WHAT'S WRONG WITH SAN FRANCISCO'S HIV PREVENTION PROGRAMS?
We must all agree that the existing efforts are doing ineffective work because we have witnessed since 2000, sub-Saharan levels of new HIV transmissions, a doubling of syphilis cases, rising rates of male rectal gonorrhea, and a new drug resistant staph infection afflicting some gay men.
In recent years, SF DPH and AIDS Inc have conducted studies that supposedly show ads for AIDS drugs with sexy men contribute to “AIDS complacency” and a rise in infection rates. While I’ll grant you the Big Pharma ads aren’t always truthful about AIDS drugs and their side effects, it is too one-sided, in my opinion, to only examine these ads and ignore the ads from AIDS Inc for their assorted programs.
Pick up the current issue of the BAR and you will find a quarter page ad for the UCSF AIDS Health Project for an HIV antibody testing program. A muscular, apparently naked sprinter who resembles Pierce Brosnan takes up most of the ad. What message does that image send? “Get AIDS, get muscles,” is one interpretation of the ad, which isn’t the only one to feature muscular men to attract gays to HIV and AIDS programs.
The UCSF Center for AIDS Prevention Studies has a post card out in the bars, cafes and at city run health centers that shows a very muscular, young blonde attractive man with six-pack abs and his thick biceps reaching for the sky. The only thing he’s wearing is a smile. What is the card promoting? A research effort about the side effects of the drugs.
For the last half of 2002, the Stop AIDS Project allowed its name to be used in colorful half-page ads in the BAR for Grand Marnier liquor. The comic-book men in these ads were smiling, buff and generally engaged in happy cruising activities with other men. The none-too-subtle message? AIDS prevention is about muscles and drinking. Never mind that alcohol has serious negative effects on people taking AIDS drugs, or that it can impair one’s ability to make smart choices about safer sex. Those points are missing from the ad.
When the Chronicle first wrote about the DPH/AIDS Inc studies on sexy Big Pharma ads, the paper used a photo of a bus shelter ad that supposedly was designed to address the complacency brought on by glamorous AIDS drug advertisements. To their embarrassment, the Chronicle made a huge mistake, which they had to correct the next day. The bus shelter ad, with did have sexy, naked men engaged in sex on display, was not placed by Big Pharma, but was instead from the HIV prevention program of the SF AIDS Foundation. Oops. The ad was part of the foundation’s offensive “How do you know what you know?” campaign that sowed distrust in gay men and their sex partners.
One of the sexiest ads for HIV prevention programs that I’ve seen in the past year was a full page in the Chronicle last fall from Macy’s for their Passport Fashion Show, an annual fundraiser for local AIDS programs. The Macy’s ad displayed an attractive swimmer, with a shaved head and a bulge in his Speedos, hardly the realistic image of what many with HIV look like.
AIDS Inc wants to say that only sexy drug ads fuel complacency and rising rates of infections, while denying they themselves will also employee images of muscular males to sell a product, in this case, HIV and STD prevention.
We should also examine the inconsistency of some campaigns, especially those targeting syphilis prevention. In August 1999, the SF DPH ran full page ads in the BAR saying syphilis is a time-bomb we can defuse. The ads featured an enormous walking, ticking time-bomb with sticks of TNT attached. Scary, huh? You bet.
Now, the syphilis campaigns are about a goofy talking penis in comic strips appearing in newspapers and on bus shelters. The syphilis campaigns seem to veer from alarming scare tactics and imagery, to funny cartoon penis characters. No wonder some gays may be confused about how serious to take the threat of syphilis.
Part of me thinks that the over-saturation of social marketing campaigns targeting gay men with prevention messages are having the opposite effect, and that reverse psychology has kicked in. Plus, I believe many gay men have simply tuned out all the competing ads and messages, which are everywhere in gay sex clubs, bars, cafes, on sex web sites. Why don’t the folks at AIDS Inc realize there is only such much information about the horrors of HIV and STD infections that the average gay male can absorb and do something about?
The sexy, unrealistic ads from Big Pharma and AIDS Inc aren’t the only problem with HIV prevention. Another problem is the programs for HIV positives that are fun, fun, fun. Got AIDS? Come to a forum about hot, erotic writing. Or join the HIV bowling league. Not your idea of fun? How about a boat cruise on the Bay? Perhaps you’d enjoy a trip to the zoo, or a dance event called the “Geezer’s Ball,” or maybe a course in flirting is more your cup of tea. I believe these programs send a strong message that if you contract HIV, your social life will be whirlwind of pleasurable social events with lots of smiling hunks having a good time.
Let’s also keep in mind that most of the AIDS Inc ads and programs are funded with public dollars, yet there is minimal public scrutiny of such things and why they are failing to bring down or stabilize HIV and STD rates.
I don’t think we will ever effective HIV and STD prevention campaigns again until AIDS Inc and DPH acknowledge their abysmal messages used today, and they move away from just pointing the finger of badness only at Big Pharma ads and not their own ads and programs. If AIDS Inc won’t admit their programs and ads are failing, how can we ever improve them?
I am hopeful that Supervisor Bevan Dufty’s upcoming forums on HIV prevention will be the first steps in assessing what is wrong with prevention and how to make it better.
How can we improve HIV and STD prevention, without scare-mongering and fear, coupled with negative attitudes about sex in general, and homo-sex in particular?
Reports, proud muckraking, photos, videos and musings from the veteran LGBT and AIDS human rights advocate Michael Petrelis. Based in San Francisco since 1995. Contact: MPetrelis_at_AOL_dot_com. Vote Petrelis for BART Board District 9 in November!
Monday, March 31, 2003
Friday, March 28, 2003
36 QUEER COUPLES HITCHED IN SAN FRANCISCO, ZERO NOTICES IN THE B.A.R.
Rev. Mayor Willie Brown, acting like Rev. Sun Myong Moon, staged his annual mass registration of queer domestic partners this week, and it generated a fair amount of media attention. You may recall that Moon once rented Madison Square Garden and married thousands of his followers in one night. Anyway, I saw stories on the local TV about Brown's event, and the current BAR has a photo about the ceremony conducted on Tuesday at City Hall. The caption says 36 couples participated in the event.
But there isn't one announcement from any of the couples in the BAR. This paper, which only started a free section for commitment ceremony notices _after_ the NY Times amended its editorial policies to allow such notices to appear in the Grey Lady, doesn't have a single notice about any of the 36 couples who got hitched this week.
Why wouldn't any of them want a public notice to appear in their predominant local gay rag?
I believe there have been a maximum of five commitment notices in the BAR since they added this feature. One of them was from Jerry Threat and his partner, along with a photo of the couple.
In its announcement about the notices, the BAR asked readers to include a goodly amount of info about themselves, their backgrounds, their careers, their ceremonies, and real push was made by the paper who get this feature up and running. The list of guidelines practically demanded social security numbers and your mother's maiden name, it was so long.
(I recall at least one letter to the paper bemoaning how much data they wanted.)
And scant few, if any, gay wedding notices have appeared in the BAR for the last three to four months. If I'm wrong on this point, I'm sure BAR news editor Cynthia "Laird," the lurker, will correct me by making a legal threat.
The paper over this time began a series of its own ads, trying to drum up interest and get folks to send in their notices. The ads were running on page two, and were illustrated with a montage of muscular leather men letting it all hang out at own of the local leather streets fairs. Some of the faces of the hunks had images of either George Clooney or George W. Bush superimposed over their faces. No one women were in the ads.
"How can we send you a wedding present if we don't about you and your beloved getting married?" read the copy.
Well, it's kind of like you're asking folks to send in notices about their latest tricks from a leather festival, and you're making fun of gay commitment ceremonies and those who choose to have them by slapping Clooney and Bush's mug shots over photos in the ad! Who want to endorse and participate in the BAR mockery of queer marriages?
