AIDS Conference

[betsy]

IF ONLY the driving force behind this campaign/conference will adopt the same tenacity of the Anti-Smoking campaign, they will definitely gain half their goal...or probably even more, by dramatically decreasing the spread of this disease.

The AIDS Conference Poster Boy, of all people, should know. His wife was one of the most outspoken...and powerful figure to back up and support the anti-smoking campaign. Look where smoking is now.

Oh they know which should be the first big target to be pressured to support this AIDS campaign.

What else but HOLLYWOOD. And who else but the stars.

"Hillary Clinton has recently criticised Hollywood for its over-use of cigarettes on screen. She believes that depicting stars smoking in certain scenes allows cigarettes to be equated with ‘status, power, confidence and glamour’7"

http://www.globalink.org/tobacco/docs/misc...0003films.shtml

"Backed by the political muscle of Vice President Al Gore and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, lawmakers have been fuming in recent months over Hollywood's alleged glamorization of the tobacco habit."

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,1994,00.html

AIDS is spread through sex, especially through sodomy. Promiscuity is the main culprit in its rapid spread.

Drug use (sharing needles) also does its fair share.

How many movies depict sex scenes where characters show that they use condoms?

How many tv shows show adultery or casual sex as a normal lifestyle....those indulging in it depicted as people of "sophistication"....."open-minded"...."adventurous?" A lot of these programs are aired on prime time.

So how come Hollywood is getting away with this with no sharp criticism at all from the big-wigs behind this conference?

Hollywood is a powerful tool to promote a lifestyle. Its influence is far-reaching....global, in fact.

[jdobbin]

Digging all the way back to 1997 for this?

Since Congress has been controlled by Republicans from 2000 on, maybe you should be asking why they haven't on this.

[betsy]

Digging all the way back to 1997 for this?

What's wrong with that?

Didn't the anti-smoking campaign succeed quite faster with Hollywood and the stars giving support?

How many countires all over the world are "butting out?"

[betsy]

Since Congress has been controlled by Republicans from 2000 on, maybe you should be asking why they haven't on this.

What makes you think Hollywood will listen to the Republicans...most especially BUSH?

The point is: Clinton is one of the top dog or the poster boy for this campaign! Their goal is supposed to be stopping the rapid spread and eventually eliminating AIDS!

Since finding the cure for AIDS won't likely happen in 5 years, the number one priority then is to STOP THE RAPID SPREAD of AIDS!

If all these people behind this conference are all foaming in the mouth preaching about the global horror of a pandemic of biblical scale, wouldn't be the most logical thing to do is to get all support from EVERYWHERE?

They talk of the the importance of EDUCATING THE PEOPLE (especially the youth) about the importance of using condoms...with all sort of astronomical funding required. Well how much effective is that compared to the powerful influence of HOLLYWOOD?

All you have to do is look around you and you'll see all sorts of people of all sorts of shapes and sizes all copy-catting HOLLYWOOD.....from the shoes and jewelries they wear...they way they talk....the way they think....the way they behave!

AFRICA is not made up of only poor, homeless people they show you on tv! Besides, they know of Angelina Jolie, for crying out loud!

[betsy]

Since Congress has been controlled by Republicans from 2000 on, maybe you should be asking why they haven't on this.

Bush was pushing to promote for ABSTINENCE. It was ridiculed and automatically slammed at by the anti-Bush and those against religion (specifically Christian-based). But look at all the comments about it!

"The foreign forays of the Bush administration have rarely been without controversy, and the president's global Aids initiative is no exception.

Bush has thrown his weight behind the US abstinence movement

It may be the most expensive effort ever mounted by a government to fight Aids internationally, but the $15bn programme comes with strings attached - notably in diverting a third of the funds to faith based groups which preach abstinence.

Its critics see this provision as thinly disguised Christian moralism which is at best paternalistic, and at worst a sure-fire way of endangering lives by failing to place sufficient emphasis on condoms.

