So apparently there's a game in Cincinnati called "Cornhole". That's right. And even a movie about it. Need I even comment? If you're like me (and I know that you are), this is what first came to mind:
The comments to this article about the game are priceless. Some samples:
"Cornhole" is the only name they could come up with? Good thing basketball didn't originate in Cinci or we might be watching game three of the "Rimjob" finals tonight.
I wonder when Hell's Kitchen will feature a salad tossing competition.
You know that Cornholed -- the Movie, has already been filmed and is "in the can".
Ebert & Roper gave it two thumbs in.
Is this anything like the Gloryhole Invitational?
Kids play this at birthday parties and whatnot in Chicago but it's called "beanbag toss".... Because we're not fuckin hicks, that's why.
My understanding is that in order to rack up killer cornhole scores, you have to have a a wide stance.
The game is especially exhiliarating when you come from behind.
The traditional snack during a game of cornhole is fudge. After the game, the participants pack everything up.
See? Deonandia is entertaining AND educational!
I leave you with this, put together by Facebook friend Graham S. about my recent adventure trying to get rid of the mushrooms infesting my houseplants:
This past week I gave my 4th year global health class a brief quiz on current events related to issues in global health and development. They were instructed to monitor major news sources daily since the start of term, with specific attention to stories that might have a direct or cursory connection to global health and development. This might include stories relating to war, politics and economics.
The reason for scheduling the test is that I was concerned that we are doing a disservice to our students by not making their education more relevant to the current state of the world, and by not engendering in them an appreciation for the daily happenings of society. This is particularly important in global health, a subject that changes hourly and that is dependent on an interdisciplinary familiarity with the changing nature of law, politics, science and general knowledge.
The intent is not to punish lack of knowledge, but rather to encourage the valuing of knowledge. Part of the lesson is to be able to asses one's own level of general knowledge relative to the overall level of knowledge in our society.
Therefore, to provide some hand-waving data for discussing the quality of these questions, I'm doing something I ordinarily would not do. I'm publishing the quiz on this website. You will find the questions below, with the answer key immediately after.
You are, of course, welcome to take the test yourself. I would further encourage you to input your score to an online service by clicking this link:
Please note: this is not a formal academic study, and therefore has not undergone any ethics clearance. These data will not be published, though they will be discussed in my class. If you enter your results, those results will be visible by everyone. Feel free to enter a fake name, if you'd prefer. But I would like you to enter your true profession, if you feel comfortable doing so. It goes without saying that this is a strictly voluntary exercise.
Also, please don't cheat. This is not a contest.
-----
1. In 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize was controversially awarded to what person?
A. Nelson Mandela B. George W. Bush C. Barack Obama D. Al Gore E. The Dalai Lama
2. In early November, 2009, the people of Germany noted the 20th anniversary of what?
A. The death of Adolf Hitler B. The fall of the Berlin Wall C. The founding of NATO D. Germany’s entrance into the European Union E. The assassination of Chancellor Angela Merkel
3. Who is Dr. Abdullah Abdullah?
A. One of the candidates in a recent Presidential election in Afghanistan B. Head of one of the larger semi-legal organ trafficking rings in India C. The scientist who led the development of an experimental HIV vaccine in Africa, currently undergoing limited clinical trials D. Recently appointed Deputy Director General of the World Health Organization E. Author of a controversial study recently published in The Lancet, about excess deaths in the wake of the US invasion of Iran
4. On November 11, 2009, a joint report by the American Cancer Society and Global Smokefree Partnership was published. The report predicts that cancer deaths due to smoking will double in 12 years in what region or population?
A. The Caribbean B. China C. India D. Africa E. Aboriginal communities in the Western hemisphere
5. Who is the current Director General of the World Health Organization?
A. Margaret Chan B. Ban-ki Moon C. James Orbinski D. John Baird E. Aung San Suu Kyi
6. In October, 2009, Desire Munyaneza, the first person to be convicted under Canada’s War Crimes Act, was sentenced to life imprisonment after a court found him guilty of seven charges relating to what?
