While freeing up some memory on my DVR, I stumbled across an interesting exchange between Hillary Clinton superdelegate/PA Governor <strong>Ed Rendell</strong> and <strong>Bill Maher</strong>. From the February 29, 2008 edition of <em><strong>Real Time </strong></em>...

Bill Maher:<blockquote>How many rednecks are there in Pennsylvania? If you had to guess a percentage, a rough ball park figure. </blockquote>PA Governor Ed Rendell:<blockquote>Less and less every year. And again, give Senator Obama, in my next sentence in the interview, I said he's done a great job bringing new people into the fold and a great job overcoming those barriers in states which I'd have said have the same problems. But look, <strong>there are people in Pennsylvania who don't wanna see a woman President because they don't think a woman could be a good commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces</strong>. That's a fact. That's a fact.

When I ran for Governor the first time, I ran for Governor as a young man in the early '80s, a newspaper reporter told me he was <strong>in central Pennsylvania at the time people called in and said we can't vote for that guy he's Jewish and from Philadelphia</strong>. So prejudice exists, again give Senator Obama tremendous credit for to a great deal overcoming that. There's no question about it. Does it exist? Sure, but there's prejudice against a lot of people in the political spectrum.</blockquote>Is Pennsylvania Governor <strong>Rendell</strong> a condescending elitist or a realist? The sole difference between <strong>Rendell</strong>'s comments vs. <strong>Obama</strong>'s comments is that <strong>Obama</strong> actually provided a context and rationale for his perception whereas <strong>Rendell</strong> simply implies there is rampant bigotry and sexism among his constituents.

The <em>only mistake</em> <strong>Obama</strong> made in his "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?sq=obama%20bitter%20people&st=nyt&adxnnl=1&scp=4&adxnnlx=1208192468-vPgWHPfXJrBYt+/H4G0qVA">bitter people</a>" comments is one of <em>politesse</em>. He should never have singled out PA before the primary lest undecided voters be offended. Those already committed to Obama are all too painfully aware that he speaks the truth.

Enough with this kerfuffle already.

<strong>-AF</strong>
Cross-posted as part of my <a href="http://sullyisafraud.blogspot.com/2008/04/they-said-it-i-repeat-it_14.html">They Said It. I Repeat It.</a> series at <a href="http://sullyisafraud.blogspot.com">Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud </a>

I've now outlined how Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade=1/4 Of Teenage Girls Get STDs and how Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade=Big Money For Religious Right.

Still, even with the explosion of these abstinence-only programs (and the directly related decline of comprehensive sex ed programs), our teenagers are better off than the people of HIV/AIDS-ravaged Africa. There George Bush and his evangelical/religious right pals have exported tax payer-financed abstinence-only HIV/AIDS programs via Bush's PEPFAR.

The President's Emergency Plan For Aids Relief would be almost laughable in an Orwellian way if its results weren't so tragic. Back in 2005, Rolling Stone called PEPFAR "An Epidemic Failure" observing that:

Bush has shifted the bulk of U.S. money away from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an international organization that has funded projects in 128 countries and is widely recognized as the best way to distribute AIDS funds.

Instead of offering an "emergency plan for AIDS relief," George Bush created an AIDS relief plan emergency! PEPFAR's stated goal of AIDS-prevention is seriously compromised by its currently requirement that 33% of the funds go to abstinence-only (read: religious right) groups:

Two highly-regarded studies, one by the Institutes of Medicine and another by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), found that the one-third earmark for abstinence programs undermines successful prevention efforts, in part by limiting flexibility on the ground. Both organizations called on Congress to strike the earmark. The House did so in theory, but replaced it with a new requirement that a minimum of 50 percent of funds for prevention of sexual transmission be allocated to "behavior change" as defined by Congress. Observers have called this a breakthrough.

Those "observers" aren't "observing" nearly hard enough. As Congress defines it, this "behavior change" means "abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy and fidelity." So instead of only abstinence-only, Congress adds "wait" and "don't cheat." Congrats to the US Congress for inching their way to treating Africans as adults.

This new language is unlikely to save any more lives. By raising the threshold to 50%, it could worsen an already dire situation. Feedback from our PEPFAR partners "suggests it is exactly these seemingly innocuous provisions now found in the House bill that cause the most trouble on the ground." Always impervious to any concerns other than his own, Bush was found wandering Tanzania last month intently spinning his "new & improved" PEPFAR's as:

"a balanced program. It is an ABC program abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It is a program that's been proven effective.

