Maybe this is just more 10-dimensional chess from the Obama administration.  After all, if it’s not our job to tell other countries how to run their government, what the holy hell are we doing in Iraq and Afghanistan?  ‘Cause it sure ain’t about Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein any more.  This is just laying the ground work for a sudden policy shift on the wars, right?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

And I’m not the least bit comfortable that the best excuse I could conjure still encourages terrible human rights abuses in Uganda.

“Agrees with Rick Warren” my ass.  I’m done.  I can get Aravosisism from Aravosis.

FlipYrWhig-

I love Pam, but I have to agree sometimes. There are things the Obama administration is doing that I think are wrong headed and Bill Clintonesque. But the administration gave its response today already. Hillary Clinton in her role as secretary of state condemned the law and similar laws on the African continent as an official statement of the administration and the United States.

So, yeah, he’s not anywhere in the league of Rick Warren’s “gee, I hope no one notices that I’m intimately connected with the writers of this bullshit”. That and Obama has had very little to do with Warren since the Inauguration. I agree that the action was fucked up as was the half-hearted attempt to correct it, but Obama is hardly going Saddlebacking for the fucker.

If the anger against Obama is legitimate (and there are a good number of areas for legitimate anger) we shouldn’t have to go wingnut and make shit up and invent conspiracy theories just to hate him.

Doing that just makes us wingnuts and frankly, to be perfectly honest, I dislike sometimes how the queer community seems to be dominated (noise wise) by racist white gay men who are only antsy that the forestalling of rights is delaying the time they can hop over to the Republican Party without being a self-hater.

Please, Pam, stick to the bullshit Obama is actually doing rather than Avarosis’s latest racist brainfart.

OK, I don’t think what Goosby said puts him in the same category with Warren. Goosby says—rightly, I think—that AIDS prevention funding shouldn’t be used as a political hammer.

At the same time, if the new law makes AIDS prevention tantamount to “promoting homosexuality,” just how is that money going to be spent in any way that’s actually useful?

Pam, the interview you linked to - “Meet the Press” doesn’t make any reference to Uganda, nor to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Where did you read this? I’d like to read Rick Warren’s response to a question about this new Ugandan legislation, but I’m not finding it here.

Do we give the government of Uganda any form of aid at all?

This is a huge violation of human rights. I can’t stand the idea of having anything to do with support for a government which would do this (assistance that goes directly to the people is another thing, as nothing helps democracy like a population that’s educated and capable of action).

Fuck you Obama. From Rick Warren to finding common ground with anti choicers, to expanding the war. Lying shit.

Obama did say he’d concentrate on Al Qaeda, so I don’t see the “lying shit” aspects of expanding the war.  Afghanistan (and Pakistan) is where they are, and Obama has chosen to fight them there.

I don’t think it’s such a good idea, either.  But it’s not a lie unless you let yourself not hear what he said during the campaign.

Pillar of loving Christianity, Rick Warren.

Sarcasm aside, considering how successful the religious right has been at making opposition (rhetorical or otherwise) to gays and abortion the only issues concerning American Christianity, I’d say Warren really is perfectly representative of his religion.

This post is grossly unfair to the adminstration in general and to Goosby in particular.

In context, Goosby was quite correct to point out that it is not his job to comment on pending proposed legislation in Uganda violating basic human rights.  It is particularly not his job to make such comments extemporaneously at a press conference.  Mrs. Clinton is the responsible official, and she has made it clear that the proposed legislation is unacceptable to the US:

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=103352

But because Uganda hasn’t adopted the legislation yet, we have to be careful what we say about it, for the same reason that we had to be prudent about public support for Iranian dissidents.  Our public support isn’t necessarily a good thing in terms of domestic Iranian or Ugandan politics.  Thus Mrs. Clinton was careful to give a general position statement rather than to make a comment explicitly addressing Uganda.

