On 5 December 1933, 75 years ago today, Utah became the 36th state to ratify the Twenty-First Amendment of the United States Constitution, a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/in-the-us-they-are-going-to-party-like-its-1933-1052545.html"signalling the end of the Prohibition era/a. br /

http://www.slate.com/id/2206033/pagenum/all/
Quote: If you want to stop Barack Obama from becoming president, there's still time. But you have to act right now. Go to RallyCongress.com, and you can be the 126,000th-odd American to demand "proof of citizenship" from the president-elect. Follow the instructions at WeMustBeHeard.com, and you can join a sit-in outside the Supreme Court of the United States, starting at 8 a.m. Friday, as the justices decide whether to consider a suit filed by a professional poker player that challenges the presidential eligibility of Obama, John McCain, and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero.

Can't make it to Washington, D.C.? Too bad—you missed your chance to FedEx a letter to the justices for only $10, sponsored by the venerable right-wing site (and Chuck Norris column outlet) WorldNetDaily. "There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public," writes WND Editor Joseph Farah, "that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities."

Widespread? Rapidly growing? Who are these people? They're engaging in a new American political tradition: the quadrennial early-winter attempt to overturn presidential results by any means necessary. Quote: It started, as all election madness seemed to, in 2000. As soon as it became clear that Al Gore had won the popular vote but might lose Florida's electoral votes, some liberal writers and activists argued for a constitutional path to victory: convince three Electoral College voters pledged to George W. Bush to switch their votes to Gore. The challenges lasted past the December Electoral College vote and into the January 2001 certification ceremony before a joint session of Congress, when members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the vote. They got nowhere because they needed a sponsor from the Senate to make it official. In 2005—after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 made the 2001 protest famous—Sen. Barbara Boxer of California objected to the Ohio vote count, and the chambers divided for debate. Bush won anyway.

If you thought Barack Obama's clear rout over John McCain meant we'd be spared a third Electoral College melodrama—well, think again. This time, the argument is not over votes. It's over Obama's citizenship. I thought this was an interesting article. And, oh yeah... There will be a press conference at the National Press Club on Obama's citizenship on Monday. Market Watch reported this yesterday.

Mr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired
Monday at the National Press Club
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...-E6C0CBC18EA3}

Lest we forget however, the National Press Club also hosted a press conference for Larry Sinclair, infamous Obama critic, right before he was arrested for theft and forgery charges. So, there's no accounting for subject matter.

Quote: Blue Velvet:
Any further threads on this topic solely supported by links to fringe wingnut bloggery, instead of reputable media sources, will be closed down. Ok, so... I'm thinking this is Slate, so its fair ground, although admittedly they've linked to fringe wingnut bloggery so is it a catch-22? :)

I feel a little sad that people are struggling with this whole thing. You could swap in McCain, and there would be the EXACT same citizenship legal disputes, had he won. Unfortunately for McCain, they would be much more founded, and would require congress to immediately pass standing amendments on issues surrounding military families. I get my nose out of joint when people can't see when things simply need to be dealt with. The Obama situation, however is absolutely contrived. I feel sorry for his pternal grandmother in Kenya and all the people using clips of her being badgered or misinterpreted as proof of something she's never said. I also appreciate that these fringe people would assert that Obama was born in Kenya from these lame, mostly truncated conversations, and yet have no verifiable evidence that Ann Dunham ever traveled to Kenya after marrying Obama Sr, and before Obama Jr was born (during her second and third trimester).

What cynical, cynical people these be.

