THE PLANK APRIL 30, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Timothy Noah points out that former USAID director Randall Tobias is a hypocrite for cavorting with call girls, seeing as how he oversaw USAID's policy of refusing AIDS funding to any group that didn't sign an anti-prostitution loyalty oath. That's an amusing bit of irony, but now seems like a good time to note that the policy really isn't very funny at all.
When Congress first told USAID to make all its recipients sign the pledge, in 2003, lawyers at the Justice Department argued that the policy violated the First Amendment and should be ignored. But the Christian right blew a gasket, DoJ quickly reversed itself, and, under Tobias, USAID started requiring the pledge. The fallout was severe: Brazil lost $40 million in funding for a successful program that persuaded sex workers to use condoms. Over 200 NGOs wrote the White House complaining that the pledge would interfere with their work. In two separate court cases last year, federal judges ordered USAID to stop the policy (those decisions are still being appealed).
Of course, since Tobias didn't come up with the pledge, presumably the White House will just find someone with a cleaner personal life to keep things quietly going, but it's still appalling. And here's another question. When Tobias was first hired to head up Bush's AIDS initiative in 2003, a number of people suggested that the former Eli Lilly CEO had been brought aboard to ensure that the money would be spent on brand-name pharmaceuticals rather than cheaper generic drugs. Big Pharma plunders the aid budget, etc. But I haven't seen much follow-up reporting on this, and now seems like an opportune time to find out if Tobias really was horrible on this front or not.
--Bradford Plumer
7 comments
New Rasmussen Poll of Likely Dem Primary Voters... Obama: 32% HRC: 30% Obama now leads among voters under 40. Hillary has a 2-point edge among Democrats. Obama has a 19-point lead among independents. In the past 5 weeks: Obama's is up 7 points; Hillary is down 7 points; and John Edwards is stuck in neutral.
- g.mcentire
April 30, 2007 at 8:26pm
After this and Tennant puking his guts out in public, how can any rational, morally upright person defend America. All we had to do to win the "War on Terror" was maintain the moral highground and we couldn't even do that. Pond Scumm.
- Yminale
April 30, 2007 at 9:02pm
Perhaps Tobias will say he was able to buy his own condoms and therefore didn't need to take an anti-prostitution pledge.
- epackard
May 1, 2007 at 9:31am
revelations will be that Rick Santorum owns gay porn, Wolfowitz's maid is in Al Qaeda, and Dick Cheney refrained from kicking a puppy.
- japepper
May 1, 2007 at 12:28pm
TNR's blogs are very sloppy. I know you guys probably aren't fact-checked, but maybe you could make some effort to be accurate. 1. Brazil didn't "lose 40 million" in AID, it refused to accept 40 million in AID in order to protest the Bush admin policy, which would have required officials to sign a statement "condemning" sex work. 2. Ultimately, the policy doesn't arise from crazy religious wackos in the Bush admin, it comes from two laws that require groups receiving federal funds have a policy " prohibits funds from going to any group or organization that does not have a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking." I suppose Bush could have vetoed the laws, but given that one was an AIDS relief bill and one was a sex trafficing bill, it would have been difficult. 3. With that said, there is certainly some impropriety in Tobias patronising a prostitute, given that (1) it's illegal and (2) he's in charge of an organization that is tasked with carrying out Congress's instruction to discourage prostitution. 4. Still, isn't the real story that Tobias was committing a crime? I mean, if I find out that the Surgeon General eats a Big Mac from time to time, even while advocating for lower fat foods, that seems fairly petty hypocrisy, rather than "beyond hypocrisy" or whatever hyperventilation TNR can come up with. If I find out that Corzine supported seat belts, does that make him "beyond a hypocrite?"
- Johnni
May 1, 2007 at 4:39pm
Johnni -- Yes, Brazilian officials decided to turn the money down because they believed that signing the pledge would harm their HIV efforts. I think saying they "lost" the money is fine, but I also included a link if you want to find out exactly what happened. And I noted in the post itself that the policy was put in place by Congress, at the behest of the religious right (who later, per the Boston Globe, pressured the Justice Department to reverse its stance on the constitutionality of the laws). Nothing you've said contradicts what I wrote, as far as I can tell.
- Brad Plumer
May 1, 2007 at 4:59pm
please let it be so (except for the kicking or nonkicking of puppies). I, for one, am dying to know what Pols are on that list. Please let Newts number be there somewhere.
- blackton
May 2, 2007 at 3:18pm