Bush´s 15 bil to fight AIDS

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


But no. And you know it very well. Tell me a better english expression for what I wanted to say. I warned you not to hijack this thread.

Now don´t put on my nerves and admit you were off-topic. Shouldn´t be such a problem for you, or is it? :shrug:

Dunno...is it...sorry about your nerves.....In your opinion off topic...in mine....right on.
 
I guess it's true that Bush has done more about this than any other president, and while I think more should be done, he certainly has that going for him. What does piss me off (and I have every right to point that out no matter what Bono says) is the the money is not being efficiently spent. Abstinence programs are completely useless and I think everybody should know that by now. Giving priority to programs and companies not because of their merits but just because they're faith-based or from the US is extremely irresponsible and in my opinion utterly disgraceful, and frankly, I'm surprised the guy gets away with it that easily.
 
nathan1977 said:


I'm sorry, your problem with money going to Christian organizations is...?



that they're using fedal dollars for programs that, not always but sometimes, have an evangelical undertone. remember that mentoring-in-prison program he talked about in the State of the Union address in 2002? just who's values are these people going to be imparting to prisoners?

that is absolutely 100% fine to do. just not with federal money.
 
dandy said:
have abstinence programs proven to be effective anywhere?

If they'd been effective there would not have been a need for that faith-based initiative act (or whatever it's called) because the NGO's that have been working there for a long time would have implemented it years ago.

Same goes for these US' companies. make sure you're good at what you do and you'll get the assignment.
 
I am not opposed to abstinance programs...

I am opposed to them as being the only option presented to people.

The reality is there are cultural issues in play in Africa. Abstinance alone is not necessarily the most productive way.

However, as someone mentioned in another thread...the President owes it to his constituencey to have policy that are consistent with the people's will.

If as President he feels that he has to represent the people's wishes, I do not fault him.

What I do fault him for is not even attempting to educate the public on the options, and maybe having the intestinal fortitude to make an unpopular choice with his base, and try to educate the base about why he went against them. He is not going to be able to run again, so I would think that he is able to take some chances.
 
Dreadsox said:
I am not opposed to abstinance programs...

I am opposed to them as being the only option presented to people.

Just to clarify; when I'm talking about abstinence progarms I mean abstinence-only programs. I figured programs dealing with birth-control would go under a different name.
 
Dreadsox said:
If as President he feels that he has to represent the people's wishes, I do not fault him.

What I do fault him for is not even attempting to educate the public on the options, and maybe having the intestinal fortitude to make an unpopular choice with his base, and try to educate the base about why he went against them. He is not going to be able to run again, so I would think that he is able to take some chances.

I don't believe for one second Bush is not 100% in agreement with abstinence-only programs. Anyway, we've seen this guy's ability to build support for something as ambiguous as the war in Iraq and I think also a number of other things so we know he could do it or at least give it a try.

Besides, considering his latest approval ratings, if Bush was genuinly concerned about the people's wishes he'd resign.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


That's a joke right?

No. The following is from avert.org., the first link I got when I typed in "Uganda AIDS statistics." I've done other research that corroborates this, and have had friends stationed there through various organizations. You tell me; save the snide sarcasm for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. It seems pretty clear that Uganda started with Abstinence education -- other programs came into play once HIV prevalence began to decline.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.avert.org/aidsuganda.htm

Why was Uganda's response so effective?
The approach used in Uganda has since been named the ABC approach - first, encouraging sexual Abstinence until marriage; secondly, advising those who are sexually active to Be faithful to a single partner or to reduce their number of partners; and finally, especially if you have more than one sexual partner, always use a Condom. A number of factors helped to encourage people to take up these strategies.

Communication
It seems that the message about HIV and AIDS has been effectively communicated to a diverse population by the government and by word of mouth. Ugandan people have themselves to thank, in part, for the reduction in the HIV prevalence rate. Much of the prevention work that has been done in Uganda has occurred at grass-roots level, with a multitude of tiny organisations educating their peers, mainly made up of people who are themselves HIV+. There was considerable effort made towards breaking down the stigma associated with AIDS, and frank and honest discussion of sexual subjects that had previously been taboo was encouraged. There is a high level of AIDS-awareness amongst people generally.

Community action
Very early in the course of the epidemic, the government recruited the Ugandan people to help themselves in the fight against HIV/AIDS. One of the first community-based organisations to be formed was TASO, the AIDS Support Organization founded in 1987, a time when there was still a great deal of stigmatisation of people with HIV.

When it was first started, the organisation 'met informally in each other's homes or offices to provide mutual psychological and social support. Cohesion among these individuals was strengthened by the fact that they were either directly infected with HIV or implicitly affected because their very close familial associates were infected'.25 TASO now provides emotional and medical support to people who are HIV positive and their families. It also works with other smaller organisations to educate the public about discrimination and about the dangers of HIV/AIDS.

