EMR personnel standing by.

According to BBC news, pope Maledict is grudgingly allowing for the limited use of condoms to prevent HIV.

ShriEEEEEk!!!

When asked whether the Catholic Church is "fundamentally against the use of condoms", the Pope is said to have replied [...] "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution. "In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality," he said.

The Pope gives the example of the use of condoms by prostitutes as "a first step towards moralisation", even though condoms are "not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection".

It would seem the evulness of losing millions of devout parishioners to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and everywhere the Vatican Taliban enjoys enforcing its own brand of religious dogma, is worse than the evil of safe sex.

Oh, and in case Dodo Can Spew - Blob Blogging Whinger's BFF - happens to be the one to alert authorities, that phone number for 9-1-1?

It's 9-1-1.

Wikileaks and the wet spot.

The Guy Who Kicked Hornets' Nests Meets His Bareback Waterloo?

In a so-called newsgathering environment where the sexual shenanigans of Tiger Woods dominated several info-tainment cycles for several weeks, it's no surprise this story is emerging as the latest frisson du jour.

Many progressives are obsessed with this event, some even declaring that the fingerprints of the Pentagon, the CIA and perhaps M16 are all over this foiled attempt to smear Julian Assange and thus discredit Wikileaks.

Others are dissecting the institutionalized environment of sexual politics and gender-stalinism that apparently monitors all carnal interactions in Sweden.

Far from seeing in this imbroglio Andrea Dworkin's posthumous reach, I suspect that sexuality, like pretty much everything else in Sweden, has been codified in the most minute detail by the hygienic IKEA mindset.

The (possibly) bare facts of the event:

There's a tumescent cyber-mob of Assange groupies who use any and every web-based instrument to follow him and drool over his every move.

Assange stopped in Stockholm pour y mouiller l'ancre and in time-honoured tradition availed himself of the bounty of female pulchritude flinging itself at his feet, his head or some anatomical target in between.

There were sexual interludes in multitudes. Assange left town, still very much The Lone Ranger.

There was disappointment, and perhaps even a desire for revenge. Given that one of the complainants once blogged a manifesto for scorned lovers - her blueprint on how to wreak revenge - the result was predictable.

The method of inquiring about a possible sexual assault, the timing and the unofficial release of information regarding charges of Assange's alleged criminal behaviour are malodorous.

The contention at the crux of the alleged "sexual molestation" would be Assange eschewed the use of a condom.

Two things: If the conspiracy theorists are correct, and "They" are out to neutralize Assange, it would seem that his Achilles' ... ah, ... heel is now common knowledge.

And notwithstanding the immeasurable and heroic contributions Assange has made by developing Wikileaks and facilitating the dissemination of critical documents, he appears to be a common garden variety cad - et profiteur - when it comes to the nature of his interactions with women.

This contemporary Peter Pan fits the profile of a risk-chasing adrenaline junkie. With regard to his sexual practices, he would not be a role model to emulate. Sexually communicated diseases are on the rise and some variants on the original diseases have become resistant to antibiotic therapy.

For many die-hard admirers of Assange, his (rumoured*) cavalier attitude towards responsible, safe-sex choices only serves to heighten his allure and his charm.

This reasoned observation by arborman posted at Bread'n'Roses says it best:

"Whatever the truth of the case, none of it takes away from the importance of Wikileaks and what it is doing. And sadly, every single time anyone ever mentions anything that has been released by Wikileaks, the crazies will immediately mention the rape in Sweden that didn't happen. And the first sentence of my post will be endlessly repeated, to no avail.

Of course I hope he didn't do anything untoward. I find it unlikely that he would make such a colossal mistake, now of all times, without having done so in the past. But I also find it worrisome how quickly people are eviscerating the accusers."

Update: Assange and his supporters respond to the media event, as does the media.

* This is still speculative.

A Red-Ribboned Clockwork.

For decades, yes decades now, the progressive, the non-bigoted, the non-fundamentally religious and the compassionate have been advocating for services and support for people living with HIV/AIDS as well as educational campaigns that present truthful information.

