Gay Patriot Header Image

Senator Tom Coburn — Standing Up Against HIV/AIDS

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 8:39 am - March 10, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Politics,HIV/AIDS

This came to me earlier this week from Log Cabin Republicans.

Log Cabin Republicans are encouraged by Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) efforts to improve the Ryan White CARE Act. He unveiled legislation today to reauthorize the CARE Act, which expired September 30, 2005. “We applaud Senator Coburn’s commitment to the Ryan White CARE Act,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero. “Dr. Coburn’s legislation provides a powerful jump start to the process of reauthorizing this critical act.”

Dr. Coburn’s bill aims to expand access to life-saving medical care, improve the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), reduce bureaucracy and increase accountability. “Log Cabin hopes this proposal will help spur action in Congress to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act as soon as possible,” said Guerriero. “Reauthorizing and improving the CARE Act is crucial for the hundreds of thousands of Americans living with this disease.”

Dr. Coburn’s legislation was written with input from HIV/AIDS community leaders across the country. His proposal includes amendments to ensure the CARE Act can better respond to changes in the epidemic by targeting federal resources to communities most in need. It calls for prioritizing early diagnosis, expanding access to life-saving medical care and treatment, and improving ADAP.

Log Cabin has been lobbying GOP members of Congress on the importance of reauthorizing the CARE Act. Log Cabin also has been coordinating our efforts with HIV/AIDS organizations and GLBT groups. “We encourage people to examine this bill and engage in constructive dialogue in the coming weeks and months to help make sure this process produces the best bill possible,” said Guerriero. “We look forward to working with Health Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) and other GOP lawmakers to help assure reauthorization of the CARE Act.”

President Bush called on Congress in his State of the Union address last month to reauthorize and reform the Ryan White CARE Act, which is the principal federal program that provides assistance to Americans infected with HIV/AIDS. For 15 years, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act has addressed the health needs of persons living with HIV disease by funding primary health care and support services.

The story behind the story is that the Gay Left groups, especially groups like the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, have sat on the sidelines while the Ryan White Act expired last year. It takes a hard core conservative Republican Senator to come to the program’s rescue. Now why would the folks from San Fran not be wailing about the Ryan White program expiring?

Because the program’s formula has been paying for dead people’s healthcare in San Francisco. Yep, the current formula of Ryan White supports so much 1980s AIDS infrastructure in San Fran, that the real patients of HIV/AIDS in the 21st Century are being penalized.

So what do the Leftists in California have against blacks who live in the South — that’s the new face of HIV.

At least Senator Coburn and President Bush are willing to stand up and help HIV patients in the here and now.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

46 Comments

  1. Arrgh. So, how much is the latest round of compassionate conservativism going to cost us? I think a cynic could make a case that our funding of AIDS has been excessive… especially because since at least 1985, AIDS has been a largely preventable illness. There is also a cottage AIDS industry of activist groups, awareness groups, charities, legitimate research, and medical care that is now dependent upon a continuation of people getting AIDS. Not to mention a distinct subculture of “bug-chasers” actively seeking to become HIV positive (who, in my view, ought not be entitled to any kind of social benefit if they succeed).

    Yeah, I know, it’s pretty cynical and mean-spirited to bring all this out, but I’m just not one of those people who think those who knowingly engage in self-destructive behavior (and those who enable them) have an unlimited entitlement to the taxes of people who have made better life choices.

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 8:56 am - March 10, 2006

  2. I’m not sure the GayLeft liberals will be able to get past Coburn’s pro-life positions… the Democrat Party masters holding down the plantation sure as hell won’t allow that…

    Good for Coburn >Good post Bruce! Again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 9:27 am - March 10, 2006

  3. ‘Scuse me, but isn’t this the same Senator Tom Coburn who was afraid to let his daughter use a public restroom because of all those “rampant lesbians” who might assault her there?

    The Left is in a pretty sorry state if they are being shown up by conservative Republicans — but there we are. Personally, I will take my allies anywhere I may find them. If Coburn wants to do something constructive to help those suffering from AIDS, then I don’t care if he is a conservative Republican. More power to him.

    When are gays and lesbians going to stop acting like passive little kiddies and letting the Left coddle us? Our allies sometimes come from the most unexpected of places.

    Comment by Lori Heine — March 10, 2006 @ 9:31 am - March 10, 2006

  4. Good for the Ryan White Act. The man, however, is a mixed blessing. Remember, please, he said the following:

    “Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us? ”

    Some variation of Reagan’s “Trust but verify” surely must apply.

    Remember, too, the RWA covers all persons with HIV–infants, non-gay women; today a newspaper article says a “grandmother” thinks she got HIV from a bone implant from an illegal use of body parts.

