You Think He Had That Memorized?

OK, so get this. You ready? You know how President Barry is on some trip to visit a bunch of different countries in something like 10 days? OK, so the first place he went was to India. And get this: It is news that he will be using a teleprompter. Wait. What?

Correct. They are almost shocked by that reality. The Telegraph of Calcutta starts off their article about this by writing: "The man who mesmerised you with that silver-tongued “Yes we can” will use a teleprompter while addressing Indian MPs in the Central Hall of Parliament on November 8." This is apparently quite surprising to them because "Sources said they could not recall an instance when a teleprompter, also called autocue or telescript, was used in the Parliament Hall earlier. " Wow. Really? Well, considering that they're giving alternative names for the ol' teleprompter, I guess it's the truth. But, man. That's just surprising to me.

The article states that "Used to the machine-gun delivery of Indian politicians who are never at a loss for words, officials here were a bit perplexed when the US embassy broached the topic of affixing a teleprompter to the lectern..." Really? Perplexed? Holy canoli, the whole world just really thought above and beyond the realm of reality with this guy, didn't they?

They certainly did, as evidenced by the one official who said: “We assumed that Obama, being such a brilliant orator, delivers speeches extempore." Riiiiiigght. Are you kidding me? Y'all assumed that he was just winging it the whole time? Any thoughts as to why, if you thought that, he would actually use a teleprompter? “Probably to avoid Bushisms,” suggested a Parliament House source who, along with his colleagues and officials of the external affairs ministry, spent the day discussing the matter with a technical team from the US. Wow.

It took an entire day to discuss putting up a teleprompter for President Barry? Why would that be? And did those guys never hear President Bush speak? Teleprompter or not, he could barely get out a coherent sentence. That was never news. But it is apparently news (in some parts) for President Barry to use a teleprompter. Odd. Very odd indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

Goin' Coconuts For President Barry

With the number of seats in the House turned over to Republicans, one might be under the impression that there is lot a lot of love for President Barry these days. Of course, one would have to be rather dense or watch a lot of cable news (I know, it's kind of redundant) to believe that, but that's the impression that the media is spewing out there right now. But if you're following the preparations that are being made for his upcoming trip to India (and who isn't?!), you'd know that not only is there still a fondness for the man out there, but it's still in that silly stage in a lot of parts.

According to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, they are taking some rather extreme measures over there in India. Sure, there's the regular security measures that are being tended to. Tons of Secret Service, even though they're not very secret because everyone can tell who they are. Bolted down manhole covers or whatever they use to cover their holes for men over there. Removing all of the coconuts from the trees. Wait. What.

Correct. The article tells us that they are "...removing all natural threats to the president as well". Apparently, 'natural threats' include "All coconuts around the city's Gandhi museum" which is one of President Barry's stops, and they "...are being taken down." Really? The coconuts? Are they that big of a threat that it warrants taking a bunch of them down?

According to the executive secretary (whose name is completely unpronounceable) at one of the places where President Barry is staying, "We told the authorities to remove the dry coconuts from trees near the building. Why take a chance?" Is there a reason why they can't just steer him clear of the trees with the coconuts in them? I'm serious about this. Why is that not the optimal solution? Are they everywhere? Why can't he just wear a helmet? Now that would be something!

Sphere: Related Content

Holy Cow! Urine There?!?!

Welcome to India where the always thorough and very well written Times Online brings us the story of a one Om Prakash (Om? Like Om on the Range? Sweet Om Alabama?) who is head of the (I'm not kidding) Cow Protection Department of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, (otherwise known as the RSS) in India. The RSS is the oldest and largest Hindu nationalist group. The Hindus are real big on the cow, not so much as an animal or a tasty dish, but rather as a revered figure in the Hindu culture. Pretty much, if you're a cow in India, you're not going to have to worry about seeing the inside of a sesame seed bun anytime soon. The Hindus believe that cow products, such as dung and urine, are cures "...for ailments ranging from liver disease to obesity and even cancer." (Trust me, I do have a point here.)