For crying out loud, look where this is coming from—the linked article at “Truth Wins Out” cites an article by Jamie Kirchik at the New Republic.  It’s of a piece with other examples of New Republic/Neocon foreign policy positions—diplomacy=bad; confrontation=good.  The unspoken premise is that Uganda is to gay rights what Iran is to nuclear nonproliferation.  We’ll be hearing calls to bomb Entebbe next.

These people don’t really give a shit about human rights, as they proved when they used human rights as an excuse for mass murder in Iraq and Afghanistan.  All they want is an occasion for domestic political posturing.

And, by the way, when “Truth Wins Out” claims: “HIV/AIDS in Uganda is primarily a heterosexual phenomenon; Goosby falsely contends that it is a homosexual phenomenon that threatens the “general population”—note that this claim is utterly unsupported by anything Goosby actually said.

FYI, here’s the full quote from Goosby bolded above:

“The U.S. policy is trying to work with governments to say exactly that. I think I would do more harm than good by connecting our resources to respond to the epidemic to making them [I think he’s referring to homosexuals] dependent on a behavior that they’re not willing to engage in on their own. My role is to be supportive and helpful to the patients who need these services. It is not to tell a country how to put forward their legislation. But I will engage them in conversation around my concern and knowledge of what this is going to do to that population, and our ability to stop the movement of the virus into the general population.”

I wouldn’t call that not having a dog in the fight, although its certainly not the most forceful statement he could have made. Maybe he’s trying not to upset negotiations going on behind the scenes?  I don’t know of any such negotiations but give that Obama is heavy on diplomacy I guess its possible.  I do wish the Obama administration used more sticks (like withholding aid) in these situations.

There is not enough *headdesk* in the world.

I think he’s referring to homosexuals

No, he’s referrring to the government of Uganda

If we were a civilized country we’d have universal health care and offer political amnesty for any AIDS victims in Uganda if this law passes.

It would be the just and compasionate thing to do.
I’m sure Jesus would just nuke them from orbit and steal their resources.

Thanks, Rea.  I misunderstood his statement.  After reading the quote a few more times I think it is just as weak as Pam says.  Really, we can’t *force* other governments to stop killing their own people, so we should just carry on business as usual?  Really?

“As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides.”

Other pastors would disagree with that sentiment, to the point of getting themselves tossed into Dachau.

We’re not carrying on business as usual. The Advocate piece linked above details that the State Dept. has been following this particular legislation since it was introduced.

They have been working for several weeks behind the scenes at a senior level within the department to determine what the actual facts are and what the likelihood is of this bill becoming law,” said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The source said the diplomatic goal was to strike a forceful tone that stopped short of shaming President Museveni, who has yet to take an official stand on the legislation, which was introduced by a lawmaker in his own party, member of parliament David Bahati.

“They are trying to proceed in a way that gives them some private leverage but also acknowledges that Secretary Clinton has an obligation to speak out on human rights issues in her capacity as our top international diplomat,” said the source. “It’s been a delicate effort with inconclusive results.”

I’ll be among the first to condemn the administration for caving on this or adopting Warren-esque language (not the first, because I never hear about stuff till it approaches old news). But I don’t think we’re there yet.

After reading the quote a few more times I think it is just as weak as Pam says.  Really, we can’t *force* other governments to stop killing their own people, so we should just carry on business as usual?  Really?

“Business as usual” in no way decribes our action.  Beyond that, I think its a very difficult question whether we ought to cut off money for treatment of AIDS on the basis that the local government abuses gays.  My inclination would be to save as many lives as the local government permits us to save, if we can do so without becoming instruments of oppression ourselves.  That seems to be what Goosby was saying.

Note again how this is a standard neocon theme being recycled in a gay rights context.  Remember when the neocons wanted us to attack Burma in the aftermath of a disasterous typhoon because they didn’t like the way the Burmese government was handling humanitarian aid?

I’ll be among the first to condemn the administration for caving on this or adopting Warren-esque language (not the first, because I never hear about stuff till it approaches old news). But I don’t think we’re there yet.