~ CB

pimg src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2793965150_efca1bd86b_t.jpg"Forget losing your job, apparently your MySpace or Facebook profile and photos can now cause you to lose your degree. In what may be one of the most frightening rulings regarding social networks and privacy to date, a href="http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3503/online-drunken-pirate-photo-can-cost-student-her-degree-judge-says"a federal judge has ruled/a against a former student of Millersville University of Pennsylvania who was denied her college degree because of an unseemly online photo and its accompanying caption found on her social network profile./p p align="right"emSponsor/embr /a href='http://d.openx.org/ck.php?n=12832amp;cb=12832' target='_blank'img src='http://d.openx.org/avw.php?zoneid=861amp;cb=12832amp;n=12832' border='0' alt='' align="right" //a/p h2The Case of "Drunken Pirate," Stacy Snyder/h2 pThe woman, Stacy Snyder, a href="http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/?id=2029"sued Millersville/a in 2007. Snyder was student-teaching at a high school, but had received poor evaluations regarding her professionalism in the classroom. Before her semester-long teaching assignment was up, she was barred from campus. However, it was not the negative reviews that caused her to be barred nor were they responsible for the loss of her degree. strongemIt was a MySpace photo. /em/strong/p pIn the photo, Synder was posed standing with a cocktail. The caption read "drunken pirate." It was accompanied by a note which made reference to her supervising teacher. That led to the school's decision to end her assignment, which in turn meant she now no longer qualified for her bachelor's degree in education. /p pimg src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/sabotage.jpg" align="left"Instead, the university reclassified some academic credits and gave Synder a degree in English. She appealed the decision and lost. She then decided to sue. The judge, Paul S. Diamond of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, dismissed her free-speech claims, saying that employees' free speech is only protected if it relates to matters of public concern. Synder's criticism of her supervisor did not. /p pUniversity president, Francine McNairy, agreed with the decision. "This was not about First Amendment rights, it was about performance, and she clearly did not do what was necessary in order to earn a degree in education," she said. /p h2Was The Photo Really To Blame?/h2 pGiven Synder's history in this case, the photo of her drinking and the accompanying note may not be really to blame for her lack of degree. In a way, they were just the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. If Synder had been a good employee (student teacher) up until the point the photo had been discovered, she probably would have been disciplined, but not let go, and thus would not not have lost her degree. /p pHowever, given her prior negative reviews, the photo simply gave the school an excuse for what they wanted to do all along - fire Stacy Synder. It was tangible evidence of her unprofessionalism in a way that subjective performance reviews are not. She may have been able to argue with the university that her supervisor had a personal problem with her, or something of the like, had her negative reviews come up in a decision regarding her degree. A photo is not as easy to explain away. /p h2Lesson Learned: Use Privacy Controls On Your Social Network Profile/h2 pimg src="http://www.readwriteweb.com/images/computer_eye.jpg" align="right"Synder's real mistake in this situation was not knowing or choosing to turn on any sort of privacy controls on her social network profile page. Given that the photo was found on her MySpace profile, it could have easily been kept out of sight from her supervisors and administrators at the university. It never needed to come into play. /p pMySpace profiles can easily be set to "private" which would have prevented anyone except those who were accepted as Synder's friends to have access to the items she posted. Facebook also offers extensive privacy controls that should be configured, especially if your profile is being used for more business networking type purposes. /p h2Don't Be So Quick To Criticize/h2 pAlthough it may be easy to criticize Synder based on the information we've learned so far - negative performance reviews, distasteful photos - the truth is that many younger teachers disagree with their their older supervisors, which could have led to the bad reviews. /p pIn fact, if you take the time to review the judge's decision (a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/Decision%202008.12.03.pdf"PDF/a), you'll see that Synder's "unprofessionalism" that was cited in those reviews came from accusations that she exhibited "over-familiarity with her students," and "had difficulty maintaining a formal teaching manner." Really? A college student teaching a high school class? Shocking. In addition, it seems that students knew of her MySpace page and checked it regularly, another unseemly violation of a teacher's ethical code, in the eyes of her supervisor. /p pIronically, one of Synder's MySpace postings in question began, /p blockquote pemI have nothing to hide. I am over 21, and I don't say anything that will hurt me (in the long run). Plus, I don't think that they would stoop that low as to mess br /with my future./em/p /blockquote h2 MySpace Lost Synder Her Degree/h2 pSynder may have needed more coaching in how to be a professional - the very thing that student-teaching is designed for - but it hardly negates her years of completed course work towards her education degree. So in the end, it really was her MySpace mistake that lost her the degree after all. /p pIf that isn't a tale that has you rushing out to manage your profile page's privacy settings right now, then it's hard to imagine what will. /p psmallemImage Credits: Computer Eye, a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeygottawa/533355476/sizes/s/"Mikey G. Ottowa/a; privacy please, a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/27000506@N08/2793965150/"bejealousofme/a, Oihan, a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/7809765@N08/458635852/"SVG Creations/a/em/small/p stronga href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/social_network_profile_costs_woman_college_degree.php#comments-open"Discuss/a/strong pa href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/13dCHanJRj3xqZfT3_PDOWzR4oA/a"img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/13dCHanJRj3xqZfT3_PDOWzR4oA/i" border="0" ismap="true"/img/a/pdiv class="feedflare" a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=Sgx38d4n"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?d=1035" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=ucn19YWW"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?d=41" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=y4IBiDzv"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?i=y4IBiDzv" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=FImEol5p"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?i=FImEol5p" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=zcjhAAOt"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?i=zcjhAAOt" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=RKZRzBew"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?d=52" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?a=7jQKDYNc"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/readwriteweb?d=1034" border="0"/img/a /divimg src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/readwriteweb/~4/O1PVaep22iI" height="1" width="1"/

