Geldof on Bush
February 21, 2008 6:06 PM Subscribe
Bob Geldof in Rwanda gives Bush his props.. Bob Geldof, who has worked tirelessly to ease the suffering in Africa, has praised President Bush on his policies and efforts in that country. The singer was annoyed that the press had mostly ignored the exuberant reception that Mr. Bush has consistently received during his five-nation tour this week
Hey, Poolio! Where you been, man?
(Also, this post is kinda thin.)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:17 PM on February 21, 2008
(Also, this post is kinda thin.)
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:17 PM on February 21, 2008
Hi, flapjax.
I've been busy with work for the past few months, but things are slowing down now so I should have more time to post here.
posted by Poolio at 6:21 PM on February 21, 2008
I've been busy with work for the past few months, but things are slowing down now so I should have more time to post here.
posted by Poolio at 6:21 PM on February 21, 2008
I'd like to know more about why Geldof is so enthusiastic about Bush vis-a-vis Africa. Perhaps there'll be some fleshing out of details in statements-to-come. I see he's scheduled to interview Bush, so maybe we'll learn more then.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:22 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:22 PM on February 21, 2008
I'll take that as a warning.
posted by wendell at 6:23 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by wendell at 6:23 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Given the overwhelming number of things about Bush to complain about, it is nice that Geldof is showing some deserved praise here and unfortunate that many are quick to overlook any good acts by the man simply because of his legacy.
That being said, I agree that this post is a bit thin.
posted by dhammond at 6:24 PM on February 21, 2008
That being said, I agree that this post is a bit thin.
posted by dhammond at 6:24 PM on February 21, 2008
I found several repeats of the same Washington Times article that I didn't see the need to post. Hopefully, like Flapjax said, we'll hear more in the coming days. I agree that it is nice to hear some good news for a change.
posted by pearlybob at 6:27 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by pearlybob at 6:27 PM on February 21, 2008
But what does Bono think?!
posted by dobbs at 6:29 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by dobbs at 6:29 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Back when Geldof was a writer for the Georgia Straight , the local alternative weekly here in Vancouver, he got really drunk and fell off the stern of my buddy's ski boat while taking a whiz into the actual Georgia Straight.
As a result of this, I managed to score the chick he was hustling.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:32 PM on February 21, 2008 [7 favorites]
As a result of this, I managed to score the chick he was hustling.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:32 PM on February 21, 2008 [7 favorites]
I'd like to hear Geldof on Bush's AIDS policy. I love hearing defenses of that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:32 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:32 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
On a vaguely-related note, here's a video of Bush, taken just today, in Africa, dancing.
posted by 1 at 6:34 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by 1 at 6:34 PM on February 21, 2008
On a vaguely-related note, here's a video of Bush, taken just today, in Africa, dancing.
That link was actually posted in the FPP. Twice.
posted by dhammond at 6:36 PM on February 21, 2008
That link was actually posted in the FPP. Twice.
posted by dhammond at 6:36 PM on February 21, 2008
Hmmmm, yes...
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:43 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:43 PM on February 21, 2008
What does Bob Geldof think of your post?
posted by boo_radley at 6:54 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 6:54 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
They may not be George Bush's natural constituency but Rwanda's prostitutes have good things to say about him. However others see things differently.
posted by adamvasco at 6:57 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by adamvasco at 6:57 PM on February 21, 2008
But what does Bono think?!
He thinks he'll get a new pair of sunglasses.
posted by jonmc at 7:16 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
He thinks he'll get a new pair of sunglasses.
posted by jonmc at 7:16 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
I love how the poster linked to the Washington Times. I suppose "Washington" + "Times" = quality reporting.
Oh, and fuck Bob Geldof.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:20 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Oh, and fuck Bob Geldof.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:20 PM on February 21, 2008 [2 favorites]
Oh, yeah, and the body of water is called the Georgia Strait.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:23 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by KokuRyu at 7:23 PM on February 21, 2008
Q. What does Bono have in common with the poor of Africa?
A. Neither pay tax
posted by mattoxic at 7:35 PM on February 21, 2008
A. Neither pay tax
posted by mattoxic at 7:35 PM on February 21, 2008
That's funny at first glance, mattoxic, but I reckon a surprising percentage of "the poor" in Africa in fact pay taxes.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:39 PM on February 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:39 PM on February 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
...he's scheduled to interview Bush...
You can interview George Bush? How would that work?
I wonder if a bush interview would have the same spark and passion as his Thatcher conversation.
posted by mattoxic at 7:48 PM on February 21, 2008
You can interview George Bush? How would that work?
I wonder if a bush interview would have the same spark and passion as his Thatcher conversation.
posted by mattoxic at 7:48 PM on February 21, 2008
flapjax at midnite
You are right, I had that thought too, they probably also pay protection to war lords, exorbitant prices for essential medicine.
Its just great to see Bush there so early in his term. You just know some good will come out of it. Reminds me of that prize ponce Blair's post September 11 promise to Africa.
posted by mattoxic at 7:52 PM on February 21, 2008
You are right, I had that thought too, they probably also pay protection to war lords, exorbitant prices for essential medicine.
Its just great to see Bush there so early in his term. You just know some good will come out of it. Reminds me of that prize ponce Blair's post September 11 promise to Africa.
posted by mattoxic at 7:52 PM on February 21, 2008
Geldof *does* know that the St. Stupid's Day Parade isn't until April 1st, right?!