If the BAR can't convince one queer couple, out of 36, to send in info about their commitment this past week, it does say something wrong about how some people in the community feel about the paper. Namely, that it ain't worth trying to get a free public notice about your ceremony and relationship in this offensive rag, that is edited by a liar from the East Bay.
Rev. Mayor Willie Brown, acting like Rev. Sun Myong Moon, staged his annual mass registration of queer domestic partners this week, and it generated a fair amount of media attention. You may recall that Moon once rented Madison Square Garden and married thousands of his followers in one night. Anyway, I saw stories on the local TV about Brown's event, and the current BAR has a photo about the ceremony conducted on Tuesday at City Hall. The caption says 36 couples participated in the event.
But there isn't one announcement from any of the couples in the BAR. This paper, which only started a free section for commitment ceremony notices _after_ the NY Times amended its editorial policies to allow such notices to appear in the Grey Lady, doesn't have a single notice about any of the 36 couples who got hitched this week.
Why wouldn't any of them want a public notice to appear in their predominant local gay rag?
I believe there have been a maximum of five commitment notices in the BAR since they added this feature. One of them was from Jerry Threat and his partner, along with a photo of the couple.
In its announcement about the notices, the BAR asked readers to include a goodly amount of info about themselves, their backgrounds, their careers, their ceremonies, and real push was made by the paper who get this feature up and running. The list of guidelines practically demanded social security numbers and your mother's maiden name, it was so long.
(I recall at least one letter to the paper bemoaning how much data they wanted.)
And scant few, if any, gay wedding notices have appeared in the BAR for the last three to four months. If I'm wrong on this point, I'm sure BAR news editor Cynthia "Laird," the lurker, will correct me by making a legal threat.
The paper over this time began a series of its own ads, trying to drum up interest and get folks to send in their notices. The ads were running on page two, and were illustrated with a montage of muscular leather men letting it all hang out at own of the local leather streets fairs. Some of the faces of the hunks had images of either George Clooney or George W. Bush superimposed over their faces. No one women were in the ads.
"How can we send you a wedding present if we don't about you and your beloved getting married?" read the copy.
Well, it's kind of like you're asking folks to send in notices about their latest tricks from a leather festival, and you're making fun of gay commitment ceremonies and those who choose to have them by slapping Clooney and Bush's mug shots over photos in the ad! Who want to endorse and participate in the BAR mockery of queer marriages?
If the BAR can't convince one queer couple, out of 36, to send in info about their commitment this past week, it does say something wrong about how some people in the community feel about the paper. Namely, that it ain't worth trying to get a free public notice about your ceremony and relationship in this offensive rag, that is edited by a liar from the East Bay.
Thursday, March 27, 2003
REOPEN THE SAN FRANCISCO BATHS NOW
A new study was released today showing no real difference in the likelihood of gay men to engage in unprotected anal sex, due to the regulating of bathhouses.
As we all know, San Francisco was the only city in America to shut gay bathhouses in a misguided effort to curb HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s.
Since the summer of 2000 the city has been experiencing sub-Saharan transmissions of new HIV infections, syphilis cases have doubled, rectal gonorrhea has surged and we have a new drug resistant staph infection afflicting some gay men. This does not sound to me like the prohibition on gay bathhouses is doing anything to lower or stabilize HIV or STD rates.
I think the right of gay men to engage in consensual sex in private rooms in public bathhouse is something worth fighting for.
Keep in mind that Berkeley and San Jose have two fine gay bathhouse, probably frequented by hundreds, maybe thousands of gay San Franciscans every year. Yet neither Alameda nor Santa Clara county are experiencing the increases of HIV and STDs that we are here.
While gays don't have any bathhouses in San Francisco, straight people have at least two bathhouses to meet their sexual needs. Look in the yellow pages under the "Bathhouse" listings and you will find two listings. One for the hot tubs on Fell Street, near Market, and the other for a facility on Van Ness Avenue.
With the U.S. Supreme Court considering a case from Texas that could overturn sodomy laws and the court's Bowers v. Hardwick decision, now is the ideal time to force the DPH to allow bathhouses for gay men to reopen.
I simply want what straight people have, the right to have sex in private spaces in public bathhouses. Is that such a terrible idea, in this city, of all cities? I don't think so.
Here's an excerpt from an AIDS site about the new study.
aidsmap
26 March 2003
Michael Carter
www.aidsmap.com/news/news...ewsId=1978
Regulating saunas makes no difference to overall amount of unprotected
anal sex had by gay men
Regulating the opportunities for gay men to have sex in "bath houses"
(usually known as saunas in the UK and Europe) may reduce the likelihood
that gay men will have unprotected anal sex in the venue, but makes no
overall difference to the probability that a gay man will have unprotected
anal sex, according to research conducted in four US cities and published
in the 1st April 2003 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes.
[snip]
It will be most interesting to see if this study generates any mainstream news coverage, especially in either the SF Ex or Chronicle.
A new study was released today showing no real difference in the likelihood of gay men to engage in unprotected anal sex, due to the regulating of bathhouses.
As we all know, San Francisco was the only city in America to shut gay bathhouses in a misguided effort to curb HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s.
Since the summer of 2000 the city has been experiencing sub-Saharan transmissions of new HIV infections, syphilis cases have doubled, rectal gonorrhea has surged and we have a new drug resistant staph infection afflicting some gay men. This does not sound to me like the prohibition on gay bathhouses is doing anything to lower or stabilize HIV or STD rates.
I think the right of gay men to engage in consensual sex in private rooms in public bathhouse is something worth fighting for.
Keep in mind that Berkeley and San Jose have two fine gay bathhouse, probably frequented by hundreds, maybe thousands of gay San Franciscans every year. Yet neither Alameda nor Santa Clara county are experiencing the increases of HIV and STDs that we are here.
While gays don't have any bathhouses in San Francisco, straight people have at least two bathhouses to meet their sexual needs. Look in the yellow pages under the "Bathhouse" listings and you will find two listings. One for the hot tubs on Fell Street, near Market, and the other for a facility on Van Ness Avenue.
With the U.S. Supreme Court considering a case from Texas that could overturn sodomy laws and the court's Bowers v. Hardwick decision, now is the ideal time to force the DPH to allow bathhouses for gay men to reopen.
I simply want what straight people have, the right to have sex in private spaces in public bathhouses. Is that such a terrible idea, in this city, of all cities? I don't think so.
Here's an excerpt from an AIDS site about the new study.
aidsmap
26 March 2003
Michael Carter
www.aidsmap.com/news/news...ewsId=1978
Regulating saunas makes no difference to overall amount of unprotected
anal sex had by gay men
Regulating the opportunities for gay men to have sex in "bath houses"
(usually known as saunas in the UK and Europe) may reduce the likelihood
that gay men will have unprotected anal sex in the venue, but makes no
overall difference to the probability that a gay man will have unprotected
anal sex, according to research conducted in four US cities and published
in the 1st April 2003 edition of the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndromes.
[snip]
It will be most interesting to see if this study generates any mainstream news coverage, especially in either the SF Ex or Chronicle.
Monday, March 17, 2003
HOLLYWOOD MONEY FOR POLITICIANS
All the talk of war today is too depressing for me to spend too much time today thinking about bombs soon falling over Baghdad. My spirit needs an escape from the way, so I cruised on over the www.tray.com, the best site for quickly checking Federal Election Commission records. Just wanted to see if any of the Oscar nominees had donated at the federal level, and if so, who they gave money to.
In general, this year’s nominees were not donors to any federal candidates or political action committees. I will share with you only the records of those who had contributions on file at www.tray.com. If you’re favorite nominee is not mentioned here, it means they didn’t donate.
Among the best actress contenders, Nicole Kidman is the only one to have made donations. I thought she was apolitical and not a U.S. citizen, but I was wrong. She has written checks to politicians since 1994. Regarding, her citizenship, I imagine when she married Tom Cruise, she became a citizen.
In the best actor category, just Jack Nicholson sent money along to a few politicians. He gave to Oakland, CA, mayor Jerry Brown’s Senatorial campaign and to Vice President Al Gore.
