A Little Attention to Domestic AIDS Prevention

Think of a billion oranges, or of a trillion dollar bills. It is tough even to conceive or to fully appreciate of quantities so large. Humans find it difficult to understand such enormous sums simply because most of us lack the terms to comprehend them. But try. Try to perhaps imagine something besides oranges or currency. Try to imagine humans….

In the past year alone, three million humans died of a disease worldwide (Holbrooke). This disease is known as AIDS, or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“Automatic, systematic.”). Every day, 12,000 new people get infected, and, perhaps worse, 90% of them will not even know that they have been infected until 2013 (Holbrooke). Just in America, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 24-27% of them undiagnosed and unaware of their HIV infection (“Basic Statistics”). This can safely be called a pandemic of the worst variety, and there is no cure.
AIDS was first recognized as a specific condition only 25 years ago, in 1981, and it was not until 1984 that the cause was identified (“Document 1: An Introduction to HIV/AIDS”). Tragically, it has flourished since then.
The disease is known to be transmitted through both heterosexual and homosexual sexual intercourse, blood contact (as that that occurs with the communal use of needles), and from mother to child during pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding (“Document 1: An Introduction to HIV/AIDS”).
HIV/AIDS is relatively unique amongst epidemic diseases in that it has a remarkable long incubation period which is estimated to last 5 to 15 years (Bacchetti et al.). This means that, not only do many people who get the disease fail to take measures to treat themselves, but infected people also unconsciously spread the disease to others.
As for the carriers of the disease, the outlook is bleak. It starts as HIV at the time of infection, and generally, after the HIV becomes more active in an infected person, progresses to AIDS when an AIDS specific disease is caught (“Disease Progression”). A carrier generally will go through periods of sickness which increase in severity, duration, and frequency, until the carrier dies (“Document 1: An Introduction to HIV/AIDS”).
This is not to say that there are no treatment methods available to carriers of the disease—there are. Zidovudine is one of these (“HIV/AIDS Prevention Today”). Zidovudine treatment, originally developed to fight cancer, effectively reduces the development of AIDS to zero, if initiated early enough (“Zidovudine”). However, drugs like Zidovudine are incredibly expensive, and the treatment is notoriously time consuming. Therefore, prevention is the clear rout towards combating the ills of HIV/AIDS.
Prevention has a long way to go in the United States. Approximately .6% of the population is infected with AIDS, and the disease can be seen in every part of American society (“AIDS in America”).
Geographically AIDS tends to be most prevalent in urbanize, metropolitan areas. While is does exist in every state in the good ole U S of A, California and New York top the list for states with the highest prevalence (“AIDS in America”).
There are some considerable social issues concerning the American AIDS epidemic. Because the disease was first noticed among the gay population, it is often associated with the gay population. This has made some people nervous about confronting the problem (“AIDS in America”). That concern is not made better by the fact that injection drug users are prevalent among those who transmit and receive the disease. And, as if the black community doesn’t have enough problems as it is, they are the leading race that carries the drug with 50% of AIDS cases belonging to African Americans; though, it should be noted that race doesn’t play a factor in transmission probability (“NAACP Calls for Support of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day”).
Even without these stigmas, AIDS tends to foster discrimination. The term “treated like a leper” is very applicable. There is a certain fear—an understandable one—that healthy people hold against the “unclean”. This type of discrimination actually precipitated the AIDS awareness movement, when people, such as Ryan White, a 13 year old boy who was asked to leave his High School because he had the illness, became widely disposed to the public after their problems (“Ryan White”). This even prompted the “Ryan White Care Act” of 1990, which was administrated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (“Ryan White Care Act”).
Good news can be noted in the success thus far in American AIDS prevention programs. Since the US government recognized the problem, steps have been taken to control the spread of the disease. Measures taken have included effective community planning processes, epidemiological and behavioral surveillance, HIV testing campaigns, health education, diagnosis and treatment, and HIV prevention capacity-building activities. The rate of new HIV infections has slowed from 150,000 per year in the mid 1980’s to 40,000 per year now (“HIV/AIDS Prevention Today”).
