Burning condoms for Jesus

My friend Mickey Nardo responded to all this about the pope and condoms in Africa with this:

When we were in Kenya, we asked our guide about condoms. He said the government tried putting up free condom dispensers all over the place. They kept disappearing. They thought, "Great. They're stealing them for their villages." But then they found great heaps of them in the bush, burned in bonfires with crosses on top. Seems the local priests had been having "burn the devil's machines" services in the jungle. The logic of burning condom dispensers for Jesus is just too amazing to contemplate. In fact, using up precious trees for bonfires is also outrageous in Africa, where there are hardly any trees left. There's something strange about making babies and burning trees in a place with overpopulation and rampant deforestation.

And, lest we feel too smug, remember that it wasn't until 1965 that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Griswald v. Connecticut, invalidated that state's law that prohibited the use of contraceptives.

Ralph

The pope's side speaks

Today, the AJC printed this letter from William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League in New York:

"Ralph Roughton accuses the pope of genocide because the Holy Father says condoms are not the answer to HIV.

"So what would Roughton say about all those public officials and gay activists who demanded we keep the bathhouses open even after AIDS was detected in 1981?

"While condom use does not cause HIV, the promiscuous distribution of condoms has coincided with a precipitous increase in infections. Can't Roughton connect the dots? The Holy Father can."

First, I didn't focus on the pope saying "condoms are not the answer" but on his saying "condoms actually increase the spread."

The pope apparently said both, but unfortunately most people heard the message as "condoms don't work, in fact they make it worse," and this will encourage people who already don't want to use them to abandon the most effective preventive (97%) -- if you have sex with an infected partner.

As to Donohue's comments: Like the pope, he confuses coinciding with causation. The spread of HIV increased because we were in the middle of an epidemic that was skyrocketing before the cause was known and continued upward for a while even after condom use was recognized as an effective preventer. Who knows how much higher it would have gone without condoms? If Donohue took a longer range view of the epidemic, he would see that it declined significantly later on and that more consistent use of condoms was a major factor.

But I find it interesting that he shifted the argument from Africa, where AIDS is largely transmitted in heterosexual activities, to the U.S. gay bathhouses in the 1980s, which puts a moralizing sneer into his argument.

Why? Doesn't the argument for abstinence and monogamy in Africa hold up? And what, pray, does he mean by the "promiscuous distribution of condoms"? Why not "widespread distribution"? Again, a moralizing sneer.

I might return the favor and ask why the Catholic Church didn't get rid of pedophile priests once they knew that they were molesting little boys? Didn't they connect the dots?

Ralph

God's spokesman misspoke

On Tuesday, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution published a "Guest Column" that I wrote, based on the blog I did on here last week about the Pope's irresponsible message saying that condoms actually increase the spread of HIV/AIDS.

I had an email today from someone who challenged my views, and in responding to him I further clarified the way I made my point. So I'll reprint some of it here.

There is no disputing the fact that abstinence and faithful monogamy with an uninfected partner have the least risk of HIV transmission in individuals who live their lives in that way.

The question though is what is most effective from a public health viewpoint, given that such a large percentage of the world's population do not follow those rules. The next most effective method is the correct use of condoms, which has shown to be 97% effective in preventing transmission from an HIV+ partner to his uninfected partner in a relationship over time.

I understand what the Pope meant: if you compare abstinence/monogamy with condoms, condoms are less effective (by 3% actually) -- and relying on them instead of on abstinence increases the risk by 3% and instead of monogamy somewhat less, maybe 1% or 2%, given that some monogamous partners will unknowingly be HIV+ from previous sexual contacts or contaminated needles or blood.

That is a very small difference to make such a fuss over: 97% vs 98-100%. So my thought is that it was theology, more than public health, that motivated the pope's message.

But that's not the way the world heard his message anyway. People heard it as saying condoms will increase your risk over what it would be if you did not use condoms. So all the people who don't really want to use condoms (most everyone) will use it as an excuse to have sex without condoms -- because God's spokesman here on Earth to a 1.2 billion people said they actually increase the risk.

