Comments on: They Wrapped a Sock Around Their C---

They Wrapped a Sock Around Their C---

Secret Life of Gravy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:39:55 -0800

Bush's War on Condoms "... the Bush administration's policy of emphasizing abstinence-only prevention programs and cutting federal funding for condoms have contributed to an alleged condom shortage in Uganda." Meanwhile, people desperate to prevent HIV infection have begun using garbage bags as condom substitutes.

By: cytherea

cytherea — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:49:15 -0800

Well, it's working out rather well for them, isn't it.

By: NewBornHippy

NewBornHippy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:50:45 -0800

What a tragedy.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:53:37 -0800

There's one example (out of so many) that illustrate so well why the US has lost the moral authority it once wielded.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:55:10 -0800

Are they brown in Uganda?

By: fenriq

fenriq — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:55:54 -0800

Maybe we can send them all our plastic shopping bags and kill two birds with one stone? Is this more of the Bush administration's religiously based initiatives? Abstinence-only as an HIV/AIDS prevention policy is ridiculous. Just don't fuck is their message? I'd like to institute an abstinence-only policy for George Bush, just don't fuck with things anymore.

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:00:15 -0800

See also: "Boston - Abstinence and fidelity - cornerstones of the Bush administration's overseas AIDS prevention programs -- may be playing less of a role than previously thought in driving down HIV infection rates in Uganda, where the idea first gained credence, according to new findings presented here Wednesday." Furthermore, right-wing Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, demanded that the United States stop financing a Central American HIV-AIDS prevention programme because condoms were being handed out to prostitues. So condoms are a) legal and b) very effective but the Bush administration and the Republican party want to prevent people in other countries from using them.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:00:33 -0800

fenriq writes "Just don't fuck is their message? " If George Sr. and Barbara had been given that message and had abided by it, think how much better off the world would be today.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:11:33 -0800

clevershark, damn GHWB and his disastrous humping! Damn him straight to hell!

By: dirtynumbangelboy

dirtynumbangelboy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:12:51 -0800

This is fucking stupid.

By: reklaw

reklaw — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:15:31 -0800

So wait... you're saying that garbage bags don't work as contraception? uh-oh

By: AllesKlar

AllesKlar — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:20:45 -0800

This is so disturbing; Somewhat reminiscent of the war on drugs. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? BushCo owns a pharm company somewhere with a cure, they're just waiting for economies of scale to make it more profitable?

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:51:38 -0800

What a disgusting spectacle. This is about ideology, and pandering to ignorance and dogma, all at the expense of Ugandan lives. It's politically expedient. Satisfy your idiot fundamentalist base with this nonsense, and the only people who lose are half the world away and mired in poverty. Everyone wins.

By: jefbla

jefbla — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:52:39 -0800

Garbage bags for condoms? Wow, they must have huge dicks...

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:57:20 -0800

What exactly are we trying to accomplish? One of the sacred precepts of the religious right (and hence the Bush administration) is that society is corrupt and immoral and the way to remake society is to teach the youth of the world that abstinance is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Thus they are fighting immorality with the cultural standards and biological drive they wish existed, rather than the cultural standards and biological drive that actually exist. This hasn't actually worked for them in Texas, but hell, no need to give up just yet. Why not try this little social experiment overseas?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 10:57:39 -0800

The last condom America needs for GW Bush. That ought ought to keep the f*ckwad from screwing up the country so badly for the next three years.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:00:12 -0800

Hmmm.. appears I messed up the link above. Sorry. It was a full body condom costume image.

By: StarForce5

StarForce5 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:51:07 -0800

Why do you hold America responsible for supplying the rest of the world with condoms? Doesn't the magnificent and highly evolved Europe have any condoms to spare? Or Japan?

By: uncle harold

uncle harold — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:07:42 -0800

Duh, it's about cutting funds if condoms are promoted, not about handing out condoms. But I guess that was pretty clear to you... I found this abstinence policy sad and ridiculous enough when I thought it only applied to the US. But this is outrageous... and par for the course. Is there a better way to say "accept our bigotry or die"?

