Some time ago President Bush offered 15 billion dollars of American taxpayers money for ‘the fight against AIDS’ in various nations.
Yesterday the Secretary General of the UN denounced the United States for not spending enough money. Now this anger could be dismissed as the Secretary General being upset that so much of the money was going to be spent ‘direct’ in the nations concerned rather than put through the UN (where the Secretary General’s son and his friends could steal some of the money), however this does not explain all the anger directed against the United States at the AIDS conference in Bangkok.
I think the explanation for the anger is very simple – people are never grateful for loot.
Everyone knows that President Bush is not giving his own money when he hands out the 15 billion dollars (assuming that Congress goes along with this idea), he is just taking (by the threat of violence) money from the taxpayers and dishing it out.
Why should anyone be grateful to him? He is not making a sacrifice; he is just handing out the money of the taxpayers. Why should he give 15 billion dollars to the third world, why not 50 billion or 500 hundred billion? It is not costing him anything.
So the various political activists feel no reason to thank President Bush.
It is the old story of ‘conservatives’ and government spending. No matter how much they spend the activists will always think they can get more money from the ‘progressive’ politicians and so will shout and scream and stamp their feet.
No, the reason they are angry is that Bush & co favour abstinence while the UN & friends favour condoms and drugs. Basically they see Bush as pushing a scientifically unjustified, ineffectual approach in order to pander to the god-botherers.
Yeah, why let something like AIDS get in the way of a rollicking good time when, if you get AIDS, you can blame some other dude, a really famous dude who is trying to funnel to AIDS prevention 15 billion of other people’s money? The whole idea that you get AIDS from sex is scientifically unjustified and ineffectual anyway.
Has anyone worked out how much that is per capita of the US vs other countries?
Just curious on whether we are giving more/less/about the same as the other industrialized counties.
Dunno about you, CujoQuarrel, but I’m not “giving” anything. I’m having quite a lot taken from me, to be sure, but that’s not quite the same.
It’s ineffectual at stopping AIDS spread by: rape, contaminated blood products, contaminated surgical instruments, shared drug needles, mother-baby infection. It’s ineffectual at protecting women who must whore or starve, and whose customers refuse condoms.
As well as the above, it’s basically unsaleable to anyone with a libido.
Ok, we’ll just keep the money then. Other things we could spend the 15 billion on.
Doesn’t this come under the looking in the mouth of the gift horse?
I believe they are angry because the Bush administration won’t keep it’s religion out of politics. And, I expect, because the money is tagged to abstinence programs that will be entirely culturally ineffective in the most afflicted nations.
Now, if Bush would quit tying the money to people acting withing his personal religious beliefs (which are entirely repugnant, he being the Millenialist that he is,) there would probably still be a lot of whining. But it wouldn’t be as loud.
Of course, since AIDS got into the human population, according to the science, from people eating monkeys, I think there should be anti-monkey eating funds in there some where too.
Well, by libertarian standards, at least some of what Julian lists count as voluntary behaviors – sharing drug needles, engaging in prostitution, indulging your libido.
I wonder, does anyone have a breakdown on the percentage of AIDS transmitted by through non-voluntary means (contaminated blood, rape, etc.)? Those are what strike me as a genuine “public health” problem. Engaging voluntarily in high-risk behavior is not a public health problem, in my book.
So how do condoms prevent the spread of AIDS through rape, contaminated blood products, contaminated surgical instruments, shared drug needles, mother-baby infection?
Drugs can be effective, I agree, but is it cost-effective?
Perhaps one solution would be to use part of the money to give a gun to every African woman, with permission to shoot rapists down like dogs.
Another solution – since the United States is contributing more than the rest of the U.N. membership put together, perhaprs we need to say no contribution to a U.N. cause shall exceed one thhird of the total contribution by all members.
Excuse me, flaime, but what makes you think it’s just W’s religious beliefs and why is Uganda for abstinence? Because it’s working? It’s MY money they’re spending and I have a say. You don’t like it, donate to your NGO.
