Annie Lennox SING's Woman of Peace

For those that may not have been paying attention, AIDS has not been cured. Nor has the number of people getting HIV stopped. It's not popular to talk about such things, but that may be part of why Annie Lennox has been doing just that.

Annie Lennox has been probably best known for her music career. She is a Scottish singer and acclaimed for her many albums and remarkable voice. It is that same voice that gathered 23 female singers to release their own versions of a song called SING. The proceeds of this went to help South Africans via the Treatment Action Campaign. So far SING has raised over $2,000,000.



In honor of her efforts, and her continuing work to fight AIDS and help women and children especially in South African, Annie Lennox has received the Woman of the Peace award for 2009. The award was presented to her at a summit of Nobel Peace laureates in Berlin (President Obama was not present).

I love to discuss and share the contributions made by entertainers and celebrities for people in need across the world. I share the concern of Lennox and others over the fight against AIDS and prevention of HIV. I just wish the rest of the media would do the same.

Tens of millions still contract AIDS and HIV every year. Even in the U.S. HIV and AIDS continues to be a threat. There is no cure. HIV/AIDS afflicts people of every walk of life. Rich and poor, Black, White, Latino, Asian, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, male and female - all alike. Anyone having unprotected sex is potentially capable of contracting HIV and AIDS.

I commend Anne Lennox on her devotion to saving lives and caring for the sick. I congratulate her on her well earned award.

I just wish that other, more political rockstars, one day earn the awards and praise they have received for doing absolutely nothing except smiling. And yes, that is a dig at President Obama.

Lane Brown bad mouths RED(WIRE)

If I mentioned HIV/AIDS to you, I would expect that you might say a horrible disease that needs to be stopped. If I said that your help, a donation of say $2.50, would provide medicine and research for a cure to HIV/AIDS most would say no problem. It’s a small amount of money and at worst you are losing a cup of coffee from Dunkin Doughnuts or an extra shot of espresso at a coffeehouse. If I suggested you make that same donation once a month I imagine that most would still say ok, again it’s not enough money to worry about the rent over.

Now here is the question. Does it matter if you actually made a donation of $5 and only $2.50 went to the research and medicine?

For VULTURE and Lane Brown it does. There is an article that takes on the RED(WIRE) charity which provides music from various bands to digital subscribers for a monthly fee of $5. It seems the problem Vulture has is that only half of the money gets to provide medicine for those afflicted with AIDS in Africa. A bit less than the other half the money goes to the artists, the rest to administration fees.

Musicians are getting paid for their effort on behalf of a charitable organization. The world is about to stop spinning. Seriously so what. At least the charity is getting 50% of the proceeds. Many organizations can’t boast that much. And it’s an extra $2.50 per subscriber per month that was not available before.

I understand that some might want to sit back and use the logic that 50% of a donation going to a great cause is not enough, justifying their refusal to make a donation. But I am not in favor of anything that uses such an argument to promote their own success and profit (note the 5 ads on the page). It’s a bit of a slap in the face.

How much I wonder of the advertising dollars is New York Media LLC (owner of the site) giving to AIDS research and medical aid in Africa or anywhere? If they are giving money to help end AIDS and help those in Africa, or anywhere, afflicted with this disease, how much is that organization actually providing after the fees of operation and whatever else. Are they just throwing stones from in their glass house?

Entertainers get paid to perform at charity events. Charities have administration costs. The bigger the venue, and/or entertainer, the higher the costs to operate. That’s the way of the world. Even charities can only run but so long without paying the bills.

If VULTURE or Lane Brown really are upset about the division of money being sent to fight AIDS I ask where their charity providing more than 50% of the donations exists? I want to see the entertainers and celebrities they have endorsing their events and services that help AIDS only. I want to see the media attention they give to AIDS and HIV prevention and cure.

