PBS: Sex Trading Dancing Boys in Afghanistan

After watching an excerpt from this soon-to-air TV documentary, I made a note on my calendar to watch the full episode. A recent article in the New York Review of Books about a possible deal with the Taliban, in a passage about about their ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef, shed light on a topic I was totally ignorant of: man boy love as part of the Afghanistan culture:

After the Soviets left Afghanistan, Zaeef became a mullah in a small village near Kandahar. He describes how the situation deteriorated in the south as warlords and criminals extracted tolls from trucks on the road, kidnapped and raped women, and held young boys captive to become their forced lovers.

Until I read that last part, I had no inkling of this aspect to the Taliban or other Afghan men. Now, PBS will examine the sex trade of adolescent and pubescent males in Afghanistan, expanding my knowledge about this practice:

As the United States deepens its commitment to Afghanistan, FRONTLINE takes viewers inside the war-torn nation to reveal a disturbing practice that is once again flourishing in the country: the organized sexual abuse of adolescent boys.

In The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan, airing Tuesday, April 20, 2010, at 9 P.M. [...] Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi [...] returns to his native land to expose an ancient practice that has been brought back by powerful warlords, former military commanders and wealthy businessmen. Known as “bacha bazi” (literal translation: “boy play”), this illegal practice exploits street orphans and poor boys, some as young as 11, whose parents are paid to give over their sons to their new “masters.” [...]

“I go to every province to have happiness and pleasure with boys,” says an Afghan man known as “The German,” who acts as a bacha bazi pimp, supplying boys to the men. “Some boys are not good for dancing, and they will be used for other purposes. ... I mean for sodomy and other sexual activities.”

“It’s a disgusting practice. ... It’s a form of slavery, taking a child, keeping him. It’s a form of sexual slavery,” says Radhika Coomaraswamy, U.N. special representative for Children and Armed Conflict. [...]

News to me, this bacha bazi custom and its longstanding practice. I'm not familiar with male-on-male attractions and sexual outlets among Afghan men, and given the hard-line Muslim attitudes of the region, I wouldn't expect a flourishing market in sexual trading of dancing boys, much less an openness by adult males to allow a camera to record their activities.

The Afghan situation correlates somewhat to the man boy love scandals plaguing the Vatican right now, in that repressive religious beliefs have dire consequences on the lives of children when the various sexual needs of adult men don't have healthy and consensual outlets, especially of a male-on-male nature.

What does surprise me is that this may be the first documentary on this Afghan practice. If there's another TV account about bachi bazi, lemme know about it. Here's the PBS excerpt that is quite a queer eye-opener:

FBI: No File on Vatican's
Congregation for Propagation of the Faith

The New York Times story yesterday about Pope Benedict's recent remarks about repentance in relation to the latest widespread sexual abuse scandals involving Catholic priests and children, reminded readers of his role heading up an influential branch of the Vatican hierarchy:

The Vatican confirmation [that a letter from a French bishop praising his defense of abusive priest] was unusual because it cast an important cardinal in a bad light. In doing so, the pope’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, also sought to bolster the argument that Benedict, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, worked actively to strengthen measures against pedophile priests. [...]

Even after issuing a letter to Irish Catholics on March 20 expressing shame for sex abuse in the Irish church, Benedict has been under pressure in recent weeks to address a controversy that has also raised questions about his own actions as archbishop in Munich in 1980 and as prefect for the Vatican department responsible for abuse cases. [...]

That department is the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and a few weeks ago I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for any records from January 1980, one year before Ratzinger was appointed by Pope John Paul ll to lead that congregation, until April 2010. My FOIA asked the agency to search the archive using all known various names for this branch of the Vatican.

I was curious to learn if the FBI had had any reason over the past three decades to investigate the congregation, especially during Ratzinger's reign, and the FBI quickly replied, saying no files existed on this congregation:

"Based on the information you provided, we conducted a search of the indices to our Central Records System. We were unable to identify responsive main file records. If you have additional information pertaining to the subject and you believe it was of investigative interest to the Bureau, please provide us the details and we will conduct an additional search."

