Part of their mandate is supposedly trying to stand up locals so they can deal with this issue without international help.
OK, so we have that as a mandate, a ten fold increase in GDP, a massive reduction in the cost of the drugs because they're off patent, and 23 years of effort.
I think it's fair to measure them by teaching how to fish rather than by giving out fish, which long term is their job... but not in their personal best interests.
PEPFAR is self-interested noblesse oblige, not a question of enablement or moral hazard.
When I look at the list of countries it's supposed to focus on, some (Haiti) are just as much a failed state as they were then. I can easily believe we're in noblesse oblige territory there.
Others have had massive economic growth. Vietnam's GDP is 10x what it was.
Is PEPFAR still "helping" Vietnam even if it's no longer impoverished? Is PEPFAR taking credit there? Is Vietnam engaging in moral hazard by not dealing with this?
I also think this program, like all programs, should be forced to justify it's existence against a reasonably high bar. (There's a reasonably good chance it can do that too.)
Big picture we need a good way to prevent the gov from trying to do everything for everyone, and to prevent dead wood from building up. All programs should have sunset provisions.
Again, this program has multiple red flags showing. It's job is to destroy itself and it's thus far failed.
When we have multiple red flags the default isn't to look at what it claims to do and feel good about ourselves. The default is to assume it is off mission and should be destroyed without strong justification otherwise.
Procedurally, I fully expect Trump to be overruled left, right, and center for these reasons.
However that's a different issue than "this program claims to do holy things (and did so in the past) so any effort to examine it, question it, or otherwise hold it accountable is unthinkable".
I also think it's a mistake to examine every dollar spent as though no one will change their actions if that dollar is withdrawn. For example my kid got free lunches for several years here, but subtracting that doesn't leave her hungry because I won't allow that.
It's a mistake to have the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's especially a mistake to write it into law.
At some point it will create problems and enable behavior that shouldn't be.
It is certainly possible that it's still a successful program... but at this point it shouldn't be. Ergo the question should be, why is it still needed, i.e. what has gone wrong to the point where it's still needed.
So without this program the wheels come off? The people of Africa have no interest in staying HIV free? Their governments have no interest or ability to have this happen?
There is a failed state or two in that list, but there are also a lot of countries that have gone a long way upwards. The treatment of AIDS has gotten a lot cheaper. This program has had as part of it's mission turning over this treatment to the locals for the last 18 years or so.
PEPFAR was created as a "emergency" program to deal with a crisis. That's right there in the name. It's been trying to "ensure long-term sustainability and country leadership" since 2008.
So it suffers from the problem that it's mission is to destroy itself.
The life cycle of this kind of program is it's created with great intentions, does good things, and then the iron rule of bureaucracy takes hold and it becomes a vehicle to support the jobs of the program itself.
It's the same issue with charities which claim to "help X" (how can you oppose helping X?) and they spend more money on administration than on X.
I can't tell whether we've hit the point where PEPFAR should be eliminated, but there are multiple red flags here.
It's existed so long that it's original staff presumably has mostly been replaced. It's made no progress on destroying itself over the last 17 years. One of the big problems back in 2003 was the serious AIDS drugs were on patent, but that's no longer true.
Elements of the GOP (who might or might not know more than I do) have problems with it.
It's been 23 years. At what point should we expect people to care for themselves? Would they without our "help"? And why do we have multiple us gov agencies dealing with this?
Every GOP President since I've been alive has been accused of this. After a while we realize that no, the country isn't in danger, the claims are hysteria.
If you want to claim that Trump is different then we should review what claims were made about him at this point the last time he was elected. I was around then.
People on this site were claiming he was going to set up death camps. The closest we got was pictures of children in cages which turned out to be from Obama.
Phil: Did she have to meet any qualification for the sports governing body?
You really should read the link. The "qualification" was apparently checking a box.
And this is the logical outcome of an ideology which claims gender is a social construct which can change based on subjective feelings.
So this outcome is what this ideology claims is desired and appropriate.
And again – how often does this occur?
This ideology is claiming "not often enough".
Or do you think girls can’t beat boys in boys sport?
We separate genders for extremely good reasons. Big picture the "male" package is over powered for most sports. That the occasional girl can bet the occasional boy doesn't change that.
And what is the argument you're trying to make here? That we shouldn't separate the genders in sports? Are you seriously claiming that men beating up women in a ring or on a court is acceptable?