In fact, searching the blog for AIDS provides 46 results going back to June of 2007. In that time, on this keyword, exactly 1 post comes up that deals with AIDS. And that is this post blasting U2’s Bono and RED(WIRE). I really think that with a record like this VULTURE and Lane Brown should shut the hell up when it comes to people actually doing something more than complaining about AIDS/HIV.

Grey's Anatomy helps enrich HIV awareness

Score one for broadcast television. With the advent of cable television, and now with the potential for the public to view 500 channels, broadcast TV has lost most of its power to influence. Once there was a time when a hit show could capture 30 or 40% of the population, today they are lucky to grab 5%.

Because of that loss of viewership broadcast television has essentially given up on presenting important issues. The focus has increasingly become mindless fodder that kills as many brain cells as it entertains. The original intention of television to help inform the public has gone the way of vacuum tubes and Black and White sets.

Yet occasionally there are issues important enough that the Hollywood executives break from their constant pursuit of eyeballs. For Grey’s Anatomy the issue at hand was HIV.

Now I bet that most of my readers are aware that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another via fluid exchanges. That means saliva, blood, mucus and so on. Obviously that also means that a mother with HIV can transmit the disease to her unborn child. But did you know that if given proper treatment the baby could have a 98% chance of NOT getting HIV.

Yes, it is true and not a television plot device.

The episode was written with the help of the Kaiser Family Foundation. The goal was to inform the public and to see if that information was absorbed by the public.

“One week before the show, 15% of the viewers surveyed said that they were aware of the mother-to-child HIV transmission risk. One week after the show, 61% of viewers of the episode were aware of the risk. Six weeks after the show, 45% of viewers remembered the information correctly (Childs, ABC News, 9/17)”

Now I am sure that my readers are far beyond the mere 15% that realized HIV could be transferred from mother to child. But I’m not as sure how many knew that proper treatment could lower the risk of the child, nor how low that risk could be made to be.

Still it’s amazing that so many failed to realize the positive power of television. In all the formats, cable or broadcast, this is one medium that can reach people of all ages, across the world, 24 hours a day. When television was first created the intention was to inform and entertain.

With those 25 and under the most at risk, with the continuing growth of HIV and AIDS, with no cure any closer than the first day the disease was learned of information is vital. We need to disseminate the truth about this disease, the transmission the risk factors the treatment.

I commend the Kaiser Foundation and Grey’s Anatomy for taking this risk. I commend the Hollywood executives that for a moment forgot that viewers are the only goal. I commend the actors for taking a moment to promote a good for the public over their career.

Television should not be the same as going to a college lecture. But it can be a tool that can enrich lives, maybe even save them. As long as threats such as HIV and AIDS exists we need to use our best tool to keep us informed and remembering how to live long healthy lives.

Can television commercials promote HIV and AIDS?

Mrs. H,

Thank you for commenting. My response is not only to your comments but for those reading this post for the first time.

Now it’s not me saying this Levi’s 501 jeans commercial is about sex. I didn’t make it. But to watch this and to say they think that sex will sell their jeans seems obvious to me. The question of morality should be asked of Levi’s.

Now you asked how I connect this to HIV and AIDS. Well I view it like this. Teenagers and 20-something’s experience huge hormonal changes. Their sex drives are massively amped up compared to most any other age group, as is their belief that they are invulnerable to any harm. As such they don’t always think in the most logical or complete manner once sex is on the horizon. That leads to risky acts and spontaneous action.

That is not to say every young adult is like this. But honestly most are.

This is why far too many young adults don’t carry or use condoms. Add to that the general cultural fear and/or embarrassment about asking questions relating to sex and you have an environment that is ripe for transmitting STD’s. The worst of those STD’s is HIV and AIDS.

If unprotected sex can cause pregnancy, transfer Chlamydia or Herpes, then it can absolutely spread HIV and/or AIDS. Unprotected sex often is connected to high risk sexual activity, multiple partners, and spontaneous sex acts. The failure to even hint at a question of the sexual heal status of a potential partner due to fear, embarrassment, and/or fear of thus being rejected increases the chance of unprotected sex.