Was there reason over the past thirty years for the FBI to be looking at abusive priests accused of, and in some cases convicted of, violating criminal laws, and the role the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith played in shielding the priests? Should the feds have been investigating the priests and the congregation?

In my opinion, the answer is yes, but the lack of any FBI records about the abuse and the congregation protecting the priests reveals the agency had no reason to launch any investigation.

Here's a copy of the letter I received this week from the FBI. Click it to enlarge:

Org Behind Palin Speech = $3M Govt Grants;
Sunshine Must Apply

The California State University Stanislaus Foundation has been in the news lately because it's sponsoring the upcoming public speaking appearance of Sarah Palin, and won't divulge how much they are paying the former governor of Alaska.

Students at the CSU Stanislaus campus, displaying a highly commendable spirit of sunshine activism, went dumpster diving and found portions of Palin's contract in the trash.

State Senator Leland Yee, working with Californians Aware, are just a few of the players trying to force the CSU-affiliated foundation to make documents related to Palin's speaking fee available for public inspection. Toward that goal, Californians Aware filed a lawsuit today against the foundation and its withholding records.

I went over the IRS 990 filings for the foundation, and learned that in 2008 it received $297,723 in government grants, during 2007 that figure was $459,978, and in 2006 a robust $2,164,277 from government agencies flowed to the foundation.

Over this three-year period the foundation raked in a total of $2,921,978 in such grants. Almost three million public dollars.

The foundation, as with all nonprofits, is not required to disclose which government agencies awarded the grants, and no disclosure is made as to whether the funds came from a state or federal agency. All too vague for my sunshine tastes.

Radical sunshine advocates such as myself believe that when a nonprofit receives a government grant, all local, state and federal open books statutes should apply. A nonprofit should not be allowed to keep the public in the dark about which government body is giving them money, nor should the public be refused transparency on things such as fees for sub-contractors, with either the likes of Sarah Palin or Al Gore.

The darkness surrounding the Palin contract with the CSU Stanislaus Foundation, is a prime instance of what it wrong with current disclosure laws for orgs with an IRS tax exemption, it which the org gets also receives an exemption from full transparency.

Here's an ironic political twist to the Palin speaking fee controversy at CSU Stanislaus. The president of the university and the foundation, Dr. Hamid Shirvani, is someone who donated $2,300 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. His wife, who also works at the university, gave Obama $2,300 in 2008.

Nice of Palin to inadvertently assist better sunshine at colleges and foundations of all sorts. We will all benefit from the Californians Aware suit and proposed legislation from Senator LelandYee, pushing the public's right to have more books opened for public inspection.

UK Withholds Gay Uganda File;
Green's Tatchell Reacts

The United Kingdom's Foreign and Commonwealth Office today replied to my appeal over their refusal earlier this year to release their gay Uganda file to me, after I made a Freedom of Information Act request.

No surprise really, that they have rejected my appeal. In the interests of sunshine, even when a government agency doesn't share copies of public documents, I'm posting excerpts from the UK rejection.

After the excerpts is a response from longtime international gay human rights advocate Peter Tatchell. I've made gays in Uganda aware of the UK decision to withhold the file, and continue to stand in solidarity with them.

From the Foreign and Commonwealth Office:

You requested an internal review of the decision, conveyed to you in our email of 22 January 2010, not to disclose information relating to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender persons in Uganda dated between 1 January 2009 and 23 December 2009, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).

We have conducted a full examination of all the material, both released and exempted, of relevance to your request, and I have concluded the following:

We searched through all of appropriate files in our government registry, the shared filing areas in our IT systems, and the personal electronic mail inboxes of those staff members who have been dealing with this issue.

The two exemptions that we cited in our email to you of 22 January 2010 were used correctly. We can explain further that information that has been withheld under Section 35 of the Act, regarding the disclosure of the identities of officials involved in the formulation and development of government policy-making. [...] We have judged that in this case, the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. [...]