"Cow dung is traditionally used as a fuel and disinfectant in villages, while cow urine and dung are often consumed in rituals to "purify" those on the bottom rungs of the Hindu caste system." Huh. Purification of the lower classes through bovine liquid waste. An interesting theory, but probably hard to present valid data on (not that anyone would ever ask, I'm just sayin'). So what better way to purify your undesirables and cure that which ails all people and get your magical cow pee into the mainstream (pun intended) by making a soft drink out of it. Wait. What?

Correct. The "gau jal", or "cow water" as they say (and cow piss as I say) is currently "undergoing laboratory tests and would be launched "very soon, maybe by the end of this year." " All of that according to Om, the brains (or should I say the bladder) behind this whole operation. "We have developed a soft drink formula with gau jal as the base and it has been sent to a laboratory at Lucknow for testing." Yeah, I should think that you might be needing some Lucknow if you think this idea is going to fly soon. (Personally, I'm thinking a more appropriate place to send this stuff would be maybe Nochancein, Hell.)

Om, cow pee proprietor, told the Times Online "Don't worry, it won't smell like urine and will be tasty too." You know, no offense sir, but, um, if it's all right with you, I think I'm going to just go ahead and worry about this just a little bit! Oh, if I find myself in a position where I would have to actually drink this myself, I'll be worrying quite a bit then! But not worrying at all? I don't see that happening.

Om also said, "...it's going to be very healthy. It won't be like carbonated drinks and would be devoid of any toxins." OH, you got that straight! If it's made with cow urine, if definitely will not be like carbonated drinks! Not at all! See, my carbonated drinks are always, and I mean always, always 100% cow urine free! And that's not just cow urine that my carbonated drinks are devoid of! It's all urine that is not present in my carbonated drinks. I'm very confident that there is not a drop of pee in any of them. But that's just my preference. There could be others who don't think that way, and apparently Mr. Om is one of them. (And by the way, health? Yeah, it's kind of overrated if you're going to resort to drinking cow urine. I don't need health that badly! I'm perfectly OK with the kind of health which does not require drinking cow urine.)

Now, the RSS does try to influence the masses of Hindus in India by such means as "...when it organised a nationwide boycott of multinational consumer goods, including Pepsi and Coca Cola" back in 1994. Uh-huh. Yeah, and I can see that by the way that Coke and Pepsi have been struggling ever since to keep their companies in business, that it was a smashing success. Oh, wait a minute! Oh, that's right! Yeah, it didn't do any good. Coke and Pepsi don't care if you boycott. In fact, they'd probably run advertising FOR you announcing that your product is made from cow urine! I'd almost guarantee they'd cover the cost of your advertising to make sure that everyone know that your "gau jal" is very, very urine-y and that Coke and Pepsi are pee-free! Call them up and see what they say!

Om has clarified that the price of the "gau jal" will be that of "cheap". That's as detailed as he was about it. But for some delusional reason (perhaps, ingesting too much urine which comes from a cow! Actually, ingesting too much urine that comes from anywhere doesn't ever sound like a good idea!) he seems to think "...that it would be able to compete with the American cola brands, even with their enormous advertising budgets." Well, good! The last thing I want to see on Super Bowl Sunday is Justin Timberlake trying to sell me an ice cold can of "gau jal". Wait. Would it be served cold? 'Cause pee is warm. Eeewww... Om says that "...cow urine will not only be natural but cost-effective too." Well for cryin' out loud, I should hope so! After all, it's just urine! My urine is rather cost effective as well, but that doesn't mean I'm going to market it as a beverage.