AIDS is on the rise in the USA because of homosexual sex and they think they can take a pill.
And for the UN to host 19,000(!) people and say we’re not spending enough money is hypocritical. Come on, what’s the bill and couldn’t the money have been spent better on programs?
Also, a difference between the US and our enlightened betters in Europe is that Kofi can go to jacko and Tony and they order the money given.
In the US, Kofi or a minion has to go in front of CONGRESS to get the money. The president can only suggest and veto, CONGRESS holds the purse-strings.
AND if “the world” wants to keep funding the other programs, let “the world” come up w/the money. IIRC, when W put forth the goal of $15 BILLION, Jacko TRIPLED france’s contribution to —-
$750 MILLION.
Europe, with it’s 450 million people and dynamic economic model should be able to not only MATCH (in toto[?]) our $15 BILLION and since Europe has more people, come up with more, say $20 BILLION.
Poverty causes a lot of AIDS. Poor people can’t afford to do medicine hygeinically, can’t afford drugs or tests. Poor women can’t afford independence and so can’t bargain from strength against rape, marital infidelity, or unsafe sex.
The best thing the world could do for AIDS is to remove all barriers to free trade. Plus asassinating a few of the world’s “socialist” third-world despots wouldn’t go amiss either.
“The best thing the world could do for AIDS is to remove all barriers to free trade.”
“Poverty causes a lot of AIDS.”
Julian, you are so wrong on this issue I don’t even know where to start.
By barriers to free trade, what exactly are you talking about, genetically modified corn, unpasturized cheese, most favored nation status, import quotas?
Or are you, like so many NGOs suggesting not upholding patent rights for the big pharma firms that have invested billions in AIDS drugs research.
Get a clue, no patent rights = no research.
Poverty doesn’t cause AIDS, behavior causes AIDS, and frankly, I’m tired of my tax money going to foot the bill.
And there’s the question of from what various African groups are actually dying. AIDS is a syndrome so that’s not from what people are croaking. A breakdown of opportunistic diseases is needed.
Malaria is the big killer so if our wealth is to be stolen for any humanitarian purpose then the control of malaria should be it.
Beyond the issue of whether the US government is spending enough, is the thinkly velied implication that the AIDS epidemic is somehow the fault of the US and/or Republican Presidents. Almost like cursing off your father because he bought you a Beamer when he could have afforded to get you that Mercedes. Not sure if it’s worse than the BBC’s implications that last summer’s European heat wave and the floods in Central Europe prior to that were somehow America’s fault as well.
What to do? Maybe just stop showing up at these things. In fact, in the spirit of a Pat Buchanan-like fit of rage, why don’t we just withdraw from the whole stupid mess. We send hundreds of thousands of GIs to die over the years, as well as spend untold billions of dollars rebuilding said countries that caused said GIs to get killed. All we seem to get back in return is worthless post-modern drivel from students who couldn’t hold down a real job if their life depended on it and sympathy for Islamic terrorists who kill Americans- especially the Jewish ones.
we just withdraw from the whole stupid mess. We send hundreds of thousands of GIs to die over the years, as well as spend untold billions of dollars rebuilding said countries that caused said GIs to get killed
Isn’t it ironic that the ‘loot takers’ two generations ago are showing the current generation how to squeeze more from the US? The same result applies; they will be ingrates. The same model exists here in the States with our welfare class. They consume and consume and not only don’t they care where it comes from, they bite the hand that feeds it.
Subsidizing AIDS ‘cures’ will only subsidize the behviors that, by and large, spread it. That has been seen in the behaviors of the populations most at risk here in the States. Huge amounts of ‘loot’ were transferred to the study of AIDS so that it was not the ‘death sentence’ it was. The result? Increased risky behavior, increasing the spread, increasing the burden on the transfer health system. And for some ‘unknown’ reason health insurance premiums are sky rocketing. One just has to bow down in fatigue at the whole mess.
Sandy P:
I can’t donate my money to an NGO because Bush has already taken it to spend on his religiously based programs.
