as that great american denis leary said, "fuck the pope"
The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which the HIV virus can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus.

no subject
no subject
no subject
Um, Zimbabwe has lots of oil reserves, right?
no subject
no subject
Of course, I could be wrong.
no subject
Well, they didn't say what material the Catholic-tested condoms were made of.
Latex barries may be impermeable, but prophylactics made of fishnet are all but useless.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think that packing this amount of distortion and simplification into 3 sentences is a newsworthy feat in and of itself. Briefly, I could respond to this:
a) She may not be dead in a few years.
b) You may "take the drugs" for granted in the UK, but they're not free. They're expensive to produce and distribute.
c) The human chain of money and power is not standing in the way of a free pipeline of endless livesaving drugs. Rather, it's the only thing that has a chance in Hades of actually getting the drugs to where they might be useful.
d) The drugs will not "save her." These drugs are dangerous, toxic, have side effects that can be fatal, crippling, or impossible to manage; they cause the emergence and transmission of resistant virus; and many people on these drugs die of AIDS anyway.
But here I err in the same way the Guardian does; "brief" discussions aren't really appropriate to convey the complexity of these issues. They may sell newspapers, but seriously,
no subject
Here are other reports of this ridiculous assertion by the Catholic Church via Reuters (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=385870§ion=news) and the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm). I hope that they pass your journalistic muster.
no subject
no subject
Address it? It's axiomatic. They're morons. What else is there to say?
no subject
no subject
That's not a logical dissection of your position, but it's certainly the case.
no subject
> You are too stupid to bother arguing with.
Maybe true, but I hope you didn't come away with the idea that I'm somehow in favor of AIDS in Africa, or of withholding needed meds from people simply because they're African. The human catastrophe in Africa is on track to be the worst disaster in history, and I'm first in line to say that everyone needs to do what they can to help.
I'm also very much in favor of the idea of not doing any harm, though. And I think that careless or ill-considered attempts at help can do a lot of harm - remember that flap with the infant formula in the 80's? If we're going to put $15 billion into Africa, that's a tremendous amount of leverage to help or to harm, and I'm in favor of making sure all that leverage is used to alleviate human suffering rather than causing more.
no subject
Now, if the article itself fails to address any of the points you raise, that's a problem. (I haven't yet read the article; maybe it's crap, maybe it isn't.) But complaining that a three-sentence lead is not itself a full, balanced inquiry is missing the point in a manner that verges on the pathological.
no subject
no subject
The guy's article is going to be about the truth between the Catholic Church dogma of "condoms = bad" and the CDC dogma of "condoms = 100% effective." Once he's done, I'll see if I can get the info on the studies if you want so that you can see.
Despite this fact, I think the Catholic Church is...I can't even think of a word horrible enough for what they are for doing this. And in Africa of all places. A good analogy would be that a bulletproof vest is not 100% effective, but if I'm a cop in a dangerous neighborhood, you can bet I'll be wearing one.