Two best supporting actor noimnees, Paul Newman, no surprise there, and Ed Harris, have coughed up cash for political efforts.Newman has donated to so many candidates and PACs I won’t list them all here, just his most recent. Safe to say, all of his checks were written out to liberals and Democrats, stretching back two decades.
And Harris has made two donations to Emily’s List, a PAC devoted to electing Democratic, pro-choice women to office.
Martin Scorsese is the only best director contender this year who’s contributed money. His donations were to New York area candidates and the New York State Democratic Victory 2000 PAC.
Finally, records came up for a Michael Moore, who states his profession as filmmaker and producer, but who lives in Manhattan. As far as I know, Michael Moore, director of “Bowling For Columbine,” lives in Flint, Michigan, so I don’t think the records I found and present here are for that Michael Moore.
Without further ado, here are some entertaining FEC records for a few Hollywood celebrities.
* * *
KIDMAN, NICOLE
12/30/1994 $1,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTOR -[Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR HARKIN
KIDMAN, NICOLE
10/11/1996 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTOR -[Contribution]
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
KIDMAN, NICOLE
11/6/1998 $2,500.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
LEADERSHIP '98 (FKA FRIENDS OF ALBERT GORE JR INC)
KIDMAN, NICOLE
3/4/1998 $1,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
A LOT OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING TOM DASCHLE
KIDMAN, NICOLE
5/19/1998 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
ACTOR -[Contribution]
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
KIDMAN, NICOLE
12/27/1999 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
NEW YORK SENATE 2000
KIDMAN, NICOLE
6/30/2000 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
NEW YORK SENATE 2000
-
NICHOLSON, JACK
12/19/1982 $1,000.00
L A, CA 90035
ACTOR -[Contribution]
BROWN FOR US SENATE
Nicholson, Jack Mr.
3/15/1999 $250.00
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Self employed/Entertainer -[Contribution]
GORE 2000 INC
Nicholson, Jack Mr.
6/1/2000 $500.00
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Self employed/Entertainer -[Contribution]
GORE 2000 INC
-
Harris, Edward Mr.
9/19/2002 $250.00
Malibu, CA 90265
Self/Actor -[earmarked intermediary out]
EMILY'S LIST
Harris, Edward Mr.
1/11/2002 $250.00
Malibu, CA 90265
Self/Actor -[Contribution]
EMILY'S LIST
-
NEWMAN, PAUL
8/12/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR/DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
WELLSTONE FOR SENATE
NEWMAN, PAUL
8/12/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR/DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
WELLSTONE FOR SENATE
NEWMAN, PAUL
9/10/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR -[Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR HARKIN
NEWMAN, PAUL
8/13/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR -[Contribution]
TIM JOHNSON FOR SOUTH DAKOTA INC
NEWMAN, PAUL
9/9/1999 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR -[Contribution]
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
NEWMAN, PAUL J
10/20/2000 $10,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR/DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Newman, Paul Mr.
3/20/2000 $2,000.00
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Self-employed/Actor -[Contribution]
NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE INC
Newman, Paul Mr.
6/6/2000 $1,000.00
New York, NY 10128
Self-employed/Actor -[Contribution]
NADER 2000 GENERAL COMMITTEE INC
Newman, Paul Mr.
6/6/2000 -$1,000.00
New York, NY 10128
Self-employed/Actor -[Contribution]
NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE INC
-
SCORSESE, MARTIN
12/18/1991 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF-EMPLOYED -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR MRAZEK SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
12/18/1991 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF-EMPLOYED -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR MRAZEK SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
7/8/1992 -$1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
-[contribution refunded to individual]
PEOPLE FOR MRAZEK SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
11/7/1994 $500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
YOHALEM GILLMAN & CO -[Contribution]
JOHN BRYANT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
3/6/1996 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
MOVIE DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
JOHN BRYANT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
10/29/1998 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
VICTORY IN NEW YORK
SCORSESE, MARTIN
7/1/1998 $500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10019
PRODUCER -[Contribution]
BARRY GORDON FOR CONGRESS
SCORSESE, MARTIN
12/17/1999 $2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CAPPA PRODUCTIONS -[Contribution]
NEW YORK SENATE 2000
-
MOORE, MICHAEL
7/29/1992 $500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
FILM PRODUCER -[Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR JOHN CHERRY
MOORE, MICHAEL
7/30/1992 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10019
MOVIE PRODUCER -[Contribution]
CONGRESSMAN KILDEE COMMITTEE
MOORE, MICHAEL
4/19/2000 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10024
FILMMAKER -[Contribution]
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
All the talk of war today is too depressing for me to spend too much time today thinking about bombs soon falling over Baghdad. My spirit needs an escape from the way, so I cruised on over the www.tray.com, the best site for quickly checking Federal Election Commission records. Just wanted to see if any of the Oscar nominees had donated at the federal level, and if so, who they gave money to.
In general, this year’s nominees were not donors to any federal candidates or political action committees. I will share with you only the records of those who had contributions on file at www.tray.com. If you’re favorite nominee is not mentioned here, it means they didn’t donate.
Among the best actress contenders, Nicole Kidman is the only one to have made donations. I thought she was apolitical and not a U.S. citizen, but I was wrong. She has written checks to politicians since 1994. Regarding, her citizenship, I imagine when she married Tom Cruise, she became a citizen.
In the best actor category, just Jack Nicholson sent money along to a few politicians. He gave to Oakland, CA, mayor Jerry Brown’s Senatorial campaign and to Vice President Al Gore.
Two best supporting actor noimnees, Paul Newman, no surprise there, and Ed Harris, have coughed up cash for political efforts.Newman has donated to so many candidates and PACs I won’t list them all here, just his most recent. Safe to say, all of his checks were written out to liberals and Democrats, stretching back two decades.
And Harris has made two donations to Emily’s List, a PAC devoted to electing Democratic, pro-choice women to office.
Martin Scorsese is the only best director contender this year who’s contributed money. His donations were to New York area candidates and the New York State Democratic Victory 2000 PAC.
Finally, records came up for a Michael Moore, who states his profession as filmmaker and producer, but who lives in Manhattan. As far as I know, Michael Moore, director of “Bowling For Columbine,” lives in Flint, Michigan, so I don’t think the records I found and present here are for that Michael Moore.
Without further ado, here are some entertaining FEC records for a few Hollywood celebrities.
* * *
KIDMAN, NICOLE
12/30/1994 $1,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTOR -[Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR HARKIN
KIDMAN, NICOLE
10/11/1996 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTOR -[Contribution]
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
KIDMAN, NICOLE
11/6/1998 $2,500.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
LEADERSHIP '98 (FKA FRIENDS OF ALBERT GORE JR INC)
KIDMAN, NICOLE
3/4/1998 $1,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
A LOT OF PEOPLE SUPPORTING TOM DASCHLE
KIDMAN, NICOLE
5/19/1998 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90038
ACTOR -[Contribution]
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
KIDMAN, NICOLE
12/27/1999 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
NEW YORK SENATE 2000
KIDMAN, NICOLE
6/30/2000 $5,000.00
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
ACTRESS -[Contribution]
NEW YORK SENATE 2000
-
NICHOLSON, JACK
12/19/1982 $1,000.00
L A, CA 90035
ACTOR -[Contribution]
BROWN FOR US SENATE
Nicholson, Jack Mr.
3/15/1999 $250.00
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Self employed/Entertainer -[Contribution]
GORE 2000 INC
Nicholson, Jack Mr.
6/1/2000 $500.00
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Self employed/Entertainer -[Contribution]
GORE 2000 INC
-
Harris, Edward Mr.
9/19/2002 $250.00
Malibu, CA 90265
Self/Actor -[earmarked intermediary out]
EMILY'S LIST
Harris, Edward Mr.