And AIDS is on the rise in the US almost equally due to IV drug use, which also happens to be on the rise in the US. Especially amongst minority populations. Your argument makes it a religiously based “They deserve to die for their behavior because I disapprove of it” argument, rather than one of “We should educate people about the disease and encourage people to engage in safer versions of the behaviors we already know they are going to engage in whether we like it or not.”
FTM: I support anarchic free trade. Zero government intervention. Zero border tariffs. Zero economic protectionism. That was what I meant.
However as an anarchist I can’t either support patents.
I suspect that what Julian really supports, as an anarchist, is barter. 😉
Any economic system more complex than simple barter, including capitalism, requires an infrastructure that historically has never arisen or been sustained in the absence of at least a minarchist night watchman state that guaranteed things like property rights and contract enforcement.
FTM:
“Get a clue, no patent rights = no research.”
The utilitarian case for patents is actually rather weak. It assumes that copying is costless, which is untrue, and disregards other benefits which acrue to original inventors such as first mover advantage. Certainly it is quite false to assert that without patents there would be no research.
In any case, patent laws presume that Governments know how much research there ought to be and can devise patent laws to bring it about. Both assumptions are questionable.
A Bush is planning to help:
“Barbara, who majored in humanities at Yale, said she planned to sign up for a programme in which she would work in Eastern Europe and Africa with children afflicted with Aids. ”
Hey Kofi – what are your kids doing (apart from dodging oil-for-kickback investigators)?
Really, flaime? And what religiously-based programs are those?
I don’t recall the faith-based initiative passing, but I read so much, I could have missed it.
You could have donated your tax cut, if you received one.
You have a computer and internet, so you must have some cash flow.
And flaime?
AIDS has been around 20 years, devastated the gay community, is on the rise again because of the same behavior.
So, when you wrote, –“We should educate people about the disease and encourage people to engage in safer versions of the behaviors we already know they are going to engage in whether we like it or not.” —
They know, they don’t care. I, a heterosexual has to educate a gay man that AIDS can kill if proper precautions aren’t taken?
I’ve seen ads for at least a decade now about condom usage. There are activists, there’s a 19,000 person convention going on, $15 billion hopes to make it thru Congress, there’s fundraisers, research, etc., and it’s my fault because I’m judgmental???? Am I holding a gun to their head demanding they don’t use condoms? Do I live in that world? I have to tell the US gay community to use condoms.
So, flaime, where does their responsibility begin so they don’t die?
Isn’t there something about history and those who fail to pay attention?
My understanding is that they’re complaining not just because the U.S. is funding abstinence programmes, but that it won’t fund anything _other than_ abstinence programmes. Apparently, none of the money is allowed to go to safe sex/condom use education. And while abstinence appears to be an effective approach, it’s not the only approach.
It seems that the U.S. is ignoring other approaches not because they are ineffective, but because they are not approved of. Because to do so would upset the religious organizations who are being funded for these programmes. There is a place for safe-sex education alongside abstinence, but the U.S. is not allowing it to be done with its cash.
The other main reason for the annoyance is that a minimum of 30% of this money _must_ go to faith-based organizations with no oversight to ensure they’re not using it to “Spread the Word”. You can be pretty sure some of its being used for just that. It’s the overseas version of the faith-based initiatives that have become fashionable in the U.S. under President Bush.
Sometimes it seems that they are more interested in saving souls than in saving lives.
Sorry folks, the only country that has success in reducing AIDS is Uganda. Their infection rate went from 30 percent in the 80’s to 6 percent today.
They got that drop by preaching abstinence. Anyone who stands in the way of abstinence training is murdering millions of Africans. (via Spot On)
James–
My understanding is rather different. If you check out what Uganda’s done (the only success story in Africa, btw), you’ll see they’ve followed the ABC method, which Bush supports and which is the policy of the US to support.