Fear
A Cambridge University study in 1995 showed that 91.5% of Ugandan men and 86.4% of women knew someone who was HIV positive, and that word of mouth was the method by which most people were informed about HIV prevention. This indicates that one of the main reasons for people's behaviour change was their alarm about the risks and the extent of the epidemic. Many villages are experiencing several deaths each month, houses stand empty, and grandparents are looking after their orphaned grandchildren. Put simply, people are more likely to avoid risky behaviour if they know people who have died of AIDS-related illnesses.

Simple messages
In the early stages of the epidemic, the government responded swiftly, giving out simple messages about abstaining from sex until marriage, staying faithful to one's spouse, and using condoms. The key message was "Zero Grazing", which instructed people to avoid casual sex. More complicated messages about risky behaviour and safer sex were not spread until later, when there had already begun to be a decline in HIV figures.

Political openness
Since 1986, when Uganda's health Minister announced that there was HIV in the country, there has always been political openness and honesty about the epidemic, the risks, and how they might best be avoided. Also in this year, the President toured the country, telling people that it was their patriotic duty to avoid contact with HIV. This was a brave approach, as many politicians are reluctant to talk openly about sexual issues, but the openness paid off. The president encouraged input from numerous government ministries, NGOs and faith-based organisations. He relaxed controls on the media and a diversity of prevention messages - including 'zero-grazing' - spread through Uganda's churches, schools and villages. This frank and honest discussion of the causes of HIV infection seems to have been a very important factor behind the changes in people's behaviour that allowed prevalence levels to decline.

This contrasts sharply with countries like South Africa, which have lacked this political leadership in the fight against the epidemic. Uganda's entire population was mobilised in the fight against HIV and were made aware of the consequences that risky behaviour could have for their country. It is largely due to the Ugandan people that the epidemic appears to have been so well addressed.
 
Absitnence only and condoms still fail to prevent non-sexual transfer, clean needles, general hygene and education are key.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


I would prefer the money to go to Africans, directly, each and every African family. No one can tell me that´s too difficult, it´s a simple thing, they got bank accounts there, see. Also all the corruption problem wouldn´t be an issue either.

If you distributed money that way, how on earth would you be able to ensure that the people spend the money on the things you intend them to spend? How would you ensure that there are checks and control present in the system? It would have simply made for an even greater chaos.
 
Dreadsox said:


Do you actually think Bono would point out that Bush has ALREADY done more than any other President to fight this cause?

Yes, I give Bono a world of credit, however, he has spoken words about Bush in his book as well, long before meet the Press.

And my point is not that the US is doing enough....but that Bush has us going in the right direction...

It appears to me that the initial post of this thread is to point out that potentially the President is only doing something so that his friends can make a profit.

Apparently the President can do nothing right....


Yes he can.

First by being real about the US commitment to AID.
My main objection is the % that must be absinence based and mostly why not fund the Global AIDS fund with admin in place and NGo's onthe ground. It's like Oh educ,. too many admins and not enough money going for clients.


Give the money to the Global AIDS Fund and let them distribute. it
 
nathan1977 said:


No. The following is from avert.org.

Well first of all this isn't an abstinence only program. Secondly this information is being misrepresented by many. When I did the search for "Uganda abstinence programs" the first page was full of articles like the ones I posted above, and one from a Christian website. The one from the Christian website was hugely misrepresented. All they posted was that the number of HIV contractions have gone down and they presented that as abstinence programs working, what they didn't state was that condom use is up.

This program is OK but has one major problem. The problem being that when people see numbers drop in HIV contractions or they're in a relationship they stop using the condoms due to not having true sexual education. You can't just say if you have sex use a condom without true education behind it.

It's great if you want to teach abstinence first and then teach true sexual education along with it, but that's not what this is doing.
 
Saracene said:


If you distributed money that way, how on earth would you be able to ensure that the people spend the money on the things you intend them to spend? How would you ensure that there are checks and control present in the system? It would have simply made for an even greater chaos.

with education and elected community members who distribute the money. for example, local NGOs can be built up, people can also develop their own economic strategies, like building up micro businesses.

as an example, family X has just one room without a floor and 8 children. so the elected community member proposes a solution for that problem, the money is trasferred, and (in the best case) a proper house can be built. family Y has a flat with a roof but the man is infected with HIV. he gets medication for free. family Z is fine, if only the next well would be nearer, but their son has studied and works and sends the family some money. the mother, however, does great artwork that she would like to sell on the market. the elected community member presents the solution: she can go to a course to learn how to market and sell her work, and build up a small place on the market where she will sell her stuff. since family X likes that kind of micro business, it decides not to build a house, but to rent a small flat in the city and to rent a car and offer a drivearound service for tourists.

if you want to cure a malfunction, the people who live in the region, exactly those who are poor, will know what they need most. water, food, housing; everything may not be possible, but as long as there is a certain flow of money to the elected community members for example elders who perform certain functions..

in the cities other rules may apply. generally, there are UN orgnaizations who can effectively monitor. if they would be used just for monitoring and assistance, they can perform good functions. but the main shift would be one to the people, not to politicians or dictators or incredibly big investments for infrastructure projects that will not work and might only serve to enrich an already existing small upper class.

distribute the money to the poor directly ensures that at least it arrives at the persons in need.
 