As to the red herring of trans athletes – what exactly is the issue?
And there you go. I post a link to an openly male athlete winning at women's sports because he's willing to check a box that says he's female (see my link), and the counter claim is that's an acceptable outcome because it's rare. (If I'm misstating that stance please say how).
The issue is parents of females don't want their kids potentially matched up against males. Worse, the basic ideology which claims that guy is female because he's willing to check a box looks nuts.
A politician or activist who proclaims this is acceptable or even desirable is also proclaiming they shouldn't be trusted on this issue.
If the movement wants to be believed on "this is medically necessary for children" then they shouldn't be openly undermining their creditability.
Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t performing well in softball interviews as her sugar high faded in September and early October. But if she wanted to expand her support — and she needed to — she would have to expose herself to tough questioning
Then the article talks about how Rogan more or less refused to meet with Harris. Because reporters never want exclusives with potential Presidents.
But fine, let's ignore Rogan's incentives all seem to be stacked the other way and assume that's true.
Rogan isn't the only reporter/podcaster/news source/etc.
What non-softball interviews did Harris do instead?
If the answer is "Harris never did hard interviews, ever", then the issue probably wasn't that everyone who could conceivably give a hard interview was on a fishing trip on every day between September and the election.
DavidTC: I would like a single bit of evidence that Democrats made a bigger issues of trans people than Republicans did this election.
The GOP was clearly making a bigger deal of this than Team Blue.
The better question is whether the GOP was nut picking or whether they were attacking something Team Blue backs but main street doesn't. If it's the later then Blue knows the general public doesn't back Blue activists but they can't/won't disown them... and don't want to talk about it.
If we're going to say that the prosecution can't introduce them having a bad character, then are we also banning the defense from claiming her character is great?
RE: Immigrants not being citizens at birth.
Bad idea from multiple angles. Lack of birthright citizenship has worked out horribly in the places that have tried it. Our method is one of the big assimilative strengths of our society's Borg tendencies.
The problem with DEI is the criticism of the mainstream DEI seem to be correct. That's not an "activist" problem, that's a "the fish is rotten" problem.
The core idea that all differences are a result of discrimination is simply wrong. The antisemitism it encourages is a symptom of that problem but there are lots of others. Trump is correct in trying to get rid of it.
There have been various efforts to get rid of DEI before at various levels, and it's like trying to get people to get rid of their religion. (Maybe exactly like that).
For example when Michigan voters outlawed Affirmative Action, the Universities' still ended up with the same student bodies. The process got a lot harder to understand but they magically found a way to make the Black "C" equal to a White "A" or Asian "A+".
I'm hard pressed to see why giving up DEI would be "breaking the law" when it's already breaking the law to discriminate based on race and a lot of this DEI stuff is clearly doing that.
One of the issues is DEI does a lot of mount bailey. We're all against discrimination but the definition of "discrimination" is changed to "outcomes that aren't perfectly equal".
So you need to engage in discrimination in order to end discrimination.
An order to end DEI is going to need teeth because it will encounter push back from people who really do believe in their religion.
There is a strong suggestion that Trump made a deal with Netanyahu where the US would back Israel's settlements in the WB. I.e. that the cost of ending the war (no, I won't call it "genocide") was the Palestinians will lose land.
If that's the case I expect "voting the way they did was the right choice" won't age well.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/3/2025”
I don't expect it to "eliminate HIV".
Part of their mandate is supposedly trying to stand up locals so they can deal with this issue without international help.
OK, so we have that as a mandate, a ten fold increase in GDP, a massive reduction in the cost of the drugs because they're off patent, and 23 years of effort.
I think it's fair to measure them by teaching how to fish rather than by giving out fish, which long term is their job... but not in their personal best interests.
"
PEPFAR is self-interested noblesse oblige, not a question of enablement or moral hazard.
When I look at the list of countries it's supposed to focus on, some (Haiti) are just as much a failed state as they were then. I can easily believe we're in noblesse oblige territory there.
Others have had massive economic growth. Vietnam's GDP is 10x what it was.
Is PEPFAR still "helping" Vietnam even if it's no longer impoverished? Is PEPFAR taking credit there? Is Vietnam engaging in moral hazard by not dealing with this?
"
North: don’t you think it should be overruled?
For procedural reasons? Yes.
I also think this program, like all programs, should be forced to justify it's existence against a reasonably high bar. (There's a reasonably good chance it can do that too.)