That is why the message was so irresponsible, because he did not clarify the question: riskier compared to what? Compared to abstinence? Yes, slightly. Compared to casual sex without condoms? Absolutely not.

Now, is that clear, Your Holiness? It is you, Your Holiness, and your message that will increase the spread of HIV, not condoms. Do you see why rational people are outraged that you spread such misinformation?

Ralph

More Michele B.

Rep. Michele Bachmann makes Sarah Palin look like a Jeopardy winner with a fount of superior knowledge.

A couple of days ago in a hearing, Geithner and Bernacke were testifying. Michele kept demanding that Geithner give her a yes or no answer to a question that was so opaque and confused that he kept trying to clarify what the question was. She kept robotically demanding "give me a yes or no answer!" "Why can't you just give me a simple answer?" Finally Bernacke leaned into the mike and said very calmly, "Because it is a poorly framed question." And that was that.

Now she's having a hissy fit because she thought Geithner implied that he might be open to the Chinese proposal to replace the U.S. dollar as the global currency. In fact, he was using a rhetorical device to consider the proposal and then walk it back to explain why the change is not needed and why he doesn't support it.

But Michele isn't too swift with subtlety, it seems, and instead her knee-jerk reaction is to attack. She fired off a press release "Bachmann Demands Truth: Will Obama Administration Abandon Dollar for Multi-National Currency?" And she demanded that Obama come clean about his intentions and say whether he agrees with Geithner.

And then she announced that she was introducing a resolution "that would bar the dollar from being replaced by any foreign currency."

The silly fact is that Michele B. completely misunderstood what they were talking about. It was not "abandoning the dollar" as our national currency but a proposal to replace the U.S. dollar as the currency in which global financial reserves are traded. The Chinese have proposed have a multi-national currency for that purpose.

Both Geithner and Obama have opposed the idea. But it has nothing to do with abandoning the dollar as our currency, anyway.

Silly, nutty Michele. Aren't her constituents beginning to be embarrassed?

Ralph

Don't mess with their guns

There is just too much craziness in the world.

First, apparently the pope would rather have people die from AIDs than use condoms. Maybe he hasn't thought this through, but his policy would seem to prefer for innocent children to die from AIDS than for their fathers to use condoms.

I don't agree, but I can see their logic in opposing anything that destroys an embryo, because they believe that it is a human being.

But, please, tell me what is wrong with condoms? Who is hurt by their use? The only 'logic' I can see to the pope's position is that sex is supposed to be only for married couples for the purpose of making babies. So anything that prevents the negative consequences of having sex in any other situation is bad. You're 17 and get pregnant? Too bad. You're husband is HIV+ and you and your unborn baby will become infected too? Too bad. Those are the consequences of sin.

Condoms, which can prevent both pregnancy and AIDS, are a no-no. So we have unwanted babies and AIDS.

And now the NRA and its craziness.

Both Obama and AG Eric Holder have said they wanted to reintroduce the ban on assault weapons, which expired 5 years ago. This came up in a discussion of the drug-related violence sweeping Mexico and the fact that most of the assault guns come from the U.S. But Mexican officials desperately want us to control the gun traffic going into Mexico.

So the NRA went into action. As reported in Newsweek:

The National Rifle Association quickly sent out "action alerts" to its members. Sixty-five House Democrats signed a letter saying they would oppose any new ban—as did Montana's two Democratic senators, Max Baucus and Jon Tester.

"Senators to Attorney General Holder: Stay Away From Our Guns," read a press release sent out by Baucus's office. In addition, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid both shot down the idea that Congress would take up any new assault weapons ban this year.

This is crazy. Who needs assault weapons? They're designed only for killing people. Hunters don't use them. They aren't what you want to keep in your bedside table to protect you from intruders. They're not even used for suicide. Nobody needs to have an assault gun.

