Obama administration new measures

Politics International Politics
,
61

[quote=“trebuchet”]

He already has. You late.
allafrica.com/stories/200902040562.html
Three days into his new job Obama overturned what he described as an “unwarranted” eight-year ban on US funding for family-planning groups which carry out or facilitate abortions overseas.

[color=#0000BF]I can’t stand the US president being so popular! At least I’m big ebough to admit it. I can still say that. [/color][/quote]

Yeah and he (or one of his cabinet people) also buried the hatchet deep in Mark Dybul’s back on the first day after the inauguration. Mark Dybul served as the coordinator of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and is not only a well respected doctor but excelled at his position.

As the Washington post article above notes, Dybul was appointed during the Bush administration to coordinate the fight against AIDS despite being: a registered Democrat who gave campaign contributions to other Democratic candidates and being openly gay. This guy isn’t exactly a fundamentalist Christian wacko saying AIDS is god’s curse to the gays. Despite his stellar reputation, and being told he’ll stay on for a few months to smooth the transition, he was told to pack his stuff up and leave the day after the inauguration.

I can understand if the guy advocated only abstinence, and said that nothing else would work, why people might be upset. However, abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure to prevent HIV from being sexually transmitted. Male condoms work 99.6% of the time, and as most people know, the times they fail are usually due to user error. People still have to be shown how to properly put them on though. Remember sex ed and the banana? If we need to teach Western teens how to properly use condoms, and they have far more information available to them, you definitely need to teach someone in sub-Saharan Africa how to put it on properly. You also need to explain to them that there is a useful lifespan after which condoms go bad from time and exposure to extreme heat. Given the propensity of some to sell fake medicines on the black market by changing the use by date on expired medicine, do you see it being a large step to changing it on a condom wrapper?

So yeah, it’s good that the Mexico City gag rule got overturned, but then you go and sabotage the most effective administrator in the fight against AIDS that the US has appointed in recent times. Way to go President Obama (or some snarky shit in his cabinet). They (rightly) bitch and moan at abstinence only education but then go extreme when any mention of abstinence is included with HIV/AIDS prevention.

62

A nice speech. I appreciate the sentiment

voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 … _says.html

63

[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“trebuchet”]

He already has. You late.
allafrica.com/stories/200902040562.html
Three days into his new job Obama overturned what he described as an “unwarranted” eight-year ban on US funding for family-planning groups which carry out or facilitate abortions overseas.

[color=#0000BF]I can’t stand the US president being so popular! At least I’m big ebough to admit it. I can still say that. [/color][/quote]

Yeah and he (or one of his cabinet people) also buried the hatchet deep in Mark Dybul’s back on the first day after the inauguration. Mark Dybul served as the coordinator of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and is not only a well respected doctor but excelled at his position.

As the Washington post article above notes, Dybul was appointed during the Bush administration to coordinate the fight against AIDS despite being: a registered Democrat who gave campaign contributions to other Democratic candidates and being openly gay. This guy isn’t exactly a fundamentalist Christian wacko saying AIDS is god’s curse to the gays. Despite his stellar reputation, and being told he’ll stay on for a few months to smooth the transition, he was told to pack his stuff up and leave the day after the inauguration.

I can understand if the guy advocated only abstinence, and said that nothing else would work, why people might be upset. However, abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure to prevent HIV from being sexually transmitted. Male condoms work 99.6% of the time, and as most people know, the times they fail are usually due to user error. People still have to be shown how to properly put them on though. Remember sex ed and the banana? If we need to teach Western teens how to properly use condoms, and they have far more information available to them, you definitely need to teach someone in sub-Saharan Africa how to put it on properly. You also need to explain to them that there is a useful lifespan after which condoms go bad from time and exposure to extreme heat. Given the propensity of some to sell fake medicines on the black market by changing the use by date on expired medicine, do you see it being a large step to changing it on a condom wrapper?

So yeah, it’s good that the Mexico City gag rule got overturned, but then you go and sabotage the most effective administrator in the fight against AIDS that the US has appointed in recent times. Way to go President Obama (or some snarky shit in his cabinet). They (rightly) bitch and moan at abstinence only education but then go extreme when any mention of abstinence is included with HIV/AIDS prevention.[/quote]

Busdh never did anything good during his presidency. If that guy was really openly gay I bet Bush was unaware of it.