Big picture we need a good way to prevent the gov from trying to do everything for everyone, and to prevent dead wood from building up. All programs should have sunset provisions.
Again, this program has multiple red flags showing. It's job is to destroy itself and it's thus far failed.
When we have multiple red flags the default isn't to look at what it claims to do and feel good about ourselves. The default is to assume it is off mission and should be destroyed without strong justification otherwise.
"
Procedurally, I fully expect Trump to be overruled left, right, and center for these reasons.
However that's a different issue than "this program claims to do holy things (and did so in the past) so any effort to examine it, question it, or otherwise hold it accountable is unthinkable".
I also think it's a mistake to examine every dollar spent as though no one will change their actions if that dollar is withdrawn. For example my kid got free lunches for several years here, but subtracting that doesn't leave her hungry because I won't allow that.
"
It's a mistake to have the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's especially a mistake to write it into law.
At some point it will create problems and enable behavior that shouldn't be.
It is certainly possible that it's still a successful program... but at this point it shouldn't be. Ergo the question should be, why is it still needed, i.e. what has gone wrong to the point where it's still needed.
"
So without this program the wheels come off? The people of Africa have no interest in staying HIV free? Their governments have no interest or ability to have this happen?
There is a failed state or two in that list, but there are also a lot of countries that have gone a long way upwards. The treatment of AIDS has gotten a lot cheaper. This program has had as part of it's mission turning over this treatment to the locals for the last 18 years or so.
It's very fair to ask "what's going on".
"
PEPFAR was created as a "emergency" program to deal with a crisis. That's right there in the name. It's been trying to "ensure long-term sustainability and country leadership" since 2008.
So it suffers from the problem that it's mission is to destroy itself.
The life cycle of this kind of program is it's created with great intentions, does good things, and then the iron rule of bureaucracy takes hold and it becomes a vehicle to support the jobs of the program itself.
It's the same issue with charities which claim to "help X" (how can you oppose helping X?) and they spend more money on administration than on X.
I can't tell whether we've hit the point where PEPFAR should be eliminated, but there are multiple red flags here.
It's existed so long that it's original staff presumably has mostly been replaced. It's made no progress on destroying itself over the last 17 years. One of the big problems back in 2003 was the serious AIDS drugs were on patent, but that's no longer true.
Elements of the GOP (who might or might not know more than I do) have problems with it.
Again, at what point is the "emergency" over?
"
It's been 23 years. At what point should we expect people to care for themselves? Would they without our "help"? And why do we have multiple us gov agencies dealing with this?
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/27/2025”
Every GOP President since I've been alive has been accused of this. After a while we realize that no, the country isn't in danger, the claims are hysteria.
If you want to claim that Trump is different then we should review what claims were made about him at this point the last time he was elected. I was around then.
People on this site were claiming he was going to set up death camps. The closest we got was pictures of children in cages which turned out to be from Obama.
"
Phil: Did she have to meet any qualification for the sports governing body?
You really should read the link. The "qualification" was apparently checking a box.
And this is the logical outcome of an ideology which claims gender is a social construct which can change based on subjective feelings.
So this outcome is what this ideology claims is desired and appropriate.
And again – how often does this occur?
This ideology is claiming "not often enough".
Or do you think girls can’t beat boys in boys sport?
We separate genders for extremely good reasons. Big picture the "male" package is over powered for most sports. That the occasional girl can bet the occasional boy doesn't change that.
And what is the argument you're trying to make here? That we shouldn't separate the genders in sports? Are you seriously claiming that men beating up women in a ring or on a court is acceptable?
"
As to the red herring of trans athletes – what exactly is the issue?
And there you go. I post a link to an openly male athlete winning at women's sports because he's willing to check a box that says he's female (see my link), and the counter claim is that's an acceptable outcome because it's rare. (If I'm misstating that stance please say how).
The issue is parents of females don't want their kids potentially matched up against males. Worse, the basic ideology which claims that guy is female because he's willing to check a box looks nuts.
A politician or activist who proclaims this is acceptable or even desirable is also proclaiming they shouldn't be trusted on this issue.
If the movement wants to be believed on "this is medically necessary for children" then they shouldn't be openly undermining their creditability.
"
Philip: other then trying to make sure trans people could get standard of care and not be harassed in their workplaces.