The regressive/conservative, bigoted, fundamentally religious and patronizing view is that the disease is a scourge sent from heaven and that it’s gawd’s punishment for enjoying unmarried and/or non-breeding sex.

Thus it’s probably not difficult to guess on which side of the divide might be found the minds who created this particular advertisement for a public campaign.

"In the highly-sexualised clip … a couple undress and begin to make love in a dimly-lit bedroom.

But what appears to be a typical, if steamy, advert for perfume or underwear takes a macabre twist when the camera pans to man's face at the moment of climax - revealing him to be Adolf Hitler.

The commercial has been released to coincide with 2009 World Aids Day, but established HIV/Aids charities have distanced themselves from its message, saying that it could make life more difficult for sufferers."

It’s unfortunate that the group decided to produce an erotically-charged advertisement, which could have effectively communicated a sex-positive and responsible message for condom use, in such a repulsive way.

Such an approach, known to those familiar with B.F.Skinner’s research on psychological imprinting and the dubious results obtained from using negative reinforcement aka punishment, reminds me of the last act in the film A Clockwork Orange.

Sometimes you find allies in the darndest places.

Allies are individuals or organizations that may not share the same vision or raison d'être yet choose to join forces to further a cause or to advocate for specific rights.

The humorous graphic above is from a clickable link I found on a Blogging Tory's site. I suspect that I wouldn't agree with many of Ranting Owl's opinions, but I was delighted to see the above.

From a March 18 2009 media release at Catholics4life:

Pope Not Infallible on Condoms

The Vatican has yet again been forced to revise statements made by Pope Benedict XVI as he embarked on a foreign trip. En route to Cameroon on March 17, the pope claimed that condom use would "aggravate the problem" of HIV. A transcript of the pope's comments on the Vatican's Web site altered the comment to suggest that condoms "risked" aggravating the problem.

Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, welcomed the change as a sign that the pope is not infallible on this issue and is willing to acknowledge his mistakes. "The pope has admitted that he is unsure whether condoms can help alleviate the spread of HIV. Where there is doubt there is freedom and Catholics can make up their own minds whether they use condoms or not. Indeed, the vast majority of Catholics has already made this call and use condoms to protect themselves and their partners against STIs, including HIV.

"We call on the pope to revisit the teaching on condoms with a view to lifting the ban at the earliest possible moment. In his review, he should include experts who are unequivocal that condoms can help prevent the spread of HIV, like UNAIDS, the World Health Organization and HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations around the world."

"It took the church hierarchy 359 years to stop continuing the line taken by their predecessors on Galileo. We hope that this error does not take so long to change."

Yes. Still relevant today as it was last March.

Oh, and .... SHRIEEEK!!!

Social deprivation, not genetics, accounts for children's deaths.

An international, groundbreaking new study led by Dr Janet Smylie of the Centre for Research on Inner City Health based at the Keenan Research Centre, St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto has released its findings. The infant mortality rate for native babies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand is higher, as much as four times that of non-native newborns. It also identified spikes in occurences of SIDs, injury, suicide and accidental death among aboriginal kids in all four countries.

"Every infant who dies … I believe is a tragedy we should follow up on," Smylie said. She also spoke of stereotypical and at times racist treatment received by native people.

"I saw a lot of challenges when I was delivering babies here in Ottawa. Young aboriginal moms who had perfectly good networks of family support — sometimes they were being referred to have the social worker see them even though their family was strong. I remember [another] … patient who had called into the hospital in a little bit of a panic. She had some anxiety and a strong accent. The triage nurse called me and said: 'There's something wrong with your patient. I think she's retarded.'"

"Those are stories that are just a little too frequent."

The organizations and researchers who instigated, implemented, charted and compiled the results of the study hope that the information produced by this report will become the basis for stronger policies and programs to improve children's health in the aboriginal and indigenous communities.

Canada's healthcare system killed Richardson, claims US physician.

The New York Post published an obnoxious opinion piece from a physician who claims that Canada's health care system is to blame for Natasha Richardson's death. The serious (and obvious) evidence-supported argument that he should have used - that in the US, rich and famous people have faster and better access to medical interventions - is conspicuously absent from his screed.