Bush is a Bono-fied international hero, I guess. A rock god!
...and just think of how effective he could've been in Africa in reducing HIV/AIDS if one of his first acts in office wasn't silencing thousands of Africa's safe-sex educators, effectively ripping hundreds of millions of U.S.-funded condoms out of the hands of those spreading the disease!
posted by markkraft at 7:56 PM on February 21, 2008
Bush is a Bono-fied international hero, I guess. A rock god!
...and just think of how effective he could've been in Africa in reducing HIV/AIDS if one of his first acts in office wasn't silencing thousands of Africa's safe-sex educators, effectively ripping hundreds of millions of U.S.-funded condoms out of the hands of those spreading the disease!
posted by markkraft at 7:56 PM on February 21, 2008
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030531/ai_n12696134
posted by jfrancis at 8:11 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by jfrancis at 8:11 PM on February 21, 2008
I think Bono is an adequate rock star, a passionate activist, and pretty damn annoying overall. But I appreciate that he is trying to point to President Bush and let people know that Bush has done GOOD THINGS. He has met more African leaders than any other US President, pledged billions of US dollars to African relief efforts, etc.
I'm pretty baffled about the people whining about this post, though. Every goddamn day there are plenty of "thin" FPPs that don't generate this kind of criticism -- likely because they are (a) news filter, and (b) Bush-bashing, or (c) Republican bashing.
But heaven forbid a PRO-BUSH thread, especially one with more than just a single link.
Meh.
posted by davidmsc at 8:25 PM on February 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
I'm pretty baffled about the people whining about this post, though. Every goddamn day there are plenty of "thin" FPPs that don't generate this kind of criticism -- likely because they are (a) news filter, and (b) Bush-bashing, or (c) Republican bashing.
But heaven forbid a PRO-BUSH thread, especially one with more than just a single link.
Meh.
posted by davidmsc at 8:25 PM on February 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
I have worked with Bob and sadly he's a douchebag.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 8:35 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 8:35 PM on February 21, 2008
unfortunate that many are quick to overlook any good acts by the man simply because of his legacy
You know that AIDS-infected, syphilitic whore with genital warts and leprosy and two tufts of hair coming out the back of her scalp (which is covered entirely in scabs of various shades and amounts of thick yellow ooze) and one half of a breast and a vagina dentata?
It's a shame that everyone overlooks how pretty her eyes are.
posted by DecemberBoy at 8:35 PM on February 21, 2008 [8 favorites]
You know that AIDS-infected, syphilitic whore with genital warts and leprosy and two tufts of hair coming out the back of her scalp (which is covered entirely in scabs of various shades and amounts of thick yellow ooze) and one half of a breast and a vagina dentata?
It's a shame that everyone overlooks how pretty her eyes are.
posted by DecemberBoy at 8:35 PM on February 21, 2008 [8 favorites]
Hey, while we're at it and before this gets deleted, and since I refuse to read the article because Bob Geldof is a fucking douche and I could care less what he has to say, what exactly, Bush supporters, has Bush done in Africa that's so great? Money for relief efforts? Yeah, awesome! If by "relief efforts" you mean "abstinence-only" anti-AIDS education efforts because Jaysus hates peepees and woowoos.
posted by DecemberBoy at 9:13 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by DecemberBoy at 9:13 PM on February 21, 2008
Geldof and Bono are the assholes that bigger assholes use to get more popular credits.
Stalin managed to make "huge receptions" too. I am one of the people of Africa, and you know what : Fuck Bush and all that he represents.
posted by zouhair at 10:58 PM on February 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
Stalin managed to make "huge receptions" too. I am one of the people of Africa, and you know what : Fuck Bush and all that he represents.
posted by zouhair at 10:58 PM on February 21, 2008 [3 favorites]
what exactly [...] has Bush done in Africa that's so great? Money for relief efforts?
The millions of dollars worth of ARVs provided to AIDS sufferers have been instrumental in saving many many lives.
The doctors in Africa are no more blind to the Iraq situation than we are, but they have far more pressing matters to worry about -- you could depopulate the entire country of Iraq and not come close to the body count that AIDS is going to rack up in Africa (in fact, the current population of Iraq (27 million) is roughly the same number as living Africans with AIDS right now).
African governments are completely failing to deal with the problem on their own, and the Pepfar program has helped with the tactical situation. As people have noted, it's not helping the long term situation much by spreading a brand of Christianity that emphasizes abstinence over condoms, but the ARVs are going out to everybody who needs them.
Still, in the end the Pepfar program will save millions of lives.
Like it or not, Bush's policies are likely to save more lives than they end prematurely. Doesn't seem right, does it?
posted by tkolar at 10:58 PM on February 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
The millions of dollars worth of ARVs provided to AIDS sufferers have been instrumental in saving many many lives.
The doctors in Africa are no more blind to the Iraq situation than we are, but they have far more pressing matters to worry about -- you could depopulate the entire country of Iraq and not come close to the body count that AIDS is going to rack up in Africa (in fact, the current population of Iraq (27 million) is roughly the same number as living Africans with AIDS right now).
African governments are completely failing to deal with the problem on their own, and the Pepfar program has helped with the tactical situation. As people have noted, it's not helping the long term situation much by spreading a brand of Christianity that emphasizes abstinence over condoms, but the ARVs are going out to everybody who needs them.