And yet, when members of the Afghan government proposed essentially legalising marital rape earlier in the year, Obama was clear and direct in his opinion:

“I think this law is abhorrent,” U.S. President Obama said in Strasbourg, France. “We think that it is very important for us to be sensitive to local culture, but we also think that there are certain basic principles that all nations should uphold, and respect for women and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle.”

And this about a country we’re more heavily invested in (in blood and treasure) than Uganda. Why is respect for GLBT people and respect for their freedom and integrity not an important principle, too?

Between being a laggard on condemning DADT, DOMA and now this, there’s something else going on. My suspicion is that Obama is worried less about offending President Museveni in Uganda than he is about offending bigoted African-American preachers here in the U.S.

My suspicion is that Obama is worried less about offending President Museveni in Uganda than he is about offending bigoted African-American preachers here in the U.S.

It’s just the opposite.  It would be easy for Obama to score cheap political points with his base by denouncing Uganda, but that would accomplish nothing for gay Ugandans.  The concern about offending Pres. Museveni does not represent any lack of macho on the part of the adminstration, but simply recognizes that Museveni isn’t supporting the bill—yet.

It’s just the opposite.  It would be easy for Obama to score cheap political points with his base by denouncing Uganda, but that would accomplish nothing for gay Ugandans.

Obama’s base isn’t monolithic: in California, for example, he was supported by people who voted both for and against Prop. 8. Either way, he’s gonna score domestic points on this issue, so why side with the bigots?

The concern about offending Pres. Museveni does not represent any lack of macho on the part of the adminstration, but simply recognizes that Museveni isn’t supporting the bill—yet.

Which is similar to the situation in Afghanistan: religious/patriarchal nutbars proposed a law that would essentially legalise marital rape, Karzai was sitting on the fence about it, hoping he could dither long enough that the controversy would die down. Then Obama (not the State Dept, but Obama) condemned in clear and certain terms along with other Western leaders, within the rules of diplomacy. Karzai basically withdrew his support, which arguably acomplished something for female Afghanis who didn’t have to worry about starving to death if they didn’t put out on demand for their husbands.

I’m not saying we should invade Uganda, nor am I saying we should deny them aid in the medical campaign against HIV. But for that aid to be effective, we have to make our expectations clear. A statement of opinion, even a strong one, doesn’t necessarily have to be confrontational.

Given all that, my question stands: why is respect for GLBT people and respect for their freedom and integrity not an important principle, too?

A statement of opinion, even a strong one, doesn’t necessarily have to be confrontational.

Which of course, was exactly what Sec. Clinton did.

why is respect for GLBT people and respect for their freedom and integrity not an important principle, too

Whoever said it wasn’t?  That’s not the issue here—the issue is whether the Obama adminstration’s handling of this issue is appropriate.

Damn, it seems that every stupid rightwingnut meme is getting trotted out here—“Obama failed to denounce X!.  Well, okay, he may have denounced x, but he failed to denounce x vigorously enough!”

Rea#18, that’s how first intepreted Goosby’s statement.  And I’m in no way advocating taking military action, but can’t we demand more for our tax dollars?  As Gracchus noted, Obama came down much harder on Karzai (although I assume Karzai needs us more).  I’m glad Clinton is making a strong statement and if the US is negotiating behind the scenes, great.  But why behind the scenes?  Why not send a clear message to Uganda and everyone else that the US won’t support (via aid) governments who engage in this level of bigotry?

Which of course, was exactly what Sec. Clinton did.

Did she say Uganda’s anti-gay policy was “abhorrent” or something similar? Did she express clear and unequivocal support for the importance of the principle of respect for GLBT people and respect for their freedom and integrity? If not, that’s not exactly the same as what Obama said on behalf of women’s rights in re: Afghanistan.

Whoever said it wasn’t?

It’s not that someone said it wasn’t an important principle, it’s that no-one said it was.

