Giuliani also clueless about AIDS

July 23, 2007

Back after an absence - in which I had some medical boards to tend to, and my wife had a baby - I realize that some things never change, such as ignorance and hypocrisy.

Let’s take Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York on 9/11 (as he would like to be remembered, he reminds us). The man is campaign for president of the United States representing the Republican party - not the party of Lincoln mind you, but the political party of self-rightous, war-crazed, torture-friendly conservative idiots who have come to power. I just mentioned “ignorance and hypocrisy” because you have to be either ignorant or a hypocrite to support a twice-divorced, drag-dressing man spouting “conservative family values”.

Giuliani also clueless about AIDS

But I digress. On a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, after the usual prepared remarks, the questions came. And here is were it gets stupid:

Asked about increasing federal support for HIV medications, Giuliani discussed what he considers appropriate federal responsibility in health care. “I don’t want to promise you the federal government will take over the role,” he said, drawing applause and shouts of “all right.” Then, in some interesting twists, he turned the HIV question into a 9/11 answer:

“My general experience has been that the federal government works best when it helps and assists and encourages and sets guidelines… on a state-by-state, locality-by-locality basis. It’s no different from the way I look at homeland security. Maybe having been mayor of the city, I know that your first defense against terrorist attack is that local police station, or that local firehouse.”

WTF? He was asked about AIDS, specifically HIV medications for HIV/AIDS patients, and his answer was… 9/11! It seems Giuliani has the routine pat down. Someone asks him a difficult question, and the answer is the same: 9/11! It is similar to Bush’s answer. Whereas Bush goes back to “the terrorists attacked us on 9/11″, Giuliani goes back to “I was the mayor of New York on 9/11!”, as if that is going to get him off the hook. So far, it has, but lets see if the public can stand that load of B.S. right up until the 2008 election.

By the way, there is another conservative idiot that had some problems on AIDS prevention - remember John McCain?

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

By the way, that McCain campaign is non-existant, so Giuliani better wise up and stop acting like a hardliner when it comes to HIV/AIDS.

But it’s not just HIV/AIDS that Giuliani is being a conservative idiot. Take health care for example:

Giuliani’s health-care plan is firmly based in the private sector. He proposes a $15,000 tax exemption for individual health insurance. “If you can find it cheaper, you can keep the difference.” He said with 50 million to 100 million Americans participating, this would create a marketplace for affordable individual plans: “Lots of people would buy private health insurance if it was as attractive as employer plans.” All plans would have to have some co-payment, to encourage people to make choices about their care.

In an extended analogy, Giuliani likened the cost of health care to the price of TVs in the early 1950s — prices were high because the marketplace was small. With a larger marketplace prices of TVs have gone down and quality has improved with advancing technology. “It happened because there was a free market,” he said. His analogy missed some realities - you won’t die if you can’t get a plasma TV, but you might die if you can’t get to the doctor.

But Giuliani mocked the idea of mandated coverage: “If the government had said, everybody has to get a TV, and we’ll help you pay for one if you can’t afford it, what would have happened to the price of TVs? When you promise these simplistic results you get disaster, like welfare.”

Giuliani also said a promise of universal health care was misguided:

“We don’t want socialized medicine. Maybe you should go see ‘Sicko,’ see if you agree with Michael Moore that we should have the Cuban health care system. That’s where the Democrats are taking us… All the places that have government-run health care, it’s inferior to us. We’ve got to preserve our private system. People will have to earn some of that access. Let’s not become a nanny state. You don’t help somebody when you make them dependent. You make it within their realm to do it, but give them a chance to earn it. The system gets destroyed when you start making big promises.”

Buddy, we already have some socialized medicine. It’s called Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. What’s more, we want more of it. Also, his claim that “all the places that have government-run health care, it’s inferior to us” is a load of shit, and he knows it (didn’t he just claim to see Sicko?). Even if he did not watch Sicko, the U.S. health care system is ranked 37 out of 191 countries, 2 notches above Cuba.

What’s hysterical is that all the places that have government-run health care are SUPERIOR to us. Way to go, Mr. Giuliani.

McCain’s “Straight-Talk Express” train might be in the scrap heap, but Giuliani is definitely picking up the slack.

Lesson for ALL presidential candidates: flunk AIDS, prepare to lose the U.S. presidency.


Wolfowitz - you putz, you thought we wouldn’t notice?

April 15, 2007

Wolfowitz - you putz, you thought we wouldn’t notice?

I rarely link to the Financial Times, but when the Financial Times is calling for the resignation of the president of the World Bank, you know the guy in charge must be incompetent, or so lacking in credibility and morality that it strains credulity - case in point, Paul Wolfowitz, the same guy who helped plan the Iraq war.

Somehow, “we told you so” is not enough.