A. The Rwandan genocide B. The Sudanese (Darfur) genocide C. War crimes committed during the Congolese civil war D. The selling of counterfeit HIV drugs in sub-Saharan Africa E. War crimes committed during the NATO peacekeeping activities in Somalia
7. In December, 2009, representatives of 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen to discuss what?
A. The on-going humanitarian crisis in Darfur B. The global threat of terrorism C. Pandemic influenza D. Global food production E. Climate change
8. In November, 2009, this man’s war crimes trial at the World Court in The Hague was postponed till March, 2010, to give his new lawyer time to prepare.
A. George W. Bush B. Radovan Karadzic C. Wanderlei Silva D. Slobodan Milošević E. Ramush Haradinaj
9. In what year is Canada is scheduled to withdraw the bulk of its troops from Afghanistan?
A. 2010 B. 2011 C. 2012 D. 2013 E. 2014
10. After the May, 2009, conclusion of civil war lasting over two decades, the government of this country has just agreed to release the remaining 136,000 refugees forced to live in government refugee camps.
A. Democratic Republic of Congo B. Nicaragua C. Sri Lanka D. The former Yugoslavia E. Sudan
Am on Via train 47 to Toronto. Anyone else here? Nov 23, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
Just gave my students a quiz. There were about 20 faces I'd never seen before! Nov 23, 2009 06:06 PM GMT
There are white mushrooms growing in the soil of one of my houseplants. I pluck 'em, but they grow back. What should I do? Nov 23, 2009 05:13 AM GMT
:Twitter haiku 213 - "Indian Jewish / Food stall in the capital / Serves best Delhi meat" Nov 21, 2009 07:40 PM GMT
Why did U of T build a campus in Mississauga? What a ridiculous place. Nov 20, 2009 11:14 PM GMT
I tells ya, the Starbucks in Brockville has consistently the best service on the continent. Nov 20, 2009 06:20 PM GMT
Compelled to use the toilet at the Montreal bus station. Good thing my vaccinations are up to date. Nov 20, 2009 04:06 AM GMT
Heading onto Via train 36 to Montreal. Anybody else on here? Nov 19, 2009 07:25 PM GMT
At a seminar for new professors. Man, what a weird looking bunch. Wait, is that a mirror? Nov 19, 2009 03:23 PM GMT
Trapped alone with bacon, gin and pie... must... fight... urge.... Nov 18, 2009 11:37 PM GMT
:Twitter haiku 212 - "New Age bakery / Avoids all gluten and wheat / Uses spelt checker" Nov 18, 2009 09:41 AM GMT
:Twitter haiku 211 - "Frankenstein's monster / Sloppy job, too few organs / Heart wasn't in it" Nov 17, 2009 02:08 PM GMT
In the UFC, is the nipple pinch a legal technique? Nov 17, 2009 02:33 AM GMT
:Twitter haiku 210 - "Punjab commando / Torn 'tween piety and war / To Sikh and destroy?" Nov 16, 2009 05:53 AM GMT
:Twitter haiku 209 - "Hindu cooking store / Sells hemp and betel nut, too / Deals in pot and paan" Nov 15, 2009 02:57 PM GMT
What? Bread fried in butter and maple syrup is FATTENING?! Nov 13, 2009 8:33am
Hmm. Iced tea and gin. Whaddya think? Nov 12, 2009 4:07pm
:Twitter haiku 208 - "Eager to produce / So much that it seems I skipped / Haiku two-oh-five" Nov 12, 2009 8:48am
OMG.... All-u-can-eat late night sushi! Do mine eyes deceiveth me? Nov 11, 2009 8:44pm
:Twitter haiku 207 - "Cooking a stirfry / Whilst chatting on the cell phone / A wokkie talky?" Nov 10, 2009 10:01pm
I've got some jib that needs cutting Nov 10, 2009 4:16pm
I need to lose weight. But which to give up, the booze, bacon or burritos??? Nov 10, 2009 1:53pm
Uh oh. I think I just bleached a black shirt. Nov 10, 2009 9:18am
Finally home, rested and not headed anywhere. Long night of TV watching ahead... Nov 9, 2009 7:40pm
"Is it true that fat kids never get kidnapped?" -Levi Johnston (unironically) Nov 9, 2009 10:41am
Porter Air have redeemed themselves. Got to the airport early, so they put me on the earlier flight at no extra charge. That's service! Nov 9, 2009 7:57am