The US has responded very well to Mother to Child Transmission or MTCT. The chances of a mother passing the virus to her child can be reduced to 2% or less and because of that ability the amount of children born with AIDS in America was reduced to 58 in 2003 (“AIDS in America”).
However, there are some logical steps that the US Government has far from spearheaded. Condom distribution, for example, has been shown to be an effective prevention method for AIDS, and other Sexually Transmitted Diseases (“AIDS in America”). But instead of condom distribution, abstinence only methods are all the craze. Abstinence Only methods are abysmal failures at trying to prevent STD transmission. One reason for this is people are human. In one Texas high school that employed the abstinence only method, 1 out of every 17 girls became pregnant (“Franken”). This trend is reflected in a Texas Study, which noted that, among 10th graders, the percentage of boys who had ever had sexual intercourse jumped from 24 percent to 39 percent after participating in an abstinence program (“Study: Texas abstinence plan not working”). Needless to say, sex within teen populations is prevalent. Prevalent enough to warrant some action, STD ridden as this world is. That action reasonably manifests itself in condom distribution.
The US government, in recent times, has been regressing in its efforts to distribute condoms especially overseas (“The ABCs and HIV Prevention: How the U.S. Government Limits Youth’s Access to Health Information”). The government seems to be bending to the critics who suggest condom distribution advocates sex and encourages sex. To theses charges, one must admit that life itself encourages sex, and really television and your average Calvin Klein ad are a little more tantalizing than a pack of rubbers.
Condom distribution is not the only AIDS prevention that has been met with disdain. The needle exchange programs have generated a comparative furor since their conception. As it is, injection users, their partners, and children account for 36% of AIDS infections (“HIV/AIDS Prevention Today”). Needle exchange programs attempt to increase the availability of sterile needles in an effort to reduce needle sharing. By allowing for syringe users to exchange dirty needles for clean ones, the chances of encountering an AIDS infected needle are reduced. In addition to reducing the spread of AIDS and other diseases, the program often helps drug addicts find treatment (“AIDS in America¬¬¬¬¬”). It is like killing two birds with one projectile syringe.
Critics of these programs sing generally the same tune as they do for condom distribution—“condones drug use” and so forth. But at least six government studies contradict these unfounded, though understandable, critiques (“AIDS in America¬¬¬¬¬”).
But more work has to be done. 40,000 people per year virtually condemned to death because of a disease is too much. One is too much. The American government must do more because the nature of the problem necessitates our continued attention and efforts.
In what ways can we give increased attention? Well, for starters we can stop worrying so much about the “decency” of effective methods. What is indecent is the tendency to hold higher regard for “tradition” than the prevention of human suffering. But one can’t legislate that—moving on.
The American government must make taking preventative actions more appealing. One might say “Well, shouldn’t not dying be incentive enough?” The answer is: “Yes it should.” However, unfortunately it is not. People tend to want to sweep dirt under carpets rather than actually dealing with the mess. The same is true for AIDS. Many do not want to confront the issue simply because they fear the results.
Now, to do this, a number of steps must be taken beginning with tax incentives. New tax code should be written to include tax breaks for people who get tested every six months for it is approximately six months after infection that the virus can be detected in the blood stream. This helps reduce the number of unwitting carriers, and, thus, unwitting transmissions.
Next, Congress must appropriate funds to create more AIDS facilities at which people can, among other things, learn about AIDS, get tested for AIDS, acquire condoms, exchange needles, and examine treatment options for little or no cost. These facilities should be dispersed throughout the country based on AIDS prevalence.
Congress then needs to revamp public education’s approach to the dilemma in what will be largely unwelcome but necessary ways. School clinics should be stocked with condoms. Clinics should also be stocked with needles for exchange, but with the requirement of treatment for what I would hope are the few who would use that service.
These institutions are likely to generate criticism beyond decency for it is true that they are expensive. But they are not nearly as expensive as treating the disease and they are not nearly as expensive as the human capital it costs to not do these things.
Like many fights, AIDS prevention is an uphill battle, but one that we cannot afford to loose. Though today the front may bleak, we must as always hope for a better tomorrow.