Well, however it's served, Om feels that he and his cow urine are going to come out on top for once, as he declared "We're going to give them good competition as our drink is good for mankind. We may also think of exporting it." No, your drink is good for a "kind of man", not so much "mankind". Neil Armstrong didn't say "That's one small cow for man, one giant can of cow piss cola for mankind." And you may think of exporting your drink all you'd like to Mister Om, sir. I highly doubt the United States (nor any other country where cow piss is not a culturally accepted thirst quencher) will be first in line to get on the export list.

So to quickly recap: Some guy in India is making a soft drink out of cow urine. Seriously, do you need to know more than that? It will be called "gau jal" and I know that you don't care about that and all you want to know is if it's going to make it into the mainstream (pun still intended). Rest assured, all soft drinks in the United States are pee-free, but if you end up in India, not so much.

Sphere: Related Content

Things NOT To Do When You're 70

Here's a disturbing headline for you: Indian Woman Gives Birth at Age 70. And with each and every disturbing headline comes a ridiculous sub-title! (Yours to keep as your free gift!) The subtitle reads: When is too old to have a baby? Hmmm. I'd guess that there are probably lots of answers to this question. And if that's the case, I'm going to say that at least one of the answers is seventy!! Actually, I'd like to amend that answer just a bit. I'm going to go with "seventy....duh!" Are you kidding me?!

I am not. It would seem that, according to the folks across the pond at The Telegraph, a one Rajo Devi, "...who married 50 years ago, gave birth to a baby girl on November 28, and is now thought to be the world's oldest new mother." Well, I should hope so! I'd hate to think that there is someone older than seventy out there who is currently in the middle of a human gestation period. Seventy? What is wrong with you? All of the physical mechanics of such an ordeal aside, why would any woman at seventy years old want to not just raise a child, but let it grow inside of her for nine months before expelling it out her uterus? Why? (I realize that I have permanently set up camp in the section reserved for folks who have no idea why anyone would want to do the whole childbirth thing ever. But that doesn't mean I'm not capable of recognizing reasons other than my thinking the whole situation is untoward. I can be appalled and neutral.)

Were you wondering how a 70-year old woman gets pregnant? (Ew!!) Well, it wasn't the good old fashioned way, unless you consider fertility treatments to be "the good old fashioned way". According to a one Dr. Anurag Bishnoi (Translation: Dr. Something Unpronounceable), "Rajo Devi and (her husband) Bala Ram approached the centre for treatment and the embryo transfer was done on April 19." "Embryo transfer?" Was it on a bus? A subway? Why was it transferring? This is where things started to not make complete sense. In the seniscal sort, of course. Having a child at age 70 doesn't make any sense, but there are other things as well that I question (shocking, I know).

The article states that, "It was not clear whose egg and sperm were used in the successful treatment." Wait! Hold on there, cowboy! Back up that rickshaw for a moment. It wasn't her egg and it wasn't his sperm? Well, that would make sense, considering eggs, just like those you buy in the grocery store, do have an expiration date at some point way before 70. Sperm has an expiration date as well, but the shelf life of sperm is longer than that of the egg and also you cannot buy sperm in the grocery store, thank God. But that would mean that she was, quite literally, just a host. Which leads to the question "WTF?"

See, if it is someone else's sperm and someone else's egg, you're getting a kid that is totally different than the one you and your spouse would have produced. In that case, there is absolutely NO need for you to tote that kid around inside of you for nine months. None. The hostess had said, "We longed for a child all these years and now we are very happy to have one in the twilight years of our life." Twilight Zone, perhaps. Did they not know of other options that are available for having a child without physically giving birth to what amounts to someone else's child? I mean, sure, it's her oven, but it's totally someone else's bun.

Actually, these folks seem to be confused on the whole concept altogether. This is an avenue that they pursued before deciding that childbirth at 70 was the way to go: "Devi's husband, aged 72, had also wed his wife's sister after 10 years of his first marriage did not result in children. His second wife also failed to become pregnant." So.....what now? He...he married his sister-in-law? While he was still married to his barren wife? I'm failing to see how that is going to make the situation better. It certainly can't do much for one's morale when your husband, whom you are presumedly still married to, is off attempting to impregnate your sister who (I'm assuming) is a willing participant is what seems to be the Indian version of the Jerry Springer Show. All we need now is a fistfight and a couple of chairs thrown across a stage and we're there!