1/11/2002 $250.00
Malibu, CA 90265
Self/Actor -[Contribution]
EMILY'S LIST
-
NEWMAN, PAUL
8/12/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR/DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
WELLSTONE FOR SENATE
NEWMAN, PAUL
8/12/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR/DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
WELLSTONE FOR SENATE
NEWMAN, PAUL
9/10/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR -[Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR HARKIN
NEWMAN, PAUL
8/13/2002 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR -[Contribution]
TIM JOHNSON FOR SOUTH DAKOTA INC
NEWMAN, PAUL
9/9/1999 $1,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR -[Contribution]
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
NEWMAN, PAUL J
10/20/2000 $10,000.00
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
ACTOR/DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Newman, Paul Mr.
3/20/2000 $2,000.00
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Self-employed/Actor -[Contribution]
NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE INC
Newman, Paul Mr.
6/6/2000 $1,000.00
New York, NY 10128
Self-employed/Actor -[Contribution]
NADER 2000 GENERAL COMMITTEE INC
Newman, Paul Mr.
6/6/2000 -$1,000.00
New York, NY 10128
Self-employed/Actor -[Contribution]
NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE INC
-
SCORSESE, MARTIN
12/18/1991 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF-EMPLOYED -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR MRAZEK SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
12/18/1991 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
SELF-EMPLOYED -[Contribution]
PEOPLE FOR MRAZEK SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
7/8/1992 -$1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
-[contribution refunded to individual]
PEOPLE FOR MRAZEK SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
11/7/1994 $500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
YOHALEM GILLMAN & CO -[Contribution]
JOHN BRYANT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
3/6/1996 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
MOVIE DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
JOHN BRYANT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
SCORSESE, MARTIN
10/29/1998 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
DIRECTOR -[Contribution]
VICTORY IN NEW YORK
SCORSESE, MARTIN
7/1/1998 $500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10019
PRODUCER -[Contribution]
BARRY GORDON FOR CONGRESS
SCORSESE, MARTIN
12/17/1999 $2,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
CAPPA PRODUCTIONS -[Contribution]
NEW YORK SENATE 2000
-
MOORE, MICHAEL
7/29/1992 $500.00
NEW YORK, NY 10022
FILM PRODUCER -[Contribution]
CITIZENS FOR JOHN CHERRY
MOORE, MICHAEL
7/30/1992 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10019
MOVIE PRODUCER -[Contribution]
CONGRESSMAN KILDEE COMMITTEE
MOORE, MICHAEL
4/19/2000 $1,000.00
NEW YORK, NY 10024
FILMMAKER -[Contribution]
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON FOR US SENATE COMMITTEE INC
AN ARM AND A LEG SENT TO ROCHE
March 17, 2003
Franz Humer
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
340 Kingsland Street
Nutley, New Jersey 07110
Dear Mr. Humer:
I am deeply concerned about the high price you are charging for the newest
AIDS drug Fuzeon.
For many AIDS patients, myself included, the cost of this drug will
symbolically be an arm and a leg.
Whether paid for through private insurance or the AIDS Drug Assistance
Program, your exorbitant price for Fuzeon will bankrupt many people and
government run drug assistance programs.
You will notice that I've sent you an arm and a leg with this letter. They
are plastics parts I removed from my Gay Billy doll, so I could send them to
you to protest Roche's sky-high price tag for Fuzeon.
Friends of mine will also be mailing you arms and legs from other dolls, as
part of a grassroots effort to force Roche to immediately reduce the price of
Fuzeon.
We have a palpable fear that your success in charging so much for Fuzeon
will set off blatant pricing envy among other drug manufacturers, driving
pricing even higher.
We may have to send many plastic arms and legs to you and the heads of other
drug firms to show you how damaging and potentially deadly the price of
Fuzeon and other AIDS medications are to people with HIV/AIDS.
Please do the right thing, and lower the price on Fuzeon, so more people with
AIDS can take it.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
2215-R Market Street, #413
San Francisco, CA 94114
March 17, 2003
Franz Humer
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
340 Kingsland Street
Nutley, New Jersey 07110
Dear Mr. Humer:
I am deeply concerned about the high price you are charging for the newest
AIDS drug Fuzeon.
For many AIDS patients, myself included, the cost of this drug will
symbolically be an arm and a leg.
Whether paid for through private insurance or the AIDS Drug Assistance
Program, your exorbitant price for Fuzeon will bankrupt many people and
government run drug assistance programs.
You will notice that I've sent you an arm and a leg with this letter. They
are plastics parts I removed from my Gay Billy doll, so I could send them to
you to protest Roche's sky-high price tag for Fuzeon.
Friends of mine will also be mailing you arms and legs from other dolls, as
part of a grassroots effort to force Roche to immediately reduce the price of
Fuzeon.
We have a palpable fear that your success in charging so much for Fuzeon
will set off blatant pricing envy among other drug manufacturers, driving
pricing even higher.
We may have to send many plastic arms and legs to you and the heads of other
drug firms to show you how damaging and potentially deadly the price of
Fuzeon and other AIDS medications are to people with HIV/AIDS.
Please do the right thing, and lower the price on Fuzeon, so more people with
AIDS can take it.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
2215-R Market Street, #413
San Francisco, CA 94114
Friday, March 14, 2003
FOCUS ON AMFAR
The leading organization for raising funds that go towards AIDS research is the American Foundation for AIDS Research, amfAR You may be somewhat familiar with the group because its celebrity spokeswoman is Elizabeth Taylor.
AmfAR plays a pivotal role in the development of AIDS drugs, prevention programs and funding for HIV care and treatment.
I recently looked at the group’s latest IRS 990 tax reports, as posted on www.guidestar.com, just to familiarize myself again with their executive salaries. Not too surprisingly, the executive director, Jerome Radwin, long ago broke through the quarter million dollar salary glass ceiling.
But I was shocked to see that the FY2000 report contained information about a $2.2 million contribution amfAR received from Bristol Myers Squibb. My guess is that amfAR included the name of the donor by accident. Their inadvertent inclusion of such information reminds me how little mistakes can provide big clues. Usually, a nonprofit states in its IRS 990 report just the amount of large donations, but does not identify the donor.
There was no other information provided about what amfAR spent the money on. However, it might be for an opinion poll, as was previously done by the AIDS group with the drug giant’s grant. In the FY1998 report, amfAR made the following statement in their major accomplishments section.
“In order to most effectively target future outreach efforts, amfAR contracted with Louis Harris & Associates to conduct a series of public opinion polls assessing current knowledge and perceptions of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Made possible through an unrestricted educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the results of these surveys will be issues in a series of reports focusing on education, prevention, treatment, and needle exchange, among other issues,” the IRS 990 report said.
The other startling bits of information pertained to amfAR's sale of some of its shares in Big Pharma companies.
The FY1999 tax report reveals that amfAR sold three shares of Bristol Myers Squibb, sixty shares of Warner Lambert, and seventy shares of DuPont. The organization realized a profit of $9,136 on the sales. Granted, this is cdertainly not a lot of money, but it does raise strong concerns, for me, about the ethics of an AIDS research group investing in drug companies.
Then, in FY2000, amfAR dumped twenty-seven shares in Abbot Laboratories, five shares of Bristol Myers Squibb, sixty-one shares of Pfizer, and 81 shares of Merck. AmfAR recorded a loss of $229 for these transactions. I again wish to acknowledge the paltry amount involved here.
However, the larger issue of any potential conflicts of interests on amfAR’s part is a major concern to me.
I’ve placed calls to Peter Traback in amfAR’s communications office about getting their statement regarding the ethical challenges posed when an AIDS nonprofit receives so much funding from a drug company, and owned and sold stock in pharmaceuticals. He said the two people in the office who would know the answers to my questions won’t be at work until March 17. Hopefully, they will contact me and explain the group’s position on its relationships with drug companies.
Just as in the case with the AIDS Action Committee of Boston and their ownership and selling off Merck stock, and making a profit on it, there may be ethical ways for AIDS nonprofits to accept funding from drug manufacturers, or own their stock. And there are myriad reasons why taking such money may seriously compromise an AIDS group’s standing on issues, like the high cost of AIDS medicines.