But to its proponents, pushing abstinence is the only way to tackle the disease in a continent like Africa where, as they see it, campaigns promoting the use of condoms have failed to halt the disease. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3887177.stm

"Europe, led by the UK, last night signalled a major split with the United States over curbing the Aids pandemic in a statement that tacitly urged African governments not to heed the abstinence-focused agenda of the Bush administration.

The statement, released for World Aids Day today, emphasises the fundamental importance of condoms, sex education and access to reproductive health services. "We are profoundly concerned about the resurgence of partial or incomplete messages on HIV prevention which are not grounded in evidence and have limited effectiveness," it says."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/christmasappeal2...1654865,00.html

"The Bush administration's $15 billion global AIDS initiative is emphasizing sexual abstinence and fidelity more than Congress intended, and that focus is undermining prevention efforts in poor countries, congressional investigators said Tuesday."

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060405/21879.htm

INSTEAD OF LAMBASTING IT.....they should accept ALL the help they can get! People who'd had religion are also some of the culprits in spreading AIDS. This abstinence preaching may not work for some...but it may work for others! So why waste their time dis-crediting it and rejecting it outright....

That is of course, IF...and that is a big IF, they are really serious in tackling this disease....and not just using to politicize it.

[Hicksey]

AIDS is spread through sex, especially through sodomy. Promiscuity is the main culprit in its rapid spread. Drug use (sharing needles) also does its fair share.

This is a misleading statement.

AIDS is every bit as likely to be transmitted though vaginal sex and oral sex as anal sex. Suggesting that one way is more dangerous than the others is inaccurate.

That is a myth that has morphed from the myth that AIDS is a mostly homosexual disease. Both myths are grossly inaccurate. I'll grant you that at first AIDS ran quicker through the homosexual community, but that was as a result of both a generally higher rate of promiscuity and a lack of protective measures taken -- not because they were homosexual. Their sexual orientation actually had nothing to do with it. As we have seemingly entered into a new sexual age over the last 10 years, new AIDS cases in heterosexuals have actually been rising faster than those in homosexuals ever did. Again, this is because of a generally higher rate of promiscuity and because of a lack of protective measures taken.

Outlawing sodomy will do nothing to solve the AIDS dilemna.

What we need to do is either hurry up and beat the disease, or hurry up and contain it so it cannot spread. Curing it is not imminent. Researchers have burnt though billions of dollars in funding and can only elongate the lives and spare some suffering. While at one time they thought they were making progress because they were able to block the cell receptors that the HIV cells were attaching to in order to attack the cells, a new more virulent strain of the virus as surfaced that can overcome the cell receptors leaving researchers scarcely ahead of where they started. IMO containment is a more realistic goal, though it too will be costly and difficult to achieve logistically. My idea is to contain it until the disease can be cured or until it dies with the people contained and can be destroyed.

I've said it before. This plan is not a nice plan. But it is a plan with public safety considered first and foremost. I know and understand that containment would be another significant blow to people already dealt a life sentence. My opinion is that while this burden is no doubtedly an overwhemling one to bear, we must defer to the safety of those not yet infected. The unbridled spread of the disease should serve as proof that we cannot depend on people to govern their behavior so as to reduce the numbers of new cases. And most new cases could have easily been prevented by that measure alone.

You can agree or disagree, it is just an idea of mine.

[betsy]

AIDS is spread through sex, especially through sodomy. Promiscuity is the main culprit in its rapid spread. Drug use (sharing needles) also does its fair share.

This is a misleading statement.

AIDS is every bit as likely to be transmitted though vaginal sex and oral sex as anal sex. Suggesting that one way is more dangerous than the others is inaccurate.

That is a myth that has morphed from the myth that AIDS is a mostly homosexual disease. Both myths are grossly inaccurate. I'll grant you that at first AIDS ran quicker through the homosexual community, but that was as a result of both a generally higher rate of promiscuity and a lack of protective measures taken -- not because they were homosexual.