Still, in the end the Pepfar program will save millions of lives.
Like it or not, Bush's policies are likely to save more lives than they end prematurely. Doesn't seem right, does it?
posted by tkolar at 10:58 PM on February 21, 2008 [1 favorite]
"Bob Geldof, who has worked tirelessly to ease the suffering in Africa, has praised President Bush on his policies and efforts in that country."
Africa is a continent, not a country.
posted by bchase at 11:06 PM on February 21, 2008 [4 favorites]
Africa is a continent, not a country.
posted by bchase at 11:06 PM on February 21, 2008 [4 favorites]
Oh, yeah, and the body of water is called the Georgia Strait.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:23 PM on February 21 [+] [!]
The name Georgia Straight is a pun, as Vancouver adjoins the Georgia Strait, as the "Strait of Georgia" was called on some maps until the mapmakers decided to avoid association with the newspaper. The joke is that "straight" referred to people who were not hip.
Riiiiight. Cartographers conspired to alter geographic place names to disassociate their work with some hash-addled underground weekly. Pesky English usage, actually. It's becoming a continental concern. Superfluous letters dropped along the 49th parallel have created such a gigantic pile that it's added a full two hours to border crossings.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:22 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by KokuRyu at 7:23 PM on February 21 [+] [!]
The name Georgia Straight is a pun, as Vancouver adjoins the Georgia Strait, as the "Strait of Georgia" was called on some maps until the mapmakers decided to avoid association with the newspaper. The joke is that "straight" referred to people who were not hip.
Riiiiight. Cartographers conspired to alter geographic place names to disassociate their work with some hash-addled underground weekly. Pesky English usage, actually. It's becoming a continental concern. Superfluous letters dropped along the 49th parallel have created such a gigantic pile that it's added a full two hours to border crossings.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 11:22 PM on February 21, 2008
USAFRICOM is Rumsfeld's darling love child to control Nigerian oil, and secure rights to military bases all over Africa. It's no wonder Bush is trying to charm the leaders of Africa to let the US secure a major military presence when the continent's oil reserves are taken into account.
posted by JimmyJames at 11:37 PM on February 21, 2008
posted by JimmyJames at 11:37 PM on February 21, 2008
Thanks for the links adamvasco!
pearlybob, I had no idea about the aid that Pepfar was pumping into Africa, and although I'm not a supporter of Bush by any stretch--I'm glad the people who need the medicine are getting it.
posted by hadjiboy at 11:44 PM on February 21, 2008
pearlybob, I had no idea about the aid that Pepfar was pumping into Africa, and although I'm not a supporter of Bush by any stretch--I'm glad the people who need the medicine are getting it.
posted by hadjiboy at 11:44 PM on February 21, 2008
Stop it people.
Like it's Bush's PERSONAL decision to fund pepfar.
Fucking hell. like he could even pronounce it let alone name one country in Africa without an aide whispering one or two into his ear.
tkolar, programmes like pepfar are autopilot for lame ducks, same as Middle Eastern peace talks. I mean, the man in charge of the biggest economy responsible for the biggest fuckup NEEDS to do something for his legacy.
Why don't they do something as well like cancel debt, fund agriculture, irrigation and education. Foster good governance and help stamp out corruption as well?
Better to let people wallow in poverty with no solutions at all isn't it? After all, they have Sir Bob, what else could the need?
posted by mattoxic at 3:40 AM on February 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
Like it's Bush's PERSONAL decision to fund pepfar.
Fucking hell. like he could even pronounce it let alone name one country in Africa without an aide whispering one or two into his ear.
tkolar, programmes like pepfar are autopilot for lame ducks, same as Middle Eastern peace talks. I mean, the man in charge of the biggest economy responsible for the biggest fuckup NEEDS to do something for his legacy.
Why don't they do something as well like cancel debt, fund agriculture, irrigation and education. Foster good governance and help stamp out corruption as well?
Better to let people wallow in poverty with no solutions at all isn't it? After all, they have Sir Bob, what else could the need?
posted by mattoxic at 3:40 AM on February 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
Its not very amazing to see all the bushhate and how easily it blinds people to OTHER IMPORTANT SHIT in the world besides the US economy and the war for oil or whatever the hell you want to call it.
By the beginning of last year, Bush had tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to Africa, and had further promised to double that amount again by 2010. That takes it from $1.4 billion in 2001 to almost $9 billion in 2010, should things continue according to plan.
"He should be known for the largest single investment in AIDS and malaria, the biggest health investment of any government program ever." - Condoleezza Rice
You guys can ream Bush and all the lolxians all you want, but you can't deny what he's done (based on the prodding from his religious base) for Africa in the last decade - arguably more than any president in America's history.
Doesn't seem right, does it?
Actually, that's exactly what it seems. What doesn't seem right is the ignorant hate that so clouds the mind of people that they'd prefer he hadn't done this much for Africa.
posted by allkindsoftime at 3:44 AM on February 22, 2008
By the beginning of last year, Bush had tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to Africa, and had further promised to double that amount again by 2010. That takes it from $1.4 billion in 2001 to almost $9 billion in 2010, should things continue according to plan.
"He should be known for the largest single investment in AIDS and malaria, the biggest health investment of any government program ever." - Condoleezza Rice
You guys can ream Bush and all the lolxians all you want, but you can't deny what he's done (based on the prodding from his religious base) for Africa in the last decade - arguably more than any president in America's history.