There needs to be more of a community wide discussion and debate about AIDS groups that seek and accept grant money from Big Pharma.
A good place to start is with a focus on amfAR and their IRS 990 tax reports.
The leading organization for raising funds that go towards AIDS research is the American Foundation for AIDS Research, amfAR You may be somewhat familiar with the group because its celebrity spokeswoman is Elizabeth Taylor.
AmfAR plays a pivotal role in the development of AIDS drugs, prevention programs and funding for HIV care and treatment.
I recently looked at the group’s latest IRS 990 tax reports, as posted on www.guidestar.com, just to familiarize myself again with their executive salaries. Not too surprisingly, the executive director, Jerome Radwin, long ago broke through the quarter million dollar salary glass ceiling.
But I was shocked to see that the FY2000 report contained information about a $2.2 million contribution amfAR received from Bristol Myers Squibb. My guess is that amfAR included the name of the donor by accident. Their inadvertent inclusion of such information reminds me how little mistakes can provide big clues. Usually, a nonprofit states in its IRS 990 report just the amount of large donations, but does not identify the donor.
There was no other information provided about what amfAR spent the money on. However, it might be for an opinion poll, as was previously done by the AIDS group with the drug giant’s grant. In the FY1998 report, amfAR made the following statement in their major accomplishments section.
“In order to most effectively target future outreach efforts, amfAR contracted with Louis Harris & Associates to conduct a series of public opinion polls assessing current knowledge and perceptions of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Made possible through an unrestricted educational grant from Bristol Myers Squibb Company, the results of these surveys will be issues in a series of reports focusing on education, prevention, treatment, and needle exchange, among other issues,” the IRS 990 report said.
The other startling bits of information pertained to amfAR's sale of some of its shares in Big Pharma companies.
The FY1999 tax report reveals that amfAR sold three shares of Bristol Myers Squibb, sixty shares of Warner Lambert, and seventy shares of DuPont. The organization realized a profit of $9,136 on the sales. Granted, this is cdertainly not a lot of money, but it does raise strong concerns, for me, about the ethics of an AIDS research group investing in drug companies.
Then, in FY2000, amfAR dumped twenty-seven shares in Abbot Laboratories, five shares of Bristol Myers Squibb, sixty-one shares of Pfizer, and 81 shares of Merck. AmfAR recorded a loss of $229 for these transactions. I again wish to acknowledge the paltry amount involved here.
However, the larger issue of any potential conflicts of interests on amfAR’s part is a major concern to me.
I’ve placed calls to Peter Traback in amfAR’s communications office about getting their statement regarding the ethical challenges posed when an AIDS nonprofit receives so much funding from a drug company, and owned and sold stock in pharmaceuticals. He said the two people in the office who would know the answers to my questions won’t be at work until March 17. Hopefully, they will contact me and explain the group’s position on its relationships with drug companies.
Just as in the case with the AIDS Action Committee of Boston and their ownership and selling off Merck stock, and making a profit on it, there may be ethical ways for AIDS nonprofits to accept funding from drug manufacturers, or own their stock. And there are myriad reasons why taking such money may seriously compromise an AIDS group’s standing on issues, like the high cost of AIDS medicines.
There needs to be more of a community wide discussion and debate about AIDS groups that seek and accept grant money from Big Pharma.
A good place to start is with a focus on amfAR and their IRS 990 tax reports.
Monday, March 10, 2003
AIDS ACTION COMMITTE PROFITED FROM MERCK STOCK
From: MPetrelis@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:06:51 EST
To: arapp@baywindows.com, lkiritsy@baywindows.com, sgiordano@baywindows.com, Mabronski@aol.com, MPetrelis@aol.com
Subject: AIDS Action owns and profits from Merck, War Machine stocks
Feb. 15, 2003
Dear friends:
There's an excellent eye-opening news article in the Feb. 6 issue of Boston's Bay Windows newspaper, that you should take the time to read. Written by Laura Kiritsy, AIDS Action staff airs grievances with [Mike] Duffy, the executive director of the agency, the article details complaints lodged against Duffy during his eight months on the job. I suspect other AIDS groups may go through similar turmoil between executives and staff, but it never seems to make into the news. Now, it has.
My curiosity about the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, Inc, was piqued by Kiritsy, so I paid a visit to www.guidestar.com, the premier web site for the IRS 990 tax reports of all 501(c)3 nonprofits. Just to check on the latest IRS 990 for the group. Really wanted to know the salaries of the top people. And in the process, I learned new information about their finances, including their investments.
The FY2000 tax report showed AIDS Action had sold off $557,370 of stock and security assets. [See Part 1, line 8a.]
A breakdown of which stocks and securities the agency sold lists the following information.
On May 21, 2000, AIDS Action sold one hundred of its Merck and Co, Inc, shares. The selling price was $6,657, the cost basis was $7,464, with a loss of $807.
Later, on March 7, 2001, the group sold four hundred Merck shares. This time, the selling price was $31,911, and the cost basis was $10,974, for a gain of $20,937. Nice pocket change. By the way, at the time of these transactions, Larry Kessler was the executive director of AIDS Action, not Mike Duffy.
Keep in mind that AIDS Action present information only on the stock it sold. No further information is provided about their other stocks, which may or may not include holdings in other Big Pharma companies that produce anti-AIDS drugs.
However, the group also sold off one hundred shares of the Enron Corp, during this FY, thereby making a $3,406 profit on the sale. On the other hand, the agency's dump of eight hundred shares in WorldCom, Inc, resulted in a loss of $26,288.
AIDS Action additionally sold some of its stocks, in FY 2000 and FY 1999, for the following companies, that many progressive activists view as part of the military industrial war machine;
BP Amoco, Honeywell International, and the General Electric Co.
Viewing this information got me thinking about the moral and ethical issues involved when an AIDS service organization, that is community-based, owns stock, first, in Big Pharma, and second, also in companies that profit from wars.
Should AIDS Action refuse to own Merck stock because of objections treatment activists have with the company's high profit margins, based somewhat on sales of AIDS medicines? In an ideal world, my answer would be yes. But the world, especially now, is not ideal, so a large of me says, sure, it's OK for the agency to realize a return on its Merck stock. The $20,937 return the Merck sale helps keep the agency alive and serving persons with HIV and AIDS.
Opposition to AIDS Action having stock in corporations that make war possible, is likely based, for me and perhaps others, on the principle that social service agencies should not profit from war corporations. Kind of like one has to cause suffering elsewhere in the world in order to somehow benefit people suffering with HIV or AIDS in Boston.
On the flip side, why shouldn't an AIDS service organization take profits from its investments in both Big Pharma and the War Machine and put that money to damn good use keeping people with AIDS alive and preventing new HIV infections?
I don't there are easy answers here, but I hope to engender a debate about these issues in the AIDS community. And not just about whether they should own stocks in questionable and controversial corporations, but also whether AIDS and gay service agencies should reveal their stock portfolios. As far as I know, nonprofits are not required by IRS laws to list their stock investments. I would argue, that yes, the groups should practice a high level of transparency about their finances and investments, especially to build and keep trust with the people who donate to the groups.
My hope is that Bay Windows examines the tax returns for AIDS Action at www.guidestar.com, then poses my questions and others to the Boston community, for a follow up news article. Toward that end, this email is being sent to editors and reports at the paper, and I will call them next week.
In the meantime, I would like to know what you think about the issue of our community-based organizations owning stock, in Big Pharma especially. Please share your thoughts with me. Thanks.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
MPetrelis@aol.com
REPLY from Bay Windows editor
Subj: Re: AIDS Action owns and profits from Merck, War Machine stocks
Date: 2/18/2003 12:37:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: arapp@baywindows.com (Andrew Rapp)
To: MPetrelis@aol.com, lkiritsy@baywindows.com, sgiordano@baywindows.com, Mabronski@aol.com
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your message. I received your voicemail as well. The issues you raise are interesting, but I do not feel they warrant news coverage.