Today is the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition. To celebrate the repeal of what could arguably be called the silliest Constitutional amendment in American history, Michael Lerner, author of Dry Manhattan and Associate Dean of Studies at New York's Bard High School Early College, visits the GOOD Newsroom for a historical look at the United States' 13 years of teetotalism. (And who's that dapper mixologist in Ye Olde GOODE News Pub? Why, it's Floyd of Brooklyn's Weather Up, mixing up America's first cocktail, the Sazerac. Thanks, Floyd.)

Auteur : goodmagazine
Tags : good news roger numbers prohibition repeal michael lerner floyd weather up new york history
Envoyé : 05 décembre 2008
Note :0.0
Votes :0

pFiled under: a href="http://www.tuaw.com/category/apple-corporate/" rel="tag"Apple Corporate/a, a href="http://www.tuaw.com/category/hardware/" rel="tag"Hardware/a/pimg vspace="8" hspace="8" align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2008/12/pystarmac098234.gif" /Earlier this year, manufacturer a href="http://store.psystar.com/"Psystar/a began selling a href="http://store.psystar.com/featured/open-osx.html"computers capable of running Mac OS X Leopard/a. They've gotten the Mac community's attention, and Apple's. Of course, Psystar found themselves involved with Apple legal shortly after their announcement. That was no surprise, but this week's news kind of is.br /br /a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081202230318899"Apple is claiming/a that Psystar is part of a larger group of individuals or corporations. Here's a quote from the recently amended claim:br /br /"em...persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as ... the "John Doe Defendants"...Apple will seek leave to amend this complaint to show the unknown John Doe Defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained./em"br /br /Yikes. What does make sense in light of this accusation, if proven to be true, is Psystar's apparent brashness. When faced with an opponent as high-profile and well-funded as Apple, they've continued to sell machines. Either they're crazy or they've got some serious backbone. We shall see.br /br /[Via a href="http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/03/breaking-news-psystar-consents-to-amendment-of-apples-complaint/"World Of Apple/a]p style="padding:5px;clear:both;"a href="http://www.tuaw.com"TUAW/aa href="http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/04/apple-psystar-clones-part-of-a-larger-conspiracy/"Apple: Psystar clones part of a larger conspiracy/a originally appeared on a href="http://www.tuaw.com"The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)/a on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:00:00 EST. Please see our a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/"terms for use of feeds/a.br style="clear:both;"/ph6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"/h6a href=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081202230318899Read/anbsp;|nbsp;a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/04/apple-psystar-clones-part-of-a-larger-conspiracy/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry"Permalink/anbsp;|nbsp;a href="http://www.tuaw.com/forward/1390722/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email"Email this/anbsp;|nbsp;a href="http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/04/apple-psystar-clones-part-of-a-larger-conspiracy/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry"Comments/a pa href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/0yYrkJPbggzVezAsfHAqBvdKEso/a"img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/0yYrkJPbggzVezAsfHAqBvdKEso/i" border="0" ismap="true"/img/a/pdiv class="feedflare" a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/weblogsinc/tuaw?a=WzYxcum1"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/weblogsinc/tuaw?i=WzYxcum1" border="0"/img/a a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/weblogsinc/tuaw?a=sezUX3sW"img src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~f/weblogsinc/tuaw?i=sezUX3sW" border="0"/img/a /divimg src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/weblogsinc/tuaw/~4/WVz9SinODZg" height="1" width="1"/

San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer has spoken out on his role in the passage of Proposition 8 in the aftermath of the ensuing protests, asking, "What is the way forward for all of us together? Even though we supporters of Proposition 8 did not intend to hurt or offend our opponents, still many of them, especially in the gay community, feel hurt and offended. What is to be done?"