Yes, AIDS and HIV is spread not only anally, but through vaginal and oral sex. There was a time that it was said to have been mostly gained through sodomy. If that is accurate, I cannot say for sure. But from what I had read somewhere....it is said this disease had also mutated?

And no, it goes beyond homosexual disease. Bisexualism and the sex trade had also had a great input of it going way beyond that boundary, not to mention casual sex by all sexual orientations. So it all comes back full circle to one word: PROMISCUITY.

[betsy]

I've said it before. This plan is not a nice plan. But it is a plan with public safety considered first and foremost.

Time is of the essence.

Smoking is quite far from being as deadly as AIDS or HIV. It is not contagious. Although I'm not a supporter of the anti-smoking campaign...I had to give credit to the well-laid plan and concerted effort...and effective way they managed to push for that agenda...and achieve victory.

As you've said, public safety is the top priority. So I say, what's Hollywood doing? Who's screaming at Hollywood to do its share? I have not heard any mouthy screeching from any of these conference big-wigs....singling out actors/actresses and particular movies, (the way Hillary singled out Roberts, etc), for making promiscuity an attractive and "glorified" way of practicing freedom. Wan't there a tv show (Caroline in the City?) that even introduced the concept of a "fuck-buddy?" Did they show them using condoms?

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. If this is really thaaaat scary.....why wouldn't they do what the anti-smoking campaigners had done? I bet some of the same people behind this AIDS Conference is also behind that anti-smoking campaign.

Why is Hollywood virtually ignored...and untouched by this brouhaha?

[jdobbin]

What's wrong with that?

Didn't the anti-smoking campaign succeed quite faster with Hollywood and the stars giving support?

How many countires all over the world are "butting out?"

What support from Hollywood are are your talking about? Smoking on screen is still a big deal.

As far as countries butting out, that is true for countries like the U.S. and Canada but not true for China and many developing nations.

In industrialized countries, there have been multi-pronged attacks on tabacco that include more taxes, restricting advertizing, warning labels, restricting sales to minors, etc, etc. Harper himself raised cigarette taxes in his last budget.

Hollywood still uses smoking on the big screen but like the audience it caters to, there has been less smoking on screen. And as far as TV goes, there is next to no characters smoking.

[jdobbin]

Bush was pushing to promote for ABSTINENCE. It was ridiculed and automatically slammed at by the anti-Bush and those against religion (specifically Christian-based). But look at all the comments about it!

The policy was criticized because it was not a multi-pronged approach. If one anti-smoking policy didn't work, why would one anti-sexually transmitted disease policy work?

[betsy]

As far as countries butting out, that is true for countries like the U.S. and Canada but not true for China and many developing nations.

Looks like more countires are involved than that.

"Dr Stanton said the tobacco industry -- under threat in developed countries like Australia, Britain and the United States -- is expanding into new markets."

http://www.tobacco.org/news/125720.html

Butting Out on A Global Scale

By JULIE RAWE

Monday, Feb. 14, 2005

"Jet setters heading to Cuba next week for the annual Havana Cigar Festival need not panic: although the home of the Cohiba banned smoking in enclosed public places on Feb. 7, festival venues will be exempt. Despite a lax kickoff in Cuba, similar bans in other countries have managed to clear the air: • Italy On Jan. 10, smoking was banned in enclosed public places except in separately ventilated rooms. A week later, a police sweep of 1,263 bars and restaurants turned up only nine violators. Says a Roman: "I'm for the ban because it helps me smoke less." As proof, cigarette sales nationwide are down 23%...."

http://www.time.com/time/archive/printout/...1027524,00.html

[betsy]

What support from Hollywood are are your talking about? Smoking on screen is still a big deal.

Hollywood still uses smoking on the big screen but like the audience it caters to, there has been less smoking on screen. And as far as TV goes, there is next to no characters smoking.

Support like this: "there has been less smoking on screen. And as far as TV goes, there is next to no characters smoking."

