June 24, 2004

The Iron Grip

Yesterday, Bush proposed what was covered as new funding for AIDS drugs in Vietnam. As far as I can tell from this article, what he's doing isn't providing new funding, but instead redistributing a tiny sliver of the promised reservoir of AIDS funding he promised back in 2002.

Whatever sleight of hand Bush plays with funding, I think we all know by now that anything he does with regards to his compassion agenda is political ass-covering for some other goal: in this case, an internally contradictory plan to change the Ryan White Act.

Bush said that the $2 billion Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, which since 1990 has been the government's largest subsidy of medical and other services specifically for HIV-positive people in the United States, "takes too little account of the most urgent needs." He said the administration should have greater power to decide where the money is distributed and how it is spent, focusing more on paying for medicine and doctors' visits than on social services.

I'd have a big enough problem with the idea that Bush wants to remove the impetus on prevention and move towards treatment, which is trying to stop a leak simply by mopping up the water flowing in. But what would a Bush plan be without a totally unnecessary contradiction in terms that also struck at the very core of what the government was trying to do? Nothing, that's what!

Bush and Thompson also said they want to establish stronger methods of finding out whether organizations are making good use of their subsidies and to expand the number of religious groups funded to help people with AIDS.

So, they want to cut down on "social services" (i.e., non-medical aid) by giving more money to religious groups to help people with AIDS. Now, I didn't know that religious groups manufactured medicine and trained doctors, but that's just me. Yes, the groups can hand out such drugs and provide access to doctors - but even if said groups can't use federal funds to promote religion, giving them the money to do the expensive part that gets them in provides a hell of a lot more opportunity to do the less monetarily expensive proselytizing and, yes, social work.

Chances are, little of it's going to be effectively preventative, but a great deal of it will be effectively evangelical. But isn't that great? Once again, bad science seems like it's going to win the day in Bush land (granted, it's not quite a fair fight, considering that bad science comes in equipped with an armory and good science comes in with a pocket protector and a safety whistle), under the guise of taking government out of the business of helping people in any way that doesn't shove religion to the forefront of their lives.

It's good shit. Or just shit, damn the superfluous adjectives.

Posted by Jesse Taylor at June 24, 2004 08:45 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Speaking of a depressing combination of bad science, religion and AIDS - I still have a scar on my chin from where my jaw hit the floor after a pair of promiscuous New Age freaks told me how AIDS was caused by guilt feelings resulting from uptight Puritan attitudes towards sex. That kind of lethal ignorance scares the everloving fuck out of me.

Posted by: Iconoclast at June 24, 2004 09:19 AM

More evidence that Bush needs to be kicked out of DC with as much force as the nation's collective kicking foot can muster.

Cutting social services to fund religious social services? What a bunch of pure, unadulterated clusterfscks this MALadministration is.

Un. Freaking. Believable.

Posted by: Paul Taylor at June 24, 2004 10:23 AM

i know you guys are just infused with hate but i thought it would be worthwhile to point out that even Andrew Sullivan, someone who has AIDS, is gay, and has turned sharply away from the Bush administration lately, still thinks that President Bush will be remembered for doing more for the AIDS cause than Clinton ever did. You can beat Bush all you want, and he surely deserves a beating for some of his viewpoints regarding the AIDS issue, but he's not ignoring it. He promised money and now he's spending it, maybe not exactly how you would choose to spend it, but its not all going to waste either.

"BUSH ON AIDS: He spoke movingly and powerfully yesterday. History will credit him for caring about this issue far more than his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Maybe because it was my eleventh anniversary of finding out I got HIV but I was moved by his words. Except, of course, for his usual exception in his compassionate conservatism: gay men. The president managed to give an entire speech and - again - never mentioned one of the biggest groups in the country affected by it. Amazing. How do his speech-writers do it? To a black audience, he had a chance to help them confront the homophobia that has crippled the black community's ability to confront the epidemic. But, of course, Bush didn't. Imagine what James Dobson would say. He also said the following:
The second part of a domestic strategy to fight AIDS is prevention. I think it's really important for us to focus on prevention. We can learn from the experiences of other countries when it comes to a good program to prevent the spread of AIDS, like the nation of Uganda. They've started what they call the A-B-C approach to prevention of this deadly disease. That stands for: Abstain, be faithful in marriage, and, when appropriate, use condoms. That's what A-B-C stands for. And it's working. I like to call it a practical, balanced and moral message.
And yet, in one of the populations most at risk from this disease, Bush opposes any measures that would encourage marriage. In fact, he is waging a war to ban such marriages, and erase any incentives for gay men to stick together. Is Bush aware of this lacuna? If marriage cannot be a strategy for prevention among gays, then what is his prevention policy? He has none, because in order to have one, he would have to acknowledge that gay people exist - and that he is their president too. That he cannot and will not do. It's too depressing for words."