:Twitter haiku 206 - "National airline / With one robotic captain / A pilot project?" Nov 8, 2009 11:04pm
Unironic public health sign above the urinal at the U of Ottawa: "Ottawa's health is in your hands" Nov 6, 2009 12:54pm
Mistakenly referred to Lord Beaverbrook as Lord Beaverbreath. Hmm. Nov 6, 2009 8:59am
Irony: chain-smoking, crap-eating, hard-drinking, pollution-drenched people complaining the flu vaccine "puts toxins in their bodies" Nov 5, 2009 4:41pm
Memo to Facebook: Stop adding new shit until you fix the old shit. Nov 5, 2009 8:58am
On via train 44 from Toronto to Ottawa. Anyone else here? Nov 4, 2009 12:26pm
Ben Johnson should light the Olympic flame. Yeah, I said it Nov 4, 2009 10:57am
Just discovered a new sandwich: banana, peanut butter... and maple syrup! Yes! Nov 4, 2009 7:23am
Memo to meeting attendees: "introduce yourself" does not mean "give impromptu 20 min lecture" Nov 3, 2009 11:17am
:Twitter haiku 204 - "If telling dick jokes / In a penitentiary / Um... penile humour?" Nov 2, 2009 11:56pm
Crashing reception of Ontario Public Health Association. Never seen so many hand sanitizers! Nov 2, 2009 7:25pm
Just met Lt Gov General David Only. What a great guy. Nov 2, 2009 7:04pm
Crashing a reception on 2 hours sleep. Will I say anything foolish? Nov 2, 2009 6:21pm
Back in T'ranna. fifth time in 8 days. Nov 2, 2009 4:03pm
Back on a plane. Sigh. Nov 2, 2009 2:41pm
Airport deli checkout girl just asked mem "For here or to go?" I'm in a freakin' airport! Where can I go? Nov 2, 2009 1:52pm
Uhoh. My Datarock suit turned all my laundry red. Nov 2, 2009 1:09am
Workout is done, bacon is spitting on the George Foreman grill, and wrestling is on TV. This is what Sunday was made for. Nov 1, 2009 12:49pm
Hungover (again). Off to the gym, then shopping for discount bacon. Nov 1, 2009 9:36am
There was a trick-or-treater dressed in a hijab. So, was she wearing a costume or no? Nov 1, 2009 12:43am
Greetings from Hallowe'en party #2 somewhere in the heart of Ottawa. Lots of H1N1 costumes. Snore. Nov 1, 2009 12:42am
Gots to squeeze in an emergency nap before Hallowe'en party #2 Oct 31, 2009 5:21pm
Reliving last night by listening to the whole Datarock discography on the train. Oct 31, 2009 12:33pm
Am on Via 44 to Ottawa. Anyone else here? Oct 31, 2009 11:58am
Too much travel. I woke up this morning with no idea where I was or where I was supposed to go. Oct 31, 2009 9:10am
Am @ Sanders' costume party... Hey there are Facebook people here! They're real! Oct 30, 2009 8:41pm
Why do the donuts taunt me so? http://brizzly.com/pic/C1J Oct 30, 2009 5:17pm
I just learned from Rondi that Edward Woodward is dead. Most of you will remember him from that great American TV drama, The Equalizer. That show represented something sorely missing from current entertainment media: recognition of the skills of the middle aged. Rather than a team of models-cum-martial artists, all with genius IQs and deep histories going back decades beyond their actual ages, The Equalizer was about a retired British secret service agent who righted wrongs on the tough streets of the USA.
I loved Woodward in one of the creepiest of understated British horror films, The Wicker Man (the original, not the ridiculous Nicholas Cage remake). His son, Peter Woodward, is also a successful, though lesser known, actor, most noted in my world for his excellent and creepy portrayal of Galen, the "technomage" in the Babylon 5 spin-off, Crusade.
You also may not know that Edward Woodward had a key role in the recent (2007) Simon Pegg comedy, Hot Fuzz. Edgar Wright, the director of that film, has a tribute to Woodward on his website. Wright links to this Youtube clip of the opening of one of Woodward's early UK dramas, Callan. As Wright put it, "Edward Woodward was badass".