Niederauer, who is credited with bringing in the Mormon church and the massive finances of its donors, urged people to tone down the rhetoric: "Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like 'bigot' and 'pervert' at each other. And we need to stop it now."

The SF Chronicle reports:

"During the campaign, Niederauer issued statements, sent flyers and gave a videotaped interview posted at www.marriagematterstokids.org. But Niederauer's most prominent action was drawing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members responded with intensive grassroots organizing and an estimated $20 million in campaign contributions from individuals that accounted for half of the Yes on 8 campaign's total. Niederauer noted that many other Christian denominations supported Prop. 8, including evangelical Protestant, Orthodox and historically African American churches. The Mormon church has said Niederauer, previously the bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years, played a pivotal role in its joining the cause. 'We were invited to join the coalition,' Michael Otterson, managing director of public affairs for the church, told The Chronicle in an interview shortly after the election. 'We didn't unilaterally go into the battle.' Otterson said Niederauer's letter persuaded the Mormon church that they wouldn't be fighting this battle alone, a status that would have made them vulnerable."

Niederauer wants everyone to accept the procreation argument for the family and the "marriage" label, and wants gays to accept "a contract for the benefit of a relationship between adults" but not call it marriage.

He forgives "single parents, grandparents, foster parents and others" who "fail to realize" the ideal procreative one man-one woman model but doesn't deny them his permission to marry, because they are heterosexual.

Basically, Niederauer wants gays and lesbians (many of whom do procreate through surrogates, etc, I might add) to accept our status as second-class citizens and move on.

Read his full message, entitled "Moving Forward Together," AFTER THE JUMP...

S.F. archbishop defends role in Prop. 8 passage [sf chronicle]

***

SAN FRANCISCO CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP NIEDERAUER - "MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER"

“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” In the weeks since the adoption of this amendment the media have carried many speculations about the role of the Catholic bishops in California, and about my role in particular, in the passage of this proposition. It is my wish to clarify here what was done and why it was done, and offer some thoughts about the way forward amid so many misunderstandings and hard feelings.

Five years before my appointment as Archbishop of San Francisco, in the year 2000, Proposition 22 was placed on the California ballot. This statute, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, passed with 61% of the vote. On May 15th of this year, the California State Supreme Court declared that statute unconstitutional and legalized same-sex marriage in California. Around the same time, Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment qualified for the ballot.

The Catholic bishops of California, organized as the California Catholic Conference, and speaking through their office of public policy in Sacramento, endorsed Proposition 8 and urged Catholics, and organizations of lay Catholics, to work for its passage, by means of grass roots activity and contributions from their resources. We bishops also endorsed Proposition 4, regarding parental notification of a minor child’s intended abortion (defeated at the polls) and we opposed Proposition 6, a “tough on crime” initiative inconsistent with the principles of restorative justice (defeated).

The Archdiocese of San Francisco did not donate or transfer any Archdiocesan funds to the campaign in favor of Proposition 8. As far as I know, that is also true of other Catholic dioceses in California. The Archdiocese did pay, and appropriately disclose, printing and distribution of flyers to parishes.

Last May the staff of the Conference office informed me that leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) had given their support to the campaign for Proposition 22 in the year 2000, and were already considering an involvement in connection with Proposition 8. Accordingly, I was asked to contact leaders of the LDS Church whom I had come to know during my eleven years as Bishop of Salt Lake City, to ask them to cooperate again, in this election cycle. I did write to them and they urged the members of their Church, especially those in California, to become involved.

