President Bush "has done more than any other president" for Africa

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Oh sorry...here's some cake. You can eat it too.

Stating the fact that abstinence only programs do not work and have not worked isn't bashing. It's called telling the truth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Oh sorry...here's some cake. You can eat it too.

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Well its not as though Bush has a particularly shining reputation - one diamond in the midst of a ####### won't make people forget the rest of his $hitty presidency.

Besides its a perfectly valid criticism - for some reason his AIDS program is hobbled by the requirement that a third of the funding be spent on promoting abstinence-only programs.

[Fandango 1,439]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Oh sorry...here's some cake. You can eat it too.

Stating the fact that abstinence only programs do not work and have not worked isn't bashing. It's called telling the truth.

...and yet, abstinence has a 100% effective rate... There's some truth for ya!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Oh sorry...here's some cake. You can eat it too.

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

Maybe not the abstinence education aspect of it, but there's so much more to it than that.

See post #23

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Oh sorry...here's some cake. You can eat it too.

Stating the fact that abstinence only programs do not work and have not worked isn't bashing. It's called telling the truth.

...and yet, abstinence has a 100% effective rate... There's some truth for ya!

I don't think anyone would deny that - but it is only one tool out of many.

To reiterate its the "abstinence only" part that people are objecting to - rather than simply "abstinence".

[Fandango 1,439]

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

personal responsibility shouldn't be that hard to understand either

Well its not as though Bush has a particularly shining reputation - one diamond in the midst of a ####### won't make people forget the rest of his $hitty presidency.

Besides its a perfectly valid criticism - for some reason his AIDS program is hobbled by the requirement that a third of the funding be spent on promoting abstinence-only programs.

So?

And as far as the 'diamond in the #######' bit.....I pray for the day that people become enlightened enough to actually accept what really happened and how many of our politicians actually put us there....a little independent thought and research could do some help there....instead of this selective memory stuff.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How is Abstinence-Only Sex Education Like South Africa’s Driving Exam?

South Africa has had, for the last dozen years, what may be the world’s most difficult driver’s license exam. It’s an exercise in extremely defensive driving. Test examiners take off points for, among other things, failure to check all mirrors every seven seconds. An applicant can fail instantly if he lets his car roll backwards even an inch when stopping or starting, or simply if his test examiner hasn’t met his daily failure quota. In a recent Times article, Michael Wines writes that passing the test requires an applicant to “imagine that he is driving a live claymore mine under assault by guerillas in bumper cars.”

So South Africa must have the safest roads in the world, right? Well, no. The fatality rate per mile is five times higher than that of the United States, and rising fast. Why? Because the test is so hard, and the accompanying bureaucratic process so byzantine, that it acts as a strong disincentive for South Africans to get proper driver training. Many people simply drive without a license or buy one off the black market. So the unintended consequences of South Africa’s rigorous licensing program seem pretty plain: there is more bad driving as a result.

Turn now to the United States, where the Federal Government has spent upwards of $1 billion over the last decade on abstinence-only sex education. (Call it defensive dating.) The idea is that not teaching students about contraception, safe sex, etc., will lead to better outcomes, including less unwanted pregnancies and fewer sexually transmitted diseases.

Except … it turns out that teenagers are circumventing their abstinence education and having sex anyway. Studies have repeatedly shown that abstinence-only students have almost the same number of sexual partners, and have sex almost as early, as students who receive traditional sex ed. In fact, abstinence-only programs may actually increase the risk of STDs and unintentional teen pregnancies. That’s because those abstinence-only students who do have sex tend to be less likely to use protection.

That’s one of the reasons why New York State recently canceled its abstinence-only program, passing up millions of dollars in Federal aid. Congress nevertheless appears ready to continue funding for similar programs. Maybe abstinence-only would work better if the classes were administered by one of those stern South African driving examiners.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007...s-driving-exam/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

Personal responsibility shouldn't be that hard to understand either

What a load of #######. Stay on topic. The abstinence only approach is not effective. It's the wrong vehicle to deliver the goods. There are more effective ways and better tools - that's a fact. Why not rely on what works best instead of rely on what some religious fanatics demand.

[Fandango 1,439]

It'll never be enough for some ppl!

Here he's done all this good....MORE than any other Prez...and yet, he's being bashed for promoting a method which will absolutely not infect a person with AIDS in the sexually transmitted way.

Oh sorry...here's some cake. You can eat it too.

Stating the fact that abstinence only programs do not work and have not worked isn't bashing. It's called telling the truth.

...and yet, abstinence has a 100% effective rate... There's some truth for ya!

I don't think anyone would deny that - but it is only one tool out of many.

To reiterate its the "abstinence only" part that people are objecting to - rather than simply "abstinence".

ok then, tell me ONE other method that is 100% effective at preventing pregnancies, STDs, AIDS, etc?

just ONE

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So because of abstinence let's pretend no good was done on malaria? Let's pretend no good was done by distributing antiretrovirals?

C'mon.

[Fandango 1,439]

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

Personal responsibility shouldn't be that hard to understand either

What a load of #######. Stay on topic. The abstinence only approach is not effective. It's the wrong vehicle to deliver the goods. There are more effective ways and better tools - that's a fact. Why not rely on what works best instead of rely on what some religious fanatics demand.

Religion aside, it's still the BEST means of protecting one's self.

So because of abstinence let's pretend no good was done on malaria? Let's pretend no good was done by distributing antiretrovirals?

C'mon.

Yes, let's not pretend.

[mawilson 2,133]

To reiterate its the "abstinence only" part that people are objecting to - rather than simply "abstinence".

He only spent 1/3 of the money on abstinence programs, so it's not "abstinence only."

Two thirds of that money -- $10 billion!!! -- financed other programs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

Personal responsibility shouldn't be that hard to understand either

What a load of #######. Stay on topic. The abstinence only approach is not effective. It's the wrong vehicle to deliver the goods. There are more effective ways and better tools - that's a fact. Why not rely on what works best instead of rely on what some religious fanatics demand.

Religion aside, it's still the BEST means of protecting one's self.

It ain't effective in the real world. The condoms they keep in the night stands in the hotels in Ethiopia along with the education of the people that condoms help protect from spreading the disease does. Less religious doctrine and more condoms and prevention education. Then the children of Africa will have a chance of growing up with their parents.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's not effective in the real world. This should really not be that hard to understand.

personal responsibility shouldn't be that hard to understand either

Well its not as though Bush has a particularly shining reputation - one diamond in the midst of a ####### won't make people forget the rest of his $hitty presidency.

Besides its a perfectly valid criticism - for some reason his AIDS program is hobbled by the requirement that a third of the funding be spent on promoting abstinence-only programs.

So?

And as far as the 'diamond in the #######' bit.....I pray for the day that people become enlightened enough to actually accept what really happened and how many of our politicians actually put us there....a little independent thought and research could do some help there....instead of this selective memory stuff.

So... abstinence-only programmes don't work, and cause problems for the folks who are trying to develop and promote comprehensive sexual health.

Selective memory indeed - not to mention that re: Iraq (assuming that's what you're talking about with that comment) that many people here seem completely ignorant of the war debate outside of the US. There's a broader context to this - than simply who voted for it. But ultimate, yes - Bush as President/Commander-in-Chief/CEO/The Decider is ultimately responsible for it.