In addition to the exemptions we cited, we also further judge that the remainder of the information that you requested within the scope of your request is exempt from release under Section 27(1) (a). This Section of the Act relates to information which, if disclosed, would be likely to harm international relations. [...]

However, in this instance some of the exempted information relates to an ongoing sensitive domestic policy issue in a sovereign state. In this case, the disclosure of information on our position on a domestic policy issue in another sovereign country could potentially damage the bilateral relationship, which would reduce the UK government’s ability to protect and promote UK interests. [...]

In response to the first of the specific queries, regarding the format and extent of information that we may hold, we are not obliged under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose this data.

In addition, we consider your third specific request to release documents that we hold within the terms of your request, even if they are blacked out (redacted) in their entirety, to be vexatious. [...]

And this is the full reply sent earlier today from London by Peter Tatchell:

This is the standard way the British government operates in response to any "sensitive" (ie effective) Freedom of Information request. It pleads "national security" and "diplomatic relations." Most FOI requests are a waste of time. I rarely bother with them. The UK does not have genuine Freedom of Information. This blocking of FOI requests is part of our government's sustained subversion of civil liberties and public accountability - which is why I will not be voting Labour
(or Tory or Liberal Democrat) on 6 May.

I am voting Green. See their Manifesto here. Far more radical than any other party by a mile, on LGBT (and other) issues. I am their Human Rights Spokesperson.

I don't know where Peter gets the energy to carry out his global gay duties, on top of regular gay activism within the United Kingdom, and now also serving as a key spokesperson for the Greens.

On the matter of the UK's FOI law and the FCO, there is much room for improving release of documents, without harming diplomacy or a person's security. Blanket withholding as in this instance is unacceptable, especially when the agency holding the responsive records, and not releasing them, is the same agency rejecting my appeal. At minimum, an authority outside the FCO should look into such rejections.

Dallas Leader: Solmonese Effective,
HRC Will End DADT

I recently said it was difficult to find many folks on the web praising the leadership of Joe Solmonese and HRC, but today it was easy to find one person endorsing him and the org. Before I say who that person is, let's start at the beginning of exchanges in the gay weekly Dallas Voice.

Former editor and occasional columnist David Webb wrote a critical piece on April 1, that got the conversation going:

Just when it looked like we might be starting to gain a little headway in our fight for equality, here comes Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese showing off his fancy new clothes in a magazine spread.

Washington Life recently included Solmonese in its 2010 Fashion Awards tribute to “35 men and women who bring that je ne sais quoi to the ballrooms and boardrooms of Washington.”

In the piece Solmonese confided that he favors designers Ann Demeulemeester, Billy Reid and Dolce and Gabbana. [...]

Many already argue that the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and other groups are spending entirely too much time partying with celebrities and enjoying the highlife. The groups’ leaders are accused of being out of touch with the interests of the average LGBT person [...]

That Webb column got the attention of Dallas gay leader Steve Atkinson, who had lots of nice things to say about Solmonese and HRC, which is to be expected since he once served as co-chair of the org's board of governors, a fact he disclosed at the end of his letter:

As one who has been intimately involved with HRC for many years, I am fully aware of Joe Solmonese’s salary and of the fact that he is most effective in his role as president of the largest LGBT advocacy organization in the world.

Is anyone surprised that the head of one of the country’s most recognized, successful and effective nonprofit organizations is well compensated? Does it matter that Joe happens to enjoy fashion and likes to dress well? The answer to both of those questions is certainly no. [...]

When the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is finally ended, HRC will be largely responsible. No organization except HRC will be able to rightfully claim that it played a significant role in the enactment of ENDA, which will wind up becoming law and protecting LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace. [...]

It's to be expected someone who once was quite high on the HRC totem pole is boasting of the org and its leader, but it's simply not enough to change my mind about the org simply because a former board member throws the word effective around in a Dallas Voice letter.