Doesn't seem right, does it?
Actually, that's exactly what it seems. What doesn't seem right is the ignorant hate that so clouds the mind of people that they'd prefer he hadn't done this much for Africa.
posted by allkindsoftime at 3:44 AM on February 22, 2008
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and (some of) Bush's African policies are rare bright points in an otherwise dismal landscape.
That said, Bob joined the wingnut army some time ago, and he appears to have a particular beef against the EU. So these declarations come as no surprise whatsoever.
posted by Skeptic at 4:05 AM on February 22, 2008
That said, Bob joined the wingnut army some time ago, and he appears to have a particular beef against the EU. So these declarations come as no surprise whatsoever.
posted by Skeptic at 4:05 AM on February 22, 2008
Yeah, the continent/country thing was one of those "Doh" moments where you really wish for a 5 minute edit feature (Hint, Hint Powers that Be!).
posted by pearlybob at 5:29 AM on February 22, 2008
posted by pearlybob at 5:29 AM on February 22, 2008
...one of those "Doh" moments where you really wish for a 5 minute edit feature...
Would 5 minutes be enough, though, to make you reconsider your conservative political predilections?
Just kiddin'. Sort of.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:41 AM on February 22, 2008
Would 5 minutes be enough, though, to make you reconsider your conservative political predilections?
Just kiddin'. Sort of.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:41 AM on February 22, 2008
Geldorf help sell lots of disks of plastic.
Bush helps get secure raw materials for said disks.
Africa aside, it's a magisynergistiarriage made in heaven!
Bono helps a bit by flying around a lot and helping George use up those excess materials.
WE SOLVED THE PROBLEMS IN NORTHERN IRELAND! HEY POPE, DROP THOSE PINS AND GIVE US A HAND DISTRIBUTING THOSE CONDOMS YOU GOT THERE! WE GOT SOME AFRICAN AFRO AMERICANS TO HELP!
(my god. are these people for real?)
posted by davemee at 5:54 AM on February 22, 2008
Bush helps get secure raw materials for said disks.
Africa aside, it's a magisynergistiarriage made in heaven!
Bono helps a bit by flying around a lot and helping George use up those excess materials.
WE SOLVED THE PROBLEMS IN NORTHERN IRELAND! HEY POPE, DROP THOSE PINS AND GIVE US A HAND DISTRIBUTING THOSE CONDOMS YOU GOT THERE! WE GOT SOME AFRICAN AFRO AMERICANS TO HELP!
(my god. are these people for real?)
posted by davemee at 5:54 AM on February 22, 2008
As the Charity Department at the Treasury
Dispenses licenses so you can do one too
The Ethiopians are running out of weaponry
So their leaders stock it up instead of food
And charity begins at home
So get out on the streets
And help the refugees
And the manager of E.M.I. technology
Seems reluctant to discuss his business deals
Cos the weapon sales are paying for his meals
He'll go to withering heights
To keep it out of sight
Profit! Weaponry doesn't feed refugees
It's a hit! McCartney's saying please on T.V.'s royalties to feed the world with guns
Wembley Stadium forever on the video
And a million spent to raise that sixty more
Nothing ever quite as big as this before
And it broke our hearts
As it topped the charts
But when the overkill exploited the reality
We forgot the facts and revelled in the noise
We didn't see that while we had the voice
Companies and laws were pulling vocal chords
If the western world was less obsessed with property
And the need to keep it safe with threats of war
Then the third world wouldn't need a war economy
That we're supplying at a cost they can't afford
So we buy up all their crops and grain
And sell it back again
When there ain't no rain
And have a big campaign
Using famous names
And as the penny drops
Into the Oxfam box
Take off the V.A.T.
Then call it charity
And the public think the government is wonderful
For promoting our assistance to the poor
But their profits are a whole lot more
They create the need to feed the refugees
And delegate the guilty feeling to the public eye
Via pictures of starvation on T.V.
And get the public conscience back out on the streets
With the empty tins
And little flags on pins
Lets call it charity
Lets call it charity
Make it pay!
(words by Dick Lucas, music by Citizen Fish)
posted by Ivana Shtup de Naparino at 6:54 AM on February 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
Dispenses licenses so you can do one too
The Ethiopians are running out of weaponry
So their leaders stock it up instead of food
And charity begins at home
So get out on the streets
And help the refugees
And the manager of E.M.I. technology
Seems reluctant to discuss his business deals
Cos the weapon sales are paying for his meals
He'll go to withering heights
To keep it out of sight
Profit! Weaponry doesn't feed refugees
It's a hit! McCartney's saying please on T.V.'s royalties to feed the world with guns
Wembley Stadium forever on the video
And a million spent to raise that sixty more
Nothing ever quite as big as this before
And it broke our hearts
As it topped the charts
But when the overkill exploited the reality
We forgot the facts and revelled in the noise
We didn't see that while we had the voice
Companies and laws were pulling vocal chords
If the western world was less obsessed with property
And the need to keep it safe with threats of war
Then the third world wouldn't need a war economy
That we're supplying at a cost they can't afford
So we buy up all their crops and grain
And sell it back again
When there ain't no rain
And have a big campaign
Using famous names
And as the penny drops
Into the Oxfam box
Take off the V.A.T.