We have a tremendous challenge in keeping our readers abreast of AIDS funding issues in the state. Currently we are focusing our energy on tracking the cuts in state dollars to ASA's and prevention efforts. This coverage requires attention to both the state political maneuverings, as well as tracking the responses of the various agencies affected. Complicating both sides are the multiple channels that transport dollars to those living with HIV and AIDS. There are housing grants, medical research subsidies, drug programs, transportation services, and the list goes on.
In this context AIDS Action's gains from the Merck sales are insignificant. Their gain on the sale (approx $20K) is less than 0.001% of the total that our current and previous governors have cut from state AIDS funding in the past six months. From this perspective, ill-gotten or not, the gains have no measurable impact on those living with HIV/AIDS, which is my ultimate concern. Given this, I can't justify devoting the resources of our staff to exploring this issue.
Thanks again for your message. I'm glad you enjoyed Laura's story. We are continuing to follow these developments and do expect and follow-up stories to occur.
thanks,
Andrew
From: MPetrelis@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:06:51 EST
To: arapp@baywindows.com, lkiritsy@baywindows.com, sgiordano@baywindows.com, Mabronski@aol.com, MPetrelis@aol.com
Subject: AIDS Action owns and profits from Merck, War Machine stocks
Feb. 15, 2003
Dear friends:
There's an excellent eye-opening news article in the Feb. 6 issue of Boston's Bay Windows newspaper, that you should take the time to read. Written by Laura Kiritsy, AIDS Action staff airs grievances with [Mike] Duffy, the executive director of the agency, the article details complaints lodged against Duffy during his eight months on the job. I suspect other AIDS groups may go through similar turmoil between executives and staff, but it never seems to make into the news. Now, it has.
My curiosity about the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, Inc, was piqued by Kiritsy, so I paid a visit to www.guidestar.com, the premier web site for the IRS 990 tax reports of all 501(c)3 nonprofits. Just to check on the latest IRS 990 for the group. Really wanted to know the salaries of the top people. And in the process, I learned new information about their finances, including their investments.
The FY2000 tax report showed AIDS Action had sold off $557,370 of stock and security assets. [See Part 1, line 8a.]
A breakdown of which stocks and securities the agency sold lists the following information.
On May 21, 2000, AIDS Action sold one hundred of its Merck and Co, Inc, shares. The selling price was $6,657, the cost basis was $7,464, with a loss of $807.
Later, on March 7, 2001, the group sold four hundred Merck shares. This time, the selling price was $31,911, and the cost basis was $10,974, for a gain of $20,937. Nice pocket change. By the way, at the time of these transactions, Larry Kessler was the executive director of AIDS Action, not Mike Duffy.
Keep in mind that AIDS Action present information only on the stock it sold. No further information is provided about their other stocks, which may or may not include holdings in other Big Pharma companies that produce anti-AIDS drugs.
However, the group also sold off one hundred shares of the Enron Corp, during this FY, thereby making a $3,406 profit on the sale. On the other hand, the agency's dump of eight hundred shares in WorldCom, Inc, resulted in a loss of $26,288.
AIDS Action additionally sold some of its stocks, in FY 2000 and FY 1999, for the following companies, that many progressive activists view as part of the military industrial war machine;
BP Amoco, Honeywell International, and the General Electric Co.
Viewing this information got me thinking about the moral and ethical issues involved when an AIDS service organization, that is community-based, owns stock, first, in Big Pharma, and second, also in companies that profit from wars.
Should AIDS Action refuse to own Merck stock because of objections treatment activists have with the company's high profit margins, based somewhat on sales of AIDS medicines? In an ideal world, my answer would be yes. But the world, especially now, is not ideal, so a large of me says, sure, it's OK for the agency to realize a return on its Merck stock. The $20,937 return the Merck sale helps keep the agency alive and serving persons with HIV and AIDS.
Opposition to AIDS Action having stock in corporations that make war possible, is likely based, for me and perhaps others, on the principle that social service agencies should not profit from war corporations. Kind of like one has to cause suffering elsewhere in the world in order to somehow benefit people suffering with HIV or AIDS in Boston.
On the flip side, why shouldn't an AIDS service organization take profits from its investments in both Big Pharma and the War Machine and put that money to damn good use keeping people with AIDS alive and preventing new HIV infections?
I don't there are easy answers here, but I hope to engender a debate about these issues in the AIDS community. And not just about whether they should own stocks in questionable and controversial corporations, but also whether AIDS and gay service agencies should reveal their stock portfolios. As far as I know, nonprofits are not required by IRS laws to list their stock investments. I would argue, that yes, the groups should practice a high level of transparency about their finances and investments, especially to build and keep trust with the people who donate to the groups.
My hope is that Bay Windows examines the tax returns for AIDS Action at www.guidestar.com, then poses my questions and others to the Boston community, for a follow up news article. Toward that end, this email is being sent to editors and reports at the paper, and I will call them next week.
In the meantime, I would like to know what you think about the issue of our community-based organizations owning stock, in Big Pharma especially. Please share your thoughts with me. Thanks.
Regards,
Michael Petrelis
San Francisco, CA
MPetrelis@aol.com
REPLY from Bay Windows editor
Subj: Re: AIDS Action owns and profits from Merck, War Machine stocks
Date: 2/18/2003 12:37:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: arapp@baywindows.com (Andrew Rapp)
To: MPetrelis@aol.com, lkiritsy@baywindows.com, sgiordano@baywindows.com, Mabronski@aol.com
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your message. I received your voicemail as well. The issues you raise are interesting, but I do not feel they warrant news coverage.
We have a tremendous challenge in keeping our readers abreast of AIDS funding issues in the state. Currently we are focusing our energy on tracking the cuts in state dollars to ASA's and prevention efforts. This coverage requires attention to both the state political maneuverings, as well as tracking the responses of the various agencies affected. Complicating both sides are the multiple channels that transport dollars to those living with HIV and AIDS. There are housing grants, medical research subsidies, drug programs, transportation services, and the list goes on.
In this context AIDS Action's gains from the Merck sales are insignificant. Their gain on the sale (approx $20K) is less than 0.001% of the total that our current and previous governors have cut from state AIDS funding in the past six months. From this perspective, ill-gotten or not, the gains have no measurable impact on those living with HIV/AIDS, which is my ultimate concern. Given this, I can't justify devoting the resources of our staff to exploring this issue.
Thanks again for your message. I'm glad you enjoyed Laura's story. We are continuing to follow these developments and do expect and follow-up stories to occur.
thanks,
Andrew
Saturday, March 08, 2003
BARBRA STREISAND = AIDS PROFITEER
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm
Feb. 22, 2003
NY Post
Page Six
Drug profiteer
BARBRA Streisand is good at making speeches about how pharmaceutical companies gouge AIDS patients with exorbitant drug prices, but she's even better at making a bundle speculating on their stock prices. The diva's non-profit Streisand Foundation has invested in such companies as Bristol Myers Squibb, Abbott Laboratories and Eli Lilly. Streisand's charity earned more than $17,000 from its trades in drug companies in 2000, according to papers filed with the government. A rep for the singer did not return calls.
--
Feb. 19, 2003
Streisand Foundation made $17K on Halliburton stocks in ‘98
By Michael Petrelis
Like many Americans, I shopped at my local supermarket over the President’s Day Weekend, and while on the checkout line I read the National Enquirer cover story on Barbra Streisand’s gay son Jason Gould and his health as an HIV positive individual.
This got me thinking about the Barbra Streisand Foundation, which makes donations to gay and HIV/AIDS organizations, so I went to www.guidestar.com, the web site for the IRS 990 forms for all nonprofits, and read what was available on the foundation. The information below was gleaned from the FY2000 filing, http://documents.guidestar.org/2000/132/620/2000-132620702-1-F.pdf, and the FY1998 filing, http://documents.guidestar.org/1998/132/620/1998-132620702-1-F.pdf.
