cure-all. The thing that I find unconscionable and wrong is that in this case, the anti-AIDS funds were specifically tied to blanket restrictions on family planning and birth control options.

It's not simply that the Bush administration wanted to provide options -- they didn't. They wanted to close off avenues that would almost certainly have been very helpful in preventing a population boom that these countries cannot support, and that will inevitably lead to death and misery.

And this is totally correct.

Religious types never let facts get int he way of dogma. You know like telling people they should not have sex is somehow a greater deterrent than the urge to in the first place.

Of course there is the more insidious truth that giving women control over hen they want to become pregnant is perhaps the single greatest way to lift them up socio-economically. And you know that the religious right can't have that.

599 Aye Pod  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:56:11am

re: #598 LudwigVanQuixote

And this is totally correct.

Religious types never let facts get int he way of dogma. You know like telling people they should not have sex is somehow a greater deterrent than the urge to in the first place.

Of course there is the more insidious truth that giving women control over hen they want to become pregnant is perhaps the single greatest way to lift them up socio-economically. And you know that the religious right can't have that.

It is also known that empowering women is the best way to get population growth under control. The religious right know this too, of course...

600 Raven1  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 10:59:32am

I don't know if this has been pointed out, but Bush also sent money to Africa to combat malaria.

601 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 11:22:06am

what's a reverse tu quoque called?

602 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:08:25pm

Well, let's deal with the facts.

Bush's plan DID include condom distribution, as well as sex education IN ADDITION to abstinence education. Let's not take the word of some "news" writer with an ax to grind. I see this meme all over the web now, so let's step back and verify the accusation before jumping the gun and getting all upset.

This is from the BBC, 2003:

Mr Fauci said condom distribution would be part of the prevention component - but so would abstinence education.

Correspondents say Christian conservatives - a pillar of Bush's domestic support - believe that distributing condoms promotes promiscuity, and have emphasised abstinence.

Such groups criticised Secretary of State Colin Powell when he told a young audience he encouraged the use of condoms among sexually active people rather than urging abstinence.

Mr Fauci told reporters that emphasising either component - condoms and abstinence - unfairly skewed broad prevention policy.

"There are 12 points of prevention," he said, including preventing mother-to-child transmission, media campaigns and making sure blood used in transfusions is safe.

Officials insisted that the president's proposal for cheap drugs and condoms had little to do with politics.

Jendayi Frazer, the top Africa adviser on the White House's National Security Council, said: "It derives from his sense of the need to preserve human dignity."


Bush Aids plan to include condoms

This, despite the fact that such inclusion "may upset the president's supporters in two political power-bases, correspondents say."

So, this is one instance where Bush did in fact do something IN SPITE of his religious supporters. Let's give him credit where it's due.

The claim that he cut off such funding is a lie. Often repeated, but a lie, nonetheless.

603 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:12:06pm

re: #598 LudwigVanQuixote

Religious types never let facts get int he way of dogma. You know like telling people they should not have sex is somehow a greater deterrent than the urge to in the first place.

Sorry, but I'm not religious in any way. I just don't agree that anybody has been prevented from getting condoms. And I strongly believe that telling people how to not get AIDS is the moral thing to do, regardless of how Puritanical it may sound.

604 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:27:43pm

re: #602 Korla Pundit

Well, let's deal with the facts.

Bush's plan DID include condom distribution, as well as sex education IN ADDITION to abstinence education. Let's not take the word of some "news" writer with an ax to grind. I see this meme all over the web now, so let's step back and verify the accusation before jumping the gun and getting all upset.

This is from the BBC, 2003:


Bush Aids plan to include condoms

This, despite the fact that such inclusion "may upset the president's supporters in two political power-bases, correspondents say."

So, this is one instance where Bush did in fact do something IN SPITE of his religious supporters. Let's give him credit where it's due.

The claim that he cut off such funding is a lie. Often repeated, but a lie, nonetheless.

Your link is from 2003, and it's way out of date. Please note that even the Government Accountability Office harshly criticized the Bush administration's emphasis on "abstinence" programs and restrictions on family planning and birth control -- during the Bush administration's time in office:

GAO Criticizes Bush's AIDS Plan

It's not a "lie" at all. It's something we call a "fact."