This commercial emphasizes spontaneous sex. It never asks any question of sexual health status. The very environment of the act demands the high risk nature of the sex. So in consequence it directly promotes the chances of getting an STD which means the chance of HIV and/or AIDS is MASSIVELY more likely.

Mrs. H, I see it like this. If we, via the media, promote spontaneous, high risk sex we promote the chance of getting and spreading HIV and AIDS. If we maintain a cultural fear and taboo about speaking to a potential sex partner about their sexual health status, we promote HIV and AIDS.

Unprotected sex is high risk sex and promoting HIV and AIDS. Ignorance of a sex partner’s sexual health is promoting HIV and AIDS. And both of these are the reason that most of those with HIV and/or AIDS currently in the United States are 25 or younger.

Assuming that unprotected random sex acts with a person that looks healthy, is of the opposite sex, or part of a race that is of lower HIV risk does not make anyone immune or safe from contracting HIV and/or AIDS. It is virtually inviting the contracting and spreading of the disease. And the 501 jeans ad does just that.

Some might think that I am overreacting. Perhaps I am. But what if your kid gets HIV and/or AIDS? What if it is you? IS not asking a simple question, having documentation, and being protected worth less than your life?

Because unprotected sex is like playing Russian Roulette with the odds, and you will be shot – if not the first time, then eventually. No one can beat the odds forever. Even if a jeans commercial would like to make it seem like you can.

HIV and AIDS: the problem still exists

One of the things you really have not heard about of late is HIV and AIDS. Of the various diseases in the world, this is one of the most deadly and it is also one of the easiest to prevent. Yet it continues to grow in numbers, recently in NYC a report stated

“The report says in 2006, nearly 4,800 New Yorkers contracted HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. This means there were 72 new infections per 100,000 people. That number is three times higher than the national rate, in which the incidence of new infection is 23 per 100,000 people.”

Now some may want to focus on the words New York City, or 72 new infections. But what they are not focusing on is the equally important “the national rate, in which the incidence of new infection is 23 per 100,000 people.”

It’s been almost 30 years since the world became aware of HIV and AIDS. 25 million people worldwide have died, with roughly 33 million known infected people at the end of 2007. And while the numbers may have slowed they continue to grow. Half of those know infections are in people at or under age 25.

Don’t believe that because you aren’t seeing news stories, or hearing elected officials speak about HIV and AIDS that they have been cured or gone away like smallpox.

Now I reach roughly 115 or more countries each month. Not one of these nations is without AIDS or HIV. And this may not be scientific, or the most accurate statement, but I believe that the chance of getting HIV are better than getting Cholera, Malaria (in the U.S. – worldwide it is a larger problem), Measles, Mumps, combined in the U.S. Even in other nations, excluding Malaria, it leads most other chances of getting a disease.

If you live in London, or Dover, or Milan, or Barcelona, or Hong Kong, or Dayton Ohio or anywhere you can get HIV. Living in a small town or a major city will not protect you. Being White or Black or a woman will not protect you. Nor will your social class, education, age, religion, or any other classification you can name.

If you are having unprotected sex, especially with more than one partner in the past decade, you need to get checked. It’s just that simple.

I know some people are nervous or embarrassed about this subject. It’s probably why the major news media and the current Presidential candidates tend to shy away from this subject. But there really is no reason to be.

Getting tested is a simple blood test, done in your doctor’s office. It’s quick and private. You can get it done along with your annual physical. When I joined the Marines I was given my first HIV test, as is standard in the U.S. military. Since that time I get a test done as part of my annual check-up. It’s just part of the routine, along with my tests for diabetes, lung cancer, heart disease, cholesterol levels, and the normal check-up items.

It takes 30 seconds, isn’t your life worth that?

