Bush praise for Uganda AIDS policy raises interesting Qs

(Before anyone feels like hoisting Museveni up onto some shield of honor though, I have to add that his track record on other counts - democracy/press freedom, human rights/torture, military action in neighbouring countries, etc - is less than honorable, to say the least ...)

nimh, GWBush has to follow through on only one idea at a time. He looked into Museveni's eyes, and said, "this is a world leader" like myself. I can use military force to kill thousands of innocent, spend billions, and nobody can do anything about it. c.i.

LOL

Bush's AIDS plans usually involve a focus on abstinence, an ingnorant approach that does not consider what the successful AIDS campaigns have done.

Thus far ALL of the most strikingly successful anti-AIDS campaigns in the third world have been more like Uganda's than what Bush wants to preach.

Either bush is ignorant fo what Uganda has been doing or he is big enough to recognize success even if the methods fly in the face of what he holds dear.

I can only hope Bush learns from the success stories out there and lessens the focus on absitence in his plan to combat AIDS in Africa.

This does not mean that I think it should be like the campaign in Uganda. I think the best anti-AIDS campaign in history was Brazil's.

It consisted of making the porn industry the teachers (they use condoms in Brazilian porn movies), distribution of condoms (during carnaval both the government and the private sector distribute free condoms for e.g.), awareness campaigns (ads, etc), and many other ways to change the culture and individual habits.

Trying to get people to stop having sex is a silly way to fight AIDS. Bush's plans have focused on the Christian right's approach, to preach abstinence and once it's too late and the person is infected to help provide medical care.

The stupidity is evident in that their religious morals prevent them from helping people avoid AIDS while determining for themselves whether they want to have sex or not.

It's hard enough to get people to a level of awareness that they change their sexual habits and use foresight to prevent their infection. Bush's idiotic approach seeks to convince people to stop having sex, something far more unlikely.

Abstinence is a great way to prevent AIDS. Unfortunately many are not willing to go that route. For that majority there are plenty of other ways to protect one's self and it's a damn shame that the religious inclination of politicians is such that they feel mention of these preventative measures is wrong. They feel sex is, in many circumstances, immoral and that teaching people how to have safe sex would promote promiscuity.

So instead the plan is to try to convince people to not have sex to avoid AIDS, a tactic the overwhelming majority already know about and avoid. Once someone has AIDS the plan is to afford this person treatment.

What is skipped is the vast middle. The part that says if you are a human with a functional sex drive and dislike the idea of foregoing sex there are many safe-sex alternatives.

What I hope is that Bush's praise of Uganda is indicative of flexibility on his part. Indicative that he might be willing to rethink his foolhardy plans.

I am confident that his idiotic plan will be altered somewhat, it's so daft that there has to be some compromise. since in this case compromise is, IMO, sanity I hope he keeps an open mind.

Judging from the White House's record on reliable research, Bush probably got the briefing on Uganda and Museveni from the CIA. The report might have stated Ugandans had their weapons of mass destruction "under wraps." The report probably omitted the wee fact that the "wraps" were condoms.

On condoms. http://www.condomania.com/jump.jsp?itemID=0&itemType=HOME_PAGE

I understand you're kinda joking, but I think you might actually have a point. I mean, I was kinda surprised to see Bush praising a policy so profusely that involved such a candid and insistent focus on sex education and condoms. For a moment you ask yourself, did he really go all open-minded on the issue? Did studying the AIDS problem in preparation of his trip open his eyes? I mean, there has been praise for Bush concerning his unexpected, 'clean slate' attention to Africa's problems. But I think you might be right: he might actually just have been briefed a different story!

The newspaper reports that appeared this month on Uganda and AIDS usually cover all the different aspects of policy there, including the huge sex education effort - but if you do a Google search on the issue, you'll find a great number of links from the conservative/religious right-corner, who all trumpet the "Ugandan" example as a model of what they would like to see. They are so glad about a country that preaches abstinence, that they're willing to overlook the condoms / sex-education-to-children angle in order to use the country as 'good example' in their case. Now if Bush has been briefed only the "Washington Times' angle on Uganda ("big A, big B, small C"), and not the 'Washington Post' angle, that would surely explain his enthusiasm!

Hypothesizing like that makes you wonder about how partisan/reliable presidential briefings are (and what that means for the solidity of the basis on which US policy is made), but hey, in this case! ;-))

It does seem like its the combination of promoting behavioral change and promoting sex education & condom use that did the trick in Uganda, though. Both strategies are needed, I guess (well, duh) - in countries where AIDS is a population-wide (rather than risk group-specific) disease, in any case.

Thats why its such a pity that the transplantation of the political debate from back home means that the help Africans receive from the West apparently consists, thus far, of missionaries who say condoms are evil on the one hand, and sex educators who say going for behavioral change is useless on the other hand. Thats what I got from this story, anyway. (Additional info is welcome).

I am happy, but extremely wary of Bush's travels in Africa. He is talking some good talk, but I'd like to see the walk follow. With this guy, I've learned to watch what he does rather than listen to what he says.

littlek, GWBush still hasn't kept his promises to the American People on "Leave No Child Behind," "More Jobs," and "Security." Our economy is going down the ****-hole, and here he's promising African countries more aid. He's a nincompoop. c.i.

Bush never suggested abstinence should replace condoms, as a method to fight AIDS. He simply wanted it in the mix. Uganda teaches A,B and C--whereas the US can't seem to tolerate the word 'abstinence.'

I think any reasonable person, who isn't ridiculously over-wound and ready to spring to blame Bush for anything, realizes he is pro-education, pro-prevention, pro-condoms, and additionally, not exclusively, pro-abstinence.

Sofia, "pro-education" sounds pretty hollow from where I sit when mouthed by GWBush. c.i.

c.i.--Am I to understand you don't like Bush's education initiatives? :wink:

From beginning to end. One of his pre-election initiatives was "Leave no child behind." The only problem with that idea is that schools are being decimated by underfunded programs. The federal government can't just impose more regulations without backing it with funding. Talk is cheap. With the latest cuts, preschools are being shut down. That also impacts single working mothers. c.i.

I would not generalize so much. I believe that there are people in the USA that consciously abstain from extramarital sex, and these include teenagers from communities where Christianity has strong influence on the life values.

I was referring to sex education. I don't want to muck up the Bush-Uganda-condom discussion with unrelated issues, but I will find the proper thread and continue on the general-Bush-education later.

It (US edumacation) was a big mess before Bush got involved--and I think some of his initiatives have panned out pretty well. I'm going off-line in a few. If we address it, let's do it on the appropriate thread, por favor. :wink:

Apologies, nimh.

Ah, steissd. You have poked me with my own stick.
You are right. I will re-word.
It seems to me that the US media and a large contingent of US citizens, upon hearing that Bush was pro-abstinence, intentionally ignored the fact that he believes in sex education--and in issueing condoms--and tried to portray him as someone, who only supported abstinence.

Well, Mr. Bush's moral stance is really pro-abstinence, but being a statesman, and not a preacher, he does not object safe sex instructions either, IMO.

We all know that our educational system had many problems before GWBush took over in the WH. What I'm criticizing is his "Leave no child behind" rhetoric. Things are worse, not better for our children. Even Jimmy Carter spoke to GWBush's failure; "... GA Former President Jimmy Carter is disappointed in GWBush's performance in the ... sweeping public school reform that fights to leave no child behind, proven help ..." c.i.

You see, what GWBush says in our country and what he says in Africa has the same "credibility" problem. c.i.