BIG PHARMA
The FY 2000 report shows Streisand’s foundation owns stock in several drug companies, some of which have made handsome profits off their anti-AIDS medicines.
She earned $26,193 on a trade of 1000 Abbott Laboratories shares, and she also made a profit of $1,026 when she sold 300 shares of Bristol Myers Squibb.
Conversely, she lost $13,528 after trading 700 shares of the Eli Lilly Company.
Taking into account that loss from the Lilly sale, Streisand still earned $13,691 from selling 2000 shares in pharmaceutical corporations.
There is nothing wrong with her making a profit with drug stocks, in my opinion, but in a canned, written interview with the Advocate magazine, she herself bemoaned the high price of AIDS fighting drugs.
Advocate editor Judy Weider wrote: “Despite Streisand’s busy summer recording schedule (and because she did not want to miss the opportunity to participate in The Advocate's Best and Brightest Activists issue), she asked to have questions submitted to her so that she could work on them in her spare time.”
Here’s some of what Streisand had to say about HIV drugs.
“Since many people in the United States are able to live longer lives with the help of expensive drug therapies and aggressive treatments, we are getting used to AIDS and almost accept it as a fact of life.”
“It is estimated that 31 million people worldwide are infected with HIV. AIDS is now affecting everyone—heterosexuals, women, people of color, and particularly residents of developing nations, where 90% of the world's HIV-infected patients live. And these people cannot afford basic medical care, let alone the tens of thousands of dollars per person per year that it costs to pay for new drug therapies.”
[Source: http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/792/792_barbra.asp]
HALLIBURTON
Streisand’s Halliburton holdings caused her some grief in October 2002 because of a Drudge Report alert about her sale of 800 shares in January 2000 in the corporation, at a time when Dick Cheney was head of the energy company. She lost $1,838 on the sale.
What the Drudge Report failed to mention is that the same filing shows she sold an additional 300 share in Halliburton in October 2000, realizing a profit of $512. I think Cheney was CEO then and didn't resign from the company until after the election.
Going back to the foundation's FY 1998 IRS filing, it turns out the Streisand Foundation in October of that year sold 2500 Halliburton shares and made $17,122 on the transaction.
A press release from the corporation in 1998 noted, “Halliburton's consolidated revenues were $17.4 billion and it conducted business with a workforce of approximately 100,000 in more than 120 countries.” [Source: http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1999/corpnws_102699.jsp]
Total number of Halliburton shares traded by her foundation is 3600, not just the 800 Drudge highlights in his headline, “STREISAND BOUGHT EIGHT HUNDRED SHARES OF CHENEY'S HALLIBURTON.” [Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/strei5.htm]
MINING AND ENERGY STOCKS
The FY 2000 IRS filing reveals the foundation sold 250 shares that year of the Southern Energy company. She turned a profit of $1,855.
She earned $15,765 on a sale of 4000 shares in the Drill Quip corporation, a manufacturer of products for the oil industry.
Selling off 4500 shares of Marine Drilling, another offshore drilling company, she made $26,029 in profit.
Her sale of 5000 shares in the Varco drilling firm brought her $16,705 in profit.
Total amount of profit from selling these shares comes to $60,354.
On the flip side, she lost $51,020 when she sold 5000 shares in the Noble Drilling company.
She lost $51,148 after selling 8000 shares of Marine Drilling.
When she sold 5000 shares of Newmont Mining, she was setback $72,544.
And she lost $12,652 on trading 4000 shares of the Nuevo Mining firm.
Total loss of these shares is $187,364.
Here is what Streisand recently wrote on her web site about environmental concerns.
“MyThoughts Today: Judges and the Environment
“Posted on Dec. 10 , 2002
”In a case that highlights the layers of conflicts of interest inherent in the Bush administration, Judge John Bates, appointed by President Bush to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, ruled that the General Accounting Office, the Congressional investigative arm, does not have the right to access information about Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings that formulated the president's energy plan. We already know that the energy plan, which called for expanding oil and gas drilling on public land and easing regulatory barriers to build nuclear power plants, came directly out of conversations with leading officials in the energy and oil industries, including representatives of Enron. What was said at those secret meetings, however, we may now never know.
[snip]
“And let's look at what anti-environmental actions that [the] president has taken most recently:
”- After refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty to prevent global warming, the president now seems willing to admit that global warming may actually exist. Well ... duh! 20 years worth of scientific research isn't enough for him? Apparently not, for President Bush is now calling for five more years of research into the causes of global warming and possible responses - an obvious stalling tactic. The only thing five more years of research will give us is more polluting cars and power plants that contribute to the problem of global warming.”
[Source: http://www.barbrastreisand.com/news_statements.html]
Funny, that a Hollywood star would have no problem raking in some dough from her sale of energy and other stocks from corporations doing real harm to the planet, then kvetching about how Bush and Cheney and naughty energy companies are murdering Planet Earth and her eco-systems.
OTHER STOCKS
FY 2000 records show she made $4,090 after selling 500 shares of Fox Entertainment, which is part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, including the NY Post and the News Corp.
Speaking of which, the FY 1998 file shows she lost $6,255 on the sale of 5000 News Corp shares.
The FY 2000 file also shows she made a paltry $188 on a sale of 300 shares of Clear Channel, the radio and communications conglomerate, home to Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura.
Regarding her feelings toward the NY Post, Streisand had this say in an undated Truth Alert.
“The Myth
“New York Post Again Misrepresents Streisand Investments –‘Barbra's Sinking Feeling’
- Neal Travis, NY Post, August 5, 1999
"’The many fans of Barbra Streisand may have to start passing the hat. On June 23, I reported that the diva's self-managed stock portfolio had sunk by 15 percent since she was written up as an investment maven by Fortune magazine. Well, things have gotten worse. Barbra's investments are now down 32.5 percent since our benchmark date of April 30. In the same period, the Dow Jones was off only 1.4. percent and the Nasdaq was up 1.8 percent.’"
“The Truth,
“They are wrong again...very wrong! In fact, the portfolio that Ms. Streisand personally manages continues to outperform the S&P 500 index by more than double. Most of the country's professional money managers haven't been able to beat the S&P at all! The New York Post, a conservative newspaper, obviously wants to discredit Ms. Streisand's intelligence. Maybe they are anticipating her supporting Democrats in the upcoming elections.”
[Source: www.barbrastreisand.com/news_ta8.html]
CONCLUSIONS
This is a simple matter of a Hollywood hypocrite speaking out against the high price of AIDS medications, being for protecting the environment, who also wants to counter the conservatism of the News Corp, while making money off companies with questionable ways of doing business on those public policy issues.
Streisand’s prowess as a stock picker was the subject of a Fortune magazine profile, with the following headline, that takes on new meaning related to the health of her beloved son: “Streisand makes a killing on shares.” She may be making a killing on her Big Pharma stocks, but there are too many people doing the dying.
[Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/360898.stm]
The life of her only child is on the line, now that he has tested positive for HIV. Jason Gould’s life is one of many around the globe dependent on the drugs of Big Pharma. We will need the help of his mother, a shareholder in both her son and drug companies, to make sure every HIV positive person, any where in the world, who wants HIV medicines, can get them.
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm
Feb. 22, 2003
NY Post
Page Six
Drug profiteer
BARBRA Streisand is good at making speeches about how pharmaceutical companies gouge AIDS patients with exorbitant drug prices, but she's even better at making a bundle speculating on their stock prices. The diva's non-profit Streisand Foundation has invested in such companies as Bristol Myers Squibb, Abbott Laboratories and Eli Lilly. Streisand's charity earned more than $17,000 from its trades in drug companies in 2000, according to papers filed with the government. A rep for the singer did not return calls.