ABC stands for, in order, Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms. The program was developed based on the successes found in the program used by Uganda beginning in the mid-80s. Uganda’s HIV infection rate “from 1991 to 2001. . . declined from about 15 percent to 5 percent,” according to this Heritage Foundation backgrounder: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/BG1692.cfm.
If you’re a libertarian, how can you argue with the results? Show me a state where any other plan has done as well, and I’ll take your statement that Bush’s (and Uganda’s) plan is only equally as effective.
Absent such evidence, it becomes clear that those opposing the US and Uganda in such efforts are there only to gain the power in the relationship, to control the purse-strings, and to fatten themselves off of the spoils of being “humanitarians”, rather than actually solving the problem.
The activists hate Uganda, for actually having the nerve to design an effective programme themselves. This undermines the Anti-Neo-Imperialist propaganda that says that the West is to blame for everything.
How can we blame African deaths on greedy capitalism when Uganda demonstrates otherwise. Next we’ll have African countries becoming wealthy through their own efforts and where will that leave the Anti-globalisation movement.
There is no proof that HIV infection and what is loosely called AIDS are causally connected. Better establish such a link before you spend billions handing out treatments such as AZT which destroy the immune system:
http://www.duesberg.com
AIDS has been around a long time now, long enough for the effect to become known in areas where it is common. The reason why so many people ignore the risks is that 10 or 20 years in the future is further than most people plan. If you are not sure where tomorrow’s (or even today’s) meal is coming from, you won’t be very bothered by a health risk which takes years to develop.
Fight AIDS by putting money into screening organ/blood donations at home.
“which are entirely repugnant, he being the Millenialist that he is,”
Bush is not a Millenialist, though the myth that he is is strong in certain circles.
US taxpayers should not have pay one cent to to any foriegn country for any reason. But if they are going to take our money for such things then at the very least I, as a conservative Christian, want some say in how it is spent, and that means abstinence and the money only going to organisations that promote traditional values. If anyone has a problem with that go steal someone elses money.
” the money only going to organisations that promote traditional values.”
Whose traditional values, Shawn? Yours? The people who are the beneficiaries of whatever ‘aid’ you’re proposing? What if they’re muslims? Should the money be used to promote traditional muslim values?
Huh. Everybody knows Africans and gays can’t be expected to control themselves in the slightest. Personal responsibility is for the rest of us. You know, the grownups.
The Bush administration should Kofi to stick a sock in it or lose the money. What kind of fool insults (or worse yet blames) its biggest donor? I would really like to see Bush & Co start telling these fools to get knotted (maybe Chaney can do it).
Whether the AIDS activists like it or not, abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent the spread of HIV. That is not religion its just common sense. Oh wait a second…UN and common sense…what the hell am I thinking!
Reuters printed a story on Uganda and AIDS on 7/12 with quotes from Uganda’s president:
“…The remarks by Museveni, whose country is a rare success story in Africa’s war on AIDS, were at odds with health experts who back condoms as a frontline defense against the incurable disease.
“I look at condoms as an improvisation, not a solution,” Museveni told delegates on the second day of the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok.
Instead, he called for “optimal relationships based on love and trust instead of institutionalized mistrust which is what the condom is all about.”
Museveni added fuel to a debate within the AIDS community over the best way to halt the spread of a disease that has killed 20 million people and infected 38 million. Uganda’s “ABC” method (Abstinence, Being faithful and Condoms) is a model for the AIDS policies of the administration of President Bush and which are under fire at the conference for advocating sexual abstinence to stem infection….”
Jonathan,
I’m really not sure where you got the idea I was saying abstinence didn’t work. I seem to remember saying it did. My understanding was that he was happy enough to pay for the A and B, but was not prepared to get involved in C. Perhaps you’re right though, and he is in fact Ok with Condoms. Story I read seemed to indicate not, maybe they were pushing their own agenda.
That load of money could be used to purchase basic medicines, provide sanitary infrastructure, food and water… rather the trying to solve the spectre of AIDS.
Trust me. The problem of AIDS will not be solved in our times until the scientific community, namely the virologists, own up that they bungled the whole thing.