Then call it charity
And the public think the government is wonderful
For promoting our assistance to the poor
But their profits are a whole lot more
They create the need to feed the refugees
And delegate the guilty feeling to the public eye
Via pictures of starvation on T.V.
And get the public conscience back out on the streets
With the empty tins
And little flags on pins
Lets call it charity
Lets call it charity
Make it pay!
(words by Dick Lucas, music by Citizen Fish)
posted by Ivana Shtup de Naparino at 6:54 AM on February 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
I realize that not all conflicts, health crises, and moments for political intervention are equal, but:
posted by mikeh at 7:33 AM on February 22, 2008
By the beginning of last year, Bush had tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to Africa, and had further promised to double that amount again by 2010. That takes it from $1.4 billion in 2001 to almost $9 billion in 2010, should things continue according to plan.While I hope that the long-term aid to Africa surpasses the amount of money spent in poorly planned and executed conflicts, some quick research leads me to believe that there's about $177 million spent per day on the present situation in Iraq. In other words, in 2010, we'll be spending in one year on all of Africa's Aids crisis what we're spending every 50 days right now.
posted by mikeh at 7:33 AM on February 22, 2008
Mikeh - for one thing that says as much about the magnitude of the Iraq war costs as it does about the total level of US Foreign Assistance. It takes ALOT more political capital to approve increase of foreign aid than it does for military spending.
It is no question that the level of increased funding under Pepfar and other programs in Africa are a primary result of Bush's involvement in making these programs a priority for the U.S. Pepfar may not be perfect but its probably the most effective foreign aid/ health program that the US has ever implemented, and the fact that its effectiveness has been rewarded by scaling its funding and impact, is admirable, especially since most US aid (USAID, I am looking right at you!) is a big boondoggle especially as compared to other western countries' official aid programs. I think its a huge stretch to say that its a proselytizing Christian mission because a part of its message is abstinence.
Of all behavioral changes interventions, I'm pretty sure that campaigns to get people to use condoms have been pretty miserable failures, it sucks but its true and I think that many health officials/ workers in Africa will echo that comment.
posted by stratastar at 8:11 AM on February 22, 2008
It is no question that the level of increased funding under Pepfar and other programs in Africa are a primary result of Bush's involvement in making these programs a priority for the U.S. Pepfar may not be perfect but its probably the most effective foreign aid/ health program that the US has ever implemented, and the fact that its effectiveness has been rewarded by scaling its funding and impact, is admirable, especially since most US aid (USAID, I am looking right at you!) is a big boondoggle especially as compared to other western countries' official aid programs. I think its a huge stretch to say that its a proselytizing Christian mission because a part of its message is abstinence.
Of all behavioral changes interventions, I'm pretty sure that campaigns to get people to use condoms have been pretty miserable failures, it sucks but its true and I think that many health officials/ workers in Africa will echo that comment.
posted by stratastar at 8:11 AM on February 22, 2008
I think its a huge stretch to say that its a proselytizing Christian mission because a part of its message is abstinence.
You've got it backwards -- the message is abstinence because it's a proselytizing Christian mission. Pepfar is a "faith based initiative" on steroids -- it seeks local churches and existing Christian aid programs to do its work, far from all those pesky church/state arguments.
On one hand, there aren't many large scale secular relief programs going on in Africa -- on the other hand, I don't think it pained Bush or his supporters one bit to pump money into Christian missions that distribute ARVs with one hand and bibles with the other.
posted by tkolar at 8:21 AM on February 22, 2008
You've got it backwards -- the message is abstinence because it's a proselytizing Christian mission. Pepfar is a "faith based initiative" on steroids -- it seeks local churches and existing Christian aid programs to do its work, far from all those pesky church/state arguments.
On one hand, there aren't many large scale secular relief programs going on in Africa -- on the other hand, I don't think it pained Bush or his supporters one bit to pump money into Christian missions that distribute ARVs with one hand and bibles with the other.
posted by tkolar at 8:21 AM on February 22, 2008
tkolar - like you concede, that's because that's where most of the health operations in africa currently are. So Pepfar builds on existing capacity.
You want to build that from scratch? It would be counterproductive, lose YEARS of local knowledge (remember, just because the organizations are religiously funded does not necessarily mean that their health missions or health workers ignore best practices, work with secular researchers, or shove the religion part down the throats of anyone who shows up for a vaccine. The fact is that a decent bit of the civil society in African countries is religious, whether christian or muslim, and any program that you want to implement needs local competencies to build from. I imagine that many people think that religious health workers in africa are like catholic pregnancy centers lying to people who walk in the door.
Ok thought experiment: how much money and years of local (if religious) experience would you sacrifice, to have purely secular organizations operating. Do you believe that they would do better? Do they have more incentives to be more effective? What's your model of individual and organizational behavio?
posted by stratastar at 10:15 AM on February 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
You want to build that from scratch? It would be counterproductive, lose YEARS of local knowledge (remember, just because the organizations are religiously funded does not necessarily mean that their health missions or health workers ignore best practices, work with secular researchers, or shove the religion part down the throats of anyone who shows up for a vaccine. The fact is that a decent bit of the civil society in African countries is religious, whether christian or muslim, and any program that you want to implement needs local competencies to build from. I imagine that many people think that religious health workers in africa are like catholic pregnancy centers lying to people who walk in the door.