I find it pretty cool when serious British actors pop up in bit roles in their twilight years. Another example of that was the late great Patrick McGoohan's role as British King "Longshanks" (Edward I) in the Mel Gibson epic, Braveheart.
I will always lump the two with Richard Harris, who in his twilight years played Dumbledore, far more convincingly, in my opinion, than his replacement, Michael Gambon. I always thought Heath Ledger was on track to become the next Richard Harris.
In terms of classical British actors in their twilight years, who does that leave? Peter O'Toole, of course, most recently seen in a gloriously creepy role as amoral Pope Paul III in The Tudors.
In Other News
Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin claims that Canadian forces engaged to some degree in the illegal detainment and torture of Afghans. Conservative Ministers McKay and Baird deny such allegations and turn to questioning Colvin's very character. Thus, despite opposition demands, the government has refused to initiate any inquiry into possible abuses.
Hmm, you know what would really help to clear up any of these misunderstandings and allegations? I dunno, evidence of some sort, a smoking gun.... maybe some photos. Because, as we all know, when photos of crimes are taken, any truly responsible and democratic government would enter such photographic evidence into the public record, so that wrongdoers can't hide behind slandering their accusers or by erecting the wall of denial.
And we all know that no responsible, ethical and democratic government would ever seek to, I dunno, conceal such photos because that would be illegal, unethical, tantamount to criminal conspiracy, and plain old wrong.
The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable. And the way to make government accountable is make it transparent so that the American people can know exactly what decisions are being made, how they’re being made, and whether their interests are being well served.
The directives I am giving my administration today on how to interpret the Freedom of Information Act will do just that. For a long time now, there’s been too much secrecy in this city. The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information but those who seek to make it known.
Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.
-President Barack Obama, Jan 21, 2009
Yesterday's post, about Obama's moral failures during his first year in office, focused on the administration's decision to block the release to the ACLU of photos depicting prisoner abuse by US military officials. My argument is that Obama's 180 degree change in position on this matter constitutes a serious breach of his convenant with the voters and with his allies -- that of accountability, transparency and duty to the Constitution, characteristics which, at the time of the election, held him in wide dissimilarity with George Bush, and thus close to the bosom of all humanity.
To my horror, at least one reader recounted the tired neocon trope, first voiced during the Bush administration's frantic scramble to suppress evidence of abuse at Abu Ghraib, that banning of the photos is necessary to avoid anti-Western reactions abroad.
I think it's important to discuss exactly why that argument is a senseless one, and why Obama's actions are profoundly serious and damaging in the long term.
Let's recap the series of events first. During the Bush administration's term, abuse of prisoners of war, including torture and sexual assault, was performed by many US military personnel in detainment centres around the world. The most famous instances of this were revealed in the Abu Ghraib photos now widely recognized. The extent of these abuses strongly suggests a systematic, top-down program of crimes perhaps reflective of official government policy. In other words, the photos were evidence that the US government was engaged in eggregious criminal activities.
About 2000 additional images, including a few that many believe to be the most horrendous examples of flagrant criminal actions by US officials, were not published.
The ACLU requested access to the photos under the US Freedom of Information Act, in an attempt to gather evidence in their investigation of a wrongful death activity. A US lower court ruled that the ACLU should indeed be given access to the photos.
During his candidacy, Barack Obama preached that transparency and accountability were to be the hallmarks of the new America (see his speech above), a way to regain the world's trust after 8 disastrous Bush years. Upon his election, he declared that he would support the lower court's ruling and release the materials to the ACLU.
Indeed, to sidestep the ACLU's clear and legal right to the photos, Obama signed into action a new law specifically for this purpose, apparently quietly slipped into a Homeland Security spending bill, to avoid vigorous debate on the House floor.
The ethical problems with this development are manifold. Let's list some of the observations:
1. First, it's certainly possible that publication of these photos might elicit anti-Western sentiments abroad. But you know what also elicitis anti-Western sentiments? Invading other countries, bombing civilians, running illegal detention centres, torturning people, raping detainees.... and covering it up.