Is this really the best HRC can muster in terms of showing some, never mind widespread, community support? Where are the voices of ordinary gays singing the praises of HRC?

In response to the column and letter, Rob Schlein, the president of the Dallas chapter fo the Log Cabin Republicans, sent his thoughts to the paper, which were published this week:

On April 5, Log Cabin Republicans filed further action in the United States Central District Court of California against the United States of America and Robert Gates, secretary of defense (http://online.logcabin.org/lcr-opposition-to-msj.pdf) The case is the best hope for judicial action against the legal standing of DADT. The Obama administration is expending substantial resources to defeat our efforts to overturn DADT in this case.

I bring this up in order to contrast Log Cabin Republicans to HRC. With minimal funding and even less staff support than HRC, we are having an impact in real world terms while exposing the hypocrisy of the Obama administration regarding this issue.

We support many of the goals of HRC in achieving equality. That said, a $22 million office building (purchased in 2001 for under $10 million with improvements since at an estimated $12 million), bloated salaries and extravagant budgets are obviously weighing down an organization that could be more effective. [...]

Okay, Schlein is as full of cheering for his org as is Atkinson for HRC, but there is one key difference in the orgs' approaches to ending DADT, and that is LCR leaders are suing the Obama administration over the policy. If HRC has directly challenged its friends in the White House on all this, I missed their press release about it.

The exchange of ideas in the Dallas Voice about the HRC, ending the ban on gays in the military, and the work of LCR should go beyond the newspaper. We really need face-to-face debates, streamed on the web, with HRC and LCR about their agendas and delivering effective change at the federal level for gay Americans.

And if HRC's leader would finally agree to engage in the community with more interactions than gala dinners, and commit to regular and regional debates, I want to nominate David Webb as the moderator of such a forum in Dallas. I believe he is a good journalist, interested in all sides of a story, and not strident in his beliefs.

If only HRC could expand its functions to include better community engagement through debates and forums, we might see some of the tremendous anger and criticism directed their way diminish in significant ways.

SF HIV Forum:
Rx, Resistance, Pharma Disclosures

Many components of AIDS Inc gathered on Tuesday night at the Carr auditorium out at SF General Hospital, for a community meeting on a big push for universal treatment of people as soon as they test positive, even if they have high t-cell counts and no active infections. The forum was so packed, some people sat in the aisles or stood at the back of the room, as shown above.



The scientific rationale behind the push for widespread treatment at earlier stages of HIV infection was made by the first two speakers, Dr. Diane Havlir, above left, and Dr. Steven Deeks, above right. Basically, new info from the SMART and NA-ACCORD studies, and other data, show that leaving an HIV positive person untreated, even when they feel great, does more damage to the immune system than side effects from the drugs, according to proponents of the new policy.

One thing that made me sit up was when Havlir talked about resistance to the cocktails. She said that resistance in 2000 was at 28%, and that in 2009 the resistance level fell to 15% and that we can manage the problem. I wasn't sure where the numbers came from, so I emailed her and received this reply:

The percentages [...] represent the % of patients with transmitted HIV drug resistance who are in the Options cohort. The Options cohort started in San Francisco in 1996 and has enrolled over 650 persons acutely or recently infected with HIV. The cohort is led by Dr. Rick Hecht.

All of the presenters mentioned how resistance and adherence are monitored now, and how they will be tracked under the new guidelines. I've never seen Deeks in action, and I was impressed when he said they may be wrong with this new push. Does he always give an honest, down-side look to new ideas? If he does, bravo, and no matter, it was music to my ears to hear a researcher admit they don't have all the answers.

During public comment, I asked that we discuss the resistance issues without the hysteria of UCLA's HIV math modeler Sally Blower. Her research is not the proper foundation for that discussion. No one defended UCLA's math model or Blower during the forum or afterward in smaller chats.