There is also a posting about this on The Washington Note:

Paul Wolfowitz has now admitted to helping his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, get positions outside the Bank, including “seconding” her to the US State Department that have helped up her salary to levels that clearly violate World Bank rules (i.e. nearly double her salary).

This is the kind of personnel nepotism and corruption that Wolfowitz has stated he is trying to wipe out at the Bank and in the client governments of the Bank. An anti-corruption campaign has been one of the only distinctive and memorable aspects of Wolfowitz’s tenure so far as president of the international financial institution — and now his own personal behavior belies what was his self-declared moral campaign against others’ corruption both inside the bank and in client country governments.

Wolfowitz also ran afoul of senior bank staff in the past by elevating inappropriately Bush administration political appointee Kevin Kellems, who used to be Vice President Cheney’s spokesman, in ways that violated the merit-based rules that had been adopted at the World Bank.

What, no sperm-stained blue dresses?

Question: if it is not OK that corrupt leaders of African nations loot their country’s riches, then why should it be OK that Paul Wolfowitz, the president of the World Bank - already a man of dubious moral character - loots the credibility of the organization he is running to advance not only his career, but of his croonies, while at the same time advancing an “anti-corruption agenda” in his institution?

Wolfowitz, you putz, you thought we wouldn’t notice? With your track record?

The anwer, of course, is that hypocrisy knows no bounds. And that people that are used to playing and working in rigged, cushy jobs become arrogant and incompetent, because unlike the rest of us, they never haver to perform.

Rumor has it he is going to either resign or asked to resign very, very soon. Sorry if this sounds biased - you know how that “liberal media” twists everything - but the World Bank is much to important an organization to be run by the likes of the “architects” of the Iraq war.


McCain Clueless on AIDS prevention - WTF??

March 17, 2007

Yes, I know, I have not posted in a while. I was attending the spectacular annual convention of the American Medical Student Association… more on that in a future posting.

For now let me direct you to a nice little conservative idiot, a U.S. senator who once was formerly known as a “straight shooter”, John McCain. Now he is more or less, how should I put this, full of shit.

McCain Clueless on AIDS prevention - WTF?

Notice I’m not saying, “I don’t like McCain because he is a Republican”, I’m saying I don’t like the guy because he has become what he (once) loathed - a liar. Take his reversal on Jerry Falwell, a demagogue who is getting filthy rich telling people such filth as:

“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For The American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped [9/11] happen.”

“If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.”

“Global warming is Satan’s attempt to redirect the Church’s primary focus.”

But I digress. The man who could one day become president of the most powerful nation ever on Earth is clueless about the deadliest disease to ever affect mankind. The ignorance needs to be read to be believed.

From “The Caucus” Blog of the New York Times:

SOMEWHERE in NORTHERN IOWA — The unthinkable has happened. Senator John McCain met a question, while sitting with reporters on his bus as it rumbled through Iowa today, that he couldn’t – or perhaps wouldn’t – answer.

Did he support the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V.?

What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain’s aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain’s side.

Feeling awkward answering difficult and important questions is not unusual, even for a speaker at McCain’s high level. Giving a bullshit answer, though, is apparently within the reach of McCain’s level. All emphasis is mine:

A transcript of the encounter follows. (Weaver is John Weaver, his senior adviser, and Brian is Mr. Jones, his press secretary):

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

This went on for a few more moments until a reporter from the Chicago Tribune broke in and asked Mr. McCain about the weight of a pig that he saw at the Iowa State Fair last year.

So folks, there you have it. I was going to sneak in some figures of HIV/AIDS, like 40 million worldwide living with HIV/AIDS, with 25 million of these living in sub-Saharan Africa, 48 million orphans in Africa, a quarter because of HIV/AIDS, but my guess is facts are worthless with these bunch of conservative idiots.

And by the way, asking your assistant about “your” position on a subject is preposterous when it comes to AIDS. If it were something like the microeconomics of Indonesian farmers I would cut you some slack, but AIDS? Give me a break.


The Antichrist will be a liberal!

March 2, 2007

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi

This is too good to pass up. I swear, I’m not making this up. From Times UK & Catholic Online:

March 02, 2007

Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 78, who retired as Archbishop of Bologna three years ago, quoted Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), the Russian philosopher and mystic, as predicting that the Antichrist “will convoke an ecumenical council and seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions.

The “masses” would follow the Antichrist, “with the exception of small groups of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants” who would fight to prevent the watering down and ultimate destruction of the faith, he said.”

Ok stop it, stop it, STOP IT RIGHT THERE! Now WTF is that? The next Antichrist will be someone who is a “pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”? The title of the post refers to it as “green” but that’s in the U.K. In the U.S. we know this means a liberal. A LIBERAL! Shit I’m scared.