Abstinence doesn’t work for anyone.

64

[quote=“trebuchet”]

Busdh never did anything good during his presidency. If that guy was really openly gay I bet Bush was unaware of it.

Abstinence doesn’t work for anyone.[/quote]

Your powers of logic and reason have astounded me. I am floored by them.

Others have pointed out that there were good things done by President Bush during his term in office. He set aside the most land for conservation that any president has done since Theodore Roosevelt. He pushed, successfully, for lots more money for the fight against AIDS in Africa. Whether that balances out against the other things he did is up for you to decide. Saying he didn’t do anything good is just blatantly lying.

As for your abstinence comment, you’re gravely mistaken. Abstinence does work. It’s when you stop practicing it that it doesn’t work as an effective form of birth control. If you mean that people won’t practice it then be more clear about your meaning, because as it stands, you’re wrong. If you aren’t having sex you can’t sexually be infected with HIV.

Whether people will actually be abstinent is a different question, but give them all the information.

65

It’s quite obvious what he meant. Abstinence-only education does not work. Telling people not to have sex does not work.

You’re right, that’s vital.

“OK, listen up guys. If you go live in a cave and avoid human contact for the rest of your life, you won’t get any sexually transmitted diseases. Any questions? OK, you in the front. No, sorry, but we can’t talk about condoms. Why? Well you see, the US government won’t send us any money if we do. We can only tell you that not having sex means you won’t get STDs. I hope that was helpful. Yes, you in the back. Oh, just eat spiders and mushrooms. And bring a sweater; caves get chilly.”

66

Salazar Voids Drilling Leases on Public Lands in Utah

[quote]In a clear signal that the Obama administration is shifting the government’s approach to energy exploration on public lands, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar yesterday canceled oil and gas leases on 77 parcels of federal land after opponents said the drilling would blight Utah’s scenic southeastern corner.

Salazar’s decision – which reverses the Bush administration’s move to allow drilling on about 130,000 acres near pristine areas such as Nine Mile Canyon, Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument – is one of a series of steps that the new administration and congressional Democrats are planning to reshape federal regulation of drilling, mining, lumbering and other resource-tapping activities, both on U.S. soil and offshore…[/quote]

:bravo:

67

[quote=“Gao Bohan”]

You’re right, that’s vital.

“OK, listen up guys. If you go live in a cave and avoid human contact for the rest of your life, you won’t get any sexually transmitted diseases. Any questions? OK, you in the front. No, sorry, but we can’t talk about condoms. Why? Well you see, the US government won’t send us any money if we do. We can only tell you that not having sex means you won’t get STDs. I hope that was helpful. Yes, you in the back. Oh, just eat spiders and mushrooms. And bring a sweater; caves get chilly.”[/quote]

Except no one in the Bush administration pushed to have condoms removed. I think you’re confusing the Mexico city gag rule and this. They didn’t want fed funds going to support abortions overseas, however they didn’t withdraw funding from anyone who provided condoms.

Funny commentary but telling them “yes you can use condoms and they’ll protect you” is almost as ineffective as saying “Go forth and do not fornicate with anyone other than you’re wife”. Like I said before, if you use condoms correctly and properly, they’ll give you the best possible protection from catching HIV sexually. The thing is you have to demonstrate how to put it on correctly. You have to make sure that they have ones that won’t expire and can easily get new ones for a low cost (or free). There is still risk when using condoms, just far less than the other methods. Present all the information and let the people involved pick.

68

Yes they did. From Wiki:

Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs forbid discussing other forms of contraception/STD prevention other than to emphasize their failure rates. We saw the same nonsense with the Title V programs and CBAE.

No I’m not. See above.

Do you think anyone on here disagrees with that? Teaching people the benefit of using condoms and how to use them is the only reasonable approach. This abstinence-only nonsense is fundie hogwash.

69

That’s what I meant. The only times I’ve ever been sucessfully abstinent have been involuntary. :frowning: I assume people who have less to live for and less to look forward to than I do aren’t any stronger.