The researchers and presenters were criticized by Dr. Karen Bayle, from the Tom Waddell Clinic of SF DPH, for failing to disclose any grants from Big Pharma. My sunshine heart was pleased with her raising this important issue, but she coupled it with a question, I can't recall about what, and Deeks addressed only the question.

He was about to give up the mic and move on, but I piped up and said, "What about disclosure?" Deeks nodded in affirmation and disclosed his current Big Pharma grants, and soon we had Havlir and all other presenters disclosing their links to the industry. I thanked each person after they disclosed for doing so, even the people who had nothing to disclose. Kudos to Bayle for broaching the topic.

The disclosure issue must always be part of these forums, not because links to Big Pharma necessarily are bad or overtly influencing policy decisions, per se, but simple sunshine principles demand constant revealing of grants and other connections between researchers and drug companies. This forum met the minimal standards for public disclosure and relationships with Big Pharma.



The head of California's Office of AIDS, longtime community activist and openly bisexual Dr. Michelle Roland, facilitated the discussion after the presentations. She received a much-deserved, robust and sustained burst of applause for her hard work last year to save the state's AIDS Drug Assistance Program, and in the process, the lives of many.

Many people with AIDS and our advocates are very grateful for her dedication and negotiating skills, and for balancing the concerns and demands of the AIDS community, against the budgetary and political realities of Sacramento. Good to see her receive public accolades from the community.



The openly gay head of the SF DPH, Dr. Mitch Katz, above right, was asked a question about funding for the new universal treatment program, including drug cocktails, doctors' visits and blood monitoring tests, and Roland also address the cost factors. Guess what? It's gonna take a lot of community and political muscle to safeguard existing and expanding HIV/AIDS public health programs.

All in all, a good forum, with everyone truly attempting to figure out the best course of action regarding treatment options, regardless of when folks begin cocktails. One thing that was lacking were voices of researchers or doctors advising waiting before newly tested positive persons take drugs.

The evening's presenters were not in the least dismissive of anyone opting to delay treatment according to their own plans, but there was a little too much pushing of everyone getting on the early treatment bandwagon. Contrary voices would have been a welcomed force, making the discussion more rounded.

If the forum organizers needed help finding local AIDS experts on the opposite side of early treatment, they could have found two of them through the New York Times story on April 2 that broke the news about this treatment shift:

But the proposal is highly controversial, even in San Francisco.

“It’s just too risky,” said Dr. Jay Levy, the U.C.S.F. virologist who was among the first to identify the cause of AIDS. The new drugs may be less toxic, Dr. Levy said, but no one knows the effects of taking them for decades. [...]

Dr. Lisa C. Capaldini, who runs an AIDS practice in the Castro district, also has strong reservations. “H.I.V. behaves differently in different people,” she said.

Although Dr. Capaldini recognizes that today’s drugs are a vast improvement over earlier therapies, the program, she said “is not ready for prime time.”

For another perspective on the forum, check out veteran medical reporter Liz Highleyman's excellent account at the Bay Area Reporter. Highleyman looks at cost and adherence concerns that were an overriding matter for lots of people, among other topics.

Reading her BAR piece made me wish the organizers or someone with tech know-how, had thought to record the evening on video and then post highlights, or the whole enchilada, on the web. Making a tape and sharing it would have broadened the audience for the discussion, an audience beyond San Francisco's borders, that could help poz people and those at-risk of contracting HIV.

If you know of anyone posting a tape from the forum, let me know the link.

7th Largest Donor to Ex-Rep Massa? HRC

The troubles for disgraced and clearly-closeted former congressman Eric Massa, according to the Towleroad site, have expanded and surely very unlikely to disappear in the near future:

More than two dozen interviews and internal documents compiled by the Washington Post reveal that former Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) was doing far more than "snorkeling" and behaving inappropriately at tickle parties. [...]

Massa's chief of staff Joe Racalto claims he himself was a victim of Massa's advances. Racalto also said "he pulled Massa out of a Dupont Circle bar in December when he could not get Massa to stop making inappropriate comments to a 21-year-old intern and another male staffer."