One movie I recently watched promoted the use of condom. The movie: Must Love Dogs (John Cusack and Diane Lane). It managed to squeeze it into the storyline. The pair had delayed having their sex by driving to find an open drug store so they could get the condoms.

Hollywood should stop poking ridicule to "out-dated moral values." If they can't endorse it...then the least they can do is not ridicule it!

ONE THING HOLLYWOOD could do though is to tone down in making casual sex and promiscuity look to be the "preferred lifestyle!"

[jdobbin]

Looks like more countires are involved than that.

My meaning was smoking has been reduced in many industrialized nations.

As the article says, there has been a surge in developing nations.

[jdobbin]

ONE THING HOLLYWOOD could do though is to tone down in making casual sex and promiscuity look to be the "preferred lifestyle!"

There has been a lot of controversy over showing condom use as well. It is said that promotes promiscuity as well.

[betsy]

ONE THING HOLLYWOOD could do though is to tone down in making casual sex and promiscuity look to be the "preferred lifestyle!"

There has been a lot of controversy over showing condom use as well. It is said that promotes promiscuity as well.

Aw c'mon! That can't be the reason why Hollywood isn't so supportive about that!

Then just tone down on casual sex and promiscuity...and stop endorsing and glamorizing it as the "preferred lifestyle."

[jdobbin]

Aw c'mon! That can't be the reason why Hollywood isn't so supportive about that!

Then just tone down on casual sex and promiscuity...and stop endorsing and glamorizing it as the "preferred lifestyle."

American films have always shown the terror of casual sex. Jason will get you.

[newbie]

ONE THING HOLLYWOOD could do though is to tone down in making casual sex and promiscuity look to be the "preferred lifestyle!"

There has been a lot of controversy over showing condom use as well. It is said that promotes promiscuity as well.

So which do you prefer? Promiscuity or Aids.

[jdobbin]

So which do you prefer? Promiscuity or Aids.

Some people prefer to stick their fingers in the ears to both.

[Hicksey]

So which do you prefer? Promiscuity or Aids.

Some people prefer to stick their fingers in the ears to both.

Fingers in the ear or head in the sand?

The same liberals that support AIDS research are largely also environmentalists. We hear them demand over and over that polluters pay dearly, and they fund lawsuits to see that they do. If these people attacked the AIDS crisis with the same furvor maybe they would get some real funding for their cause.

Why not file suit against Hollywood? After all their work contributes to a societal problem that can be directly linked to the spread of AIDS. Their sponsorship of condom use is too little too late.

If people that contribute to the destruction of the environment should pay, then why not the advertisers of promiscuity which is known to be a root societal cause of the spread of the virus? Should they not be FORCED to pay for polluting society as they would have an environmental polluter apy for polluting the environment?

Why are they not held to account?

Are they given a free pass because they are political allies? Isn't this an argument oft used by the left against the right, claiming the polluters are political allies of the right?

I can't wait to hear the excuses.

[jdobbin]

Fingers in the ear or head in the sand?

The same liberals that support AIDS research are largely also environmentalists. We hear them demand over and over that polluters pay dearly, and they fund lawsuits to see that they do. If these people attacked the AIDS crisis with the same furvor maybe they would get some real funding for their cause.

Why not file suit against Hollywood? After all their work contributes to a societal problem that can be directly linked to the spread of AIDS. Their sponsorship of condom use is too little too late.

If people that contribute to the destruction of the environment should pay, then why not the advertisers of promiscuity which is known to be a root societal cause of the spread of the virus? Should they not be FORCED to pay for polluting society as they would have an environmental polluter apy for polluting the environment?

Why are they not held to account?

Are they given a free pass because they are political allies? Isn't this an argument oft used by the left against the right, claiming the polluters are political allies of the right?

I can't wait to hear the excuses.

Some of the biggest environmentalists now are Christian conservatives. It has been written about quite a lot lately in Time and elsewhere. Bush and Harper have found people who are generally their natural allies, pressing them on the environment. It has been happening a lot more in Alberta this year.