In other words, those who care already know that the photos exist and that they show some awful stuff. Releasing the actual photos does three things:
it might incite them by confirming what they already know;
it provides limits to prevent the creation of tales that might go beyond what the photos show;
it provides hard proof that the new America is responsible and law abiding, thus providing assurance that no further illegal activities will occur.
Failure to release the photos does the exact opposite: it confirms that America is not law-abiding and is therefore unwilling to acknowledge and thus prosecute its criminals who abuse innocents, particularly those detained during the War on Terror. I can't imagine a scenario more likely to incite anti-Americanism.
"Obama's suppression of the photos has arguably made it more dangerous for soldiers serving in Iraq. Instead of releasing the photos into a one-day firestorm, Obama seems to want to fuel conspiracy theories about treatment in Abu Ghraib in the Muslim world. And if we're still covering up what happened at Abu Ghraib, covering up worse things than those crimes we've already acknowledged, Muslims around the world might reasonably ask: 'What else is the U.S. covering up in other prisons?'"
2. So, some argue, we acknowledge that abuse happened. Is this not transparent enough? Why the need to actually see the photos?
Clearly, people have short memories. When reports of the first Abu Ghraib abuses first surfaced, the pro-war apologists immediately started downplaying their significance. Fox News blowhards even claimed it was "not as bad as fraternity hazing". It wasn't until actual photos were revealed that the world was forced to take notice.
Simply knowing about the abuses would have resulted in no prosecutions taking place and none of the centres being audited and closed. The images were everything. Without the images being published, torture would still be going on as an industrial interest in many of those places, and not just in the shadows where they still unquestionably linger.
Even so, deniers insist that the abusers did nothing seriously wrong. Well, the unpublished photographs are said to provide visual evidence of rape, beatings, murders and other such heinous acts committed by US soldiers on defenceless detainees. Until the photos are released to an impartial third party, like the ACLU, no one will take seriously these crimes, and no one will know if the true perpetrators have been brought to justice for the true extent of their crimes.
Need some more convincing? Some foreign media, such as The Guardian have already published written descriptions of what the photos might depict. Obama's defenders say that this is quite enough transparency, thank you.
But wait... White House Press Secretary then said of the published descriptions, "the article is wrong and mischaracterizes the photos that are in question…. None of the photographs in question depict the images described in the article. Again, I think if you do an even moderate Google search, you're not going to find many of these newspapers and truth within, say, 25 words of each other."
By preventing impartial examination of the actual photos, the government empowers itself to be thus duplicitous, to admit to abuse but also to deny the seriousness of that abuse. In short, a body that commits a crime cannot be trusted to impartially steward the evidence of that crime.
3. The principle of conspiracy is well enshrined in American law. It is possible to be party to a conspiracy after the crime has been committed, if one acts to inhibit the investigation of that crime.
BushCo is likely guilty of instigating a system of widespread torture, rape and possibly murder; we don't know the truth or extent of this because Obama won't let us know. By concealing the evidence, ObamaCo becomes, in the eyes of some interpreters of the law, complicit in the conspiracy surrounding BushCo's crimes.
In this highly defensible view, President Barack Obama and his advisors might be considered guilty of conspiracy to commit rape, torture and murder, inasmuch as President George Bush and his advisors might be, as well.
Do not doubt for a second that these moves to conceal Bush era government crimes will come to light in the next election season.
"The new FOIA exemption that the Obama White House sought and obtained has one obvious result: shielding evidence of government lawbreaking, abuse, and torture under the Bush administration from public scrutiny. So much for Obama's claim that 'transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.' There's a name for what the Obama administration did... It's called a coverup."
5. As Mother Jones further reports, the special law passed by Obama doesn't just prevent specific photos from being released to the ACLU, it offers blanket immunity to the photos for all Freedom of Information Requests. Thus it seems unlikely, perhaps impossible, for the photos to ever be used in evidence against the perpetrators they depict. Thanks, Barack.
"What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people?"
No good will come of this. In the short term, the suppression wins Obama some time to not have to deal with the public outcry that will result when the true horror of US prisoner abuses surfaces. He also wins favour with the neocons and hawks. But the price is a serious blow to his credibility and, more damaging, the credibility of the USA as a rebuilding force for good in the world.