And I just can’t stand hearing anything good about Bush. BUSHITLERSATANEVILEVILEVIL LALALA :discodance:

70

Well, Obama has been president now for what three weeks? It is pretty early to tell what exactly he is going to do, but what makes me a bit nervous is that many of his policies have seen some pretty big reversals or major adjustments. That seems to indicate that he does not have a very good understanding of Washington. I mean he was in the Senate for four years and he could not predict or understand the problems that he was going to face getting this stimulus bill through and with all the problems from special interest groups lading the pork into this program? The fact that he was never responsible for or part of any major effort to engage in important legislation during his four years in the Senate always made me nervous. I think that from Iraq to Guantanamo to the stimulus package to the drilling to the efforts in Afghanistan to NATO to health care, we are going to see a lot of major stumbling and reversals. So while many here are celebrating what he “says” he is going to do, don’t you think that we should wait until the actual changes have been implemented and successfully so that they will not be reversed?

71

The people who voted for him knew that he ran under the slogan: “CHANGE”.

72

Big reversals and major adjustments are just what America needs.

73

From William Blum Ex CIA and author of books you’ll never see in school history classes.

[quote]Change (in rhetoric) we can believe in.

I’ve said all along that whatever good changes might occur in regard to non-foreign policy issues, such as what’s already taken place concerning the environment and abortion, the Obama administration will not produce any significantly worthwhile change in US foreign policy; little done in this area will reduce the level of misery that the American Empire regularly brings down upon humanity. And to the extent that Barack Obama is willing to clearly reveal what he believes about anything controversial, he appears to believe in the empire.

The Obamania bubble should already have begun to lose some air with the multiple US bombings of Pakistan within the first few days following the inauguration. The Pentagon briefed the White House of its plans, and the White House had no objection. So bombs away — Barack Obama’s first war crime. The dozens of victims were, of course, all bad people, including all the women and children. As with all these bombings, we’ll never know the names of all the victims — It’s doubtful that even Pakistan knows — or what crimes they had committed to deserve the death penalty. Some poor Pakistani probably earned a nice fee for telling the authorities that so-and-so bad guy lived in that house over there; too bad for all the others who happened to live with the bad guy, assuming of course that the bad guy himself actually lived in that house over there.

The new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, declined to answer questions about the first airstrikes, saying "I’m not going to get into these matters."1 Where have we heard that before?

After many of these bombings in recent years, a spokesperson for the United States or NATO has solemnly declared: “We regret the loss of life.” These are the same words used by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) on a number of occasions, but their actions were typically called “terrorist”.

I wish I could be an Obamaniac. I envy their enthusiasm. Here, in the form of an open letter to President Obama, are some of the “changes we can believe in” in foreign policy that would have to occur to win over the non-believers like me.
[/quote]
Read the rest here:

killinghope.org/bblum6/aer66.html#link-1

74

“Hope & Change” Chicaga style boyos…

Reporter restrained after Panetta hearing

Did Rahm approve the heavy-handed tactic?

75

Cake and TC, thanks for the posts. It’s good to expose both sides of the medal.

I think it’s time to summarize this thread; time to summarize the “changes” happening.

1- Suspension of Guantanamo trials. -Followed by detainees joining the terrorists.

2- Transparency and pay freeze at the gov. level -Followed by a reporter being restrained when asking questions. Somehow, this doesn’t fit well with Obama’s “grand stance”: "this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known."

3- No jacket needed in the oval office. Surely, that’s the “change” Obama was speaking of? :unamused:

4- Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13440…

5- On the first day of the Obama administration the robots.txt file shrunk to two lines allowing, for the moment, search sites to index everything it contains. - Followed again by reporter being restrained. Sounds like another grand stance giving the administration a false sense of transparency and openness.

6- Wage discrimination bill. That’s good, but it hardly has any effect on the administration itself. I like the bill, but the private sector is paying for that one, not the gov.

7- Obama reverses abortion policy. Controversial and has nothing to do with putting the US back on its feet financially and diplomatically.

8-Obama frees Bush Historical records. -How gullible does one really have to be?

9- Obama pushing stronger fuel-efficiency standards. -Sounding much like President Bush did, he warned that there is no quick fix. Sound like hollow change to me.

10-Obama signs bill extending kids’ health insurance- “Obama’s memo was issued a day after he signed legislation that will enable about 7 million children to continue coverage through SCHIP and allow another 4 million to sign up.” So the bill allows 4 million more kids to have health coverage in a country that has more than 250 million people. What about the millions of other kids? Where is their health coverage?

11-Salazar Voids Drilling Leases on Public Lands in Utah. This doesn’t do too much to alleviate the US dependency on foreign oil. Controversial at best.