"The couple said they were facing social stigma for being childless for the last 55 years." Were facing? As in "going to face"? Or "had been facing" up until this time? Because it's worded as if the whole "social stigma" hadn't kicked in yet, but they could see it coming. I can't imagine that would be the case unless there's, perhaps, a 56 year cut off for childless couples before they are subjected to stigmas socially? I don't know. Personally, I'm kind of thinking the guy just wanted to sleep with his sister-in-law.

Look, seventy is pretty old to be trying to do many physical activities. And while I don't advocate just sitting around and getting old, most physical activities that you can do when you are 70 do not put another human's well-being smack dab in the middle of your uterus. Unless there has been a drastic change in how children grow up and are raised, I'm pretty sure that they still need someone to raise them! Those are the kind of things that I think of. They are not the kind of things that these people think of, as evidenced by Ram's statement that he ".....wasn't worrying over who would look after the child if they died. The upbringing of the child is not a problem. We have a joint family as is common in rural Haryana." Well, that would explain all of the fornicating with the sister-in-law.

But he's missing the point. Sure, the 'joint family' can raise the child, it takes a village, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that it is difficult for almost everyone when a parent dies and it is almost always more difficult for a child when a parent dies. Just because you're being raised by your village doesn't mean that you are not going to wish that your parent had not died. And that doesn't happen just when you're a kid; it happens when you're an adult as well. (Look, I had 37 years with my Dad and it wasn't nearly enough. If I had only had, say, 7 years with my Dad, I think I would have felt cheated.) And the average life expectancy of people living in India is around 62.8 years, a figure which both of these folks have already exceeded by 8-10 years, so don't expect them to be around when the kid turns 5.

This is just selfish. That's all it is. People that have children or father children when there is no way that they are going to live to the point where the child is well into adulthood are just selfish. What is even the point of bringing a child into the world when you're not going to be around to raise it yourself? (And I think that about people who are young enough to be bearing children. If you're not going to raise it and take care of it and support it, why in the world did you have it?)

But there's something odd going on here. And not just because the chick is 70 and dude is 72. The picture doesn't look right. What's the deal with where the kid's hand is supposed to be? It's not there! And the guy has this look on his face like he's getting away with something.

Actually, a bunch of folks in this photo look like they're getting away with something. And what is with the woman's hand down there by the baby. That's not a hand! I'm not buying it. I don't know what's up with all of this, but if it comes out later on that they faked the whole thing up, you read it here first.

You know, there are many differences between the people I know who have children and this selfish couple in India who are far too concerned with their own "social stigma". It's not like I didn't know that my buddy is a good mom. But it's when I get to see her in action as the mother of her grown children (18 & 20? I think. Close enough.) that my level of respect for her in general just skyrockets. The time that she takes to think about them and to talk to them, the amount of effort that she puts into maintaining excellent relationships with them, and just seeing how obvious it is that she loves them unconditionally with a love that comes from the very core of her soul. It's absolutely incredible. That child-bearing, multiple-wife keeping, senior citizen couple over there in India could really stand to have a little sit down chat with my friend. I guarantee that they'd learn something of immeasurable value.

Sphere: Related Content

This Time? Solar! Solar!

The last time we checked in with the goings on in India was when they were releasing the ringtone for cell phones that would sing out "Condom! Condom!" whenever your phone rang. The point was that it was supposed to normalize how the public thought of condom use. Riiiiight. Because having your phone sing out "Condom! Condom!" is normal. Got it.