605 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:43:44pm

Let's look at the results from Uganda, where the leaders of the country were committed to educating their people, focusing on taking responsibility and avoiding multiple sex partners, starting sex at an early age, monogamy, and the dreaded abstinence:

1. Abstinence

(a) Fewer Ugandans begin sex at young ages.

Age at initiation of sexual intercourse has increased for young women and men. The
median age at first intercourse among young women in Uganda increased from 15.9 in 1988 to
16.3 in 1995 and to 16.6 in 2000 (as reported by women aged 20-24 in each survey) (Figure 1).
Among young men, the median age at first intercourse rose more steeply over the period 1995-
2000, from 17.3 to 18.5.

The proportion of young women and young men who had ever had sex has decreased.
Between 1988 and 1995, the proportion of adolescents15-17 who were sexually experienced had
declined slightly, from 50% to 46%; by 2000, however, the proportion had dropped to 34%
(Table 1, Panel 1, Women; Figure 2). The decline among women 18-19 was much smaller, from
81% in 1988 and 82% in 1995 to 77% in 2000. These decreases had little impact on the
proportion of all women aged 15-49 who ever had intercourse, because most women of
reproductive age are aged 20 and older and almost all of them are sexually experienced.

Patterns were different among young men. There was little change between 1995 and
2000 in the proportion of younger adolescent men (aged 15-17) who were sexually experienced
(29% in 1995 and 27% in 2000) (Table 1, Panel 1, Men; Figure 3). However, the proportion of
men aged 18-19 who ever had sex declined noticeably, from 71% in 1995 to 59% in 2000.
These changes are reflected in a slight decrease in the proportion of all men aged 15-49 who
were sexually experienced: 86% in 1995 compared with 83% in 2000.

Link...

So before we dismiss the notion of promoting responsible behavior out of hand because it "doesn't work," be aware that it works for some people.

606 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:49:31pm

re: #605 Korla Pundit

From your own link:

Abstinence among those who had ever been sexually active is not a significant factor in reducing exposure to HIV infection over the time periods covered by the DHS data. Those adolescents and young adults who have had sexual intercourse are increasingly unmarried (and are more likely than older adults to be exposed to multiple sexual partners), somewhat countering the impact of reduction in risk from later onset of sexual intercourse. The proportion of sexually experienced people who were sexually active at the time of the survey hardly changed for women, except those aged 15-17, and actually increased among men, potentially increasing their risk for HIV infection.

607 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:51:53pm

This is from Science (the journal):

Uganda provides the clearest example that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is preventable if populations are mobilized to avoid risk. Despite limited resources, Uganda has shown a 70% decline in HIV prevalence since the early 1990s, linked to a 60% reduction in casual sex. The response in Uganda appears to be distinctively associated with communication about acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) through social networks. Despite substantial condom use and promotion of biomedical approaches, other African countries have shown neither similar behavioral responses nor HIV prevalence declines of the same scale. The Ugandan success is equivalent to a vaccine of 80% effectiveness. Its replication will require changes in global HIV/AIDS intervention policies and their evaluation.

A 60% reduction in casual sex, and a 70% reduction in AIDS prevalence. That's pretty impressive.

Other African nations that use a condom-only program: not such good results.

Please don't misunderstand me. I think condoms are an indispensable tool in the fight against AIDS. But without somehow getting people to take the most basic responsibility for their own safety, condoms alone will never work. You need both.

There has to be a more fundamental shift in behavior. It is certainly impossible to get an entire population to stop doing self-harm. That's why people still smoke, drink and drive, and run with the bulls. But you do what you can to help whoever is willing to help themselves.

608 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:53:15pm

re: #606 Charles

I know. I included that for balance.

Those who were already sexually active were not helped by social efforts. Those who had not yet done the deed saw some results.

609 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 12:54:59pm

re: #608 Korla Pundit

Oops. Sorry, I did NOT include that. But I did include some balance.