It is important to point out here that a wide range of churches became active in favor of Proposition 8: in addition to Catholics and LDS members, evangelical Protestant churches and churches with many African-American members joined the effort, and, among the Orthodox churches, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of San Francisco and three other Orthodox bishops signed and published a joint statement in favor of Proposition 8.

That is what was done. Why was it done? Some voices in the wider community declare that there could be only one motive: hatred, prejudice and bigotry against gays, along with a determination to discriminate against them and deny them their civil rights. That is not so. The churches that worked in favor of Proposition 8 did so because of their belief that the traditional understanding and definition of marriage is in need of defense and support, and not in need of being re-designed or re-configured.

Some of our opponents respond with this question: Even if these churches saw the California State Supreme Court decision in May as damaging to the institution of marriage as they understood and valued it, shouldn’t they have kept quiet and stayed on the sidelines? Some would say that, in light of the separation of church and state, churches should remain silent about any political matter. However, religious leaders in America have the constitutional right to speak out on issues of public policy. Catholic bishops, specifically, also have a responsibility to teach the faith, and our beliefs about marriage and family are part of this faith.

Indeed, to insist that citizens be silent about their religious beliefs when they are participating in the public square is to go against the constant American political tradition. Such a gag order would have silenced many abolitionists in the nineteenth century and many civil rights advocates in the twentieth. Quite a number of important political issues regularly touch upon the ethical, moral, and religious convictions of citizens: immigration policy, the death penalty, torture of prisoners, abortion, euthanasia, and the right to health care are some such issues.

Members of churches who supported Proposition 8 sincerely believe that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is one such issue. They see marriage and the family as the basic building blocks of human society, existing before government and not created by it. Marriage is for us the ideal relationship between a man and woman, in which, through their unique sexual complementarity, the spouses offer themselves to God as co-creators of new human persons, a father and mother giving them life and enabling them to thrive in the family setting.

Are there many instances in which this ideal fails to be realized? Of course there are. Single parents, grandparents, foster parents and others deserve praise and support for their courage, sacrifice and devotion in raising the children for whom they are responsible. Still, the proponents of Proposition 8 subscribe to a definition of marriage that recognizes and protects its potential to create and nurture new human life, not merely a contract for the benefit of a relationship between adults.

Whatever others may say, the proponents of Proposition 8 supported it as a defense of the traditional understanding and definition of marriage, not as an attack on any group, or as an attempt to deprive others of their civil rights. The fact remains that, under California law, after the passage of Proposition 8, same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have “the same rights, protections and benefits” as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.

What is the way forward for all of us together? Even though we supporters of Proposition 8 did not intend to hurt or offend our opponents, still many of them, especially in the gay community, feel hurt and offended. What is to be done?

Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like “bigot” and “pervert” at each other. And we need to stop it now.

For our part, we churchgoers need to speak and act out of the truth that all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God. While we argue among ourselves, the people who need our help with hunger, unemployment, homelessness and other problems wait for us to turn together toward them. More particularly, we Catholics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco need to minister to the needs of all Catholics in this local Church. Whoever they are, and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the Church. In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.

***END OF STATEMENT***

Repton writes "Thanks to the Second Amendment, even the elderly have the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is that many of the guns out there are a bit unwieldy for an older person to handle. However, the inventors of the Palm Pistol are planning to change all that with a weapon that is ideal for both the elderly and the physically disabled. In a statement submitted to Medgadget, the manufacturer, Constitution Arms, has revealed the following: 'We thought you might be interested to learn that the FDA has completed its "Device/Not a Device" determination and concluded the handgun will be listed as a Class I Medical Device.' Physicians will be able to prescribe the Palm Pistol for qualified patients who may seek reimbursement through Medicare or private health insurance companies."pa href="http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/04/0433234amp;from=rss"img src="http://slashdot.org/slashdot-it.pl?from=rssamp;op=imageamp;style=h0amp;sid=08/12/04/0433234"/a/ppa href="http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/04/0433234amp;from=rss"Read more of this story/a at Slashdot./p pa href="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/zx9v7TxLuEtudD27sfY5DkQ8ifw/a"img src="http://feedads.googleadservices.com/~at/zx9v7TxLuEtudD27sfY5DkQ8ifw/i" border="0" ismap="true"/img/a/pimg src="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Slashdot/slashdot/~4/LX-ymg4Na1A" height="1" width="1"/