The two issues that seem problematic are what to do about young trans children and what to do about trans athletes.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/bearded-man-smashes-womens-weightlighting-record-held-by-trans-lifter/news-story/92986fdec0b7e855b8b6f6271d938e8d
"
Vice President Kamala Harris wasn’t performing well in softball interviews as her sugar high faded in September and early October. But if she wanted to expand her support — and she needed to — she would have to expose herself to tough questioning
Then the article talks about how Rogan more or less refused to meet with Harris. Because reporters never want exclusives with potential Presidents.
But fine, let's ignore Rogan's incentives all seem to be stacked the other way and assume that's true.
Rogan isn't the only reporter/podcaster/news source/etc.
What non-softball interviews did Harris do instead?
If the answer is "Harris never did hard interviews, ever", then the issue probably wasn't that everyone who could conceivably give a hard interview was on a fishing trip on every day between September and the election.
"
DavidTC: I would like a single bit of evidence that Democrats made a bigger issues of trans people than Republicans did this election.
The GOP was clearly making a bigger deal of this than Team Blue.
The better question is whether the GOP was nut picking or whether they were attacking something Team Blue backs but main street doesn't. If it's the later then Blue knows the general public doesn't back Blue activists but they can't/won't disown them... and don't want to talk about it.
On “SCOTUS Grants Reprieve to ‘Slut Shamed’ Woman on Oklahoma’s Death Row”
If we're going to say that the prosecution can't introduce them having a bad character, then are we also banning the defense from claiming her character is great?
On “Trump Doesn’t Have a Monopoly on Lawlessness”
RE: Immigrants not being citizens at birth.
Bad idea from multiple angles. Lack of birthright citizenship has worked out horribly in the places that have tried it. Our method is one of the big assimilative strengths of our society's Borg tendencies.
RE: Greenland
It's a small beer distraction.
RE: DEI
This is the big issue and the big win.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/20/2025”
The problem with DEI is the criticism of the mainstream DEI seem to be correct. That's not an "activist" problem, that's a "the fish is rotten" problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity,_equity,_and_inclusion#Criticism_and_controversy
The core idea that all differences are a result of discrimination is simply wrong. The antisemitism it encourages is a symptom of that problem but there are lots of others. Trump is correct in trying to get rid of it.
"
You can't beat something with nothing. Harris ran as an empty suit and Clinton ran on "it's my turn".
Get a charismatic governor.
"
There have been various efforts to get rid of DEI before at various levels, and it's like trying to get people to get rid of their religion. (Maybe exactly like that).
For example when Michigan voters outlawed Affirmative Action, the Universities' still ended up with the same student bodies. The process got a lot harder to understand but they magically found a way to make the Black "C" equal to a White "A" or Asian "A+".
I'm hard pressed to see why giving up DEI would be "breaking the law" when it's already breaking the law to discriminate based on race and a lot of this DEI stuff is clearly doing that.
One of the issues is DEI does a lot of mount bailey. We're all against discrimination but the definition of "discrimination" is changed to "outcomes that aren't perfectly equal".
So you need to engage in discrimination in order to end discrimination.
An order to end DEI is going to need teeth because it will encounter push back from people who really do believe in their religion.
On “Reports: Isreal and Hamas Agree To Cease-fire Deal”
There is a strong suggestion that Trump made a deal with Netanyahu where the US would back Israel's settlements in the WB. I.e. that the cost of ending the war (no, I won't call it "genocide") was the Palestinians will lose land.
If that's the case I expect "voting the way they did was the right choice" won't age well.
"
Not sure "afraid" is the right word. Israel has accomplished everything that it reasonably can so it's looking for an excuse to go to the next phase.
On “Open Mic for the week of 1/6/2025”
If we're making genii like wishes then I want super powers.
"
did so from a morally corrupt and cynical position, a statement now backed up by empirical fact.
Female genital mutilation doesn't affect many people in the US. Ergo opposition to it must be "morally corrupt and cynical".
Adults making serious and permanent changes to the genitals of children seems like something that should get a lot of attention.
"
From your own link, about 3% of youth self identify as trans. "Youth" implies 43 million people.
Thus the potential "size" of this issue is 1.3 million people.
On “Re-Open the Asylums: A New Take”
I suspect strongly that you can't do all of those things at the same time.
"Involuntary" is a massive trade off because there will be people who insist on making bad choices.
You can treat everyone if you have "involuntary", or you can not have involuntary and accept some people will refuse to make good choices.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.