What many need to realize is that this is a critical moment in the history of the USA. Presidential "business as usual" --American exceptionalism, more to the point-- is no longer tenable in a world where US might is no longer supreme. The need to build good will, not just with temporal enemies, but with traditional allies short on trust, has never been more important. Obama might be their last opportunity to make a good impression, lest the world conclude that Bushism is the new American norm.
Instead of worrying about what a handful of insurgents might do if incited by some photos, Obama should worry about the unmistakable message he has sent to his allies: that his grand promises of philosophical change and adherence to the rule of law only apply so long as he finds them convenient.
Yes, I wept on election night. I was an Obama supporter. Heck, pretty much everyone in the world who wasn't an old Southern racist or a blood relative of John McCain was an Obama supporter. But here we are, almost a year after the inauguration, and despite one Nobel Peace Prize, what has the Big O actually done?
Luckily, I don't have to do the work. The dudes over at Politifact.com have done it for all of us. Their "Obamameter" as of today looks like this:
On the face of it, this does not look like a bad record. Only 7 promises have been broken, 54 have been kept, and the vast majority we just don't know about yet.
But the analysis assumes that all promises are equal. They are not. Under "promises broken" we have both his failure to "Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs" and his failure to "recognize the Armenian genocide."
I would argue that the former is a failure of his ability to sway Congress, a procedural point, and maybe an indication of compromises to win other battles. The latter, however, is a failure of personal morality. Recognizing a genocide is more than a political position; it's a stance of character, and character is what he campaigned on. Basic goodness and decentness is what we expect of him, and in this respect he has failed miserably.
I would consider the Armenian genocide question a "leading indicator" of the quality of his Presidency. I would add to that list his failures to allow MediCare to import Canadian drugs (as was promised) and his inability thus far to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (as was promised).
Most disappointing for me is the Obama administration's decision to block publication of US military abuse photos. The reasons given, that publication would incite further terror acts against Americans, are disingenuous: people who hate America already have sufficient reason to do so. What transparency does, however, is reveal to the world that the new America does not hide from its failings, but takes responsibility for them. Official caching of the evidence serves to make the government post-facto parties in a conspiracy to commit the crimes that the photos depict.
This was supposed to be a signature of the new America, one of the key reasons the world embraced Obama. This decision is a great letdown for many. And this happens while the abuse of prisoners by military personnel continues. Meanwhile, at least House Democrats see the shallowness of Obama's move, calling it an ill-conceived decision for short term political gain.
"He's not George Bush, we'll give him that. But no President in history was as bad as George Bush, an outlier's outlier (not to mention just a plain liar). So not being as bad as Bush is a stupendously low bar to meet."
The irony is that Obama could do with a little Bush in him. The health care bill that was put forward is a neutered bit of anti-choice nonsense. Bush would have said "fuck y'all" and followed his ideological bent, to hell with the political consequences. I wish Obama would do some of that now.
We haven't even talked about the so-called War on Terror yet. I'll give him some time where that is concerned. But he has failed tremendously in at least one respect: failure to close down Guantanamo Bay prison. BBC put it best:
"Mr Obama has previously denounced the Bush-era judicial system... [He] halted the controversial military commissions as one of his first acts on taking office in January, saying the US was entering a new era of respecting human rights. "
And yet in May, he revived the Bush-era military tribunals, the same ones he spent so much time (rightly) condemning.
It was completely within his personal power to stop them and to place those subjects into the traditional American criminal system. Once more, his failure to act on this matter constitutes, in my mind, a profound moral stumble that he cannot blame on an uncooperative House or citizenry.
Today President Obama announced that he intends to close Guantanamo "next year". This is a move worthy of some commendation. But colour me skeptical.
He has found the will and resources to ramp up the prosecution of ill-advised foreign wars, and even to essentially start a new one in Pakistan. Yet somehow important moral moves that would cost few resources and the responsibility for which would rest solely with him have failed to find his approval.
He remains my candidate and I am glad for his Presidency. But please let's stop worshipping at his virtual temple and recognize his failings, especially the ones that indicate failures of courage, honour and morality.