Well, now we're moving from the condom and onto the rickshaw. Yes, the rickshaw. That quaint little transportation contraption that is commonly found in parts of Asia (and probably other parts of the world as well, but there's a whole lot of rickshaws in Asia). It's basically a wheelbarrow, only there are two wheels and instead of the, um, barrow there is a small seating area for no more than two (barely enough room for one). The device is then pulled by a surprisingly willing fellow who will run you all over the place that way. Go figure. I find it odd. It's as if someone sat down one day and said, "I like wheelbarrows. And I like oxen. But I have neither. Maybe I can come up with a reasonable substitute for both!" And after many fortnights of toiling away by candle light in a cave somewhere, the rickshaw was born. (I'm going to have to assume that the first individuals to pull the rickshaw were the inventor's children.)

OK, so back to India where for many, many years the rickshaw has been an oddly popular form of transportation for the masses. It has evolved somewhat to the degree that a lot of rickshaws now sport what is basically a bicycle with pedals so that the poor sap doing all of the transporting doesn't have to run and can instead pedal. I'm sure that the best part of that is whenever that thing goes downhill and he doesn't have to pedal. Before it was always run, run, run! But with the pedals, they get a break every now and then, which is nice.

But India is on the move once again with it's innovative rickshaw innovations. The latest, according to the Australia Broadcasting Corporation, "has been touted as a solution to urban India's traffic woes, chronic pollution and fossil fuel dependence, as well as an escape from backbreaking human toil." How great does that sound? (Yeah, after the Condom! Condom! thing, I'm not so sure either.) It is "a state-of-the-art, solar-powered version of the humble cycle-rickshaw". It is "motorised cycle rickshaw that can be pedalled normally or run on a 36-volt solar battery." It is the "soleckshaw"! Wait. It's the what?

Correct. The "soleckshaw". That makes little to no sense to me. It's a solar rickshaw. Where do they get the "sole" from? Why do they insist on keeping the "ck"? Is there a problem with "solarshaw"? I mean a problem besides the fact that it sounds as stupid as the first one. I don't know what's wrong with just "solar rickshaw", but I don't have to pedal one, so I guess they don't care what I think. (They'll probably just ignore that email that I just fired off to them a few minutes ago.)

They sure did put a lot of thought into this thing. It has been "...developed by the state-run Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (the ol' CSIR)", "has a top speed of 15 kilometres per hour" and "the fully-charged solar battery will power the rickshaw for 50 to 70 kilometres". And after the battery runs out, one simply takes it to be "deposited at a centralised solar-powered charging station and replaced for a nominal fee." (A nominal fee? Guess how much it costs that dude pulling the rickshaw by running to recharge his feet? Nothing!) (Yep. Put that in the email too!) Below is an artist's rendition of how they had envisioned the "soleckshaw" while it was in the developmental stages. Behold!

Well, they're right. That is much more modern than the rickshaws of yore! Oh, right. Behold! The rickshaws of yore!

Definitely an improvement, I will say. Especially when you consider that India has approximately 8 million of the cycle-rickshaws. Thus, they also have 8 million people who are, again, seemingly willing to be pedaling these things around. (If you see something like that here in the US, there's usually a cooler with ice cream in it attached to the guy who is pedaling.) I didn't know there were that many idiots willing rickshaw pedalers in India. I always think of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer and Newman had a rickshaw and they recruited the homeless to pull it for them. (It's not like they didn't have the time!) The head of the Centre for Rural Development, a one Pradip Something-Unpronounceable, even said, "It will dignify the job and reduce the labour of pedalling. From rickshaw pullers, they will become rickshaw drivers." If you say so.

But wait! That was the artist's rendition up there. It didn't quite turn out to look exactly like that. There were apparently a few alterations to the overall design that were made. See if you can spot them in the photo below. Behold! The real "soleckshaw"!

Oh, good Lord, what the hell is that? Did the "soleckshaw" just get back from Hawaii? What's with the brightly colored garland adorning the wave of the future there? Well, if you're asking a one Anumita Roychoudhary of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (and really, who else are you going to ask?), that person will tell you, "Rickshaws were always environment friendly. Now this gives a totally new image that would be more acceptable to the middle-classes." Oh, it's a totally new image all right. And seriously? THAT is more acceptable to the middle class? What, pray tell, would less acceptable consist of? NO garland?