You honestly want me to believe that the Antichrist will be a liberal? Give me a fucking break! Now I know the guy is old (78) and a religious nut, but several things struck me.

Here is one: the guy was named by the Pope himself. That tells you something right there.

The choice of Cardinal Biffi raised eyebrows in the Vatican, given his sometimes eccentric views. The cardinal gave a warning of the coming of the Antichrist during his two decades as the Archbishop of Bologna, and said that an “invasion” of Muslim immigrants was undermining Europe’s Christian values.

The choice of Lenten speaker has in the past given a clue to Vatican policy, although one source said that Cardinal Biffi had perhaps been chosen because his “verbal fireworks” would keep listeners awake.

I understand his concerns about immigration in general, and of course he’s allowed to have his own opinions, but count the above comment as strike two. “Verbal fireworks”? You’re supposed to love everyone Cardinal. Ever heard of the 10 Commandments?

Here’s strike 3. Bear with me on this guy’s logic…

Cardinal Biffi said that the Antichrist was not necessarily a person but “the reduction of Christianity to an ideology . . . The teaching that the great Russian philosopher left us is that Christianity cannot be reduced to a set of values. At the heart of being a Christian is the personal encounter with Jesus Christ.” But he quoted with approval from Solovyov’s Three Dialogues on War, Progress and the End of History, which suggests that the Antichrist is a real figure.

Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.

I don’t give a hoot that he is a Cardinal, here is one conservative idiot for ya’. I understand that values such as “goodness, truth, and beauty” are good wholesome Christian values… but things like “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” are not to be considered Christian values? And how the fuck could these values encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”?

Only if you are a conservative idiot, that’s how. 1, 2, 3, you are out.

If I care about the environment - bad, not-Christlike. Love of peace? Peace is for pussies. Respect for nature? Hey, war is good! Jeez. It’s not being a liberal or a conservative that’s wrong, it is taking things to the extreme that is wrong.

However, what struck me the most is this: if the Antichrist will be a “pacifist, ecologist, and ecumenist” and antichrist means “the opposite of Christ“, then what does that make of Christ? Don’t get me wrong, that’s this idiot’s view, and I’m plenty sure the Cheneys, Coulters, and Dobsons of the world feel the same way, but what does this guy think Christ stands for?

Hmmm, lets see here.

Opposite of “pacifist” - how about “warmonger“?

Opposite of “ecologist” - how about “raping the Earth“?

Opposite of “ecumenist” - well we need to define the word first.

In a narrower and more common sense, ecumenism refers to the movement towards co-operation among Christians. For some people, ecumenism is based on the idea that there should be a single Christian Church, but normally it refers to Christians of different Christian denominations working together. Thus ecumenism in reality is usually just the promotion of co-operation and better understanding between religious groups or denominations, without aiming at unity.

The above doesn’t sound that bad on paper. Cooperation among Christians, more understanding… oh right, he’s a conservative idiot. So how about… I’m at a loss for words here. My IQ just dropped a couple of points trying to dissect this idiot. I was thinking of “go fuck yourself“, a la Dick Cheney, but there must surely be something better.

What do you all think?


HPV: maybe it is women’s fault (Cartoon of the Day)

February 20, 2007

Bad news

(From Nick Anderson, Houston’s Chronicle’s excellent editorial cartoonist)

Ah, so what is it gonna be, conservative idiots? As a future doc, this picture sums up my feelings quite nicely.

Given all the brouhaha over HPV and Texas Governor Rick Perry’s order to implement a mandatory vaccination program for all school-age girls in Texas, I found an interesting nugget that has been largely ignored:

First lady’s influence?

Also, a spokesman indicated that first lady Anita Perry’s strong support for the vaccine may have played a role in the governor’s decision. A former nurse and the daughter of a doctor, Anita Perry works for an organization dealing with sexual assaults.

“I know they have discussed it, and it’s something they both feel very strongly about,” said Press Secretary Robert Black.

But some who oppose the bill have suggested that a political contribution from the vaccine-maker influenced his decision.

So his wife, a former health professional, may have had a bit to do with it. Do I buy that? Sure, why not - but lots of first ladies are involved in humanitarian and educational endeavors as well. If politicians actually listened to their wives a little, things would be a lot better in ALL countries.


Planned Parenthood acts on behalf of raped Florida woman

February 1, 2007

I had just posted about this incident and a day later Planned Parenthood was all over it:

In a matter of 72 hours, a 21-year-old woman in Florida was raped, jailed on an outstanding warrant (for a 2003 juvenile arrest), and blocked from taking emergency contraception because a jail worker had “religious objections” to the medication. This is an absolute outrage. Please act now by rushing the enclosed petition to your state governor to ensure rape survivors in your state are not denied access to emergency contraception.