Also: "One gay male staffer said he complained to Racalto in spring 2009 that Massa routinely made sexualized remarks to him. The staffer told Racalto he had grown distressed, because of two incidents he had heard about involving Massa allegedly making unwelcome sexual advances when sharing a hotel room with staffers. The staffer said that Racalto assured him that Racalto would talk to Massa and put a stop to this kind of conversation. [...]"

Massa also requested to take an intern with him on trips to the West Coast but was blocked by Racalto after staffers begged him. He also solicited sex from a bartender at the funeral of a Marine slain in Afghanistan which became the incident which led to his resignation. [...]

Now, none of Massa's male-on-male propositions with staffers and others was widely known before he resigned his seat representing New York's 29th congressional district, so I can't say any of his donors should have known better than to give this politician of questionable character any money.

But we know now, and out of curiosity I searched for a listing of Massa's top donors, and found this list from the OpenCongress site:

ActBlue $375,555

Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $16,000

Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $14,204

Jana Partners $13,800

Sheet Metal Workers Union $13,500

Service Employees International Union $10,750

Human Rights Campaign $10,500

Given the many corruption allegations and sexual harassment charges that have emerged since Massa stepped down from his seat, I'd like to hear from HRC. What do they think of the charges? Does HRC feel their donations to him benefited the gay community? If so, let's hear how.

Frankly, I'm not at all surprised HRC supported this politician. Same goes for HRC's silence about their donations to him.

SF Weekly:
EQCA & HRC = Ponzi Scheme

(Charles Ponzi, was quite a dandy dresser in his day; just like Kors and Solmonese today.)

Yes, I know this blog post by SF Weekly's gay writer Patrick Connors, who describes himself as "an uppity fag who is sick of everyone making a buck off his marriage," is one more snark entry against the leading professional gay orgs at the state and federal level and doesn't break new ground, but it's still worthy of attention. Why?

Because it's a shining example of how there are so few gay bloggers, okay, gays in general, who have either EQCA or HRC's back. It's damn near impossible to find pro-EQCA or pro-HRC blog posts, or independent thinkers who proudly back the orgs and their way of operating.

Like Connors, I see no reason to get behind any effort by EQCA or HRC, and there are still many unanswered accountability questions that need to be addressed from the disastrous 2008 campaign on Prop 8, led by EQCA, and HRC's ineffective effort to repeal Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

When will we see Geoff Kors and Joe Solmonese turn into fierce advocates, and their orgs worthy of active support from the gay community? From the SF Weekly:

Yesterday Restore Equality 2010 announced it was abandoning its efforts to repeal Prop 8 on the November ballot. [...]

The repeal plan was debated at length last summer at venues across the state. Lots of people ranted and raved. The California big-name gay rights organization, Equality California (EQCA) kept its tasseled loafers above the fray and announced that it wasn't going to participate in a 2010 repeal effort. Instead, it would get strategic and raise funds and knock on doors to change hearts and minds one by one throughout Orange and Fresno counties in preparation for a 2012 repeal effort.

That sounds nice and prudent but really it reeks of self-preservation. Like the Human Rights Campaign's Joe Solmonese, Geoff Kors from EQCA runs a gay ponzi scheme. Trust them! Invest in the organizations that provide their leaders with fat paychecks and watch the social justice trickle down back to the community. Unfortunately they are gay versions of Bernie Madoff. No on 8 was a multi-million dollar disaster. Why would any sane person support a repeal effort in the hands of EQCA?[...]

Without an acknowledgment that we are facing far too many similarities to 2008 and that tactics must change in 2012, there should not be a reflexive move to join EQCA for a repeal of Prop. 8 in 2012. To do so would only enrich and elevate the organization that failed us bitterly in 2008. We need to take off our white gloves and get serious about exercising our political clout.

