While everybody in the nation was jerking-off to the California recall election, there was some seaiously fucked-up news happening out there.
1: A guy in Germany crashes a plane in some trees last night after taking off from a small airport, then leaves the plane hanging in the trees until the police were finally notified this morning. He even told the airport about what happened. Nobody informed the police. Yikes. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_825051.html
“Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics,” said Melnick
This is true. If he wanted to do that, he would need to be on the Supreme Court.
“Some goals may take a lifetime to reach,” he said.
Sweet. I’m glad he’s willing to grant one whole lifetime to meet some goals. Also, I’m glad to hear that in no more than a lifetime, humans will be traveling faster than light. That’ll show light. Always acting so snooty with its, “oh, I’m faster than you, ha ha, take this Maurice Greene.” Fucking light.
Also, Phil, you forgot the greatest of news. The other other technological giant, China, plans to launch its first manned space mission. For the party.
Wait… wait… what? I think I’m flabbergasted. I mean, I hate physics as much as the next guy and would give my leg to say “Mr. Data… engage” and then watch space curve around my starship as I head off to beat Klingon ass… but I’m actually clinically unfit to be president. I… uh… hooray for China?
I remember seeing smuggled footage of the destruction caused by one of their early launches, it destroyed an entire town. The media there didn’t report anything, they were even broadcasting the launch until it started going back towards the earth. Funny chinese people.
I wish there was some kind of hand gesture I could make to communicate my gratitude that I don’t have to put up with that bullshit. I think I’ll settle for the Spock shin and hope the objects in my room can figure that one out.
I’m slightly confused about what the Vatican is attempting here. They say not to use condoms because the virus can get through. Is their suggested solution merely to just not try and stop the spread of AIDS? Nowhere in that article does it indicate that the Vatican is pressuring for the abstinence of people with AIDS, only that they don’t use condoms. Now I have always hated Catholics because I think their religion is as fundamentally destructive as that terrorism one, but am I to believe that the Vatican is recommending the spread of AIDS?
That isn’t the impression I got. I sounded more like a (somewhat factually dubious) warning. The Vatican’s true feeling, of course, is that sex with a condom is wrong, as stated in the article, so I’m sure that their preference for these individuals is simply that they not have sex. Of course, telling them, “hey, don’t have sex, because sex with a condom is sinful,” they aren’t going to get anywhere. But if they make an appeal to safety - “look, condoms aren’t going to stop AIDS, so don’t use them” - I mean, they know who they are talking to. If you have someone who is using a condom to stop the spread of AIDS, then you can operate under the assumption that this person does not want to spread AIDS, so that if you tell this person that a condom won’t stop the spread of AIDS, what you are really saying is, “don’t have sex,” but in a way that might actually convince them not to have sex (a “scientific” warning that your actions might result in the death of a loved one are more likely to be heeded than the ol’ “do that and you’re going to hell” from the Vatican).
Now, of course, a condom isn’t completely safe, so in a sense they have a point; it would be better if these individuals simple did not have sex. Their method is obviously dangerous, of course, but they are right about one thing. Given the very real (10%, when you think about it, is pretty high, especially when it is “odds of catching death”) danger, whomever is encouraging condom use should make sure that the dangers are clearly spelled out.
So, the Vatican has made a foolish statement (suprise, suprise), but when you’re running an infection rate of 20% even a 90% decrease in new infections is likely to leave an expanding infected population. These countries should be strongly encouraging abstinence in any case, and encouraging abstinence succesfully while concurrently giving safe sex education is something that the U.S. has been failing at for years. I strongly disagree with the “scientific” argument the Vatican has decided to create from nowhere, but the health ministries in most African nations are putting their populations in horrible danger with their policies.
Yeah, but if you’re a guy who has the aids but really likes sex, if someone tells you condoms don’t work, you’re gonna go “Hey, why waste the buxx? The damn things don’t work anyway!” then you will give 90% more aids to everyone.
That percentage is actually highly dubious. The chances of spreading AIDS through unprotected heterosexual intercourse are not much more than 10% (if they’re even more at all), so this statistic we’ve been given makes no sense whatsoever. I’d love to know how it was determined.
I’m sure John Paul heard it during a conversation with God. What a bunch of idiots.