It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. Spent $2 Million on Study Promoting Condom Use Among Intravenous Drug Users in Kazakhstan

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

U.S. Spent $2 Million on Study Promoting Condom Use Among Intravenous Drug Users in Kazakhstan


www.cnsnews.com

The National Institutes of Health has spent over $2 million on a study that, among other things, seeks to incease condom use among intravenous drug users in Kazakhstan.

Dr. Nabila El-Bassel, a Columbia University professor in the School of Social Work, proposed the study to “rigorously test the efficacy of an innovative, couples-based HIV/STI risk reduction intervention (CHSR) to decrease new cases of HIV and Hepatitis C (HCV) and incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), as...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This is great! At a time when we can't even afford to replace our crumbling infrastructure or secure our own border, we are spending millions of dollars on condoms for Asian drug abusers. Many American families are struggling with two or three jobs just to make ends meet, put food on the table for their families and pay their taxes, yet we are shipping millions of dollars to Kazakhstan to help that country's drug abusers. Some families can't get jobs to stay afloat and tent cities are becoming more and more common, yet somehow our government seems it is necessary to bankroll some ridiculous study.

I know they are addicted to drugs because of the US in the first place, but come on. Where is Congress, making sure the people aren't taxed for nefarious purposes (rhetorical)? This is getting absurd. We simply don't have the money for this empire, let alone studies of drug addicted Asians having unprotected sex in some foreign country. Whoever thinks that taxation without representation only exists for the District of Columbia, think again because it wouldn't seem that Congress is representing us.

--airspoon



www.cnsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
This may end up being a very unpopular thought but, all things considered, this is actually one of the more productive things that I've heard about government spending in awhile. At least this boondoggle might actually benefit someone other than the extravagantly rich. I'm happier about this than I am about a single dollar of bailout money.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Normally, I would be inclined to agree with you, however I'm sure that this appropriated money was as a favor to the head of the study. In fact, I'm almost sure of that. It's pork and pork gets appropriated for a reason. This money is going to some researcher, not necessarily the Asian drug abusers. What I really want to know, is why is this researcher/s owed such a favor?

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Adding those factors into the mix does alter the equation slightly. I would now have to see an audit and results of the study to see if I ended up feeling like an idiot at the hands of Washington again.

Trying to find good in our Government these days is a LOT like being a Cubs fan...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   
my lord and i know they didn't use condoms they cursed us with BORAT



enough said the condoms didn't work


[edit on 22-6-2010 by TheAmused]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
LOL, my govt gave opium farmers 10.000 euro's each if they went to grow saffron.

The harvests weren't really good, needles to say what they are growing now...

And thanks again taxpayers so we can fund stupid projects we can skim money from.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Okay...see...now to me this is NOT true journalism. It's more of the BS sensationalistic reporting and shoddy research that they're shoving down our throats by the shovel full.

Tell me exactly WHERE the money came from...what year, what bill, who sponsored it, who voted for it so that I can do something about it Or leave me the hell alone with your fake concern.

My suspicion is that this is part of the presidential discretionary fund included in the bilateral economic assistance portion of some bill passed around 2007 for "necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of chapters 1 and 10 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961," which probably came in at around $70M in total. But who the hell knows. Weeding through the house and senate bills is like swimming through mud.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


My reply to hefficide about pork was overstated and I apologize, however this money was spent through the National Institutes of Health and so was most likely not a part of any bill, rather the normal budget of NIH (grant). The argument still stands and the journalism isn't shotty as it states clearly where the money came from. In the end, this was American tax-dollars spent, since we fund the NIH and frankly speaking, we don't have that kind of money, especially when our taxes are already too high. If you agree and can afford that kind of money to go to a rather worthless study, then great but you shouldn't agree with shaking down American tax-payers to fund it.

--airspoon

[edit on 22-6-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Airspoon,

Kazakhstan is a nation of strategic importance in Asia. Having another foothold (and possibly members of intelligence community) on the ground there with a good cover is well worth $2M.

