Two Peas in a Pod Posted by: Dale Franks
on Saturday, January 27, 2007
Move over President Carter: You've got stiff competition in idiocy from the junior senator from Massachussetts, John Kerry. While speaking at the big policonomic shindig in Davos, Switzerland, Sen. Kerry popped off once again about how terrible the United States is, under the leadership of Chimpy McBushitlerburton.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."
The statement came as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee responded to a question about whether the U.S. government had failed to adequately engage Iran's government before the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.
Kerry said the Bush administration has failed to adequately address a number of foreign policy issues.
"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.
Ah. Duplicity and hypocrisy. Well, Sen. Kerry knows quite a lot about that.
Let's take Kyoto. You remember Kyoto, don't you? The treaty for reducing CO2 emissions?
Well, it was the Clinton Administration that stopped the treaty from going to the Senate, back in 1997. And one of the reasons it did so was because Sen. Kerry, along with the rest of the senate, voted in favor of Senate Resolution 98, on 25 July 1997. That resolution informed the President—that would be President Clinton, in case you missed it—that Senate would not ratify the Kyoto Treaty as written. The vote was 95-0, in fact. And John Kerry was one of the 95. So, if he's all upset that Kyoto failed, he need look no farther than his mirror to see one of the reasons why.
Then there's the horrific failure to ameliorate the scourge of AIDS in Africa. Now, I don't know how much Sen. Kerry thinks we should be doing to help in that fight. What I do know is that the Bush Administration has tripled the $1.5 billion per year to Africa the Clinton Administration was spending, to $4 billion a year. And that came as part of a Bush Administration initiative, not a bill cooked up in Sen. Kerry's office. In fact, as nearly as I can tell, the sum total of effort that Sen. Kerry has made on behalf of aid to Africa is...not much.
Yet, somehow, failures in these areas are all part of President Bush's unpleasant legacy, in John Kerry's mind.
I must admit that Kerry’s line about the US being "a sort of international pariah" is lovely. Yes, and as a result, the number of countries who have cut off trade and/or diplomatic relations with the US is...
I long for the days of the Clinton and Carter administrations when our alies and the rest of the world just loved America and would do anything for us.
Why is is considered a good thing for the government to be spending our money on the wasteful notion that we can combat a disease in another continent?
Are there any humans left in the world who do not know how AIDS is spread? Can we, as westerners thousands of miles away change the sick culture in much of Africa that leads to the rampant spread of the disease?
What part of the constitution mandates the government to steal my money and give it to a non citizen?(boy that opens a can of worms).
What politician would ever have the guts to say these things?
"Are there any humans left in the world who do not know how AIDS is spread?"
We all know that AIDS is spread by right-wingnuts by their refusal to institute needle-sharing programs, forcing innocent drug users to use the same needle over and over, which causes AIDS, and their persecution of gays. If only we were not trapped in that tragic and criminal Iraq misadventure we could solve the AIDS problem.
Can we, as westerners thousands of miles away change the sick culture in much of Africa that leads to the rampant spread of the disease?
When you’re destitute, you have few entertainment options, sex is a always a popular diversion... unless of course there are some sort of puritanical restrictions against such activity, but that dogma comes with it’s own tragedies.
I don’t consider promiscuity to be particularly sick, it’s just tragic that because of AIDS, it is killing them.
We cannot change the culture, the best we could do would be to find a cure, and in the meantime, attempt to educate.
Of course, it’s not necessarily any of our business, so we could certainly leave them to rot.
It’s true that the best contraceptive is electricity.
Once villages in Indonesia got electricity (and thus radios, TVs, etc.) the birth rate falls.
AIDS education has to be continuous as babies keep being born and then growing up to become teenagers and adults. It would be just as silly to say we no longer need driver education because "everyone knows how to drive a car." Now that doesn’t mean we should be funding driver’s ed classes in Africa.
But, until we have vaccine for AIDS, though, its probably a very good idea.
When you’re destitute, you have few entertainment options, sex is a always a popular diversion
Yeah, you’re caught up in the post 50’s modern birth control world - like there haven’t been poor people through out history who found something else to do with their time because they understood the consequences, both of getting the pox, and of having more children then they could manage (course infant and general mortality was higher too). I guess these people are just much more stupid than their ancestors, is that what I’m to believe?
unless of course there are some sort of puritanical restrictions against such activity, but that dogma comes with it’s own tragedies.
You’d care to list them then? And I see that any restriction on sexual behavior is, uh, probably not sensible, but rather, puritanical. Promiscuity IS viewed as a problem in most stable cultures, and there are usually strictures against it that have nothing to do with "Puritans", or even Right Wing Christian Conservatives. Again, I guess I’m just supposed to believe we’re collectively more stupid than our ancestors who understood the possible outcomes of both promiscuity and intercourse, or that any restrictions on sex are probably a recent result of Red State, Bush voting, Right Wing Fundamentalists trying to enforce their fascist views on the world.