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:08:58 -0800

The concept that America is morally or legally responsible to supply the rest of the world with condoms is ludicrous. What is also ludicrous is the idea of using garbage bags as condoms. So to set up a syllogism (see above) as a device to blame the Bush administration for their admittedly short-sighted justifications for not supplying condoms for the idiocies of residents of third-world countries seems rather equally idiotic, doesn't it?

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:09:40 -0800

Clarification: My comment makes no sense.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:15:55 -0800

The concept that America is morally or legally responsible to supply the rest of the world with condoms is ludicrous. Not really. Condoms are cheap when bought in bulk, and the United States has plenty of money (or we did until recently). A condom that costs less than a penny can save a life; if you don't give a shit about other people, then look at it this way: economically speaking, a condom that costs less than a penny can prevent us from having to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on drugs to treat HIV.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:16:04 -0800

gagglezoomer writes "Clarification: My comment makes no sense." Agreed.

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:16:35 -0800

Perhaps his condom ignorance played a part in New Orleans - to prevent dangerous spills, you need to keep a little reservoir at the tip.....

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:33:03 -0800

Q: How can you tell if elephants are having sex in your yard? A: The trash can liners are missing.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:47:01 -0800

Madness.

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:02:19 -0800

Bush's War on Condoms ".. well, he's losing -- and losing bad -- against Osama and the Iraqis. at least he managed to win against a bunch of rubber sheaths

By: StarForce5

StarForce5 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:37:38 -0800

Duh, it's about cutting funds if condoms are promoted, not about handing out condoms. But I guess that was pretty clear to you... ...so according to you America is obligated to give the rest of the world free condoms AND money as well. What a sweet deal. You sure are generous.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 13:50:01 -0800

...so according to you America is obligated to give the rest of the world free condoms We already have a full quota of idiots, thanks. Try MonkeyFilter, it's free.

By: StarForce5

StarForce5 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:00:24 -0800

We already have a full quota of idiots, thanks. Try MonkeyFilter, it's free. Try getting a clue and understanding the topic before commenting.

By: Iax

Iax — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:09:02 -0800

starforce5, you might want to heed your own advice. The USA had no problem giving money to these groups before, but the second those groups start using that money to buy condoms they get cut off. If you cant see that is screwed up, then I think you have the problem.

By: nonmerci

nonmerci — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:22:10 -0800

Iax and Armitage Shanks, don't engage the troll! Because we all know how morally repugnant it is to help poorer countries than ours. I mean, how DARE THEY expect the average American citizen (StarForce5, for example) to contribute to their ridiculous, unworthy cause, let alone give a fuck about the less-fortunate? THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS GREAT COUNTRY IS ABOUT.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:33:10 -0800

Yeah, let 'em all die of AIDS. That'll teach them for not being born in a rich country!

By: StarForce5

StarForce5 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:40:02 -0800

From a purely contractarian point of view American's have no direct social contract with the people of Uganda therefore owe them neither money nor condoms. From a utilitarian point of view American's are better off spending their own tax money on their own health care needs. So what then forms the basis of your assertion that America exclusively owes health care to the rest of the world? Why not Europe? Why not the UN? You can address this or continue to flame and fume like children do.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:49:45 -0800

Iax and Armitage Shanks, don't engage the troll! I don't think he's a troll, I think he's an idiot. It's an important distinction.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:51:59 -0800

From a purely contractarian point of view From a utilitarian point of view From a worthless asshole point of view, a similar argument holds. Coincidentally enough. When my taxes are no longer being wasted on killing poor people and greasing cronies' palms with contracts, THEN we can talk about whether this paltry aid is our responsibility or not.

By: 999

999 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:55:20 -0800

Sorry, our condoms are in use.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:36:50 -0800

From a utilitarian point of view American's are better off spending their own tax money on their own health care needs. Sure. It's none of our business to try and help them. It's not like it's communicable, since we're y'know, all utilitarians here. *coughgreatesthappinessforthegreatestnumbercough* I see no reason to deny anyone reproductive choice exept for (stupid) religious reasons or to increase the tax base by keeping the population high (elitist). + what sonofsamiam said.

