Uganda is attempting to stem the growing epidemic by offering more options for women to protect themselves. Research showed that women were highly at risk for new infections (and can pass these infections on to their offspring through childbirth, so new initiatives were explored. Heading up the renewed push is a female condom program, but it has already encountered some significant stumbling blocks.

With funding so limited, many donors argue, why invest in an expensive product that faces deep skepticism from the people who would use it? Female condoms, originally introduced in the early 1990s, have struggled to gain widespread acceptance because they are more expensive and less familiar than male condoms - they're big and baggy, make rustling noises during sex, and you need instruction and practice to learn how to insert them properly.

But Uganda sees the female condom as one way to regain the success the nation had in the fight against HIV/AIDS in the 1990s. After slashing its AIDS rate from more than 20% in the late '80s to about 6% in 2000, Uganda saw a leveling off of AIDS cases and then a slight rise. No one has been able to explain the reversal. Some say it's related to failed distribution programs for the male condom in the past. Other experts suspect that it's a result of foreign NGOs and governments pushing Uganda away from effective domestic programs that were aimed at keeping people from having more than one sexual partner, a relatively common practice in the country.

Other news from Uganda points to circumcision as an effective deterrent to HIV. The NY Times reports:

[C]ircumcision can make a significant dent in the H.I.V./AIDS crisis in this country is still being debated, because the epidemic in the United States is so different from the one in Africa. The African trials found heterosexual men were less likely to acquire the H.I.V. virus after circumcision, but largely ignored the question of whether women were safer - or possibly put at even greater risk of infection, as one small study suggested - if the man was circumcised; they also focused exclusively on heterosexual transmission, though in the United States, men who have sex with men are at higher risk.

Even Dr. Gray, who led the trials, is not sure the United States should promote circumcision. "If you were to ask me, should the U.S. be promoting circumcision, my answer would be, ‘no,' " he said. "What I do think ought to be the policy is that parents should be informed about the potential protective effects."

Each article hinted at religious and cultural traditions that enabled the spread of HIV/AIDS and the distrust of misuse of condoms, but focused on a lot of the issues between existing solutions. AIDS is still spreading in all corners of the globe and for some reason, despite educational campaigns and the occasional project funding, we seem to be succumbing to the virus.

The Battle In Uganda Over Female Condoms [Time]
The Latest Fight Over the Foreskin [NY Times]
Statistics: Worldwide [AMFAR]

Newsstand sales among the 70 biggest magazines in the U.S. fell 31% between 2001 and 2008, according to MediaPost. Though the number of subscriptions is usually higher, the number of newsstand sales is still considered an indicator of a magazine's health. Though most titles had their ups and downs over the last seven years, the trend was clear, as newsstand sales at 55 out of 70 titles declined.

Among the magazines with the biggest decline since 2001 were Glamour, down 41%; Marie Claire, Time, Newsweek and Entertainment Weekly, which were all down more than 50%; and Woman's Day and Redbook, which were down more than 65%. There were a few titles that saw an increase in sales, including The Economist (up 68%), Elle (up 14%), and men's magazines Esquire (33%) and GQ (15%).

The decline is generally blamed on the rise of the internet (duh). Most magazines put a portion of their content on the web, and apparently there are some blogs that post all the juicy bits from magazines online. But recent figures suggest it isn't just the internet cutting into magazine sales anymore. The decline accelerated in 2008 as consumers decided shelling out for magazines each month wasn't an essential part of their recession budget. While newsstand sales dropped 23% on average from 2001 to 2007, they dropped another 9% in 2008 alone.

In addition to established magazines seeing a drop in sales, for the first time the magazine death rate has exceeded the magazine birth rate, reports The New York Post. In the first quarter of this year, 101 magazines folded and only 95 new titles were launched. There's some disagreement over the numbers, but according to Trish Hagood, president of Oxbridge Communications, which publishes the Standard Periodical Director and the National Directory of Magazines, the number of new titles is on the decline. "Other than entrepreneurs, people are definitely being more cautious with launches," said Hagood.

Clearly the recession is taking a toll on sales across the board, but can the steady decline in magazine sales actually be blamed on the internet, or has the quality of their content been declining too? Is the internet now satisfying your need for magazines, or do you still yearn to flip through their glossy fluff-filled pages ?

Mag Bag: Newsstand Sales Fell 31% from 2001-2008 [MediaPost]
Cash-Starved Times Compared to Darfur [NY Post]

The study, which was originally taken as the Framingham Heart Study in Massachusetts, compiles data taken between 1983 and 2003, wherein 4,739 subjects were asked to report on their emotional states three times per year. Their "social contacts" were also asked similar questions, which gave researchers the ability to map out the effects of happiness along a social network spectrum. The study shows a cluster-like effect taking place around the happiest people in every social group: people tend to be drawn to the happiest among us, and their happiness ripples to the outer layers of a social group, touching each member as it goes.

It helps to look at it this way: the happiest person in your crew is the Sun, you could say, and you and your friends are the rest of the solar system. The most unhappy person would be the recently-demoted Pluto, covered in ice and hiding in relative darkness. Yet still: the sun's rays touch Pluto, much like the happiness of your happiest friend spreads a bit of happiness to your most unhappy friend. Or, as Alice Park of Time reports: "If you're happy, you increase the chance of joy in your close friend by 25%; a friend of that friend enjoys a 10% increased chance. And that friend's friend has a 5.6% higher chance."

Like all things contagious, proximity plays a big part in the spread of happiness. As Park notes, "A next-door neighbor enjoys a 34% increased chance of happiness by living near a happy person, but a friend who lives across town is less affected." So while you and your immediate circle of friends may have a large impact on one another's happiness, your friend from 4 states away may not feel the effects of your moods as much.

How do you feel about this study? Do you find yourself drawn to happy people? And do you feel happier after having been near them? Though misery is said to love company, the study actually shows that unhappiness is less contagious than happiness, so perhaps even for the kids living on sad ol' Pluto, we're all looking for a bit of sunshine in our lives, where ever we can find it.

Happiness Is Contagious, New Study Shows [Chicago Tribune]
Laugh And The World Laughs Too: Happiness Is Contagious [Time]