    Comment by Gene — March 10, 2006 @ 9:37 am - March 10, 2006

  5. When are gays and lesbians going to stop acting like passive little kiddies and letting the Left coddle us?

    The Left will continue to use you for as long as you allow yourselves to be used.

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 9:37 am - March 10, 2006

  6. VdaK, and as long as the GayLeft remains happy on the Democrat Party plantation… along with blacks, jews, free speech radicals, enviromentalists, anti-Christians and urban dwellers.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 9:49 am - March 10, 2006

  7. Kudos to Coburn.

    As to your “facts” regarding the S.F. AIDS Foundation “sitting on the sidelines,” abuse of ADAP, etc., how about a point of reference? And let’s be candid: When Focus on the Family trumps science as it does in Bush’s Administration, including suppressing an HPV vaccine, channeling 33% of the AIDS budget through faith-based operations, suppressing Plan B, prohibition of referring to “condom” in AIDS prevention, “abortion” in family planning, and the first cut in health science research ever (See, New Yorker, Mar 13, two articles), why would S.F. AIDS Foundation become engaged in national politics? Especially in light of the Administration’s contempt for science generally, and the reality that Focus on the Family can trump science?

    Yes, something is terribly amiss. But the obvious — the big elephant in the middle of the room — seems to escape your scrutiny. And the piddling issues you do raise, even if true, are insignificant in the larger context. Scientists have a palpable fear of this Administration, and for very good reason. But once again you deliberately miss the obvious, and focus on trivia, hardly relevant trivia to boot. The patient is bleeding, and you focus on his hangnail?

    Comment by Stephen — March 10, 2006 @ 1:58 pm - March 10, 2006

  8. Because, if pushing condoms, bashing morality and abstinence, and promoting safe sex actually works, the SF AIDS Foundation should have a mountain of statistics and science showing a nonexistent new infection rate — after all, that’s what they’ve been doing for decades.

    Instead we have one of the highest rates of HIV AND STD new infections in the country.

    Perhaps it’s time we ask questions like WHY we get upset over Oklahoma schools not wanting teenage girls to have lesbian sex in public school restrooms, or WHY we get upset over telling teenagers that there are religious and moral reasons to abstain from sex, or WHY we promote a method of birth control that requires one to have unprotected sex to need it.

    The answer is because gay “activists” don’t care about ideology trumping science, as long as it’s THEIR ideology.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2006 @ 2:09 pm - March 10, 2006

  9. Well, back in the 70’s I was teached in collage that we has the collective constitution right to has sexual relations with anythings any time we want without no worrys cause sex learns us who we is. (me, a former liberal)

    Seriously, when it came to fighting AIDS in the early 80’s how were state public health officals going to get past gay activists demanding ‘right to privacy’ sexual behavior is no one’s business for gay bath houses in major metropolitian cities where AIDS was allowed to incubate then spread throughout America’s mainstream gays?

    Oh I forgot, we were told that spread of AIDS was Reagan’s fault. How many gays and grannies receiving bone transplants had to die before that lie was debunked?

    The results of allowing politically correct politics controlled by collectivists whose sexual hangups inspire their narcissistic madness that screwing anything is the path towards self-understanding, sexuality is a pleasure not a responsibility and that it’s Peter’s job to pay for Paul’s utopia.

    How will AIDS be cured if we cannot speak of the behaviors which enable the spread of this disease. Last year in NYC a new stain of virus was found in a man high on speed having sex with hundreds of men. The story ran for a day then never spoken of again. Now one would think that after some 20 years of activism and billions raised to fight AIDS people would not be indulging in the behavior of having multiple sex partners engaging in high risk sex.

    Waiting for some magical potion while people continue to spread the disease by ignoring behavior

    Comment by syn — March 10, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - March 10, 2006

  10. The reason the story of the”new aids strain” faded, is that it was apparently an isolated case.

    http://www.aidsmeds.com/news/20050725clin013.html

    http://www.searchforacure.org/la_times.asp

    This is not to say that there couldn’t be a new virulent AIDS virus out there. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their partner(s). Are there still bathhouses?

    We had a significant drop in the rate of infection here in NYC, simply using condoms. I don’t klnow what has happened. What’s with the “barebacking”, and insane “bug chasing” nuts?

    Comment by hank — March 10, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - March 10, 2006

  11. Stephen with “Scientists have a palpable fear of this Administration….”, there you go again. NO, “they” don’t; a small vocal minority of wingnut scientists do.