In their coverage of World AIDS Day, several media outlets, including CNN, The Washington Post, The Indianapolis Star, and The Wall Street Journal, praised or uncritically reported praise of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). However, none of those outlets noted criticism of PEPFAR's requirement that starting in fiscal year 2006, 33 percent of funds set aside for prevention under the act that created PEPFAR be spent on abstinence-until-marriage education -- a provision the Bush administration reportedly lobbied Congress to add. According to many of the government officials responsible for managing PEPFAR abroad, as well as the Institute of Medicine (IOM), this requirement hindered PEPFAR's effectiveness in preventing the spread of AIDS. Congress removed the requirement when it reauthorized PEPFAR in 2008.

The following media outlets praised or uncritically reported praise of Bush's AIDS relief efforts:

• On the December 1 edition of CNN Newsroom, CNN correspondent Kathleen Koch stated that Bush's AIDS policy is "something that the president is quite proud of" and that "[t]he strides that the U.S. has helped make globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS" are "a really important part of his legacy."
• A December 2 Washington Post article reported that "Bush called his program to combat HIV/AIDS 'one of the most important initiatives of my administration' and praised it as a resounding success." The Post added: "The administration's HIV/AIDS initiative is a particular point of pride for Bush, who has received praise at home and abroad for his leadership on the issue."
• In a December 2 article, The Indianapolis Star uncritically reported that U.S. global AIDS coordinator Randall Tobias said that under Bush, the "U.S. has led the global fight against AIDS with the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief."
• A December 1 post on The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire blog reported that "[t]he White House is expected to roll out a series of retrospectives on President George W. Bush's achievements throughout the month of December" in order to "burnish" his "record." The post went on to report that "in remarks at the White House, Bush started with a recap of his substantial accomplishments on AIDS relief" and also uncritically reported Rev. Rick Warren's assertion that "[n]o man in history, no world leader has ever done more for global health than President George W. Bush, and I think we need to recognize that and I thank you for that."

None of these reports mentioned criticism of PEPFAR's abstinence-until-marriage requirement. According to a 2007 IOM report, "the abstinence-until-marriage budget allocation ... hampers ... PEPFAR's ability to meet the [prevention] target":

PEPFAR's approach to achieving the prevention target involves planning and implementing prevention programs and activities that are evidence-based, harmonized with country plans and priorities, and appropriate to each country's unique epidemiologic and cultural context. However, the abstinence-until-marriage budget allocation in the Leadership Act hampers these efforts and thus PEPFAR's ability to meet the target. Despite the efforts of the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator to administer the allocation judiciously, it has greatly limited the ability of Country Teams to develop and implement comprehensive prevention programs that are well integrated with each other and with counseling and testing, care, and treatment programs and that target those populations at greatest risk.

IOM further found that "the Committee has been unable to find evidence for the position that abstinence can stand alone or that 33 percent is the appropriate allocation for such activities even within integrated programs."

Moreover, in a 2006 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted the assessments of the "focus country teams" made up of the "U.S. agency officials responsible for managing PEPFAR in the focus countries." According to the GAO, "about half of the focus country teams told us that meeting the [abstinence] spending requirement can undermine the integration of prevention programs":

Satisfying the Leadership Act's abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement presents challenges to most country teams. Several focus country teams indicated that they value the ABC model [Abstain, Be faithful, or use Condoms] as an HIV/AIDS prevention tool and noted the importance of AB [abstinence/faithfulness] messages, particularly for certain populations. However, about half of the focus country teams told us that meeting the spending requirement can undermine the integration of prevention programs by forcing them to isolate funding for AB activities. Further, 17 of the 20 PEPFAR teams required to meet the spending requirement unless they obtain exemptions from it reported that the spending requirement presents challenges to their ability to respond to local epidemiology and cultural and social norms.