Ok thought experiment: how much money and years of local (if religious) experience would you sacrifice, to have purely secular organizations operating. Do you believe that they would do better? Do they have more incentives to be more effective? What's your model of individual and organizational behavio?
posted by stratastar at 10:15 AM on February 22, 2008 [1 favorite]
"The singer was annoyed that the press had mostly ignored the exuberant reception that Mr. Bush has consistently received during his five-nation tour this week"
This has been a busy news cycle in the middle of tense primary elections. The press hasn't entirely ignored Bush, either. Mostly, they're showing the clip of Bush attempting to dance (which was also popular the last time he made such a trip). I think what he's doing is a good thing, but it's pretty far down on the news priority list. And, face it, Bush isn't really known as a humanitarian, for good reason. In a slow news cycle, this may have had a better position, but as it is, it's not really big news that Bush had a good reception in Africa, due to our donations. It's great, but it's not exactly a front-page, above-the-fold-type story in any news cycle.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:40 PM on February 22, 2008
This has been a busy news cycle in the middle of tense primary elections. The press hasn't entirely ignored Bush, either. Mostly, they're showing the clip of Bush attempting to dance (which was also popular the last time he made such a trip). I think what he's doing is a good thing, but it's pretty far down on the news priority list. And, face it, Bush isn't really known as a humanitarian, for good reason. In a slow news cycle, this may have had a better position, but as it is, it's not really big news that Bush had a good reception in Africa, due to our donations. It's great, but it's not exactly a front-page, above-the-fold-type story in any news cycle.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:40 PM on February 22, 2008
mean that their health missions or health workers ignore best practices,
Other than in attempting to teach abstinence, which has never worked in any era, anywhere.
Condom use at least has a proven record of reducing AIDS infection rates, and has been successfully encouraged in various parts of the world. If you're going to try to push a message on a populace that isn't particularly interested in hearing it, why not go with one that has at least succeeded elsewhere?
Unless, of course, that message conflicts with another message that you're trying to get across -- namely that sex for pleasure is a ticket straight to hell.
I can hardly blame the right-wing Christians for getting excited about AIDS in Africa. It's both a humanitarian crisis AND people are actually dying for their fornicating ways! I would guess that it literally appears to be Heaven sent. The lord is punishing sinners for their wicked ways, and doing it on such a scale that the survivors are willing to cling onto just about anything that gives them hope -- enabling his ministry on Earth unparalleled chances for expansion.
Just as Bush's actions in Africa don't redeem the tremendous damage he's caused elsewhere, the humanitarian efforts of the people on the ground don't obviate the damage they're doing by spreading the most poisonous aspects of Christianity among the survivors.
posted by tkolar at 2:01 PM on February 22, 2008
Other than in attempting to teach abstinence, which has never worked in any era, anywhere.
Condom use at least has a proven record of reducing AIDS infection rates, and has been successfully encouraged in various parts of the world. If you're going to try to push a message on a populace that isn't particularly interested in hearing it, why not go with one that has at least succeeded elsewhere?
Unless, of course, that message conflicts with another message that you're trying to get across -- namely that sex for pleasure is a ticket straight to hell.
I can hardly blame the right-wing Christians for getting excited about AIDS in Africa. It's both a humanitarian crisis AND people are actually dying for their fornicating ways! I would guess that it literally appears to be Heaven sent. The lord is punishing sinners for their wicked ways, and doing it on such a scale that the survivors are willing to cling onto just about anything that gives them hope -- enabling his ministry on Earth unparalleled chances for expansion.
Just as Bush's actions in Africa don't redeem the tremendous damage he's caused elsewhere, the humanitarian efforts of the people on the ground don't obviate the damage they're doing by spreading the most poisonous aspects of Christianity among the survivors.
posted by tkolar at 2:01 PM on February 22, 2008
I don't know about the efficacy of abstinence interventions (and listen of course I don't agree with the US' policy on family planning esp viz UNFPA, that has been awful...)
However, we're talking about PEPFAR here. Condom interventions just don't really work in Africa for a variety of reasons (note these things are NOT necessarily true for all countries in Africa, nor do they necessarily occur more in africa than in Western countries but they have been identified as known risk factors for HIV infection in Africa);
Namely: multiple partners, the inability of a woman in marriage to enforce condom usage on their husband, the phenomenon of "sugar daddies" - older men having relations multiple younger women in exchange for gifts and money as well as other factors. And well this is my theory but when you're poor, sex is a great, free activity and condoms suck.
Given the cost, there are rational reasons why an individual would not use condoms, the risk of an infection per encounter is probably quite low. Just thinking out loud here: but taking the analysis in that link (and given mortality in Africa, life-year costs would generally be lower in Africa, and thus risky sex would thus be... well all things considered less risky, for an african vs. say a swede). And all of this plays out quite negatively in the effectiveness of condom use in Africa:
From the meta-analysis:
There is substantial evidence of interventions targeted at sex workers and clients achieving large increases in condom use. Far less evidence exists of intervention impact on condom use in casual relationships. In primary partnerships, post-intervention condom use was low unless one partner was knowingly HIV-infected or at high-risk, or avoiding pregnancy. Evaluations of interventions targeting youths recorded limited increases in condom use.
What I am saying is that given your political costs and operating constraints, and given how DIFFICULT it is for the US to increase its foreign assistance budget aimed at the poor, who cares if it has to be rolled into an abstinence package. If abstinence sticks, great it's pretty much free.... if it doesn't so what, it's been rolled together to provide political capital for an effective(and expensive!) program for actually treating HIV-AIDS.