    The ones that do are the scientists who think religion is not relevant to moral issues, that unfettered scientific research is the only acceptable norm, that science does not serve society… society should serve scientific inquiry as defined by the sientists and that the federal govt should pay for all research with a blank check and not question the scientists.

    We saw this same kind of arrogance in the space program in 1960’s, in the environmental sciences in the 1970’s, in cancer research in the 1980’s, in AIDS research in the 1990’s and in genetic engineering in the 2000’s.

    Question, Mr-big-elephant-in-the-room-Stephen, why is that you think some scientists “fear” this Administration? Are they now the target of NSA terrorist wiretaps?

    What utter rubbish. It’s like saying that Catholic nuns are against the Church and hoisting up the last batch of radical feminists still lingering in the hallways of frigid convents and positing they represent all nuns.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 4:27 pm - March 10, 2006

  12. Yeah, I know, it’s pretty cynical and mean-spirited to bring all this out, but I’m just not one of those people who think those who knowingly engage in self-destructive behavior (and those who enable them) have an unlimited entitlement to the taxes of people who have made better life choices.

    Thank you. And when we’ve gotten to the point that something so basic and incontrovertible as “the only way to absolutely avoid STDs is to keep it in your pants” gets jeers and guffaws, then something is terribly wrong.

    It’s not the government’s place to baby us, take care of us, or change our diapers.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 10, 2006 @ 4:45 pm - March 10, 2006

  13. rwp, you know in that libertarian yang and pile-on of VdaK’s, you’ve turned your back on over 100 years of social progress and the expansion of government?

    I think Thos Jefferson, aside from being a coward in the face of British troops, had one thing right: we need another revolution to “right” the ship of govt.

    Reagan started it; Engler in Michigan helped it along… but whacking the federal budget by about 50% would be a good start… to hell with the Depts of Ed, HUD, Labor, Interior, Commerce and VetAffairs. DoD and Treasury could be pared down too.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 5:05 pm - March 10, 2006

  14. hank, “barebacking” and “bug chasers”? It’s their right to join the class of GayLefties known collectively as Victims. They fit in better with the GayLeft then.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 5:06 pm - March 10, 2006

  15. Wow. I don’t suppose that anyone might be willing to consider that the “truth” of all this may be somewhere in the middle and may have absolutely nothing to do with what political party you belong to.

    Why is every issue discussed here viewed through an absolutist idealogical lens that often very obviously reflects only scattered shards of reality?

    I remember the early days of the AIDS crisis. Most of the men I knew at that time are dead now. There were plenty of angels and demons running around both caring for people and condemning them to hell. It had little to nothing to do with what political party you belonged too. AIDS certainly didn’t give a fuck about this crap. Republicans got put in the ground just as often as Democrats did. And everyone made a lot of mistakes. The gay community did, the government did, the Congress and the President did, we all made a lot of mistakes. There was also a lot of good that got done. And not in the name of some political party.

    Politics were and are a part of the history of AIDS. And both the Republican and Democratic parties have hijacked various parts of it to further their own ends. But it was primarily a struggle for survival, not political maneuvering.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 10, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - March 10, 2006

  16. 14
    I doubt that they have a political thought in their heads.

    Comment by hank — March 10, 2006 @ 6:26 pm - March 10, 2006

  17. NDT mistakes a community outreach agency that helps PWA for a public health department. Just another categorical mistake. It happens a lot here. I’ve certainly been critical of the Foundation in the past, and it was wholly justified. But let’s make sure criticisms are at least relevant, before pushing some “reject” button. Confusing something so basic as a community outreach program with a department of public health shows how confused this thinking is.

    Comment by Stephen — March 10, 2006 @ 7:47 pm - March 10, 2006

  18. LOL…that’s the best you can do, Stephen?

    The simple fact, Stephen, is that the SF AIDS Foundation has regularly pushed condoms, bashed morality and abstinence, and promoted safe sex above all else. Given the degree of influence they have over the public health programs in this city, it isn’t surprising that their attitudes are mirrored in them.

    However, even after two decades of this enlightened and “scientific” ideology, we STILL have one of the highest rates of new STD and HIV infections in the country, even more than those “unenlightened” areas. Indeed, we’ve been the place where you can find diseases that were previously almost nonexistent in nearly epidemic proportions.

    Science would seem to indicate that your ideology failed. But maybe that’s the point; since the SF AIDS Foundation receives funding based on the number of cases they support, it’s in their best interest to keep making sure that more and more people end up infected. Meanwhile, as GP ably points out, the black community is being shorted rather immensely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2006 @ 8:15 pm - March 10, 2006

  19. What do you suggest as an alternative? Quartantine?
    I don’t mean that in a flip way. But do you think that saying “don’t have sex” would work. I don’t.