So the premise that it is just liberals is just not right.

[Hicksey]

Fingers in the ear or head in the sand?

The same liberals that support AIDS research are largely also environmentalists. We hear them demand over and over that polluters pay dearly, and they fund lawsuits to see that they do. If these people attacked the AIDS crisis with the same furvor maybe they would get some real funding for their cause.

Why not file suit against Hollywood? After all their work contributes to a societal problem that can be directly linked to the spread of AIDS. Their sponsorship of condom use is too little too late.

If people that contribute to the destruction of the environment should pay, then why not the advertisers of promiscuity which is known to be a root societal cause of the spread of the virus? Should they not be FORCED to pay for polluting society as they would have an environmental polluter apy for polluting the environment?

Why are they not held to account?

Are they given a free pass because they are political allies? Isn't this an argument oft used by the left against the right, claiming the polluters are political allies of the right?

I can't wait to hear the excuses.

Some of the biggest environmentalists now are Christian conservatives. It has been written about quite a lot lately in Time and elsewhere. Bush and Harper have found people who are generally their natural allies, pressing them on the environment. It has been happening a lot more in Alberta this year.

So the premise that it is just liberals is just not right.

That is semantics and politics and doesn't address the question at hand. That doesn't erase that at least 75% of environmentalists are liberals. I never made the assertion that every environmentalist was a liberal. Refer to the bolded text above.

Someone pollutes the earth with material that makes it into the drinking water supply and makes people sick and ultimately die, and someone who pollutes the minds of society with ideas and attitudes that are likely to contribute to their contracting AIDS and eventually their death -- are no different.

Why shouldn't both be forced to pay for their wrongs, and be forced to bear the cost and consequences of fixing the problems they have caused?

[jdobbin]

That is semantics and politics and doesn't address the question at hand. That doesn't erase that at least 75% of environmentalists are liberals. I never made the assertion that every environmentalist was a liberal. Refer to the bolded text above.

Someone pollutes the earth with material that makes it into the drinking water supply and makes people sick and ultimately die, and someone who pollutes the minds of society with ideas and attitudes that are likely to contribute to their contracting AIDS and eventually their death -- are no different.

Why shouldn't both be forced to pay for their wrongs, and be forced to bear the cost and consequences of fixing the problems they have caused?

I've never seen that figure of 75% before.

As far as the media goes, what would you like removed. Some people felt The Passion of the Christ was too violent.

[betsy]

Some of the biggest environmentalists now are Christian conservatives. It has been written about quite a lot lately in Time and elsewhere. Bush and Harper have found people who are generally their natural allies, pressing them on the environment. It has been happening a lot more in Alberta this year.

So the premise that it is just liberals is just not right.

Liberals....AND NDPs.

There may be some Christian conservatives....but most activists come from the liberal thinkers.

[betsy]

As far as the media goes, what would you like removed. Some people felt The Passion of the Christ was too violent.

Oh puhleeez. That's just quite a lame stab at the one thing Hollywood is determined to dis-credit and tear apart at every opportunity it gets: Christianity.

I wonder why. It couldn't be because it stands in the way of promiscuous lifestyle, eh?

So what do I want remove? ENDORSEMENT OF PROMISCUITY!

Let's go back to Hicksey's question:

"Why shouldn't both be forced to pay for their wrongs, and be forced to bear the cost and consequences of fixing the problems they have caused?"

[betsy]

American films have always shown the terror of casual sex. Jason will get you.

Yeah. With sex-starved teens...looking "cool" and very much "in" among a group of peers! Getting laid is the main goal of the guys....and.... getting laid is also the main goal of the girls!

Usually there's one being poked fun at, and shown to be left out and do not "fit" in the group, and that is a girl with "outdated" values looking for love and who don't wanna just get laid...or the "nerdy" guy...who can't get laid!

Usually, he is also the first one to die!

This film is aimed to target TEENS! The very same ones who'd think : "it can happen to anyone...but it will never happen to me!"