Wil Wheaton, best known as Wesley Crusher on Star Trek: The Next Generation, writes a pretty good blog. But sometimes he goes off on political tangents that drive me crazy. Yesterday, Dec. 1, was World AIDS Day, an event promoted by the World AIDS Campaign. Now, AIDS is a terrible disease, and it will be a great day when it is eliminated. But Wil wrote:
Over the years, I’ve just assumed that, as a species, we were moving toward eliminating or at least reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS. It turns out that I am wrong…. Here in the US, our good pals in the religious right have been frighteningly successful in keeping people ignorant and afraid, and replacing facts with agenda-driven propaganda. This is real scary, because nothing helps spread a disease quite like ignorance…
And nothing helps spread bitterness and division like blame.
Some facts, courtesy of that glorious source of knowledge, the Wikipedia.
- “The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV.”
- “The best evidence to date indicates that typical condom use reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by approximately 80% over the long-term, though the benefit is likely to be higher if condoms are used correctly on every occasion…. The male latex condom, if used correctly without oil-based lubricants, is the single most effective available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”
So, over the long term, given partners who are HIV positive, you have a 20% chance of becoming HIV positive. However, sexual transmission of HIV is 100% preventable through abstinence.
As a public health measure, I ask you: which do you want to promote? A method of disease prevention that is 80% reliable or one that is 100% reliable?
Now, there are educational programs that say “Abstinence only,” and others that say “Abstinence, but if not abstinence, condom use.” The people who promote abstinence say that the second kind of program is less effective at promoting abstinence than the first kind. (That seems like common sense to me.)
If your goal is to eliminate sexual transmission of HIV through public education, does it make sense to promote programs that fail to maximize the likelihood of people using the only known 100% successful method of preventing transmission of HIV?
So, yeah, maybe your “good pals on the religious right” are trying to promote ignorance. Or maybe they’re pursuing the best way they know how to help make the tragedy of HIV/AIDS go away.
By the way: Isn’t abstinence what you hope for with kids anyway? If you’re a parent, would you want them to go out and have sex with a bunch of people, with the risk of pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, fathers with shotguns, etc.? Or would you rather they just waited until they got married?
If you live in the American West, and you find yourself slogging your way through the federal courts, sooner or later you’ll reach the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Make sure that you’re the criminal, not the victim, because it seems the Ninth never met a thug it didn’t like.
The Ninth Circuit may be the most liberal of the thirteen courts of appeal. It may also be the Circuit that the Supreme Court overrules most often. Here’s another opportunity for the Supreme Court to lay down the smackdown.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
In May 1994, Matthew Musladin drove to the home of his estranged wife, Pamela, to pick up their 3-year-old son for a weekend visit. They got into an argument outside, and when Musladin pushed her to the ground, her fiance, Tom Studer, bolted from the house to defend her. Musladin pulled a gun, fired twice at Studer and killed him. Musladin claimed self-defense — saying he believed that Studer had a gun — but he was convicted of murder.
Each day during Musladin’s trial, Studer’s family sat behind the prosecutor and wore buttons displaying pictures of the victim. The buttons were between two and four inches in diameter, presumably large enough that the jury could see them. Musladin’s counsel objected, claiming that the buttons would prejudice the jury against his client. The court ruled against Musladin, and he was convicted and sentenced to 32 years to life.
Musladin appealed, of course. He found no relief in the California state courts, so he switched to the federal court system, and the Ninth Circuit came to his rescue. They ruled in Musladin’s favor, overturning his conviction and ordering a new trial.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether or not the Ninth Circuit overreached in its decision. This report from NPR’s Day to Day indicates that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the Ninth Circuit yet again.
Chad Shue reports on Maria Cantwell’s appearance at the Snohomish County Democrats annual picnic.
The money quote is:
“(Cantwell) seemed very comfortable (to point of passionate) about the call to “change course” and pulling the troops out of Iraq. I can’t say that I was expecting any particulars on how we “stand up the Iraqis” but that is not necessarily for her to say.”
I think it’s very important for the good Senator to specify what changing course means, aside from pulling US troops out of Iraq. She need not formulate the plan herself — she could say she supports so-and-so’s plan.
The voters should know what it is that she supports, not just that she doesn’t support the President. In the current political climate, I take it for granted that a Democrat running for office doesn’t support the President’s policies. But just what is it she does support?
Of course, for me personally, because I believe in the party system, I will not be voting for Senator Cantwell. But if I were an independent, I’d want to know the specifics. Is she suggesting we just withdraw and let the Iraqis sort out their own problems, either immediately or on a specific future date? Or does she want to leave some kind of American presence to help stabilize Iraq until the government accomplishes certain tasks? If so, what are those tasks?
These are important questions, and just saying that you want to change course may be insufficient to win votes.
(Cross-posted at the Sound Politics Public Blog)