All of these changes are not substantial in terms of taking the US in a direction of change. Every president who previously walked in the oval office made a bunch of such small changes. I see no real significant changes. Read below:

And finally,

12-multiple US bombings of Pakistan within the first few days following the inauguration. The Pentagon briefed the White House of its plans, and the White House had no objection. So bombs away — Barack Obama’s first war crime.

So where’s the change? I thought Americans were tired of being at war? I thought they wanted the troops to come home? I thought they were hoping to see their government address the seriously compromised diplomatic tenure regarding foreign policies. I thought this was the main thing that Bush was blamed for? I thought that Americans were hoping for a president that would restore the reputation of the US. I thought that Americans wanted peace not war? I thought Americans wanted their gov to stop spending so much on military? But no, now you people are bombing more innocents in Pakistan. So what the fuck are you cheering about in this thread? I see none of the changes the US needs desperately happening. All of these “changes” mentioned in this thread is just a way to hand over some cookies. It’s all make-belief that the new administration is all about “change” when in reality, Obama has not done a fucking thing about it. Instead, I do agree that he has already committed his first war crime.

I thought that the people who voted for Obama were hoping to see an end to the US being fucking tugs. Well, if anything, with such a skilled speaker at the wheel, I’d say you guys are royally fucked if you’re actually hoping for “real” change.

marboulette

76

[quote=“marboulette”]Cake and TC, thanks for the posts. It’s good to expose both sides of the medal.

I think it’s time to summarize this thread; time to summarize the “changes” happening.

1- Suspension of Guantanamo trials. -Followed by detainees joining the terrorists.

2- Transparency and pay freeze at the gov. level -Followed by a reporter being restrained when asking questions. Somehow, this doesn’t fit well with Obama’s “grand stance”: "this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known."

3- No jacket needed in the oval office. Surely, that’s the “change” Obama was speaking of? :unamused:

4- Executive Order revokes Executive Order 13440…

5- On the first day of the Obama administration the robots.txt file shrunk to two lines allowing, for the moment, search sites to index everything it contains. - Followed again by reporter being restrained. Sounds like another grand stance giving the administration a false sense of transparency and openness.

6- Wage discrimination bill. That’s good, but it hardly has any effect on the administration itself. I like the bill, but the private sector is paying for that one, not the gov.

7- Obama reverses abortion policy. Controversial and has nothing to do with putting the US back on its feet financially and diplomatically.

8-Obama frees Bush Historical records. -How gullible does one really have to be?

9- Obama pushing stronger fuel-efficiency standards. -Sounding much like President Bush did, he warned that there is no quick fix. Sound like hollow change to me.

10-Obama signs bill extending kids’ health insurance- “Obama’s memo was issued a day after he signed legislation that will enable about 7 million children to continue coverage through SCHIP and allow another 4 million to sign up.” So the bill allows 4 million more kids to have health coverage in a country that has more than 250 million people. What about the millions of other kids? Where is their health coverage?

11-Salazar Voids Drilling Leases on Public Lands in Utah. This doesn’t do too much to alleviate the US dependency on foreign oil. Controversial at best.

All of these changes are not substantial in terms of taking the US in a direction of change. Every president who previously walked in the oval office made a bunch of such small changes. I see no real significant changes. Read below:

And finally,

12-multiple US bombings of Pakistan within the first few days following the inauguration. The Pentagon briefed the White House of its plans, and the White House had no objection. So bombs away — Barack Obama’s first war crime.

So where’s the change? I thought Americans were tired of being at war? I thought they wanted the troops to come home? I thought they were hoping to see their government address the seriously compromised diplomatic tenure regarding foreign policies. I thought this was the main thing that Bush was blamed for? I thought that Americans were hoping for a president that would restore the reputation of the US. I thought that Americans wanted peace not war? I thought Americans wanted their gov to stop spending so much on military? But no, now you people are bombing more innocents in Pakistan. So what the fuck are you cheering about in this thread? I see none of the changes the US needs desperately happening. All of these “changes” mentioned in this thread is just a way to hand over some cookies. It’s all make-belief that the new administration is all about “change” when in reality, Obama has not done a fucking thing about it. Instead, I do agree that he has already committed his first war crime.