So throwing out the best possible world scenario what would you rather have. And you can bet that a democratic president would quickly roll back
posted by stratastar at 2:37 PM on February 22, 2008
However, we're talking about PEPFAR here. Condom interventions just don't really work in Africa for a variety of reasons (note these things are NOT necessarily true for all countries in Africa, nor do they necessarily occur more in africa than in Western countries but they have been identified as known risk factors for HIV infection in Africa);
Namely: multiple partners, the inability of a woman in marriage to enforce condom usage on their husband, the phenomenon of "sugar daddies" - older men having relations multiple younger women in exchange for gifts and money as well as other factors. And well this is my theory but when you're poor, sex is a great, free activity and condoms suck.
Given the cost, there are rational reasons why an individual would not use condoms, the risk of an infection per encounter is probably quite low. Just thinking out loud here: but taking the analysis in that link (and given mortality in Africa, life-year costs would generally be lower in Africa, and thus risky sex would thus be... well all things considered less risky, for an african vs. say a swede). And all of this plays out quite negatively in the effectiveness of condom use in Africa:
From the meta-analysis:
There is substantial evidence of interventions targeted at sex workers and clients achieving large increases in condom use. Far less evidence exists of intervention impact on condom use in casual relationships. In primary partnerships, post-intervention condom use was low unless one partner was knowingly HIV-infected or at high-risk, or avoiding pregnancy. Evaluations of interventions targeting youths recorded limited increases in condom use.
What I am saying is that given your political costs and operating constraints, and given how DIFFICULT it is for the US to increase its foreign assistance budget aimed at the poor, who cares if it has to be rolled into an abstinence package. If abstinence sticks, great it's pretty much free.... if it doesn't so what, it's been rolled together to provide political capital for an effective(and expensive!) program for actually treating HIV-AIDS.
So throwing out the best possible world scenario what would you rather have. And you can bet that a democratic president would quickly roll back
posted by stratastar at 2:37 PM on February 22, 2008
er-- the US' policy against family planning practices.
posted by stratastar at 2:38 PM on February 22, 2008
posted by stratastar at 2:38 PM on February 22, 2008
"The millions of dollars worth of ARVs provided to AIDS sufferers have been instrumental in saving many many lives."
Most Africans who get ARVs still do not get the same drug cocktail / nutritional level of treatment that people in the US get, where the disease's progress is oftentimes completely halted. In the African countries most effected by AIDS, average life expectancy has dropped 11 years.
So no, retrovirals are generally not "saving lives" in Africa yet. Rather, they're delaying deaths.
"Bush had . . . promised to double that amount again by 2010."
Considering when he's leaving office, well... that would be a neat trick.
"Condom interventions just don't really work in Africa for a variety of reasons. . ."
Biggest piece of bull on MeFi, ever.
As you yourself mentioned:
"There is substantial evidence of interventions targeted at sex workers and clients achieving large increases in condom use."
"Far less evidence exists of intervention impact on condom use in casual relationships."
Bull. Condom use amongst African women tripled between '93 and '01, and would've increased very significantly had the U.S. actively supported it.
From the article:
"AIDS workers have long been concerned that Africans were slow to change their sexual habits. . . but Cleland and Ali showed condom use has increased at about the same rate at which contraceptive practices were adopted by married couples in developing countries from 1965 to 1998."
The study referenced was specifically cited by experts as evidence that a successful policy against AIDS required condom use and advocacy.
As for cultural barriers, well... even Catholic leaders in Africa are quietly supporting condom use as a way of fighting disease, even though they officially frown on its use for birth control.
Also, Africa has a very young culture... especially in AIDS infected countries where people don't live all that long on average. As such, it is easier than one would suspect to change cultural/generational thinking.
The article specifically cites a Sister Christine Jacob, who oversees a rural medical facility outside Pretoria, who says that "teenagers . . . routinely ask the clinic to provide condoms but are denied."
"post-intervention condom use was low unless one partner was knowingly HIV-infected or at high-risk. . ."
That is *EXACTLY* the core target group you want to reach most.
Suggesting that condoms don't work in Africa when they clearly *DO* work for high-risk communities is like saying that the pro-condom campaigns in the gay community in America didn't make a huge difference in reducing the number of HIV infections, effectively turning back the epidemic here.
On a personal level, I would suggest that you make sure that the arguments you put forth aren't potentially lethal ones, if picked up by the wrong people.
posted by markkraft at 7:39 AM on February 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
Most Africans who get ARVs still do not get the same drug cocktail / nutritional level of treatment that people in the US get, where the disease's progress is oftentimes completely halted. In the African countries most effected by AIDS, average life expectancy has dropped 11 years.
So no, retrovirals are generally not "saving lives" in Africa yet. Rather, they're delaying deaths.
"Bush had . . . promised to double that amount again by 2010."
Considering when he's leaving office, well... that would be a neat trick.
"Condom interventions just don't really work in Africa for a variety of reasons. . ."
Biggest piece of bull on MeFi, ever.
As you yourself mentioned:
"There is substantial evidence of interventions targeted at sex workers and clients achieving large increases in condom use."
"Far less evidence exists of intervention impact on condom use in casual relationships."
Bull. Condom use amongst African women tripled between '93 and '01, and would've increased very significantly had the U.S. actively supported it.