"

Balanced my ass. It's no coincidence that Bush mentioned condoms last. The new 50% "behavior change" component is tailor-made for evangelical exploitation. It will ensure condoms continue to be a minor part of this effort. As for PEPFAR's overall efficacy, a Feb. 21 LA Times editorial (by a high school science teacher!), Popping The PEPFAR Bubble, has the skinny:

For the first two years of the program, Bushblocked the procurement of most low-cost, generic fixed-dose combinations of antiretrovirals in favor of brand-name, multi-drug regimens thatcost twice as much — thus lining the pockets of U.S. pharmaceutical companies instead of saving lives. Even though a generic antiretroviral was approved by the FDA in 2005 and made available for purchase through Pepfar, only 27% only 27% of the antiretrovirals
purchased by Pepfar in the 2006 fiscal year were generic. In addition,
the U.S. has attempted to block access to quality generics on the global market.

Pepfar requires that 33% of all prevention monies (including prevention of nonsexual transmission) and two-thirds of sexual-transmission funds be spent on abstinence and fidelity programs. Many of these programs are administered by "faith-based" organizations, typically evangelical Christian groups that promote "abstinence before marriage" and "being faithful" and downplay the use of condoms. This, combined with the Bush administration's go-it-alone approach and refusal to integrate with national AIDS prevention programs already in place, has essentially destroyed years of AIDS prevention work in several countries. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Uganda, where a highly successful AIDS prevention program that stressed the used of condoms had been in place since 1990. After Uganda accepted Pepfar funding in 2003, faith-based organizations undermined the country's condom program. As a result, millions of condoms sat in warehouses because they were not wanted. According to Dr. Kihumuro Apuuli, the director general of the Uganda AIDS Commission, since it adopted the program, the rate of new HIV infections almost doubled, from 70,000 in 2003 to 130,000 in 2005.

This is only a taste of the many criticisms of Pepfar. Not to mention any of them in the article is negligent. Pepfar has done much good, but it has accomplished only a fraction of its potential. Pepfar should not be used as platform for Christian groups to proselytize and attempt to impose their own view of morality on different cultures. It should not be used to transfer taxpayers' dollars to the pockets of pharmaceutical companies. We must cut the many strings attached to the program that hobble its effectiveness and bring the focus back to saving lives, not playing politics.

(all emphasis added)

Yep. George Bush's "go-it-alone" and "refusal to cooperate" approach strikes again. The difference is that PEPFAR profits evangelical, conservative and other big time Republican campaign contributors (i.e. Big Pharma) while killing the very people it purports to help. Among the many ironies (including the all-too-familiar "Christians "acting in a decidedly un-Christian manner) is that through his PEPFAR policy, our self-styled "promoter-in-chief of Democracy aboard" unwittingly contributes to political instability in South Africa's democracies.

Due to its lack of geographical proximity to us and our overwhelming eight years worth of Bush fatigue, it's all too easy to blow off Bush's and his evangelical pals abstinence-only African adventure as just another in a long line of colossal GWB fuck-ups. In countries like Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe the stakes are so much higher than everywhere else. For hundreds of thousands of Africans, Bush's and his evangelical pals' abstinence-only posture is a death sentence.
-AF

(Cross-posted at Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud).

Some Africa HIV/AIDS resources:

PEPFAR Watch

AllAfrica

Global HIV/AIDS pandemic facts:

UNAIDS

Global Health Reporting
The Elizabeth Glaser Pedriatric Foundation does great work in Africa and elsewhere.
Donate here.

Previously, in Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade=1/4 Of Teenage Girls Get STDs, I connected Bush's abstinence-only crusade to the high rate of STDs among America's teenage girls. Today I delve into the real motivation behind yet another harmful Bush policy.

What makes the abstinence-only mob's objection to sex ed truly sickening is that it is not all about "morality." As per usual, it's mostly about M-O-N-E-Y. (Natch).

Abstinence-only programs have become big business. Big Republican campaign contributor business. Under the leadership of a Republican Congress and as escalated by George Bush, abstinence-only has swelled to a $1 billion boondoggle.

Ten months ago The Nation exposed this industry for what it is in "The Abstinence Gluttons":

Over the past six years George W. Bush's faith-based Administration and a conservative Republican Congress transformed the small-time abstinence-only business into a billion-dollar industry. These dangerously ineffective sexual health enterprises flourish not because they spread "family values" but because of generous helpings of the same pork-heavy gumbo Bush &amp; Co. brought to war-blighted Iraq and Katrina-hammered New Orleans--a mix of back-scratching cronyism, hefty partisan campaign donations, high-dollar lobbyists, a revolving door for political appointees and a lack of concern for results.

One of the chief cooks is a media-shy 63-year-old Catholic multimillionaire, welfare privatizer and Republican donor named Raymond Ruddy. With close ties to the White House, federal health officials and Republican power brokers that date back to W.'s days as Texas governor, Ruddy has leveraged his generous wallet and insider muscle to push an ultraconservative social agenda, enrich a preferred network of abstinence-only and antiabortion groups, boost profits for his company and line the pockets of his cronies--all with taxpayer dollars.