Gallo didn’t allow peers to review his breakthrough AIDS/HIV paper; he went straight to the state to announce his ‘findings’. No EM of cultured HIV as a whole colony, cultured from samples taken from AIDS sufferers, was EVER found, even though it was easy enough to isolate and characterise retroviruses via EM using a particular technique recognized in virology. The fact that so little HIV was found in the cells of terminal AIDS cases was in direct contravention of all known medical logic.
AIDS(Immune Deficiency Syndrome) as a condition is like clogged veins. You don’t need a virus to cause it. Poor nutrition, use of drugs, repeated viral infection by STDs, can and will hammer your immune system flat just fine.
Let them provide more drugs, more vaccines. I’m beginning to agree with Kim Du Toit. Let the whole lot of idiots die in Africa. I could care less if they were fools for believing the modern high priests of science so easily. As a science graduate myself, I’m ashamed.
It’s so easy to dupe people nowadays…
TWG
Hmmm.
No offense people but let’s take a look at the numbers. If you don’t have pre-marital sex or refrain from adultery then you have a zero (0) chance of contracting STDs and AIDS. If you rely on condoms then you’re also relying on the failure rate of those condoms. So what exactly is the failure rate of condoms? From googling it seems that assuming a failure rate of 1% isn’t unreasonable.
So. Let’s say you’re a real go-getter and you have sex 5 times a week. Whether or not it’s with different partners is up to you. In a year you’ll engage in sex 260 times or so. You’ll have to deal with condom failure 2.6 times during this year. That’s assuming of course that you aren’t cheap and using condoms with a higher rate of failure. It also assumes that you’re experienced with condoms and that you won’t do something idiotic with them before using, such as unrolling and stretching them. It also assumes that the local climate isn’t damaging to condoms.
Frankly condoms only work if you’re in a stable relationship with no other sexual relationships. At that point you might as well get married.
*shrug* make of this what you will. But I’d suggest that being sexually active and roaming, with condom use, would give you pretty good odds of getting AIDS.
Got a bit of a nervous tic, eh Ed? With all that shrugging I guess you must know my ex-wife
“Whose traditional values, Shawn? Yours? ”
Yes, mine. My money, my values, or to be more accurate, the values of the majority of Americans.
“The people who are the beneficiaries of whatever ‘aid’ you’re proposing? What if they’re muslims? Should the money be used to promote traditional muslim values?”
No.
The point remains that the government should not be giving ANY US taxpayers money to this or any other foriegn aid scheme, unless that money is directly linked to securing victory in the war, as in money for Afghanistan.
That the UN is actually demanding more money, and wagging its finger at the US for not doing so, AFTER Bush has already agreed to give 15 billion dollars, is obscene.
The HIV/AIDS crisis opens the road to reconciliation between Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews. It can be developed on the basis of a shared concern for marriage as a social institution (though Islam is softer on men divorcing and polygamy), with chastity outside the marital bond and fidelity within it. Avoiding STDs is a bonus.
Against this traditional ethical standpoint stands the unholy alliance of social liberals (for whom promiscuity is almost an imprimatur of individuality) and the vast commercial pressure on consumers to screw around because of the sales the quest for sex generates: cosmetics, clothes, entertainment, holidays, prophylactics and the Pill, etc etc. Settled couples stay home and spend less.
Latterly statists have also joined in the assault on the intact family, rightly perceiving it as a bulwark against the conversion of individuals into helots of the tax-and-welfare system.
A few points.
Mr Bush is a Methodist – since when did that become a extreme thing to be?
The American government does spend large sums of taxpayers money on condoms and anti A.I.D.S. drugs. So the idea that they just go about saying that people should not have sex is mistaken – although if people did refrain from sleeping around that would help reduce the spread of A.I.D.S. (after all condoms are not 100% reliable).
No, the reason that activists hate Mr Bush (and other “Conservative” big spenders) is partly that people do not tend to be greatful for loot and partly because the activists always think the “progressive” politicians will give them yet more money.