From the article:
"AIDS workers have long been concerned that Africans were slow to change their sexual habits. . . but Cleland and Ali showed condom use has increased at about the same rate at which contraceptive practices were adopted by married couples in developing countries from 1965 to 1998."
The study referenced was specifically cited by experts as evidence that a successful policy against AIDS required condom use and advocacy.
As for cultural barriers, well... even Catholic leaders in Africa are quietly supporting condom use as a way of fighting disease, even though they officially frown on its use for birth control.
Also, Africa has a very young culture... especially in AIDS infected countries where people don't live all that long on average. As such, it is easier than one would suspect to change cultural/generational thinking.
The article specifically cites a Sister Christine Jacob, who oversees a rural medical facility outside Pretoria, who says that "teenagers . . . routinely ask the clinic to provide condoms but are denied."
"post-intervention condom use was low unless one partner was knowingly HIV-infected or at high-risk. . ."
That is *EXACTLY* the core target group you want to reach most.
Suggesting that condoms don't work in Africa when they clearly *DO* work for high-risk communities is like saying that the pro-condom campaigns in the gay community in America didn't make a huge difference in reducing the number of HIV infections, effectively turning back the epidemic here.
On a personal level, I would suggest that you make sure that the arguments you put forth aren't potentially lethal ones, if picked up by the wrong people.
posted by markkraft at 7:39 AM on February 23, 2008 [1 favorite]
BTW, This article makes it clear that the level of treatment that Africans get for HIV/AIDS simply doesn't compare to the three-drug "cocktail" combination therapy *plus* nutritional information/assistance you can generally get in the US.
Generally, AIDS treatment in Africa consists of neverapine, without the stavudine and lamivudine generally given in the US, which, when combined with proper nutrition, can often halt the progress of HIV/AIDS.
This monotherapy regimen is very dangerous, in that it increases the chance of HIV/AIDS strains that are resistant to neverapine. By simply prescribing neverapine by itself, we're doing the medical equivalent of giving these people two day's worth of penicillin when they get an infectious disease, and telling them to go home.
posted by markkraft at 8:28 AM on February 23, 2008
Generally, AIDS treatment in Africa consists of neverapine, without the stavudine and lamivudine generally given in the US, which, when combined with proper nutrition, can often halt the progress of HIV/AIDS.
This monotherapy regimen is very dangerous, in that it increases the chance of HIV/AIDS strains that are resistant to neverapine. By simply prescribing neverapine by itself, we're doing the medical equivalent of giving these people two day's worth of penicillin when they get an infectious disease, and telling them to go home.
posted by markkraft at 8:28 AM on February 23, 2008
markkraft - thanks for adding nuance to the discussion. IANA health professional, nor an HIV/AIDS expert, my professional experience is in higher level development and aid policy, and that's the lens that I'm viewing this debate. I was however, reacting to the banal knee-jerk sentiment expressed by many of the members on the forum. Things simply are much more complicated than people want them to be, as your points about the use of neverapine shows. Bush has raised AID to Africa on many occasions in his presidency and not simply as a move to garner popularity on his way out. I think he's shown much more character in pushing these efforts than you guys give him credit for.
On condom usage, however you were not following my argument closely. Again while IANAHP I do have friends who are health professionals, and a girlfriend doing health interventions in Rwanda, and they relate that condom use interventions are the most frustrating and ineffective programs to work on, does that mean they are not important, or should be dropped entirely, or maybe the right program has yet to be devised? Of course not. But given the money that we have is there reason to believe that we should be spending much more money on interventions towards condom use? Again I say no:
Read the linked abstract again, you simply can't call a published journal article, that isn't ONE study but a meta-review of about two thousand studies on the effectiveness of condom use interventions, with a link that talks about increased condom usage in Africa. That study is not talking about the use of condoms, but the effectiveness of health programs targeted at inducing people to use condoms.
Are people using more condoms? Of course, it would be silly to say that no one uses condoms or that there aren't reasons for increased use of condoms. The article is QUITE CLEAR that historically, money spent on health interventions for condom usage is useless. Again that is not to say that giving out free condoms isn't an effective way to get people to use condoms. Or that condom usage is not important.
posted by stratastar at 12:55 PM on February 23, 2008
On condom usage, however you were not following my argument closely. Again while IANAHP I do have friends who are health professionals, and a girlfriend doing health interventions in Rwanda, and they relate that condom use interventions are the most frustrating and ineffective programs to work on, does that mean they are not important, or should be dropped entirely, or maybe the right program has yet to be devised? Of course not. But given the money that we have is there reason to believe that we should be spending much more money on interventions towards condom use? Again I say no:
Read the linked abstract again, you simply can't call a published journal article, that isn't ONE study but a meta-review of about two thousand studies on the effectiveness of condom use interventions, with a link that talks about increased condom usage in Africa. That study is not talking about the use of condoms, but the effectiveness of health programs targeted at inducing people to use condoms.
Are people using more condoms? Of course, it would be silly to say that no one uses condoms or that there aren't reasons for increased use of condoms. The article is QUITE CLEAR that historically, money spent on health interventions for condom usage is useless. Again that is not to say that giving out free condoms isn't an effective way to get people to use condoms. Or that condom usage is not important.
posted by stratastar at 12:55 PM on February 23, 2008
« Older The mysterious Kid Bailey | Mmmmwah! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Poolio at 6:16 PM on February 21, 2008