the random musings not worthy of new thread thread

[ice grillin you]

throw in woman...especially single mothers...the homeless...gays...

[MDS]

well thats fine by the right. as you long as you pander to white christian males, its all good.

[ice grillin you]

Reagan's AIDS Legacy
Silence equals death
Allen White

Tuesday, June 8, 2004

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS. History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have and will die of AIDS.

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon. Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of mean-spirited hostility.

A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men."

With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing. That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.

With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America. Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.

With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg, who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."

Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president. His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000 cases.

As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he might have done. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people died of AIDS in 2003 alone.

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "

How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership had generated compassion rather than hostility. "In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, the groundbreaking AIDS health-care organization in Washington. in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration."

Revisionist history about Reagan must be rejected. Researchers, historians and AIDS experts who know the truth must not remain silent. Too many have died for that.

[Geowhizzer]

Who's Allen White?

[ice grillin you]

newspaper columnist

[MDS]

who cares about gay people. they vote democrat and arent christians.

[SD_Eagle5]

I was force fed Reagan propaganda while serving on that floating hell that bares his name.

[Geowhizzer]

newspaper columnist

Yeah, found that on a Yahoo search after striking out on Wikipedia.

who cares about gay people. they vote democrat and arent christians.

White is from San Francisco - he'd better "care," or he'd lose a fair percentage of his audience.

[ice grillin you]

unfortunately unless its yourself or money caring isnt part of the republican platform

[Geowhizzer]

unfortunately unless its yourself or money caring isnt part of the republican platform

And unless it relates to getting elected and increasing governmental power, neither do democrats.

Face it, politics sucks.  And so do politicians.

[Geowhizzer]

Don't let this cat curl up next to you.

[Sgt PSN]

I'm stealing that cat and leaving it on my ex wife's doorstep. 

[General_Failure]

unfortunately unless its yourself or money caring isnt part of the republican platform

And unless it relates to getting elected and increasing governmental power, neither do democrats.

Face it, politics sucks.  And so do politicians.

My politicians may be less than perfect, but they're better for the scum you vote for. That's pretty much the sum of what I get from every political discussion I've ever heard.

[Diomedes]

I like this cat.

[Geowhizzer]

unfortunately unless its yourself or money caring isnt part of the republican platform

And unless it relates to getting elected and increasing governmental power, neither do democrats.

Face it, politics sucks.  And so do politicians.

My politicians may be less than perfect, but they're better for the scum you vote for. That's pretty much the sum of what I get from every political discussion I've ever heard.

Eh, most of them are all the same.  Republicans, Democrats.  They don't care about anything more than winning the next election and increasing their own political power.

And those in third parties are usually just looking for more attention than they would probably get trying to compete within the scope of the major parties.