And this is kind of where the whole idea falls apart for me. Well, for them, really. But what they don't seem to quite get is that their initial vision looks nothing like the final product. I mean NOTHING like it. And so when the CSIR director says stuff like ""In the age of global warming, the soleckshaw, with improvements, can be successfully developed as competition for all the petrol and diesel run small cars." I think he's a bit delusional. Competition for the vehicles that run on gasoline? I'm not seeing it. At all! The director makes another reference to global warming and it's relationship to the "soleckshaw" by saying "Greenhouse gas emissions are showing an increasing trend year on year and 60 per cent of this comes from the global transport sector." Well, perhaps if they all rode on elephants as well, that would help cut down on some of those gases also. Oh, look.


And while that's all fine and everything and quite possibly true (I can't research everything!), I'm unaware that the basic rickshaw (you know, the one powered by a guy running), was all that big of a contributor of greenhouse gas emissions! In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm pretty sure they weren't a contributor AT ALL! And now, while there still won't be any greenhouse gas emissions from the "soleckshaw", there will now be batteries that will eventually be unable to be recharged and then need to be disposed of, taking up more space in more landfills; and there will also be more power needing to be generated due to more power being consumed by charging the batteries. (This is why I hate it when products tout themselves as being "green". Because from what I can tell, "green" isn't always all that much different from "not green" and it's worse or the same in a lot of cases. But say that something is "green" and you'll have morons lined up three deep to get whatever it is.)

And if the rickshaw pullers reactions to the "soleckshaw" is any indication, then they're just as delusional as the folks over there at the CSIR. Take a one Bappa Chatterjee, a 25-year old who is one of the 500,000 rickshaw pullers in Dehli. "Pedalling the rickshaw was very difficult for me. I used to suffer chest pains and shortage of breath going up inclines. This is so much easier." Dude, you're 25! But, then again, you are pulling a cart full of human beings. I hope it's as much of an improvement as he wants it to be, but I don't think it's going to quite match up to his hopes. That's because he also said "Earlier, when people hailed us it was like, 'Hey you rickshaw puller!' Police used to harass us, slapping fines even abusing us for what they called wrong parking. Now people look at me with respect." You think?! You think this gets you looks of respect?! Behold!


Oh, sure. That'll do it. Another delusional rickshaw puller, a one Mohammed Matin Ansari, showed his delusional thinking patterns when he said that the "soleckshaw" offered "parity with car, bus and scooter drivers." "Now we are as good as them," he said. Do you think? Really? That must be because, according to the article, "Gone are the flimsy metal and wooden frames that give the regular Delhi rickshaws a tacky, sometimes dubious look." Right. And the new "soleckshaw", it isn't tacky at all!

Oh, wait. I just saw a picture of Dehli. Now I understand why they both think that they will commandeer respect and not have to hear "Hey! You rickshaw puller!" hollered at them all the live long day. Behold! Dehli!

Sphere: Related Content

Condom-Condom, Hello-Hello?

OK, so a little while ago I had mentioned that that some folks over there in India (the country) had decided that the best way to get the message out that "safe sex is the way to go" would be to create a downloadable ring tone that sang out "Condom, condom." I think the concept is as ridiculous now as I thought it was then. But that was "then". "Then" was also when I could not imagine that people would want their cell phone shouting out "Condom, condom!" (People don't really even want other people to shout out "Condom, condom!" Whether sex is imminent or not.) But apparently, I was wrong and 270,000 (yes, that's thousand) people have so far downloaded the prophylactic jingle that will save the world from unprotected sex. Or not.