Donate for breast implants or school books, NAACP, and Jerry's kids

Ok, it’s official. America is screwed up in a massive way. I can only come to that conclusion after finding out about a site that I just can’t believe exists. But it does, and it’s real. Not only that, it was a featured as a story on Fox News earlier today. What is the site? MyFreeImplants.com [No I will not link directly to the site – if you need to see it you can get there easily enough]

Only in America is it possible for such a site to not only exist, but to relatively flourish. The goal of this site is that flat-chested women (18 and over) place their pictures and bio on the site. Men (or women I suppose) who find a particular woman interesting, contact that woman and speak with them via email, as I understand. Based on the looks of the woman, and conversations – possibly with reward of “sexy photos” (at the discretion of the ladies involved) – the ‘benefactors’ donate money towards the ladies gaining cosmetic surgery that will augment their breasts.

That’s the basis of the site. Simple direct and legal. Based on the 4 successes listed on the homepage of the site right now this site has raised at least $23,345. Do the women look different? Yes. Better? That’s dependant on your personal opinions.

But the thing that I am amazed by is what I just mentioned. This site raises money for basically nothing. I won’t equate it with porn, nor an internet somewhat interactive version of Playboy, but I don’t think it’s far from it either.

I’m sure the women involved are quite happy with the results of the site. I’m sure that women that want the cosmetic surgery, without the means to afford it, and willing to undergo this process feel justified. I don’t question them at all. But I must say I’m annoyed by it.

Call it a bit of jealousy. I request donations of .50 cents to $1 (more if you want) for the virtually daily efforts I provide on my blogs and sites. I provide t-shirts, mugs, poetry and more, updated several times a year. I use those donations to help fund the cost of the various sites, and my give away contests (like the $1,100 I gave away for Christmas) and efforts to improve the quality of life – like the I Love America That’s Why I Vote! campaign. Effectively I give back a tangible something for the precious and generous donations that I receive from you my readers. And I thank each and every one of you that do this for me.

But this website seems to just receive money for nothing. I don’t get it. I don’t see the value in it. Hell, even going to a strip club has more value and return in it. And why do the male benefactors waste their money in such a manner? Forget my donations, the $23,000 mentioned above is discretionary money that could have gone to AIDS prevention and cure efforts. It could buy new school books for a local public elementary school, or help feed kids in those schools. It can give the homeless meals, clothing, and shelter. It could go to organizations that support the improvement of African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and other people of color in every aspect of our lives. Each of those things is far more worthy of a donation than me, and definitely the breast implant site.

So maybe I’m a bit jealous. Maybe I want to get .50 cents per reader so that I can do a huge campaign to help register votes so that the President elected in November realizes that they need to make substantive changes to improve America for Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos. Maybe I want $1 a reader to be able to give a high school student their first year in college free. Maybe I want to give multiple families across the nation money so they can enjoy a feast on the holiday, have gifts for the kids, and/or pay off a few bills. And yes, having a few extra dollars for myself if possible would be nice.

At least I’m honest. And I strive to give a somewhat tangible return for that, even if I don’t get anything. Hell, if the choice is between me and the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, give it to Jerry’s kids. But $5,000 to look at pictures of a woman with bigger boobs?

I suggest this to those that would spend their money so frivolously. Buy a DVD for $20, take the remaining $4,980 and split it among a few of the organizations I’ve just mentioned. And if you have .50 cents, or a $1 or 2 extra, I’m happy to receive that as well.

The point is you can do far better, for far more people, than an optional self-respect boost for a single person.

And if you think I’m wrong, I’d love to know why.

Preparing for the TV One Heartland Presidential

This is an excerpt about the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast that will occur latter today.

As the TV One webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum at 2:30 today approaches, I want to review some of the main issues that I think it will and will not cover. Overall I think that the candidates, of both parties, will seek to avoid a large number of issues most people really care about. Expect a good deal of deflection and moves to tangent issues rather than answering the actual questions posed. I doubt that it will be as obvious as the dramatic and highly covered yes, no, and maybe answer Senator Clinton offered on driver’s licenses for illegal aliens in New York State but I believe they will happen none the less.