I don’t consider promiscuity to be particularly sick, it’s just tragic that because of AIDS, it is killing them
and before AIDS, the scourge was syphilis, gonorrhea, etc.
Of course, it’s not necessarily any of our business, so we could certainly leave them to rot.
Interesting though, when they have anti-American governments, that’s none of our business, but if they’re sick, with a disease that is readily preventable by change in certain behaviors, that IS our business (and of course provided our answer is to send more money and is not to change their behaviors...).
Aids is transmitted by the exchange of bodily fluids, almost exclusively through sex or intravenous drug use. Keep your pants zipped and don’t stick sharp pointy things into your veins and you are almost 100% safe from AIDS, not to mention other STDS or even unwanted pregnancy.
Did I leave out anything important? How much more is there than that? The problem isn’t lack of education, it is lack of self restraint.
How much more is there than that? The problem isn’t lack of education, it is lack of self restraint.
Death has not been a common side effect of promiscuity for most of human history, so although you are certainly correct in your observation, you are incorrect in your cavalier assumption that now that we have AIDS, self restraint should just be self-evident, and those who succumb to the disease are just lacking this ability.
But back to education, you think (feel?) that people in Africa are promiscuous and lack self restraint as opposed to being better educated to the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases. You think wrong.
Westerners are MORE promiscuos than people living in developing countries (like those in most of Africa), but Westerners have a lower incidence of STD’s. Why? Westerners are far more likely to be aware of the dangers and protect themselves in a variety of different ways.
Researchers said most people reported only having one sexual partner in the last year.
However, those reporting multiple partners were much higher in developed countries - up to a third of under 25s in some areas - whereas only a small percentage in Africa reported the same.
Again, I am not saying that this is our responsibility, that is a decision that must be made based on how altruistic we wish to be as a society, but let’s not walk away out of ignorance of the reasons why they have such a high incidence of AIDS transmissions, blaming it on something as foolish as a lack of self restraint while pretendinig we have the moral high ground in this respect.
Death has not been a common side effect of promiscuity for most of human history, so although you are certainly correct in your observation, you are incorrect in your cavalier assumption that now that we have AIDS, self restraint should just be self-evident, and those who succumb to the disease are just lacking this ability.
There were quite a few STDs prior to AIDS, and that aside promiscuity is a likely cause of death among primitive humans. Mothers with young children require protection and support.
Westerners are MORE promiscuos than people living in developing countries
The study was done by self-reporting. I suspect that gives different results of honesty accross cultures. And I didn’t see anything on sample size.
Again, I am not saying that this is our responsibility, that is a decision that must be made based on how altruistic we wish to be as a society,
Well, assuming we decided to help, it makes sense to help where we get the most bang for the buck. Spraying DDT might be better than fighting AIDS.
but let’s not walk away out of ignorance of the reasons why they have such a high incidence of AIDS transmissions, blaming it on something as foolish as a lack of self restraint while pretendinig we have the moral high ground in this respect.
We can afford to lack self restraint to some extent, while they can’t. Woman’s lib and sexual promiscuity rose in the West as the West develped the social and technical capability to deal with it. So, yes, they lack restraint. And it’s hurting them.
They could afford to lack self-restraint if they could be promiscuous more like us.. you know, with a modicum of education.
Our culture provides a number of benifits, including technology, wealth, and attitudes that are rational and humain. The difference isn’t simply a matter of education—at least not in the sense of the type of education you get in school.
In any case, I suspect the study mentioned in the BBC story is dubious, since it relies on people reporting their sexual behaviour.
"Death has not been a common side effect of promiscuity for most of human history,"
And it still isn’t, but death, disease, and other problems have been a known side effect of promiscuity for thousands of years.
"But back to education, you think (feel?) that people in Africa are promiscuous and lack self restraint as opposed to being better educated to the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases."
No, my comment referred to the futility of relying on education ANYWHERE. Education is not a panacea in the West, either. There is no community better educated about AIDS than the gay community in the US, yet we still have a non-zero rate of new infections. There is a point of diminishing returns on sex education, and that point is pretty low. The same goes for drug education.
"When you’re destitute, you have few entertainment options, sex is a always a popular diversion"
It is even popular when people are alone. Other than possibly needing to get a haircut from your manicurist, there are hazard-free methods of "safe sex" that have been known for quite some time. Madame Zelda, the Gypsy fortuneteller, doesn’t approve of some of them, as it makes her job messier.