610 Achilles Tang  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:03:56pm

re: #605 Korla Pundit

Encouraging young people not to have sex at an early age, meaning very early age, is not what most would call preaching abstinence. Abstinence as promoted in the USA means abstinence until marriage, period.

611 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:08:50pm

re: #610 Naso Tang

That may be the cause of all the hubbub. We're talking about Africa. And abstinence in this case, is not abstinence. That's just shorthand for you know: monogamy. I know that makes a lot of people cringe.

612 Korla Pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:10:07pm

Thanks, all. Back to work and all...

613 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:10:14pm

re: #611 Korla Pundit

Why do you say it's not really abstinence in this case?

614 st. louisville cards  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 1:44:31pm

What does the report mean by "Flat lining"? Did the family planning part stop or did the budget just stop going up? That is a pretty big difference.

615 SixDegrees  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 4:48:17pm

re: #585 Charles

Couldn't agree more. The "abstinence" programs are nothing but a sop to the religious right. They do NOT work. The people pushing them are more concerned with an imaginary moral issue than they are with people's real lives.

Here's the Washington Post's take on the matter of US aid to Africa under the Bush Administration from 2006.

Sounds like it did a lot of good, despite it's shortcomings. Congress had to OK these packages; were any objections raised by anyone there at the time? Would any package have passed, even today, if it contained funding for birth control? Seems unlikely. Would Africa be better off had it refused the aid offered? Certainly not.

Two things:

Politics is the art of the possible.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

616 SixDegrees  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 4:50:40pm

re: #615 SixDegrees

One more aphorism that bears on this:

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

617 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 5:44:49pm

re: #615 SixDegrees

Sounds like it did a lot of good, despite it's shortcomings. Congress had to OK these packages; were any objections raised by anyone there at the time? Would any package have passed, even today, if it contained funding for birth control?

Again, I repeat: the problem is not that the package did not contain funding for family planning and birth control. It's that the program specifically tied the funding to RESTRICTIONS on family planning and birth control. Recipients of this aid were required to keep burdensome records and prove that they spent none of the money on anything but abstinence programs.

I really have no idea why so many people can't seem to understand this.

618 korla pundit  Mon, Dec 14, 2009 7:11:30pm

re: #613 Obdicut

I meant that it also refers to monogamous sex, which is certainly not abstinence, which is a lack of sex.

619 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 12:01:27am

re: #617 Charles

Again, I repeat: the problem is not that the package did not contain funding for family planning and birth control. It's that the program specifically tied the funding to RESTRICTIONS on family planning and birth control. Recipients of this aid were required to keep burdensome records and prove that they spent none of the money on anything but abstinence programs.

I really have no idea why so many people can't seem to understand this.

Lots of bills have spending strings attached directing that the money be spent in certain ways, or not in others. This objection makes even less sense to me. I'm required to fill out onerous paperwork if I want to receive food stamps, and I'm not allowed to use those stamps for a whole raft of purchases like alcohol, cigarettes and many other items that have been added as they've attained cause du jour status over the years. I just signed up for a Flexible Spending Account for next year that allows me to purchase prescriptions and other OTC medical supplies with money that's deducted from my paycheck without being subject to Federal tax, saving me the marginal 28% it would otherwise generate in tax obligations. I'm required to keep careful records of everything I purchase using this account, for documentation should the IRS ever question a claim, for seven years - or, as my accountant suggests, forever. Burdensome for me. But the benefits seem to outweigh the burden.

That this particular package had restrictions on birth control may not have been ideal. But that's what was passed. I doubt you could get a similar bill passed today without similar restrictions. Meanwhile, it more than tripled aid to the world's poorest region. Were Africans worse off with the aid than they would have been without it?

And if these restrictions were so onerous and detrimental, why didn't someone else step in to fill in the gaps? China? The EU? Russia? Saudi Arabia? There were no restrictions placed on receiving other aid, only on how these particular aid dollars got spent.

I'm just not seeing how this is worth complaining about. The time for constructing a better bill has long since past, and the bill that resulted represented the best that could be done at the time. And it trumps anything done previously in terms of sheer volume. The result for Africa was a positive one by all accounts.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 72 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1