First off there are the issues that the candidates will avoid speaking about. The issues are widespread and party specific. For the Democrats there is the fact that for 9 months of this year virtually every candidate vehemently stated that the surge in Iraq could not and would not work. They coupled the disbelief in the surge with they demands for immediate withdrawal of troops.

In the past couple of months, the most liberal pundits, reporters, and politicians have verified that the surge has in fact worked. Iraq is safer and more stable now than since Saddam Hussein was removed. Thus we have seen the debates and the public speeches of the candidates have moved from immediate withdrawal and failure, to a need to withdraw most troops (leaving an unspecified amount of troops for an unspecified amount of time) and failure, to not speaking about the subject at all as much as possible. Kind of funny how that went.

In addition Democratic candidates have moved into the subject of national healthcare as their primary talking point. Though all the plans are not fully explained, and the cost (upwards of 100 billion dollars at the least) has no explanation where it will receive funding from (extra taxes from the rich is the general answer. What is rich is a floating income number ranging from 200,000 at the top and 90,000 near the bottom).

For Republicans the key early issue was again Iraq and supporting the surge (and thus highlighting the Democrats willingness to retreat) and being against terrorism al la 9/11. After several months of each candidate mentioning how strong they are against terrorists they all have shied away from using the single greatest attack on American soil in past 60 years for their political gain (mostly).

The new line of discussion, now that the surge has been shown to be working and President Bush has mandated that surge troops will be slowly phased out of Iraq, has become illegal aliens. Each candidate has claimed they will resolve this issue, though there is no plan stated that will deal with the 12 million plus illegals that are in this nation right now, nor any that will be coming in the future. There are half thoughts of paths to citizenship, documentation, healthcare and deportation but no real plans. And lots of one-upmanship over who is tougher on the subject and who has the best past performance. Oh and there are arguments over who is more devoutly religious, and who can do more to prevent higher taxes. Again no real plans though.

So that is what they were all talking about, and what they want to discuss now. It’s a very short list. And yes I do realize they spoke about other things. But that was/is the focus.

Continued at Preparing for the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum Part 2 - 12.1.2007.1

Help prevent AIDS - 6.23.2007.1

I always enjoy speaking about celebrities and entertainers that are promoting a cause or helping to improve the lives of the general public. Too often the focus is on the negative aspects of these individuals, and the positives get glossed over by the general news media. Even rarer are reports on the positive actions of Black entertainers and celebrities.

Well here is something that needs more attention. While many may know that AIDS is a major epidemic in the world you may not know that there are more than 1 million people in America afflicted with the disease. It’s estimated that 40,000 people get infected with AIDS every year. It is also the leading cause of death among Black women between the ages of 25 – 34. That is unacceptable to me.

I’m happy to say that many others feel the same way. Several well known African American actors and actresses, as well as other celebrities, and institutions are helping raise awareness of this disease and to help motivate more people to get tested. The goal is to get 1 million African Americans to get an AIDS test between now and December 2008.


I think it’s a good cause. I’ve been tested every year since I was in the military back in 1986, my most recent test being this February when I got my annual physical. Knowing what is going on is critical to good health. One of my sisters caught a cancer in the initial stages because of a regular check-up. Checking is important.


On June 25th, Ms. Regina King, Mr. Henry Simmons, Mr. Hill Harper, Ms. Vanessa Williams, and many others will be getting public HIV screening tests to help promote awareness and prevention of this disease. Institutions involved in this event include the Screen Actors Guild, Black AIDS Institute, and The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists among others.

Do your part in protecting yourself and those you love. Get screened and know your status. Celebrities, entertainers, and I have done it, you can too.

This is what I think, what do you think?