E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Reuters
U2 front man, Bono, middle, poses with fellow band member, The Edge, left, Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard, right, and New South Wales state Premier Kristina Keneally at an event to launch World Aids Day in Sydney.
Dylan Martinez / Reuters
Elton John attends the morning conference at The Independent newspaper editorial office in London, Nov. 30, 2010. John is the guest editor of the special World Aids Day edition of the British daily paper, due out on Dec. 1.
Paula Bronstein / Getty Images
Panha, 8, suffering from diarrhea uses a bucket at the special ward at the National Pediatric Hospital for HIV/AIDS, Feb. 12, 2010 in Phnom Penh. About 170,000 Cambodians live with HIV/AIDS and more than 60,000 children are orphaned by the disease.
When I was younger, much younger, AIDS/HIV was horrifying. It was so scary that people didn’t really talk about it, and that was a big part of the problem. It’s been interesting to see AIDS/HIV become mainstreamed to the point where it’s a popular celebrity cause.
Today, when we talk about AIDS, we often reference rock concerts and famous people sporting red ribbons. Meanwhile, the disease is raging in third world countries. Do you think celebrity endorsement is the best way to raise money for AIDS research and medication for the poor? I sometimes wonder if celebrities are too pretty and too far removed from the terrible reality.
Click to see a World AIDS Day slideshow.
Leave a Comment:
Counselor of HIV dating site PozRomance,,com said Sexually active individuals need
to know how to protect themselves from these STDs as well as have access to
condoms and HIV rapid testing. Those very sexually active celebrities should get themselves tested at first.
Given a chance.
Robert, I do think celebrity endorsement helps bring awareness to this cause. Certainly Elton, and by the way it is Sir Elton John, certainly has seen the horrors of AIDS. To me, and it's just my take on the subject, I could be wrong, it is a simple matter of the 1% distancing factor. Just like here in the good old USA there are those who snicker at their neighbor when they get laid off, because it seems so removed, until the one who snickers is set to pasture as well, and then it becomes a horror.
Remember, those who laugh, laugh last.
Being faithful to one partner would be a good start...Just trusting someone to be negative with multiple partners in the mix is not the way to go...And having discovered the so called cures that we have should not give anyone the privilege of thought that they might be immune or above it all...Just sayin'
Let's borrow more money from our children to fund more AIDS research and treatment in other countries!
Wow... Please tell me you are a Christian... So I can tell you what a hypocrite you are, and how what you just said is the exact opposite of what your faith espouses.... And if you are not a Christian... well, then you're just a cold, heartless, excuse for human being aren't you...? Did you see the picture of that baby (above)?
actually it would be the Atheist that would hold a view closer to that of "irate Ken". They believe there is no purpose to life and that people are merely the end result of millions of years of random genetic mutations beginning with primordial slime. People have no real value, certainly no more than the cow that was killed so you could eat your McDonalds hamburger. Furthermore, if they live consistent with their worldview, they would agree that there is are no moral absolutes, just moral relativism which means there is no "right" or "wrong". So it wouldn't be wrong to let a little child die without trying to help it. Christianity on the other hand teaches to love one another sacrificially (maybe you should read the story of the Good Samaritan in the Bible, that would give you a more accurate portrayal of the teachings of Christianity).
Though I am not an atheist myself... I do know some, and you are completely off-base in your assessment... disagreeing with a superstitous ideology based on fables and mythology does not mean you are morally bankrupt... quite the contrary... and it does not mean one must bow to the theory of random processes... In fact, even Stephen Hawking has said...
"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired". - Stephen Hawking
People like myself that reject organized religion, don't necessarily believe there is no chance of a divine architect... just that religions ideas about all that have just as much chance of being completely wrong as they do of being right, if not more so.
Bad choice of example, as it has been clearly demonstrated that it is fundamentalist Christians that have sat around a sick child praying, as the child slowly died over days and weeks, rather than allow science and medicine to cure the child... I have yet to hear of an atheist who would do such a heinous thing.
My point in calling out Irate ken, is that what Christianity preaches, is not always what Christians do...
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi
That was just 'V's' point... Most people will claim they are of Christian beliefs... But are extremely hypocritical.
While I agree with you guys, I really do feel that the rest of the world are in need of a cure. Just look how much we all suffer from fear, prejudice and bigotry. Creating awareness the way Elton and Bono does is incredible. Yet we need to change our attitude and that is what will help us to help those who are suffering from AIDS - https://creately.com/blog/diagrams/over-5000-people-die-from-aids-daily-you%E2%80%99re-responsible/
Nancy, not everyone who is sexually active is at risk. HIV is not an equal opportunity disease, no matter what you've heard.
Risk level is a function of your activities, gender, orientation, choice of partner, and ethnic identity.
So having your partner that you've devoted monogamy to, decides they're going to have a fling... Just one time, but you don't find out until you test positive for HIV... How does that make monogamous (sp?) one more risky? The person that devoted monogamy is the one who ultimately suffers because of someone elses selfish attitude... The monogamous (sp?) one isn't the one taking the risk... Get it? Anyone that is having unprotected sex takes a risk!
So, J... You are certainly not correct with your statements.
Aids is completely preventable at no cost to tax payers. If people married one person and stayed faithfully monogomous then they would never fear getting the disease. Unfortunately, there are many children born with the disease because their parents were not monogomous or they used drugs sharing needles. I feel sorry for the innocent children who are paying the high price for their parents irresponsible lack of self control.
@ 'told ya so' - Not necessarily... What about the people that, in the 80's got a blood transfusion and didn't know anything until it was too late? Or someone that went to the aid of a person HIV positive and because it was an emergency didn't think to ask the person injured if they were ever tested HIV positive... Person doing the first aid didn't happen to have rubber gloves in their pocket and had a cut on their finger... Passing blood from the HIV positive person to the rescue person. There ARE other instances. You can't rewind time and make it so no one has HIV and start over.