Posted by: Glenn at June 24, 2004 10:55 AM

Glenn, you sure did get us. We are so infused with hate. Hate, hate, hate, that's us.

I'm really not sure where you got that anyone said he was doing nothing, which is sort of what one would call "dishonest", if one were into accurately describing things.

And, yes, even though Sullivan is turning away from Bush, he still likes the guy a whole lot more than Clinton, regardless. He won't vote for Bush, but would, he'd never vote for Clinton.

Remember when we first ran into each other, and you spent a lot of time attacking us because you failed to read what we wrote?

Remember that saying about history repeating itself?

Posted by: jesse at June 24, 2004 01:44 PM

i read post by post jesse. i'm not gonna go thru your whole site for every item on Bush and AIDS. I'd like you to point out to me where you explain to your audience that Bush should be commended for taking up the AIDS cause more than Clinton ever did, or anything positive about Bush for that matter. For example, Bush should be commended when he finally backs condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/politics/campaign/24bush.html?ex=1403409600&en;=553d0292c480402e&ei;=5007&partner;=USERLAND

sometimes i just get the impression that you like to tell things to get your general worldview across rather than telling it like it is.

Posted by: Glenn at June 24, 2004 03:41 PM

so jesse, are you saying that you don't hate Bush? I'm sorry that I get that impression, I don't know where it came from.

Posted by: Glenn at June 24, 2004 03:50 PM

Of course you get the view that I hate Bush, Glenn, you're a partisan on the other side. I don't blame you for it, but it's not accurate. I don't really like him, no. Sorry.

Actually, I haven't talked about Bush and AIDS much, considering that he made the AIDS promise in the 2002 SOTU, and I started this blog in July 2002.

Glenn, you've shown yourself repeatedly in the past to only be capable of reading the things you want to read rather than what's actually being said. For instance, almost every single time we've run into each other. Your inability to interpret things correctly is not a failure on my part.

And you know, if you read post by post, you might notice that Ezra already commented on that story above the entry. If you actually read any of the posts (which you didn't in this case, and tried to change the subject after you got busted).

Take five, Glenn, and come back when you've got your head straight.

Posted by: jesse at June 24, 2004 03:57 PM

"Glenn, you're a partisan on the other side."

is this where i accuse you of lying, jesse??? because i've never voted republican in my life and have already said that i won't vote for Bush (or Kerry).

whatever, my point stands. you guys can't really talk about any issues, because the only way you know how to talk is to somehow revolve it around Bush and the evil lurking on the other side of the aisle. so in each of your posts, you manage to focus away from whatever issue it is you bring up, and target directly towards Bush and the GOP. that way, anything that happens in the world, good or bad in reality, is just another way to trash 'em.

Posted by: Glenn at June 24, 2004 04:39 PM

and yes, i read ezra's post on bush, uganda, AIDS, condoms, and IT PROVES MY POINT. what everyone should take as a step forward, even for a stupid chimp like bush, is just another reason to bash him. it's about 'how far have we fallen'. freakin nonsense.

Posted by: Glenn at June 24, 2004 04:42 PM

Okay, so Glenn not only apparently doesn't read the site, but he doesn't even read the few words that manage to pass his way.

When you're able to come up with any criticism that acutally fits what we're talking about, please, feel free to comment. At this point, you're just being a jackass. Your points are so facile that they're not even worth debating, because it's impossible to actually figure out where your ideas are coming from.

And I'm sorry that I said you were on the other side. From what I know of you, your beliefs aren't actually coherent enough to place you anywhere.

Somehow, we've managed several thousand posts over the lifetime of this site, a great number of which are actually issue oriented. The amazing thing is that instead of, you know, DEBATING THE POINT OF THE POST, you come and whine about me NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

Good job, kid!

Posted by: jesse at June 24, 2004 05:08 PM

To sum this up: You got mad at me for saying something I didn't say (par for the course). You then went on an uninformed rant about some sort of pathology on my part that you can't be bothered to actually prove (again, par for the course). I take from what you generally say on your blog, along with your heavily conservative blogroll that you're conservative, which is my fault for presuming that I can judge your general political attitudes from the people that you link to, particularly when you think that Misha is worth linking to. My bad, I should have known that you don't demonstrate your political beliefs by the people whom you put intellectual credence in.

And, in the end, you've managed not to actually debate a single point or criticism I've made, but instead come up with some half-assed addlepated criticism that requires no effort or thought on your part but to repeat it constantly. You're the awesomest blogger ever, Glenn.

Posted by: jesse at June 24, 2004 05:13 PM
Post a comment












Remember personal info?