Distrusting Theocracy

As I’ve grown up in America, I’ve noticed that there is a minimal, but present, religious undertone in public institutions. I, as one who considers his religion to be atheism, resent these undertones in principle, but feel that these are trivial aberrations from secularism. I don’t think religion has infiltrated public institutions to such a degree that it requires legal or revolutionary action. However, I am not the slightest bit averse to undercutting the defenses of publicly established religion with my pen.

Ms. Morgan Linski in her December 9th article in the Oakton Outlook argues that secular activists—or, as Linski calls them, “radical leftists”—are somehow deviating from the constitution by “twisting the meaning of the first amendment.” My goal in this article is to debunk her assessment in what I hope is a gentlemanly manner.

The part of the first amendment to the Constitution regarding religion reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” Therefore, if the United States Congress were to pass legislation respecting an establishment of a purely religious principle—even if it is perhaps not a particular religion’s principle such as the belied in a god—it would be unconstitutional. So, when Eisenhower signed legislation that added the words “under God” to the pledge of allegiance on July 14, 1954, that was clearly unconstitutional. Moreover, the slogan “IN GOD WE TRUST” that adorns all U.S. currency is equally as unconstitutional, for it espouses—or establishes—the belief in a god.

Removing these religious establishments in no way restricts the free practice of religion. To suggest otherwise is pretty selective reasoning. People are free to express their religion in any way they choose so long as it is not imposed upon government institutions, and does not involve criminal offenses—like sacrificing Morgan Linskis. That would be wrong.

But to think that secularists are attempting to do away with every aspect of religious influence from the public domain is to misconstrue the intentions of secularists. Endorsers of the separation of church and state only contend that the establishment of religion in government is unconstitutional, not that any and all religious activity is to be sought out and eviscerated. Religious facilities and religious people would be as entitled to public services as anybody; and laws that are proposed for religious reasons, but still coincide with what is agreed to be logically in the best interest of coexistence, are perfectly fine secularly speaking. Secularists of course do not feel obliged to convert to any religion merely due to the presence of the religious references on currency and in the pledge of allegiance—and again I stress that this is a trivial problem; however, the fact that any facet of religion is endorsed by government implies that those who do not agree are somehow less American.

Another misconception that needs correcting is the contention that the American Constitution and this country were created in the name of Judeo-Christianity. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and the father of the United States Constitution, James Madison, were all deists. Three of the four Presidents whose faces are portrayed on Mount Rushmore were deists (Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln). So, Ms. Linski is mistaken in thinking that references made to a god by these people were motivated by Judeo-Christianity. It is ironic, therefore, that Ms. Linski accuses secular activists of “re-writing the Constitution” when she herself interprets the Constitution as somehow condoning the unification of religion and government. The Constitution of course includes no such indication, and certainly no such clause.

Simply because some of these established religious references have been parts of this government for so long does not mean that their continued presence is just. Legacy does not equal legitimacy as is so clearly evident in the fact that this country allowed slavery, disenfranchisement, and segregation for so long. The American government is not the instrument of religious zealots to advertise or proselytize to an America that is so intensely diverse. People should be, and are, allowed to practice their religion to their hearts’ content. But people should not have religious beliefs imposed upon them through government. People should not have to feel unwelcome in, or less a part of, a country because they refuse pledge allegiance to their country “under god”. And people should not be scorned for turning to the high courts of this country in the hopes of forming a more perfect Union.

What’s a Gay Cowboy Without His Pudding

Jake Gyllanhaal and Heath Ledgers new movie Brokeback Mountain is a tale of forbidden love with a new spin. But I think this is just a Hollywood remake of a movie shown at a film festival in a quite little mountain town. All thats missing is the pudding.

Fucking Up Religion

As a man, I am sometimes given to thinking purely in the interests of my genitals. It is an inherent affliction that is sometimes friend and sometimes foe. However, when such interests are impeded, I may go to great lengths to see them prevail.