--
Feb. 19, 2003
Streisand Foundation made $17K on Halliburton stocks in ‘98
By Michael Petrelis
Like many Americans, I shopped at my local supermarket over the President’s Day Weekend, and while on the checkout line I read the National Enquirer cover story on Barbra Streisand’s gay son Jason Gould and his health as an HIV positive individual.
This got me thinking about the Barbra Streisand Foundation, which makes donations to gay and HIV/AIDS organizations, so I went to www.guidestar.com, the web site for the IRS 990 forms for all nonprofits, and read what was available on the foundation. The information below was gleaned from the FY2000 filing, http://documents.guidestar.org/2000/132/620/2000-132620702-1-F.pdf, and the FY1998 filing, http://documents.guidestar.org/1998/132/620/1998-132620702-1-F.pdf.
BIG PHARMA
The FY 2000 report shows Streisand’s foundation owns stock in several drug companies, some of which have made handsome profits off their anti-AIDS medicines.
She earned $26,193 on a trade of 1000 Abbott Laboratories shares, and she also made a profit of $1,026 when she sold 300 shares of Bristol Myers Squibb.
Conversely, she lost $13,528 after trading 700 shares of the Eli Lilly Company.
Taking into account that loss from the Lilly sale, Streisand still earned $13,691 from selling 2000 shares in pharmaceutical corporations.
There is nothing wrong with her making a profit with drug stocks, in my opinion, but in a canned, written interview with the Advocate magazine, she herself bemoaned the high price of AIDS fighting drugs.
Advocate editor Judy Weider wrote: “Despite Streisand’s busy summer recording schedule (and because she did not want to miss the opportunity to participate in The Advocate's Best and Brightest Activists issue), she asked to have questions submitted to her so that she could work on them in her spare time.”
Here’s some of what Streisand had to say about HIV drugs.
“Since many people in the United States are able to live longer lives with the help of expensive drug therapies and aggressive treatments, we are getting used to AIDS and almost accept it as a fact of life.”
“It is estimated that 31 million people worldwide are infected with HIV. AIDS is now affecting everyone—heterosexuals, women, people of color, and particularly residents of developing nations, where 90% of the world's HIV-infected patients live. And these people cannot afford basic medical care, let alone the tens of thousands of dollars per person per year that it costs to pay for new drug therapies.”
[Source: http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/792/792_barbra.asp]
HALLIBURTON
Streisand’s Halliburton holdings caused her some grief in October 2002 because of a Drudge Report alert about her sale of 800 shares in January 2000 in the corporation, at a time when Dick Cheney was head of the energy company. She lost $1,838 on the sale.
What the Drudge Report failed to mention is that the same filing shows she sold an additional 300 share in Halliburton in October 2000, realizing a profit of $512. I think Cheney was CEO then and didn't resign from the company until after the election.
Going back to the foundation's FY 1998 IRS filing, it turns out the Streisand Foundation in October of that year sold 2500 Halliburton shares and made $17,122 on the transaction.
A press release from the corporation in 1998 noted, “Halliburton's consolidated revenues were $17.4 billion and it conducted business with a workforce of approximately 100,000 in more than 120 countries.” [Source: http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1999/corpnws_102699.jsp]
Total number of Halliburton shares traded by her foundation is 3600, not just the 800 Drudge highlights in his headline, “STREISAND BOUGHT EIGHT HUNDRED SHARES OF CHENEY'S HALLIBURTON.” [Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/strei5.htm]
MINING AND ENERGY STOCKS
The FY 2000 IRS filing reveals the foundation sold 250 shares that year of the Southern Energy company. She turned a profit of $1,855.
She earned $15,765 on a sale of 4000 shares in the Drill Quip corporation, a manufacturer of products for the oil industry.
Selling off 4500 shares of Marine Drilling, another offshore drilling company, she made $26,029 in profit.
Her sale of 5000 shares in the Varco drilling firm brought her $16,705 in profit.
Total amount of profit from selling these shares comes to $60,354.
On the flip side, she lost $51,020 when she sold 5000 shares in the Noble Drilling company.
She lost $51,148 after selling 8000 shares of Marine Drilling.
When she sold 5000 shares of Newmont Mining, she was setback $72,544.
And she lost $12,652 on trading 4000 shares of the Nuevo Mining firm.
Total loss of these shares is $187,364.
Here is what Streisand recently wrote on her web site about environmental concerns.
“MyThoughts Today: Judges and the Environment
“Posted on Dec. 10 , 2002
”In a case that highlights the layers of conflicts of interest inherent in the Bush administration, Judge John Bates, appointed by President Bush to the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, ruled that the General Accounting Office, the Congressional investigative arm, does not have the right to access information about Vice President Dick Cheney's secret meetings that formulated the president's energy plan. We already know that the energy plan, which called for expanding oil and gas drilling on public land and easing regulatory barriers to build nuclear power plants, came directly out of conversations with leading officials in the energy and oil industries, including representatives of Enron. What was said at those secret meetings, however, we may now never know.
[snip]
“And let's look at what anti-environmental actions that [the] president has taken most recently:
”- After refusing to sign the Kyoto Treaty to prevent global warming, the president now seems willing to admit that global warming may actually exist. Well ... duh! 20 years worth of scientific research isn't enough for him? Apparently not, for President Bush is now calling for five more years of research into the causes of global warming and possible responses - an obvious stalling tactic. The only thing five more years of research will give us is more polluting cars and power plants that contribute to the problem of global warming.”
[Source: http://www.barbrastreisand.com/news_statements.html]
Funny, that a Hollywood star would have no problem raking in some dough from her sale of energy and other stocks from corporations doing real harm to the planet, then kvetching about how Bush and Cheney and naughty energy companies are murdering Planet Earth and her eco-systems.
OTHER STOCKS
FY 2000 records show she made $4,090 after selling 500 shares of Fox Entertainment, which is part of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, including the NY Post and the News Corp.
Speaking of which, the FY 1998 file shows she lost $6,255 on the sale of 5000 News Corp shares.
The FY 2000 file also shows she made a paltry $188 on a sale of 300 shares of Clear Channel, the radio and communications conglomerate, home to Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura.
Regarding her feelings toward the NY Post, Streisand had this say in an undated Truth Alert.
“The Myth
“New York Post Again Misrepresents Streisand Investments –‘Barbra's Sinking Feeling’
- Neal Travis, NY Post, August 5, 1999
"’The many fans of Barbra Streisand may have to start passing the hat. On June 23, I reported that the diva's self-managed stock portfolio had sunk by 15 percent since she was written up as an investment maven by Fortune magazine. Well, things have gotten worse. Barbra's investments are now down 32.5 percent since our benchmark date of April 30. In the same period, the Dow Jones was off only 1.4. percent and the Nasdaq was up 1.8 percent.’"
“The Truth,
“They are wrong again...very wrong! In fact, the portfolio that Ms. Streisand personally manages continues to outperform the S&P 500 index by more than double. Most of the country's professional money managers haven't been able to beat the S&P at all! The New York Post, a conservative newspaper, obviously wants to discredit Ms. Streisand's intelligence. Maybe they are anticipating her supporting Democrats in the upcoming elections.”
[Source: www.barbrastreisand.com/news_ta8.html]
CONCLUSIONS
This is a simple matter of a Hollywood hypocrite speaking out against the high price of AIDS medications, being for protecting the environment, who also wants to counter the conservatism of the News Corp, while making money off companies with questionable ways of doing business on those public policy issues.
Streisand’s prowess as a stock picker was the subject of a Fortune magazine profile, with the following headline, that takes on new meaning related to the health of her beloved son: “Streisand makes a killing on shares.” She may be making a killing on her Big Pharma stocks, but there are too many people doing the dying.
[Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/360898.stm]
The life of her only child is on the line, now that he has tested positive for HIV. Jason Gould’s life is one of many around the globe dependent on the drugs of Big Pharma. We will need the help of his mother, a shareholder in both her son and drug companies, to make sure every HIV positive person, any where in the world, who wants HIV medicines, can get them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)