Last edited:
My other question is, how well can the various NGOs ensure that what they give to the poor doesn't get taken away by those in charge, in the countries where they don't really wield any real political power? And how effectively can they deal with the corruption going on smaller levels? People tend to talk about corruption in clear-cut terms of, a) leaders/upper class and b) people, as if they are some sort of different species. When in reality corruption touches people on all levels of society.
 
nathan1977 said:
In the early stages of the epidemic, the government responded swiftly, giving out simple messages about abstaining from sex until marriage, staying faithful to one's spouse, and using condoms. The key message was "Zero Grazing", which instructed people to avoid casual sex. More complicated messages about risky behaviour and safer sex were not spread until later, when there had already begun to be a decline in HIV figures.

The irony is that your passage is actually in contradiction to the argument you were trying to present. This isn't an "abstinence-only" project. The "ABC" approach, I believe, is fairly balanced in its approach: mentioning that, yes, abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent sexually transmitted HIV, but if you do have sex, do it responsibly.

"Abstinence-only" approaches, like those done by religious groups in the U.S., will only mention condoms or other forms of birth control negatively and spread lies like saying that half of all gay teenagers have HIV. I think that's what most of us here are opposed to; not the "ABC" approach.

Melon
 
Saracene said:
My other question is, how well can the various NGOs ensure that what they give to the poor doesn't get taken away by those in charge, in the countries where they don't really wield any real political power? And how effectively can they deal with the corruption going on smaller levels? People tend to talk about corruption in clear-cut terms of, a) leaders/upper class and b) people, as if they are some sort of different species. When in reality corruption touches people on all levels of society.

Good questions. I think NGOs can only ensure it up to a certain level. If there´s just a civil war going on and rebel groups are plundering the families, this way of distributing the money might not be the safest. Somehow, there should be some political stability before of starting the rebuild; its ineffective to build houses that may get destroyed by soldiers.

But if it is local African NGOs, they will have some influence on the people of the region. Corruption works on all levels, true, but tell me, how can family X, Y or Z in the above example corrupt someone? The money they get covers basic needs, and they can´t buy weapons with it to kill their own people.

I also don´t have an answer to every question, but it seems logical to me that if the money is distributed in the way I described, the majority of people who get it will have a possibility for a huge positive change.
 
Judging by the abuse that most welfare sytems in the developed world recieve from just handing out money to the poor I really don't think that doing the same thing in the third world will transform them all into productive capitalists or even see long term investments for quality of life (give a man a fish versus teach a man to fish), how the hell can they even start a business when the legal protections of property ownership are poor and the beurocratic delays and restrictions for conducting business are very large.

Target the governments for reform, try to bring investment in with favourable policies, reform agricultural policies to prevent the dangerous mass famine situations, encourage political freedoms and free press. Still allow for aid but don't just throw it down the drain of handouts to strongmen leaders. Fostering a civil society will surely fill the massive gaps left by government intervention in poor nations.

There is a place for aid, it can help people and prevent disaster, it also has downsides that can only be adressed through reforms.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
Judging by the abuse that most welfare sytems in the developed world recieve from just handing out money to the poor I really don't think that doing the same thing in the third world will transform them all into productive capitalists or even see long term investments for quality of life (give a man a fish versus teach a man to fish), how the hell can they even start a business when the legal protections of property ownership are poor and the beurocratic delays and restrictions for conducting business are very large.

Target the governments for reform, try to bring investment in with favourable policies, reform agricultural policies to prevent the dangerous mass famine situations, encourage political freedoms and free press. Still allow for aid but don't just throw it down the drain of handouts to strongmen leaders. Fostering a civil society will surely fill the massive gaps left by government intervention in poor nations.

I agree with reforming agricultural policies etc., but judging from what I´ve studied, foreign investments without further insurance that it benefits the poor often fails. Contrary to that, many small initiatives work out. All the policies you mentioned will not be enough if there are not enough hospitals, no good sanitary conditions, spreading diseases, trade barriers for African export etc. Apart from that, without self-empowerment of the civil society, the country will continue to be exploited. So I guess both things have to go hand in hand.

Also, some countries have good unis and educated students. Give them a chance to organize help projects under supervision of international organizations where they grew up.
 
You're probably always going to have a certain amount of corruption. You're dealing with human beings. It's all over. The thing to do is to make sure that the aid reaches the right people.
 
Back
Top Bottom