    Comment by hank — March 10, 2006 @ 11:37 pm - March 10, 2006

  20. Pfft, no, hank. That’s illegal; besides, it didn’t work in the Middle Ages, and it wouldn’t work now.

    What I would suggest is something to the effect of “Wait Until the Third Date”, for two reasons; gay men have not only forgotten how to wait, they’ve forgotten why it’s worth waiting in the first place. Things like conversation, getting to know you, and talking first would not only head off about three-quarters of the unprotected sex that takes place in our community, but might also lead to rediscovering the fine art of viewing another male as something more than a method of stimulation that doesn’t require batteries.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 11, 2006 @ 2:24 am - March 11, 2006

  21. The “romantic” in me is attracted to NDT’s “Wait Till Third Date,” but what happens at that magic date that is any different from the first, second, fouth, fifth, etc., date? If one only gets “it” right on the third date, whatever “it” is, then this romantic notion might have merit. But I really do not have any idea of why the third date is magical, or what epiphany, if any, happens.

    Most HIV+ men are serodating. And because they are already positive, many in the community, bolstered by SOME medical specialists, claim this presents no health risks. Because the virus mutates, I’m not sure that claim can be sustained. But whichever is true, new HIV infections are almost nihl by virtue of keeping HIV contained. But STDs, sadly, are up. So maybe “use condom until serious” might be a more appropriate slogan, at which time all the “bugs” can be worked out before slipping off the rubber.

    HIV infections among gay men have remained static; the increases are in the black and Hispanic populations. Even the static statistics are disheartening, because it’s evidence that still too many don’t practice safe sex. Where have these people been these past 25 years? Or, is it that antivirals make getting HIV “less” lethal? Or, is it because any AIDS education can no longer mention “condoms,” but must promote abstinence only? I don’t think Focus on the Family’s approach to sex appeals to GLBT. “If one lives by the sword, one should die by the sword. Actions have consequences,” Focus screams, “so those who play with fire deserve to get burnt.” Something tells me that Jesus would not approve. But how often has the world heard from these religious wingnuts that gawd punishes those who disobey gawd? I guess Jesus’s denunciation of that kind of thinking escaped them.

    AIDS has no doubt changed many things, many for the better, some for the worse. But dealing with the viral epidemic through abstinence and not mentioning “condoms” aren’t viable in the slightest. And, as always, some people just cannot accept responsibility for themselves or others. Others still, especially younger, think themselves immortal, and don’t care. But worst of all, is the thought that AIDS is best addressed through faith-based organizations, just say “no,” and prohibition of citing condoms as a means of prevention.

    Yes, many values have become confused. Some of those confusions have their etiology in public policy itself. But, if we’ve learned anything, HIV is an equal opportunity killer. And it seems, every so often, we’ve completely forgotten that truth.

    Comment by Stephen — March 11, 2006 @ 5:47 am - March 11, 2006

  22. ‘Wait until the third date.”
    That is amature idea. But aren’t we talking about fairly young people?
    Those raging hormones from 15 to 25 (even longer with some), just won’t listen to that developing mature voice in their heads saying “wait”.

    Comment by hank — March 11, 2006 @ 6:31 am - March 11, 2006

  23. #7

    And let’s be candid: When Focus on the Family trumps science as it does in Bush’s Administration, including suppressing an HPV vaccine, channeling 33% of the AIDS budget through faith-based operations, suppressing Plan B, prohibition of referring to “condom” in AIDS prevention, “abortion” in family planning, and the first cut in health science research ever (See, New Yorker, Mar 13, two articles), why would S.F. AIDS Foundation become engaged in national politics?

    Um, Stephen? Just a quick question…what do Plan B or abortion have to do with HIV/AIDS?

    Or are you more concerned with ranting about Focus on the Family and Bush than talking about this serious health crisis?

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 11, 2006 @ 11:35 am - March 11, 2006

  24. Or are you more concerned with ranting about Focus on the Family and Bush than talking about this serious health crisis? “

    Because Focus on the Family is preventing the widespread use of vaccines against a type of cancer spread by sexual contact on the grounds that if young people were immunized they would be more inclined to be sexually active. They have said that they would also likely oppose distributing AIDS vaccinations for the same reasons.

    Not to mention that one of people on the board of CDC now is a former medical advisor to Focus on the Family and helps set health care policy for the country including efforts to combat AIDS.

    If you can’t see the connection, well….