By: aacheson

aacheson — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:53:38 -0800

So, what exactly did Bush use during his cocaine, drunken frat-boy romps in the sack while in college? He's so goddamn hypocritical.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:15:28 -0800

Actually "utilitarians" take a fairly global point of view, generally prefering to spend huge amounts of western dollars on efficient methods to treat third world problems. For example, a utilitarian might try to argue that the west should give no money to provide AIDS drugs in third world countries because you save so many more lives by spending the money on condoms instead. Utilitarian means caring about the sufffering of others, but in the most effective way possible.

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:00:38 -0800

So what then forms the basis of your assertion that America exclusively owes health care to the rest of the world? Why not Europe? Why not the UN? You can address this... This of course is bullshit, no one has asserted that this should solely be the province of the US, and the EU or UN don't have a role. But I'll take this one on. Here you go, the US is the stingiest wealthy country. This is a well-known fact except in certian circles in the USA.

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:02:52 -0800

~~certian~~ certain. Oh, and your grasp of the utilitarian argument is rather weak. I would imagine that a utilitarian would argue for carpet bombing those countries in condoms.

By: SirOmega

SirOmega — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:11:03 -0800

George Bush doesn't care about black people.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:24:34 -0800

While I would like to see what other countries are doing to help the condom situation in Africa, I don't think that saying "Well, um, what about FRANCE?" takes the US off the hook. This "global gag rule" that Clinton took off the books and Bush re-enstated is disgusting. I wish I could say that it gives me some hope that people are clever enough to figure out that they should have safer sex somehow, but the idea of garbage bags just makes me shudder. Such a sad sad state of affairs.

By: obeygiant

obeygiant — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:43:17 -0800

so... do we send our trash bags to the red cross or unicef?

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:13:41 -0800

From a purely contractarian point of view American's have From a utilitarian point of view American's are Hey check this out, bro: from a strictly utilitarian point of view STOP FUCKING DOING THAT After you're done with that, re-read the comments of Smedleyman and jeffburdges. You just might learn a little something.

By: TrinityB5

TrinityB5 — Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:02:40 -0800

what 'moral authority' would that be?

By: dreamsign

dreamsign — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 05:52:32 -0800

I'm surprised by all the surprise. This is not a new component of U.S. foreign policy. That conservatives are trying to stamp out harm reduction abroad is no small story, but both pages missed the fact that this is only the latest installment in a long story of strings-attached giving that has been changing U.S. foreign aid policy for years. From AIDS prevention measures stigmatizing sex, to anti-human trafficking targeting prostitution, to drug policies purged of pragmatism, foreign aid has become an American adventure in social engineering.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:48:04 -0800

You know, I'm pretty sick of people saying things that are both dumb and factually incorrect, then not bothering to defend these dumb things. Hurr utilitarianism I'm a 15 year-old debate team member

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:51:00 -0800

I spent the summer in Tanzania, Uganda's neighbor. I think that perhaps the thing that is missing from the discussion is that when GWB decided to fight AIDS he allocated a bunch of money to AIDS work. In Uganda, HIV was declining, Tanzania looked to Uganda to see how it worked. HIV is on the increase in Tanzania, despite the millions/billions that the US is giving to 'fight AIDS'. As a result, many kids on the streets have t-shirts that say 'ishi' which means 'live', paid for out of the US AIDS budget. I saw a huge banner that said, 'love many choose one'. I found that message confusing but apparently it was advocating abstinence. Doctors from Harvard were spending summers not talking about condom use, in a culture much like our own, where many many people have sex with multiple partners. This was because their money was 'Bush money'. They could talk about abstinence, and they could treat AIDS, but they couldn't advocate condom use. Europe funds a lot of condom programs in Tanzania - the government is quite amenable towards it. Its just that the message being given is now all jumbled, so people use condoms until they get in a quasi-relationship and then they stop. The message that we all got loud and clear, 'do what you want but use a condom' has become 'love many, but choose one', and 'live'.