Additionally, in a November 2006 report titled "Bush's AIDS Initiative: Too Little Choice, Too Much Ideology," the Center for Public Integrity stated that Bush's AIDS relief policy "has enabled his administration to funnel tens of millions of dollars to Christian faith-based organizations that support his ideology and form his political base." The report quoted Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, asserting that PEPFAR "is failing to stop the global spread of AIDS and failing to help lead the world to stop this deadly disease. ... We have a flawed framework with flawed policies that have kept us from being where we should be by now."

According to a May 2, 2003, New York Times article, the abstinence-spending provision, added to the United States Leadership Against Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 as an amendment in the House, "was endorsed by the White House. Lawmakers said Vice President Dick Cheney called House members today to lobby for it."

A February 21 New York Times article reported that amid Democratic efforts to remove the abstinence spending requirement from PEPFAR, Bush "defended the requirement":

[F]or the first time on the trip, Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration's requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative's prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

Mr. Bush's questioner on Wednesday told the president that the requirement was not realistic, because "multiple sexual relationships or partner relationships is the reality" in African societies, "though it's not spoken of in public."

As he has in the past, Mr. Bush defended the requirement, but he then went a step further.

"I monitor the results," he said. "And if it looks like it's not working, then we'll change. But thus far I can report, at least to our citizens, that the program has been unbelievably effective. And we're going to stay at it."

Additionally, a February 18 article on the San Francisco Chronicle's website reported:

"It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program: abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It's a program that's been proven effective," he [Bush] said, speaking at a news conference with Tanzanian President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, an enthusiastic supporter of the effort.

"I understand there's voices on both ends of the political spectrum trying to alter the program," Bush said. "I would ask Congress to listen to leaders on the continent of Africa ... analyze what works, stop the squabbling and get the program reauthorized."

Congress subsequently passed the reauthorization bill, and Bush signed it on July 30. According to a 2008 GAO report, the bill "removes the abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement and calls for the Global AIDS Coordinator to ensure that abstinence and fidelity programs are evidence-based and country-based."

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of the December 1 edition of CNN Newsroom:

HARRIS: Today, World AIDS Day. Take a look at this. That means four people will be infected while I'm on your television screen. Today is the 20th World AIDS Day. Globally, 33 million people are believed to be infected with HIV. CNN's Kathleen Koch is at the White House, where a gigantic red ribbon decorates the North Portico. Kathleen, good morning to you. Quite a sight.

KOCH: Yes indeed, Tony. This very same ribbon actually graced the North Portico, if you'll remember, last year on World AIDS Day. And it's important to point out that this is a really -- something that the president is quite proud of, the strides that the U.S. has helped make globally in the fight against HIV/AIDS, a really important part of his legacy. And he and the first lady came out on the North Lawn about an hour and a half ago underneath this great, huge ribbon that's gracing the North Portico.

And the president talked about how his President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known in the shorthand version as PEPFAR most of the time -- how it finally has reached the goal that it set back in 2003, when it started, of increasing the number of people who are receiving anti-retroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS from 50,000 -- that was the number in 2003 -- to 2 million within just five years.

BUSH [video clip]: When PEPFAR began, only 50,000 people living with HIV in all of sub-Sahara Africa were receiving anti-retroviral treatment. Around the world, we've also supported care for more than 10 million people affected by HIV, including more than 4 million orphans and vulnerable children. More than 237,000 babies had been born HIV-free thanks to the support of the American people for programs to prevent mothers from passing the virus on to their children.

KOCH: Now, for the last hour or so, the president has been participating across town in a civil forum in global health here in Washington. And the president receiving a touching video tribute, not only from U.N. -- the head of the U.N., Ban Ki-moon, but from Bono, from Bill Gates. The president also reflected on how he got involved in fighting this global pandemic of AIDS, and he talked about, if he'd done nothing about it, how he would have, quote, "disgraced the office of the presidency." And he also discussed how he was surrounded by people who felt this was just such an important cause for the United States to take up, people including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Now, looking at the program, the president did just in July sign legislation that will authorize another $48 billion, Tony, to expand the program.

HARRIS: All right, Kathleen Koch. Wow, that's quite a figure right there.

KOCH: Quite a lot.

HARRIS: Yeah. At the White House for us, Kathleen, thank you.