US Curbing Global HIV Drug Program

There is always plenty of federal funding to send hundreds of American bureaucrats to domestic and international AIDS conferences, UCLA's HIV modeler Sally Blower receives a steady flow of government dollars for her controversial and useless studies that are largely ignored by policymakers, and there is no cap on salaries for executive directors of AIDS nonprofits.

But programs to keep people with HIV/AIDS healthy and alive with a continuous and uninterrupted supply of medicines, seem to constantly need new funding streams or face restricting the number of PWAs receiving cocktails.

The latest threat to AIDS medicines for PWAs beyond our borders is detailed in an alarming story that recently appeared in the Boston Globe:

US officials have asked some AIDS clinics overseas to stop enrolling new patients in a US-sponsored program that provides lifesaving antiretroviral drugs, in a bid to stem the rising costs of one of the most ambitious US assistance programs, according to interviews with doctors and official correspondence.

The move, which was prompted by tighter budgets as well as a debate over how limited global health care dollars can be spent most effectively, has sparked fears among AIDS advocates that the Obama administration is curtailing its commitment to a program that provides lifesaving drugs for 2.4 million people and that many view as President Bush’s most successful foreign policy legacy. [...]

Obama administration officials say they are not capping the number of patients receiving antiretroviral drugs, but they acknowledge that they are seeking to control the ever-rising costs of the program, known as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has grown from $2.3 billion in 2004 to nearly $7 billion this year.

“People are struggling to find resources to honor the commitments we have made,’’ Ambassador Eric Goosby, US global AIDS coordinator, said in an interview. “We’re not at a cap point yet. If it gets worse, we’ll have another discussion.’’

The effects of the cost-cutting measures are beginning to be felt in parts of Africa. For patients arriving at some front-line AIDS clinics in Africa, the limits have the same effect as a cap, critics say.

“Virtually every day, we have to turn away patients who need treatment, including breast-feeding women,’’ said Dr. Peter Mugyenyi, a prominent AIDS specialist in Uganda. “We have to tell them ‘There is a freeze.’ ’’ [...]

I think many advocates would agree that the global program is a success, by a lot of criteria, especially for people living with AIDS, and now we have a problem with the Obama administration not knowing how to building on that success. Doesn't the White House understand that cutbacks to international AIDS drug efforts equals illness and early death for maybe millions of PWAs?

The Globe explains who one very important adviser is the White House on this:

Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House special adviser on health care who is also the brother of President Obama’s chief of staff, argued in an academic paper shortly before his appointment that US funds could save more lives by focusing on cheaper interventions, such as childhood vaccinations and treatments for respiratory illnesses rather than greatly increasing the budget for AIDS drugs. [...]

Sounds as if the administration is pitting diseases against one another for financing, and HIV is losing out.

In year 29 of the AIDS epidemic, it would be great if the Democratic President who promised as a candidate to be a fierce advocate for gay people, would keep that promise, and expand on it to include fiercely fighting for money to maintain and expand global access to HIV medicines.

Kudos to the Boston Globe for running this lengthy piece, and to the writer, Farah Stockman for comprehensive reporting.

FBI Analyzing Robert Novak's File

I filed a Freedom of Information Act request last summer, with the FBI, after conservative columnist and pundit Robert Novak died. He liked being known as the "Prince of Darkness" and used the moniker as the title for his memoir about his reporting career.

There must be quite an FBI file on him, because the agency needs more time to review his file, and this may be because of sensitive security issues. From the FBI status update:

The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the status of your pending Freedom of Information/ Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Currently your request is being reviewed by an analyst. The analyst will confirm that all records are responsive to your request and apply exemptions allowed under FOIPA. If your request is for sensitive national security information, then records must undergo a systemic declassification review prior to application of FOIPA exemptions. Large requests take the longest time to be processed by an analyst.

Unlike other status updates from the FBI, in which the agency explains how many pages were located and are under review, this reply on Novak gives no indication of number of pages found. This is the first time one of my FOIA requests has generated a letter that mentions national security and a declassification review, for someone who was not a powerful politician.

What's in the FBI on Novak? I'll have to bide my time for an answer.