I agree with your pain regarding the state of our country, but there might be more than meets the eye



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You betcha it is. It's on the Central Asian water/gas/oil pipeline path, along with the other -stans and Afghanistan and Pakistan. Prime real estate. (That path by the way extends into the Middle East (you know, Iraq, Iran, Syria).

When last I bothered tracking this, Condie Rice pretty much botched international relations with the baby-stans (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan)...her trip and its results mostly went unnoticed because America was in the midst of the Katrina debacle, and all eyes were pretty much focused there. As I remember it, she got kicked out of one country (they wouldn't even let her off the plane) and another told her during her visit that they would be closing all U.S. bases, and I believe the third told her that they would be allowing Russia and not the U.S. their new bases. I'm sure there's something about this out there somewhere.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


The NIH could well be dolling out the money and managing the projects. That's not clear from the article.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well, I have no doubts about motive as pointed out in your post, however I don't agree with our empire in the first place. It does nothing for the average American, except burden "him" with the cost, both financial and health. Now, even our economy is suffering due this empire and as of yet, the empire has only benefitted US corporations, with the exception of gas being a few dollars cheaper. This empire has driven Americans to the breaking point and too many of my brothers have given limbs, health and lives for it.

Any way that you look at it, forcing Americans out of their hard-earned money to spend it on a frivolous empire or a nefarious study, is just plain wrong, especially when this country can no longer afford it.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Well, I have no doubts about motive as pointed out in your post, however I don't agree with our empire in the first place.


Well, that's how we are cut. If you propose we transform into a different country, that's your right, but losing the quasi-imperial status may not be good even for common Americans. I agree the country should turn its face towards its citizens, but at the same time, there's nothing wrong in having your strategic interest taken care of.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's not really only a quasi-empire, rather it's a full blown empire. The thing is, it's different from any other empire in history, as we conquer economically instead militarily.

The reason that I have a problem with this, is that it is a fascist or corporatist system, only disguised as freedom and democracy. Unlike any other empire in history, this one has absolutely no benefit to the citizens of the fatherland. With the military empires of years past, the citizens benefitted through trade, travel and security. With this economic empire, the citizens suffer because the corporations take all of the benefit for themselves.

Also, while gas may be a couple dollars cheaper than in Europe, you are still paying for that, just not at the pump. Regardless the price for that gas winds up being more expensive than our counterparts in Europe. Really, the only thing we have going for us, is the dollar being used as the currency for international transactions, but this won't last, especially seeing how we gave up our manufacturing base for this empire.

You see, we are only being used at the moment, as the seat of the empire but only as long as our economy can support it. Once there is nothing left of our economy or it used up, we will be thrown out like a used banana peel or orange rind. We have sacrificed everything, including our way of life for this empire and once it's done, we will have nothing to fall back on, though the ones benefitting from this empire will be perfectly fine and move on somewhere else. This is not some huge conspiracy, just how the cookie crumbles, so to speak. It is the inevitable result of Keynesian economics and this brand of capitalism based upon Keynesian economics.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's not really only a quasi-empire, rather it's a full blown empire. The thing is, it's different from any other empire in history, as we conquer economically instead militarily.


Look, with jobs hemorrhaging overseas for a good part of 20 years, "we" don't conquer jack.


The reason that I have a problem with this, is that it is a fascist or corporatist system, only disguised as freedom and democracy. Unlike any other empire in history, this one has absolutely no benefit to the citizens of the fatherland. With the military empires of years past, the citizens benefitted through trade, travel and security.


Are you sure about that? Don't you think that life of a layperson, let's say in Rome, might have been a little rough? Russia is a good example of a military-industrial empire. Throughout centuries, life sucked rabbit's @ss for most of its inhabitants (I would know, I'm an ethnic Russian). For a long time, you couldn't even travel inside the country without a government issued pass.


You see, we are only being used at the moment, as the seat of the empire but only as long as our economy can support it. Once there is nothing left of our economy or it used up, we will be thrown out like a used banana peel or orange rind.


...or it maybe the turning point, when a country can be reborn.




top topics



 
4

log in

join