Damn, it seems that every stupid rightwingnut meme is getting trotted out here—“Obama failed to denounce X!. Well, okay, he may have denounced x, but he failed to denounce x vigorously enough!”

He didn’t denounce it at all himself, in the same way he did with the marital rape issue. So my question is a fair one, and still stands. I like Obama, but he doesn’t get a free pass.

You and I would agree that respect for GLBT people and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle. You and I can say that aloud, and yet Clinton and Obama (who likely believe it personally) have trouble doing so in the context of a statement on another country’s policy as they do with women’s rights.

Why do you think that is?

As Gracchus noted, Obama came down much harder on Karzai (although I assume Karzai needs us more).

He does, and there’s the not insignificant fact that we already have a military presence there. However, it comes down to the same issues for a liberal: a strong statement of a human rights principle and an expectation that complying with the principle is the price you might have to pay for our continued support and aid.

“We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide,” says Sec. Clinton, and the reaction is to ask, “You and I would agree that respect for GLBT people and respect for their freedom and integrity is an important principle. You and I can say that aloud, and yet Clinton and Obama (who likely believe it personally) have trouble doing so in the context of a statement on another country’s policy as they do with women’s rights. Why do you think that is?   It obviously isn’t.

“We have to stand against any efforts to marginalize and criminalize and penalize members of the LGBT community worldwide,” says Sec. Clinton

Fair enough. That’s why I asked for her exact words (I didn’t catch your advocate link at #10). She represents Obama, so I’d expect that’s his public opinion, too. However, she did not specifically discuss her opinion in specific regard to Uganda’s pending legislation as Obama did in regard to Afghanistan’s.

None-the-less, the words are good. Now let’s see them translate that into action regarding Uganda. Holding a hearing on PEPFAR funding on the basis of that statement follows logically. If they’re worried, they can couch it in terms of the proper use and underlying expectations of foreign aid provided by American taxpayers.

I’d add that it would be nice if we had similar serious hearings about our continuing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that’s apparently too much to ask from either the Dems or the GOP.

Withholding PEPFAR funding or any aid is exactly what right wingers would do.  It says that if you’re not ideologically pure enough, you don’t get shit.  And it punishes average Ugandans not the Ugandan government.  You think the bastard who proposed this law gives a flying fuck about the people of his country?

This is exactly the same thing that has kept Cuba under an embargo for 50 years.  Since their government won’t do precisely what we say, Cubans are punished for it.

AIDS is a touchy issue in most African countries.  Many Africans are in serious denial about it.  Some Ugandans would likely be indifferent or glad to see AIDS funding withheld, which is exactly why it shouldn’t be held back.  You’re advocating punishing innocent men, women, and children to make a political point and that is fucking shameful.

By the way, ALL African countries have fucked up attitudes towards gays.  Every single fucking last one of them.  (Yes, the South African government legalized same-sex marriage, but anti-gay hate crimes are rampant there.)  Are you going to cut them all off?  Odds are that gays can be executed in Northern Nigeria.  Are they going to be cut off?  And, for that matter, why does Uganda get punished while we still do business with Saudi Arabia, which already executes gays?

Foreign aid is the only thing that will ever turn these backwards shitholes around.  As long as Uganda is a disease-ridden, impoverished hellhole, they will NEVER move forward on any social justice issues.  But, yeah, let’s cut off funding.  That’s such a genius idea.

Holding a hearing on PEPFAR funding

Congress can hold hearings.  The State Deptartment doesn’t have the power to hold hearings.

And why do that, anyway, before the bill passes the Ugandan parliament?  Do you expect that it will make the Ugandans less likely to pass it, rather than more?  Are you knowledgeable enough about internal Ugandan politics to make that call?

Congress can hold hearings.  The State Deptartment doesn’t have the power to hold hearings.

State can and does sponsor conferences and enquiries, the results of which often prompt Congressional hearings. The executive branch can also strongly suggest that Congress hold hearings, although the latter can say no.