It's crazy, but it's a political reality. Whatever the NRA wants, the NRA gets. Because the NRA spreads an awful lot of money around to politicians, and they can round up an awful lot of people who don't want anybody to mess with their guns.

Ralph

What a difference an election makes . . . "

The bush administration was noted for its arrogance and imperialism: we can do no wrong and we can do whatever we want to do because we are right.

What a difference an election makes. Obama has said that he wants the U.S. to do more to prevent guns and cash from illicit drug sales from flowing across the border into Mexico.

But today, on her trip to Mexico, Hillary Clinton's remarks appeared more forceful in recognizing the U.S. share of the blame. This has been a point of tension during the bush administration, when Mexican officials claimed that the U.S. never acknowledges how much our demand for drugs and weapons smuggling fuels the violence.

As reported on HuffingtonPost:

"I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility. . . . Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she said. "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

"Clearly, what we have been doing has not worked and it is unfair for our incapacity ... to be creating a situation where people are holding the Mexican government and people responsible," she said. "That's not right."

Clinton said she would repeat her acknowledgment as loudly and as often as needed during her two-day visit . . . [She also said] . . . the Obama administration said it would send more money, technology and manpower to secure the Southwestern frontier and help Mexico battle the cartels.

This is a good move. Some have been predicting that Mexico could be our next big crisis, because of the increasing waves of violence and drug wars along the border.

But it's also a good move because of the tone of accepting responsibility without the bluster and arrogance of the bush boys.

Ralph

Who's to blame?

In a USA Today/Gallup poll taken on Mar 21/22, only 7% blame Obama for the AIG bonuses, and only 8% blame Geithner. Nearly half (46%) blame AIG management and 19% blame Congress.

So far -- at least over the weekend -- the outrage is not focused on Obama. And this poll was before he gives his major address on the economy tonight -- and before the big Wall Street rally Monday (nearly 500 point jump in the DOW).

Moreover, Obama's 7% rating has to mean than far less than a majority of even the Republicans don't put the blame on him. So much for Boehner's all out attempt to bring down his popular support.

Ralph

GOP to Cheney: Just go away

The Hill reports that some Republicans want Dick Cheney to go back to his undisclosed location and just shut up.

Congressional Republicans are displeased with his recent appearances, saying he's hurting their efforts to rebuild the party. With approval ratings even lower than g. bush's, his defending the bush record and criticizing a popular president are only making things worse, they say.

The only thing good to say about Cheney's post-VP demeanor is that it makes g. bush look better by comparison. At least he had the decency to decline to criticize Obama, saying "he deserves my silence."

One Republican lawmaker said Cheney did Republicans no favors. "I could never understand him anyway."

Tyrants out of power lose their power to scare people. And then they turn on you.

How sweet it is !!

Ralph

Nutty Michelle Bachmann

Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has created a media stir many times before, perhaps most notably when she questioned Obama's patriotism and said that journalists should investigate all members of Congress to see who is anti-American.

Heretofore, I've been willing to laugh at her and dismiss her as just nutty.

Now, she's edging up on sedition. Here's what she said in a radio interview about the White House backed carbon cap-and-trade plan, quoted on HuffingtonPost:

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States."

The blog "DumpBachmann" thinks this amounts to sedition, defined by them as:

"speech, writing, or behavior intended to encourage rebellion or resistance against the government."

I personally think Michelle is just a harmless clown, much as Lester Maddox was in Georgia in the 1950s. I'm just surprised that the people of Minnesota re-elected her.

Ralph

Another Repub mistake

It seems ancient history now, things are moving so fast. But just a few weeks ago, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal delivered the Republican response to President Obama's major address to Congress.

One of his cute lines was mocking some of the stimulus bill's funding for what he derisively called "volcano monitoring."

Never mind that this is serious work and that it gives early warnings of volcano eruptions to help save people's lives by evacuating them when necessary.

Now a bit of proof of the pudding. Alaska's Mount Redoubt, 100 miles from Anchorage, erupted last night. A portion of the stimulus funds was slated for the U.S.Geological Service to monitor Mt. Redoubt. That's not to say that Jindal's criticism derailed monitoring and had any effect on the warnings about this particular eruption.