Following the money swirling around Ruddy offers an eye-opening glimpse into the squalor at the heart of the abstinence-only project. One top Bush adviser left to take a job at Ruddy's charity, Gerard Health Foundation, and a senior officer at Ruddy's for-profit company, Maximus, left to take a top-level position at the Department of Health and Human Services. Leaders of Christian-right organizations that are Gerard grantees have gained advisory HHS positions--and their organizations have in turn received AIDS and abstinence grants to the tune of at least $25 million. Maximus itself has raked in more than $100 million in federal contracts during the Bush era...

"I can't think of another federal program where so much money was spent without any oversight and to such little effect," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a national organization that promotes comprehensive sexual health policies."

It wasn't that policy-makers didn't know that abstinence-only didn't work. In 2000 the Institute of Medicine issued a scathing report on these programs. But they went full steam ahead despite the warning. It's beyond naïve. It's immoral."

If you haven't already (and even if you have), please read the rest for a stunning tale spanning America, Africa and soon China. The featured cast of unsavory characters includes wingnut heroes James Dobson, Ruddy lobbyist and former RNC Chair Haley Barbour, disgraced former HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary/Medicaid fraud/all-around quack Eric Keroack and more.

It details how the Bush Administration knowingly spends hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on harmful programs to enrich fat cat Republican donors and their uber-conservative causes i.e. The Federalist Society, Americans for Tax Reform (we knew Grover would somehow get a cut), Concerned Women for America, The Family Research Council as well as the anti-Kerry Your Catholic Voice, sleazy 527 Common Sense Ohio and old school anti-choice Life, Liberty and Family. A generous tithe of these funds is plowed back into the Republican Party in campaign contributions and Conservative GOTV efforts. Also well documented is the revolving door between these various conservative groups and the Bush Administration especially, and most dangerously, the Department of Health and Human Services.

Because of Bush's aggressive, immoral and unconscionable abstinence-only policy, a decade of teenagers are spectacularly misinformed. Earlier this week the Chicago Tribune's troubling story, "Teens have sex but don't have the facts," vividly illustrates the pitfalls of this stick-your-head-in-the-sand mentality: 

In a co-ed forum, the teens pondered contraception. One well-meaning young man stood and said aluminum foil could be used in lieu of a condom. Other teens offered up myths such as the efficacy of plastic baggies, having sex while standing and bathing right after sex.

Aluminum foil?!?! WTF? In this age, where using a condom could literally be the difference between life and death, we're all too squeamish and puritanical to tell kids considering sex how to best protect themselves. The message sent to today's youth: Sex is dirty, dangerous and bad. No wonder they are so confused. If these they should make it through adolescence without contracting an STD, our kids have a lifetime of psychoanalysis to look forward to. It will probably take at least that long to pay for and undo the harm caused by abstinence-only "education."

-AF

In the finale: Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade Exported=Death.
(We're lucky our kids aren't African).

Cross-posted at Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

Last week the CDC released the results of its first-ever study of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in teenage girls. The results were deeply disturbing. One in four teenage girls has an STD. For all African-American teenage girls that number is double. The most common disease found was the human papillomavirus. A virus linked to cervical cancer. The very same virus evangelicals and other "conservative" types don't want to vaccinate their daughters against for fear they'll go all mad promiscuous.

These uptight sexist bastards want our daughters and sons to know as little about sex and nothing about how to prevent STDs or unplanned pregnancy. From Bush on down, they preach abstinence only as the only option. This unrealistic approach puts our teenagers unnecessarily at risk. Plus there's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that it works! Actually, the new CDC study provides additional strong anecdotal evidence that Bush's abstinence-only crusade is an abject failure.

We knew this already. Last November, a study* (PDF summary) by the non-partisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy concluded:

At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners (among teenagers).

These dangerous crackpots are not content to vehemently deny our children basic information to protect themselves. They cannot abide by any program that does. Without any supporting evidence, abstinence-only advocates claim such informative programs do more harm than good. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Last November ABC News reported:

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect," said the report.

Yes, the but the key word in "abstinence-only" is "only." More ABC News:

The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called "myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates" including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents.

None of these was found to be accurate, Kirby wrote.

Instead, he wrote, such programs improved teens' knowledge about the risks and consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and gave them greater "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."

Even a 2007 study contracted by Bush's own HHS Department reached the same conclusions. Furthermore, it found under abstinence-only programs, teenagers are “less likely to report that condoms are usually effective at preventing STDs and more likely to report that condoms are never effective at preventing STDs.” Heckuva job Bushie!