Be sure to go sign the petition on their webpage, available here.


Rape victim jailed after reporting attack

January 30, 2007

This is beyond disgusting. Talk about victimizing the victim:

TAMPA - A young woman was walking back to her car after the Gasparilla parade on Saturday when she says a man dragged her behind a building and raped her near the intersection of Howard and Swann.

She managed to get away and called 911. Police took her to the hospital and began a routine rape investigation.

When they started checking the victim’s background, they discovered she had an arrest warrant out for her.

It was from an arrest when the woman was a juvenile and she was accused of not paying restitution. The woman says she was not aware there was a warrant out for her, and her attorney says it appears to be a paperwork error.

“They were more interested in prosecuting her for something that’s a paperwork snafu from four years ago, that was juvenile. They were more interested in working on that than finding an experienced rapist,” stated the victim’s mother.

Still, the woman was put in handcuffs and taken to jail. She was not allowed bond, and the medical staff at the jail refused to give her the Morning After Pill even though it had been prescribed at the hospital.

“The medical supervisor would not allow her to take the pill because she said it was against her, the supervisor’s, religion. So, here we have a medical supervisor imposing her beliefs on a rape victim,” claimed the victim’s attorney Virlyn Moore. “As a human being, how someone could be so violated by this monster and then the system comes along and rapes her again psychologically and emotionally - it’s outrageous and unconscionable.”


50 Dumbest Things Bush Ever Said

December 30, 2006

President Bush and his d’oh moments…

This is from Democratic Underground - the list is hilarious and quite comprehensive - and for rounding out a list of the stupid things Bush says to just 50 is deserving of a prize:

50. “I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn’t here.” —at the President’s Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002

49. “We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.” —Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

48. “You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.” —Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001

47. “We both use Colgate toothpaste.” —after a reporter asked what he had in common with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Camp David, Md., Feb. 23, 2001

46. “Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean, you’re a — you’ve been given sovereignty, and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

45. “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” —Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

44. “I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.” —as quoted in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War

43. “I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport.” —Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001

42. “The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself.” —Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

41. “I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America. It’s pretty darn strong. I mean, the people see a better future.” —Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004

40. “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.” —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

Read the rest of this entry »


The P.U.-litzer Prizes for 2006

December 28, 2006

This piece is just way to funny - please pass it around!

Here are some of the “winners”:

Casual About Casual Ties Award — Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch

Echoing an Iraq war talking-point heard regularly on Fox News, owner Murdoch said on the eve of the November election: “The death toll, certainly of Americans there, by the terms of any previous war are quite minute.” As FAIR noted, U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed those in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War, not to mention the combined U.S. deaths of all this country’s other military actions since Vietnam — including Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the first Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

“Prove You’re Not a Traitor” Prize — CNN’s Glenn Beck

In November, Beck — an Islamophobic host on CNN Headline News — launched into his interview with Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, a Muslim American, this way: “I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’” Beck then added: “And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.” Is it possible that primetime bigots like CNN’s Beck have something to do with the prejudices “that a lot of Americans feel”?

It gets worse. Go read the rest of it here.


More Troops but Less Control in Iraq

December 28, 2006

You have got to be kidding me. Isn’t clear that we should get the hell out of Iraq?

More U.S. troops are expected to be deployed in Iraq in the New Year. Despite obvious rethinking, there is no decision on withdrawal of occupation forces.

The presence of troops may be raised just for their own protection. According to a Pentagon report, U.S. and Iraqi forces are facing close to 1,000 attacks a week now. U.S. forces comprise more than 90 percent of the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq.

According to the White House, 49 countries joined that coalition at the time of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. That number has shrunk to 32, after countries like Italy and Canada withdrew troops this year.

Britain is expected to withdraw its 7,500 troops next year, after pulling out 1,300 earlier this year.

Yeah, that’s the spirit. Lets send in MORE troops and everything will magically be solved! How about addressing some of the real problems?

Sunnis are concerned how far U.S. forces will take that tilt next year. “They (the U.S. military) lifted their checkpoints around Sadr City in Baghdad saying it was ordered by Maliki,” Mahmood said. “Yet, when it comes to our Sunni areas they increased killing of innocent civilians.”

Most of the victims of death squads are Sunnis, whose bodies are found on the streets of Baghdad every day. Many bodies show signs of torture, particularly holes drilled into them, and wounds and deformation caused by acid.

U.S. forces ignore such killings, and carry out their own, in moves to crush Sunni resistance. And they are looking for reinforcements to carry out this job. Since the middle of December, the Bush Administration has been discussing sending an additional 20,000-50,000 troops to Iraq in a “temporary” move. There are currently 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, with at least 5,000 U.S. “advisors”.