I thought that the people who voted for Obama were hoping to see an end to the US being fucking tugs. Well, if anything, with such a skilled speaker at the wheel, I’d say you guys are royally fucked if you’re actually hoping for “real” change.

marboulette[/quote]

Obviously having Obama will not change the fact that there is still a president of the US doing presidential things. But IMO it’s nonsensical to say, based on news reports of the last three weeks, that Obama’s course of action over his presidency will be similar to Bush’s.

Few critics are suggesting that there isn’t change under Obama, they are suggesting that the change isn’t necessarily enough to fix all of the problems in the world (e.g. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0205/p09s02-coop.html). And it’s not change to just do opposite what Bush did. A better type of change is for government to make calculated decisions that are appropriate for the future of America and the world, incremental changes that hand over cookies, but not all at once. I believe that if you really have an idea about the changes that America should make, you can contact legislative and executive representatives of the US and let them know of your plans. But there are many armchair experts who have many criticisms yet leave it to others to come up with and really make changes that count.

By the way, 75% of US military shipments to Afghanistan travel through Pakistan, which may have contributed to the decision to bomb there. On the other hand, Pakistan has announced they reject proposals for military cooperation with the US in return for aid dollars, though they have not rejected offers financial aid from the US out of hand. And the decision to bomb was not a hasty one made in four days: Obama pushed for these types of military strikes on Pakistan a year before the strikes under Bush began this past summer.

77

my point is that a lot of the changes that he has talked about seem to be reversed and not implemented since he apparently was not able to predict the opposition or the time and procedures involved. That seems incredible to me since he, as a senator, should know how the process works, right?

78

Well, you might be right. Rush Limbaugh certainly does not want success in this push for “change”. And some people (Liberals) have been denouncing Obama for not bringing enough change since before he was the President.

79

[quote=“twocs”]Obviously having Obama will not change the fact that there is still a president of the US doing presidential things.[/quote]You mean like ordering the bombing of innocent citizens who have fuck all to do with this?

[quote]But IMO it’s nonsensical to say, based on news reports of the last three weeks, that Obama’s course of action over his presidency will be similar to Bush’s.[/quote]That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the US military is now killing innocent people in Pakistan, including women and children.

[quote]Few critics are suggesting that there isn’t change under Obama, they are suggesting that the change isn’t necessarily enough to fix all of the problems in the world[/quote]It certainly will not save the world to kill more innocents and perpetuate the cycle of violence. I am personally deeply disappointed to see that more innocents are dying under Obama’s administration.

[quote]A better type of change is for government to make calculated decisions that are appropriate for the future of America and the world[/quote]And how is killing yet more people in Pakistan supposed to achieve that?

[quote]I believe that if you really have an idea about the changes that America should make, you can contact legislative and executive representatives of the US and let them know of your plans.[/quote]That’s irrelevant. This is a discussion forum.

[quote] But there are many armchair experts who have many criticisms yet leave it to others to come up with and really make changes that count.[/quote]How about bring the fucking troops home and stop killing innocents? That kind of change would count, IMO. Use the 8 billions you spend DAILY in the middle east alone on health care or something like that instead. That change would count, I think. Why is it that Americans have to stick their noses in everyone’s business and then claim that they are doing so because they are trying to save the fucking world?

[quote]Pakistan has announced they reject proposals for military cooperation with the US in return for aid dollars[/quote]You mean they refused to be bribed into doing the US’s dirty work? [quote]And the decision to bomb was not a hasty one made in four days…[/quote]Then tell us about it, man. Why do you think it is the right thing to do for America and for the “world” to kill innocents in Pakistan?

[quote]Obama pushed for these types of military strikes on Pakistan a year before the strikes under Bush began this past summer.[/quote]Well, shit, I guess the Americans had to vote for someone…

marboulette

80

Cmon it’s not like anyone was expecting much less was voting for Noam Chomsky. What’s your point Marb? By “change” Obama never meant “let’s totally retreat from the middle east” for example. He would have stood a pig’s chance on Christmas eve of getting elected if he even suggested anything like it, nor was he ever inclined to do so as far as I know. I do remember him saying specifically we need to beef up our presence in Afghanistan, continue fighting al-qaeda and if possible attack and or kill osama bin laden. That doesn’t translate into hands off pakistan.

Simply backing off and hoping al-qaeda leaves us alone is not an option that any imaginable us president is likely to exercise. Saying “there’s nothing different about obama” because of that doesn’t say much.