He can't help himself. Not unlike the Iraq War, Bush has long committed himself to obliviously ride this train to its destination, a ruined bridge. Salon's 2004 Bush's Sex Fantasy recountss how George Bush "lobbied for and promoted abstinence-only" early in his tenure as Texas Governor. The article also notes how "the teen pregnancy rate in Texas remains one of the highest in the country, despite the abstinence-only policies Bush pushed as governor."

You would think all of this would be enough to bring the abstinence-only gravy train to a grinding halt. Au contraire. This new CDC report on the prevalence of STDs amongst teenage girls was met with a kind of rejoicing amongst hard-core evangelicals. Breaking Christian News had this breathless bulletin:

President Bush's 2009 budget proposal includes an important increase in funding for Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).

In light of a disturbing report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention which came out this week—and revealed that 1 in 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)—the President's urging for abstinence education is timely and obviously needed.

Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, stated, "With 3 million teen girls infected with STIs, safer sex in adolescents does not exist. For the current and future health of teens, we must teach them how to have strong relationships not based on sex."

Again the willful misperception and implication that "safer sex" does not exist and any form of sex ed other than abstinence will lead teenagers to have weak relationships that are based only on sex.

Next up, in Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade=Big Money For Religious
Right, we learn "abstinence only" has less to do with the sex and than
it does with money.

-AF

Cross-posted at Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

*ETR Associates, a non-profit non-partisan organization “dedicated to developing and disseminating evidenced-based programs and best practices”, conducted this particular study. ETR Associates markets teen-targeted pamphlets, posters, DVDs and other materials emphasizing health education and sexuality to both sides of this debate. Their publications cover everything from abstinence and safe sex to substance abuse and violence.

Everyone's all a titter about Sen. John McCain's "inappropriate relationship" with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. I personally could care less whether or not the self-confessed Senior Adulterer from Arizona and Iseman are romantically entangled (other than the mere thought of McCain entangling anything with anyone completely creeps me out).

As the Amazing Digby points out It's Not About The Sex...it's about the favors. McCain's unswerving support of Iseman's telecom clients included championing bills to end big time evangelical Bud Paxson's (Ion Television formerly Paxson Communications) and others' fight to force cable to run his broadcast stations or to provide minority ownership tax breaks for Cunningham Broadcasting (née Glencairn, LTD -- the shell corp. owned and operated by the evil John Kerry-swiftboating Sinclair
empire to avoid FCC ownership regs). McCain not so coincidentally
spearheaded a ton of broadcast industry deregulation that led to the
MSM mess we now endure.

However, this goes deeper than McCain's favoritism and reciprocal of use of their corporate jets and other stuff. The aforementioned NY Times piece points out just how far Johnny Boy's super-cozyness with lobbyists goes:

Like
other presidential candidates, he has relied on lobbyists to run his
campaigns. Since a cash crunch last summer, several of them — including
his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who represented companies before Mr. McCain’s Senate panel — have been working without pay, a gift that could be worth tens of thousands of dollars.

In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has hired another lobbyist, Mark Buse, to run his Senate office. In his case, it was a round trip through the revolving door: Mr. Buse had directed Mr. McCain’s committee staff for seven years before leaving in 2001 to lobby for telecommunications companies.
(my emphasis)

Shee-it! As HuffPo noted last year McCain's team is fucking riddled with lobbyists! Forget about any rumored romance with Iseman, even at work Johnny beds lobbyists! Mark Buse is notorious as one of the two lobbyists secretly hired by former CPB Chair/Karl Rove amigo/Republican tool Ken Tomlinson to quash attempts to seat more actual broadcasters on the PBS board.

It turns out McCain 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis is even more controversial. Last month the WaPo hit Rick Davis for setting up a McCain meet with gangster-linked Putin-pal billionaire Russian tycoon Oleg Deripaska. At the time Davis was still at his own lobby firm Davis Manafort where his biggest clients were telecom giants SBC Global AT&T and Verizon. According to Open Secrets between 1998-99 & 2003-05 Davis Manafort raked in at total of $670,000 SBC Global AT&T bucks. From 2003-2005 Verizon tossed him a cool $540,000.

While Iseman and Buse do not seem to have di interest in telecom immunity, McCain 2008 Campaign Manager Rick Davis sure does. "Straight Talk" McCain's recent vote to keep telecom immunity in Bush's wiretapping bill appears not like a vote to keep us safer but a vote for Davis' once and future clients. McCain's continued support of telecom immunity is a fait accompli.

This raises the question: In what other ways would "Honest Johnny" McCain favor the special interests he used to rail against once he's President and at what cost to the average citizen?

Let's all agree right now to not find out. Please.

-AF