I am, to say the least, not a devout Christian, nor am I any variety of Christian. But that fact does not extend prejudices upon my fancies. I am often times intrigued by the gentile vixen. However, any advances I might choose to take could conceivably be thwarted by the widely held Christian dogma that claims that premarital relations are sinful.

I have often found that when Christianity and logic are at odds, there can be some reconciliation through interpretation. Because I found abstention to be illogical, I sought out the passages of the bible that are cited when justifying the Christian position on premaritals hoping to find room for interpretation. To my, and my lesser compadre’s, delight I found much room for interpretation.

I mainly discovered passages that describe what will happen if one is “Sexually Immoral”- burning in a fiery lake of sulfur and all of that tralala. “Sexual Immorality” is without a doubt not acceptable biblically speaking; however, the bible never really defines what “Sexual Immorality” is. In fact the only time “sexual immorality” is even mentioned in relation to marriage is in Hebrews, chapter 13, verse 4 when it says “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” But again, what does sexually immoral mean? Does it mean the rape of a spouse? Does it mean bringing a third party into bed? Does it mean giving ones spouse a Dirty Sanchez? I don’t know and neither do you, because the bible doesn’t specify and neither of us are god.

In the book of Corinthians there are some possibly more legitimate passages pertaining to the immorality of pre-marital sex. The first is in chapter 7, verse 8, where the apostle Paul says, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” This passage only says that if a woman cannot remain celibate, then it is better for her to marry. It doesn’t say that she must marry. There is no talk of fiery lakes of sulfur following this passage. Also, this is Paul the Apostle talking, not god. So I think this is one of those times the bible is offering guidance rather than putting laws into stone. It was after all written in the days before Trojans (of the prophylactic variety) and Birth Control Pills. Maybe the bible is just saying it sucks to get preggers. And I agree. It sucks to get preggers.

The other often cited passage in Corinthians is in book 7, chapter 1, and goes “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” This passage is similarly spoken by Paul, and similarly a guideline. So while that advice may have been sensable at a time before birth control evolved beyond uteral punching and clothes hangers, it is a bit outdated now.

Passages that are not often referenced when defending abstention can be found in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The reason that they are not often cited is because they’re fucking ridiculous. In Exodus chapter 22, verse 16, it states that “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.” Deuteronomy has almost the exact same passage. So, according to Exodus and Deuteronomy, a man can seduce a girl, with or without her will, as long as he pays her father a dowry and offers to be her husband; should the father refuses, the man has to pay market value on her virginity. Now, how much is virginity going for these days? 15 goats? I probably have to adjust for inflation from the 1300’s. So, that’s 1,050 goats give or take. Sweet.

The Old Testament is riddled with all sorts of surprisingly odd little foibles. Leviticus in, chapter 19, verse 19, instructs us not to wear clothes made of two different fabrics, and, in chapter 14 verse 43 it describes how to remedy Buildings that catch leprosy. So, perhaps this is not the direct word of god. Perhaps this is just a reflection of the standards of society at the time the Bible was written. Remember that in the bible, young women were betrothed to men based on a financial deal and fathers could fetch a better price for their daughters if they were virgins. Also because paternaty tests werent available when the bible was writen, women who were sexually promiscuous would frequently birth babies whose father’s could not be determined. So, perhaps virginity was such a protected status because it was beneficial economically and perhaps “Sexual Morality” refers to loving monogamous relationships rather than ones irrevocably bound by marriage or ones where the woman was “common”.

Now, It should be known that I don’t say these things to challenge people’s faiths. I don’t say these things simply to be heretical. I do not even say these things purely in the interest of sex. I just feel that when 2+2=5, you need to check your math. Faith is a fine thing-even a great thing-but it is sometimes friend and sometimes foe.

Drifts to my displeasure

Fall has fallen
And Summer has set
Winter has come
Much to my regret.

Now in this season
I sit at my station
With cold, clammy hands comes
Uncomfortable masturbation.