Monday, January 14, 2008
NEW FINDINGS ABOUT METH USE AND HIV INFECTION
MAPP-SD has just posted some new information about research into Meth=Amphetamine use and the risk for HIV. It isn't just about an increase in risky behaviors. There are other factors that increase the risk of contracting HIV. As if we needed any more reasons not to use Meth!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
COMMENTS ON SENATE BILL 65
Senate bill 65 would add an additional penalty to the existing crime of intentionally exposing someone to HIV/AIDS. While it is already a crime in South Dakota to knowingly infect someone with HIV/AIDS, this bill would also require them to register as a sex offender.
An initial gut reaction is to say "why not?" No one should be allowed to intentionally expose someone else to harm. However, there are some unintended consequences to the criminalizing of HIV and Aids. Appealing to the emotional "hang em high" mentality may win votes but doesn't solve the problem. Indeed, it is making it worse.
First, it stigmatizes those who have AIDS even more than they already are by giving the public perception that all AIDS patients are somehow evil people.
Secondly, it creates a reason not to get tested and to know one's HIV status. The comment I heard recently; "If I don't know my HIV status, they can't charge me with a crime."
Thirdly, it costs the state of South Dakota money that is badly needed for HIV and AIDS prevention. South Dakota spends none of its own money on HIV prevention. All of the funds come from the Center For Disease Control (CDC). This money is dispensed according to the rates of infection in any given state.
South Dakota doesn't have anonymous testing. All HIV positive cases get reported to the Dept. of Health which does follow up on each case. Since HIV/AIDS has been criminalized here, a lot of people have been reluctant to get tested because they do not know the ramifications of engaging in sexual activity even if that activity would be regarded as safe. If it fails and the person gets HIV, are they liable. How do they know?
As a result a lot of people are going out of state to get tested. If they test positive, that gets figured into that states HIV infection rate not South Dakota's. Consequently, South Dakota gets less money because our rates are artificially calculated low. As a result there is less money for HIV/AIDS prevention and education and the cycle keeps going.
Add to this the fact that there is no prevention education in the schools and the stage is set for a major outbreak. Whenever, I start working with a new client especially one of the youth group members, I am amazed at the lack of information and understanding they have about HIV and AIDS.
If South Dakota and our legislators really want to prevent AIDS and not just cater to the "If it feels good, it must be evil" crowd, then they need to start investing in real education and prevention activities which address the real situations and behaviors in which people especially our youth are involved. The "abstinence only" approach being advocated by the "horrors of sex" religious fanatics has been proven to be ineffectual and unrealistic.
I find it interesting that we are finding new and novel ways to put people into prison at the same time certain legislators want to close down colleges. Turn them into prisons?
An initial gut reaction is to say "why not?" No one should be allowed to intentionally expose someone else to harm. However, there are some unintended consequences to the criminalizing of HIV and Aids. Appealing to the emotional "hang em high" mentality may win votes but doesn't solve the problem. Indeed, it is making it worse.
First, it stigmatizes those who have AIDS even more than they already are by giving the public perception that all AIDS patients are somehow evil people.
Secondly, it creates a reason not to get tested and to know one's HIV status. The comment I heard recently; "If I don't know my HIV status, they can't charge me with a crime."
Thirdly, it costs the state of South Dakota money that is badly needed for HIV and AIDS prevention. South Dakota spends none of its own money on HIV prevention. All of the funds come from the Center For Disease Control (CDC). This money is dispensed according to the rates of infection in any given state.
South Dakota doesn't have anonymous testing. All HIV positive cases get reported to the Dept. of Health which does follow up on each case. Since HIV/AIDS has been criminalized here, a lot of people have been reluctant to get tested because they do not know the ramifications of engaging in sexual activity even if that activity would be regarded as safe. If it fails and the person gets HIV, are they liable. How do they know?
As a result a lot of people are going out of state to get tested. If they test positive, that gets figured into that states HIV infection rate not South Dakota's. Consequently, South Dakota gets less money because our rates are artificially calculated low. As a result there is less money for HIV/AIDS prevention and education and the cycle keeps going.
Add to this the fact that there is no prevention education in the schools and the stage is set for a major outbreak. Whenever, I start working with a new client especially one of the youth group members, I am amazed at the lack of information and understanding they have about HIV and AIDS.
If South Dakota and our legislators really want to prevent AIDS and not just cater to the "If it feels good, it must be evil" crowd, then they need to start investing in real education and prevention activities which address the real situations and behaviors in which people especially our youth are involved. The "abstinence only" approach being advocated by the "horrors of sex" religious fanatics has been proven to be ineffectual and unrealistic.
I find it interesting that we are finding new and novel ways to put people into prison at the same time certain legislators want to close down colleges. Turn them into prisons?
Today In History: A Spunky ONE And The U.S. Post Office
The Box Turtle Bulletin has a piece on the anniversary of an important legal decision that laid the groundwork and made it possible for the LGBT Media to exist.
"Today marks a very important milestone in LGBT history. Fifty years ago today, on January 13, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its first ever pro-gay ruling in ONE Inc. v. Olesen, a landmark decision that allowed a magazine for gays and lesbians to be sent through the U.S. mail." Read more:
"Today marks a very important milestone in LGBT history. Fifty years ago today, on January 13, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its first ever pro-gay ruling in ONE Inc. v. Olesen, a landmark decision that allowed a magazine for gays and lesbians to be sent through the U.S. mail." Read more:
Thursday, January 10, 2008
So cool and So Funny and So Logical
Received this from Ace Lundon and think it is great. I debated which blog to post it to and decided to post it on the main one.
Thanks Ace!!
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Thanks Ace!!
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
FUNDAMENTALIST ANTI-TRUTH SQUAD AT IT AGAIN
I don't know if anyone else caught the Good, Bad and Ugly piece by Keith Rhudy today in the Rapid City Journal. It gave new meaning to the ugly part. When truth becomes relative to one's political agendas, we are all in trouble.
Rhudy once again made the claim that Barack Obama had a Muslim education. A claim that has been disproven many times. But there is always some who will bring it up hoping that other bigots will buy their bull. Going to school with Muslims doesn't make someone a Muslim. Rhudy I'm sure went to school with some smart people. But, that certainly didn't make him intelligent. And I thought bearing false witness was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. But, then, I guess when you've been "born again," you are above the rules.
Even if he was a Muslim, so what. This idea that we have to turn control of this country over to a bunch of fundamentalist Christian extremeists who have no regard for truth, justice or personal freedom is absurd and certainly not what our founding fathers had in mind.
Rhudy once again made the claim that Barack Obama had a Muslim education. A claim that has been disproven many times. But there is always some who will bring it up hoping that other bigots will buy their bull. Going to school with Muslims doesn't make someone a Muslim. Rhudy I'm sure went to school with some smart people. But, that certainly didn't make him intelligent. And I thought bearing false witness was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. But, then, I guess when you've been "born again," you are above the rules.
Even if he was a Muslim, so what. This idea that we have to turn control of this country over to a bunch of fundamentalist Christian extremeists who have no regard for truth, justice or personal freedom is absurd and certainly not what our founding fathers had in mind.
RON PAUL'S CLOSET
It seems that Ron Paul who has been running for President as a Republican has a History of Racism and Homophobia. Box Turtle Bulletin has posted some interesting findings from Ron's past. The New Republic Writer James Kirchic has some interesting findings as well. Is it really necessary these days to be a racist and a bigot to survive in the Republican party? I guess catering to the fundamentalist fringe will do that to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