The ring tone goes by the name "Condom a Capella". Basically, it just repeats the word "condom" over and over again in different melodies. And while there were 270,000 downloads, there were also over two million hits on the website http://www.condomcondom.org/ . So only a little more than 10% of the people that wanted to hear the ring tone actually wanted to hear it shouted at them from their phone on random occasions. It's a fair guess that a lot of those 270,000 have never had sex (but have had the opportunity to download a lot of stuff) and are hoping that this ringtone advertises that they're willing to do so and will do so all protected and with catchy ring tones in the background. The tricky part is going to be finding people who will actually want to call them.

270,000 people?! Now, I can compare that to some of the other numbers involved here to make it seem rather small. There are over 250 million people in India who use a cell phone. That's only .0011 percent of the cell phone users who decided this was a good idea and they should download it immediately. And while that is a seemingly small percentage, let's just remember for a second that they're downloading a ringtone for their cell phone that sings out "Condom, condom!" whenever it rings. ON purpose! Take that into consideration and .0011 percent starts seeming a bit high. And so do those who are downloading it.

According to a one Yvonne MacPherson, the County Director for the BBC World Service Trust in India, "Never before has a mobile ring-tone been used to communicate a social or public health message. We wanted to create a conversation piece that would get people talking and ultimately break down the taboo about condoms. We want condoms to be seen as any other health product."

Well, she's right about a ringtone never having been used to communicate a social or a health message. Unless you consider people in a social situation wanting the person whose cell phone is ringing to shut up. That is a frequent communication in a social situation. (And if you actually take the cell phone from the offender and bonk them over the head with it, voila! A communication in a health situation! One that will likely result in a communication in a penal situation. My, but the cell phone ring tone is quite a versatile communication tool, is it not?) I'm not quite sure what she means by the "taboo about condoms". What would the condom taboo be in India? I can't imagine it's any different than the taboo (that masquerades as whining) about condoms in the US. You know, the whole "They're too small" (Yeah, right!), "I can't feel anything!" (Again, yeah, right!) "There wasn't time!" (Usually said after he's done. Thirty seconds later. If that.) But I still don't see how having your cell phone sing about the condom is going to help any taboo, regardless as to what it is.

And really, while it's a novel ideal and will appeal to...well...some, apparently, I don't see it doing any good except for filling up space in witty blogs across the Internet. That's because "only about half of the at-risk population, including sex workers and men who have sex with men have access to HIV prevention measures." That according to the latest fact sheet from UNAIDS about India, a group that, based simply on their name, would seem to know a lot about stuff like this. So, if they don't even have access to HIV prevention measures, ie, condoms, what good is a "Condom, condom" ringtone going to do? Not a lot, from what I can tell. But hey, are they saying that those people have access to cell phones but not to condoms? Well, that seems a little backwards. So you can use your cell phone to call up your potential booty call, but even if you do manage to get them in the sack, you've got nothing to wrap that rascal in! Seems like this one should have been a little more thought out.

But I probably shouldn't judge (and yet I do. Frequently.). I wouldn't have thought that India would have 270,000 softheads that would want this thing blaring from their phone. I'd be interested to know if it was mostly guys or mostly girls who downloaded it. I'm guessing more guys downloaded it, but guys will do just about anything when it comes to drawing attention to the fact that they have a penis. Actually, I'd really like to sit down and have a little chat with any girl that would download this. You know, just to see what was bouncing around inside their little empty skull there. I can't imagine why a girl would want her purse to randomly burst out in a couple stanzas of "Condom, Condom!"

So the way I see it, this is either going to mean one of two things. It will either mean that people will become more aware and start using condoms more frequently (presumedly when they're having sex, not like when they're mowing the lawn or something unrelated to fornication) or they will just run the other direction whenever they hear the "Condom! Condom!" call of the wild go off. Either way, there's going to be more protected sex or just less sex overall and since both of those things would seem to be the ultimate goal of this wacky idea, I guess, by God, it freaking worked. So way to go, funny looking, prophylactic ringtone dudes. Way to go.

Sphere: Related Content