On a more positive note, brebis noire and I discussed in the comments after this blogpost whether Richardson might have donated her organs to patients waiting for transplants. It appears that this may be the case.

... her family allowed doctors to keep her organs for those whose lives they could save. The English actress who died after a skiing accident, was buried this week. A friend of her husband, Liam Neeson, told People magazine that she had supported organ donation.

"She spent so much time fighting the stigma of AIDS; someone like that would naturally donate her organs... by donating her organs something good could come out of [the tragedy]," said the un-named friend.

An autopsy performed in New York, where Richardson died at the Lenox Hill Hospital, showed a blow to her head had caused fatal bleeding between her brain and skull, known as an epidural haematoma. Experts said the way she had died would have left her organs viable for donation.

Paparazzi will likely be dumpster-diving behind Lenox Hill Hospital in the hopes of finding confidential documents that will help them locate the beneficiaries of Richardson's final act of generosity.

Religion never at fault; women's deaths are collateral damage.

Two young women were crushed to death in a crowded frenzy to enter Coqueiros Stadium in Luanda where the Pope was about to have a meeting with Angolan youths as Benedict XVI pontificated about the evils of systemic corruption, witchcraft and discrimination against women.

There's something about that in the Gospels, is there not?

... And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ... Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye, Matthew 7:1-5.

Absent a sense of irony, it seems the Pope floats in a bubble of sublime abstractions and religious ideology, isolated and protected from the harsh realities that Catholic Church followers confront every day.

... at a meeting with female Catholic groups ... He further emphasised “think about those lands where poverty abounds, zones devastated by war, in many tragic situations resulting or not from forced immigration, almost always women keep human dignity intact, they defend the family and uphold the cultural and religious values”.

Thus the top Catholic Church patriarch can patronize and deign to recognize women's contribution ... but upholds the ecclesiastical opinion that only male power reigns supreme in the clergy.

This imperious personal and Catholic Church position has deadly consequences for women in Africa.

The United Nations magazine, Africa Renewal, quotes an expert who participated in a UN survey of AIDS' impact on young African women. She described the conditions under which most young African women contract AIDS as follows:

"[They] are not in a position to abstain. They are not in a position to demand faithfulness of their partners. In many cases they are in fact faithful, but are being infected by unfaithful partners...A woman who is a victim of violence or the fear of violence is not going to negotiate anything, let alone fidelity or condom use ... Her main objective is to get through the day without being beaten up."

The Pope is correct in saying that AIDS cannot be eradicated by condom use alone. Clearly, when young women are raped or otherwise forced into sex against their will, the men abusing them will not commit to use condoms. But instead of offering these women useless verbiage, the Pope could have offered the vast resources of the Church to distribute anti-viral foam to young married women in AIDS-infested areas. Foam is the only form of AIDS prevention that young wives completely control and can use without their husbands' permission.

From here.

The photo-montage is from this blog.

This is how the Pope's declarations harm women and children.

This needs to be said: the Pope's declarations harm women and children. An African mother who is a practicing Catholic faces the following dilemna: If she requests that her husband use a condom when having conjugal relations, she is going against the Pope's edict, even if she is trying to protect herself and any potential child that she might carry to term from HIV infection. If her husband is a devout Catholic, he may refuse to use a condom.

If this woman decides to not allow sexual intercourse, her husband may beat her, sexually assault her or abandon her and their children. Her priest, if he obeys the Pope's edict, will consider that she sinned.

But if she becomes infected with HIV because she submitted to sex without protection, who will care and take responsibility for her children when she dies of AIDS? The Catholic Church?

Some countries were quick to take action, in response to the Pope's medieval ideology.

Spain said Wednesday it will send one million condoms to Africa to fight the spread of AIDS, one day after Pope Benedict XVI's controversial remarks that they aggravated efforts to battle the disease. "The objective is to advance the prevention of this epidemic, which affects 33 million people all over the world, two-thirds of them in Africa," the health ministry said in a statement. "Condoms have been demonstrated to be a necessary element in prevention policies and an efficient barrier against the virus, according to laboratory studies," it added.

Good for Spain, I hope that other Catholic countries follow its lead in demonstrating compassion for Africans as well as support for medical science.