But it does point up the way they pick up on some small detail and lampoon it to make it seem the Democrats are wasting money. Just like they tried to portray some of the stimulus money that went for wetland preservation in CA as "Nancy Pelosi's millions to save field mice."

Ralph

Bring in the adults

I'm as outraged as everyone else over the AIG executives' undeserved bonuses, and I think they should voluntarily give them back.

I'm also not buying the story that Geithner didn't know about them until just before they were paid, and that Obama didn't know until a day later. They may not have known the specific details and amounts; but reports are now coming out that Geithner's aides were working with AIG on the compensaton plan even before he became Treasury Secretary and after. So the argument about not knowing seems to me to be in the wiggle-room category.

My guess is that, in their thinking, compensation that amounted to less than 0.1% of the total was not a deal-breaker and not worth fighting over, and they underestimated what a firestorm would result when they became the symbol of all that people resent about the different rules for the haves and the have-nots. And more and more of us feel we're slipping into the have-not category.

So now Obama is in a delicate position that challenges even his legendary balancing skills, specifically with the Geithner plan for dealing with toxic assets coming out today, and a House bill passsed and headed for the Senate that would tax these bonuses at 90%.

He definitely supports the Geithner plan, as does the financial world. But it is soundly opposed by the public and by some economists, most notably Paul Krugman.

It's time to bring in the adults, led by out adult-in-chief. And he's good at it. Let's see what he's able to accomplish tomorrow night in his major address to the nation on the economy. If he can do something comparable to what his Philadelphia speech on race did to defuse the Jeremiah Wright controversy, then we may make it through.

At this point, we have two crises: (1) the real economic disaster and (2) public sentiment. The latter, if allowed to run amuk and fueled by outrage, can make it impossible to deal rationally with the former. But neither can the outrage be dismissed. Obama has made a good start by acknowledging the outrage and, at the same time, reminding us that it is unwise to govern from a position of anger.

It's time for a dose of reality from an adult who inspires confidence and hope, who knows the wonky details, who has a plan that makes sense, and who can teach us in a way that we can understand.

It's a tall order. Nothing less is likely to pull us through.

Ralph

Too big to fail?

Robert Reich, Clinton's Sec. of Labor and now university professor, makes a good point. He says that obscured by outrage over bonuses is "the real scandal of AIG:"

Apart from AIG's sophistry [their excuses for why the bonuses had to be paid] is a much larger point. This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. So to whom should they be accountable? When taxpayers have put up, and essentially own, a large portion of their assets, AIG and other behemoths should be accountable to taxpayers. When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG's bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken.

Obama is getting hammered, not only by progressive economist Paul Krugman, but across the board. Sure, it's inevitable that handling this economic crisis won't win popularity contests, no matter how you do it.

But I am increasingly worried that he has taken the wrong path in relying on Summers and Geithner for his plan. They are so steeped in Wall Street type thinking, or as I have said, they have Wall Street DNA, that I'm having my doubts.

I still trust Obama more than anyone else -- more than myself. Critics, including me, can focus only on the one issue, while he has to balance EVERYTHING, including a recalcitrant minority party in Congress that can tie things up and, with enough centrist Democrats, could even derail his plan.

Frank Rich questions whether this is Obama's "Katrina moment." Well, he's had one or two before -- I'm thinking Jeremiah Wright -- and he came through. He's addressing the nation Tuesday night. Let's hope he hits another grand slam.

Ralph

A lighter note

At the annual Gridiron dinner, where journalists and politicians roast each other, Joe Biden took a jibe at journalism that's worth repeating, just because it's clever, not because it reflects my feelings about the decline and disappearing of major newspapers:

Biden: "I understand these are dark days for the newspaper business, but I hate it when people say that newspapers are obsolete. That's totally untrue. I know from firsthand experience. I recently got a puppy, and you can't housebreak a puppy on the Internet."

Ralph