And why do that, anyway, before the bill passes the Ugandan parliament?  Do you expect that it will make the Ugandans less likely to pass it, rather than more?  Are you knowledgeable enough about internal Ugandan politics to make that call?

For the same reason Obama made his comments before the Afghan legislature could pass their marital rape law: because the chief executives in countries like Uganda and Afghanistan wield a great deal of practical legislative power as well. Museveni has been in charge there for more than a generation—let’s see him lean on his legislators for a good principle that will help his country.

And it punishes average Ugandans not the Ugandan government.  You think the bastard who proposed this law gives a flying fuck about the people of his country?

Unfortunately, in cases of foreign aid we’re stuck dealing with (and put pressure on) these bastards instead of helping average people directly. Even the private NGOs have to deal with corrupt arseholes who siphon off aid before it reaches those who need it.

Withholding PEPFAR funding or any aid is exactly what right wingers would do.  It says that if you’re not ideologically pure enough, you don’t get shit.

It can be presented differently:

1. You have an HIV epidemic in your country.

2. We’ll provide effective medical aid to combat it. However…

3. Your abhorrent proposed law blaming Teh Gay for creating the crisis goes against our core principles that everyone deserves medical care regardless of sexual orientation—a principle that also underlies or ability to provide effective medical aid in this situation. In addition, the proposed law undermines the aid mission in a serious way.

4. Therefore, drop the abhorrent law so we can help you. And if the abhorrent law is more important than effective aid, we’ll apply those dollars in other ways.

AIDS is a touchy issue in most African countries.  Many Africans are in serious denial about it.

Which is why reality-based education is always a core component of effective medical aid. Take it out of the picture and you’re ultimately doing very little to contain the epidemic. In Uganda people won’t use condoms or take meds because of the perception that it’s a “gay disease”—a perception fostered by laws like this.

Again, I’m not talking about cutting off funds, I’m talking about applying them effectively.

Foreign aid is the only thing that will ever turn these backwards shitholes around.

Agreed. Effective foreign aid ... foreign aid that has as its core mission getting these places to buy into reality-based principles of science, medicine, agriculture, etc.—a buy-in that should be obvious to any nation’s leaders in the year 2010 AD (these are not stupid or unworldly people).

So why isn’t the buy-in there? Mainly because there’s an often intractable tribal and/or theocratic culture in place—a culture which almost by definition doesn’t allow for social justice.

So in order to get even minimal effectiveness from your support dollar (be it military or humanitarian) you have to push back at the most egregious and regressive instances of the dysfunctional culture—especially when it’s at direct odds with the aid/support mission. That’s what’s being suggested here.

I’m so sick of the Obama administration thinking that it has to make peace with these freaks who think that they’re acting for the sky fairy and not condemning obviously evil acts.
When in the hell are we going to realize that sometimes NOT having irrational people on “your” side is a GOOD THING?

Danica #33:

I think it may be a case of “keep saying ‘nice doggie’ till you get a bigger stick”, or at least the White House seems to think so—the wingnut numbers are shrinking, but they’re psychotically angry and many of them are heavily armed. If there’s still any reason to assume the existence of 10-dimensional chess, that would be why, especially given what a fiasco the Secret Service is right now.

Whether this is a fallacious line of thought, I imagine only Janet Napolitano knows.

If Uganda changed its law to execute homosexual evangelical priests, the Reverend Warren would be against it.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect…
http://www.coolforsale.com /productlist.asp?id=s76(Tracksuit)
Christmas is approaching, your Christmas gifts ready?
coolforsale com mall for you, which involves a number of well-known brands from the Asia-Pacific region the trend of merchandise. Promotional discounts should be, come SHOPPING bar!Christmas sale, free shipping discounts are beautifully gift ,Christmas gifts,look, Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Service is our Lift.Nike shox $35,Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g;) $35Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket,ect…For details, please consult http://www.coolforsale.com Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas.

good,good