Ever read Maximum City? It's one of the best non-fiction books I've read in decades. It's about life in Bombay (Mumbai). I had the pleasure of meeting its author, Suketu Mehta, a couple of years ago in Ottawa. There, we talked about a scene in the book in which Suketu is given "one hit for free" by the leader of India's biggest organized crime syndicate. That's right: he's got a coupon for one free assassination. When asked to whom the crime lord should turn his attentions, many thoughts in the room flirted with members of the outgoing Bush administration.
(Very important disclaimer, for any members of US security reading this: I advocate violence against no one, not the least of which a sitting US President. So please don't send scary men with guns, body armour and baseball caps to my door.)
Fast forward to 2009 with Bush gone and the saviour Obama in his place. Much has been expected of Obama and, I must say, the fellow has not quite delivered. This is particularly true for US involvement in global health and development initiatives around the world.
So it was with great interest that I invited superstar epidemiologist Ed Mills to give a guest lecture in my 4th year global health class this past week. I knew Ed would drop the following bombshell on the students, that no one has done more for HIV/AIDS victims in Africa than one George W. Bush. The man is a hero in sub-Saharan Africa. And while Obama has personal, familial, political and racial connections to Africa, the current President has actually dialed back some of Bush's more impressive accomplishments in the region.
As summarized in this blog post, it was largely through Bush's PEPFAR program (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) that he effected what appears to be widespread positive change. Apparently, after a $15 billion investment, the AIDS mortality rate in 12 of the 15 targeted PEPFAR countries (the other 3 were outside Africa) declined by 10.5% over 5 years.
Even Bob Geldofsaid of Bush's commitment to AIDS: "There are no votes in helping the poor of Africa, but Bush did it anyway."
"[George Bush] elevated development assistance to Africa to a serious foreign policy field. Indeed, due to Bush's Africa policy, development now complements the other two d's: diplomacy and defence. Under his leadership development assistance has more than doubled from a marginal 10 billion to more than 22 billion. And his anti-AIDS programmes have fostered progress in countering the disease, indeed they are ideal types of how bureaucratic hurdles can be bypassed to make development assistance more effective. Like it or not: In Africa President Bush saved thousands of lives."
Here is an African voice singing similar praises. How did Bush achieve this feat? Mostly by allowing his investments to focus on ARV (anti-retroviral) access. There are all sorts of barriers to poor HIV stricken people accessing these life-extending drugs, some of them valid and others less so: patent protection driving up drug prices, distribution challenges, lack of trained personnel to dose them accordingly, suspected poor adherence to the drug regimen, poor food quality diminishing the drugs' ability to be absorbed, the inability to store them long term in a tropical climate, local corruption preventing free and easy access, and so on. PEPFAR funding, it seemed, succeeded to some extent in overcoming these barriers.
But hold on.... is all this praise really well founded? It's based, after all, on the assumption that declines in AIDS mortality rate have to do with PEPFAR monies. Leaving aside the always present problems with assigning causation, are the mortality data even accurate?
I don't know. But Mead Over seems to think they are not. As Over details in this article, the mortality data used to pronounce the glories of PEPFAR were based on UNAIDS projections. This is a widely performed and acceptable strategem, since such data are slow to return. However, Over suggests that in this case the data are inappropriate for evaluating PEPFAR success.
Then there are ethical issues with PEPFAR in general. The conditions for receiving PEPFAR money include the inclusion of abstinence as a pillar of prevention and refusal to fund needle-exchange programs. Both conditions were lifted in 2008, but after years of implementation.
In addition, PEPFAR only funded branded drugs, rather than cheaper generic drugs, but started allowing the latter after 2005.
Full criticism of PEPFAR is available here, and an easy to read description of PEPFAR can be accessed here. Obama is continuining the program, but with a few changes.
So what's the bottom line here? Is George Bush the saviour of Africa? Well, I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge that the man seemed to care a fair amount about the plight of HIV victims in Africa, and managed to push through policy directives which, while flawed and beset with ideological caveats, nonetheless managed to improve the lives of tens of thousands of people. For that, he should be applauded.
But let's not forget that Bush also disassembled many civil liberties domestically, pushed his nation into the deepest debt it has ever seen, started two fruitless wars, invaded a country that posed no threat to him or his people, lied repeatedly to his citizens, and, according to at least one study, is responsible for the deaths of half a million Iraqi children.
Give the devil his due. But let's not ignore the horns.