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 11, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - March 11, 2006

  25. The simple fact, Stephen, is that the SF AIDS Foundation has regularly pushed condoms, bashed morality and abstinence, and promoted safe sex above all else. Given the degree of influence they have over the public health programs in this city, it isn’t surprising that their attitudes are mirrored in them.

    NDT, even if the SF AIDS Foundation were replaced by Focus on the Family, SF would still have one of the highest rates of new infections in the country. Due to the fact that gay men are still largely concentrated in large cities. So SF, LA and NYC all have high rates of new infections.

    I’m not saying you don’t have a point, but thats not the whole story.
    And there has been some controversy over whether the data on the rate of infections is accurate. Every newspaper in the country seems to think that, but I never see any data to back it up. And of course if we follow your logic to its conclusion, then it makes sense for SF Aids foundation to scream its a vast epidemic just in order to maintain its funding. Not that I’m conspiracy theorist mind you.

    Besides, you live there now. Why haven’t you brought out your can of whoop-ass and straightened these people out? 😉

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 11, 2006 @ 1:53 pm - March 11, 2006

  26. However, even after two decades of this enlightened and “scientific” ideology, we STILL have one of the highest rates of new STD and HIV infections in the country, even more than those “unenlightened” areas.

    And the liberal response: we’re not doing enough of what we do. Never mind that what they do doesn’t work; that’s not conceivable to a liberal. It’s the same with the War on Poverty and entitlement programs. They have demonstrably harmed, and not helped. But liberals claim they just aren’t pouring enough money into them.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 11, 2006 @ 4:24 pm - March 11, 2006

  27. Except that the rate of new infections among Gay men is declining in San Francisco. Rapidly. It’s about half of what it was four years ago, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Whatever AIDS groups are doing in SF, it appears to be working.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 11, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - March 11, 2006

  28. -Perhaps it’s time we ask questions like WHY we get upset over Oklahoma schools not wanting teenage girls to have lesbian sex in public school restrooms,-

    The question I have is when did an Oklahoma school ever say that this was even an issue? Tom Coburn is the only one who ever brought this issue up. When the Oklahoma press asked schools if they were having a problem with lesbian sex in the bathrooms, they said no.

    Comment by Carl — March 11, 2006 @ 10:43 pm - March 11, 2006

  29. Because Focus on the Family is preventing the widespread use of vaccines against a type of cancer spread by sexual contact on the grounds that if young people were immunized they would be more inclined to be sexually active.

    Oh really? What exactly does their position paper say?

    Therefore, Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public schools.

    And the “can of whoop-ass” I am using is straightening these people out on what groups like Focus on the Family are actually SAYING, so that AIDS and gay activists are no longer running around in the street making fools and liars out of the gay community by repeating false information based on their stereotypes of these groups.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - March 12, 2006

  30. Except that the rate of new infections among Gay men is declining in San Francisco. Rapidly. It’s about half of what it was four years ago, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Whatever AIDS groups are doing in SF, it appears to be working.

    Um, no, Tim; you see, they were doing the same thing when it shot back up again. What they basically are doing is wasting money on making themselves feel good while gay men blindly figure out our own way to manage.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - March 12, 2006

  31. The question I have is when did an Oklahoma school ever say that this was even an issue? Tom Coburn is the only one who ever brought this issue up. When the Oklahoma press asked schools if they were having a problem with lesbian sex in the bathrooms, they said no.

    Again, Carl, WHY do you get upset over Oklahoma schools not wanting teenage girls to have lesbian sex in public school restrooms?

    The correct answer in this case is: “Senator Coburn is right. It is certainly inappropriate for teenage girls to be having sex in public school restrooms; if schools are concerned about it being widespread, they should enact appropriate policies, one of which could be allowing only one girl to go to the restroom at a time.”

    If it’s a “who cares?” issue, than treat it like one.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 12, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - March 12, 2006

  32. -Again, Carl, WHY do you get upset over Oklahoma schools not wanting teenage girls to have lesbian sex in public school restrooms?-

    I don’t, but they never said this was a problem. So why is this even an issue? If PETA said that high schools were sacrificing kittens as part of some cult, and high schools denied this, then the response shouldn’t be, “Why don’t you want to stop kitten sacrifices?”

    -If it’s a “who cares?” issue, than treat it like one.-

    It is a “who cares” issue for most people but Coburn.

    Comment by Carl — March 12, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - March 12, 2006

  33. #7 re: ” the first cut in health science research ever ” — The interesting bit is that Stephen… who favors with regular rants about Bush’s irresponsible levels of spending… is now bitching about one of the rare instances in which federal spending is reduced.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 7:36 am - March 13, 2006

  34. #33, VdaK –Stephen is a contrarian just to be contrary. Please don’t ask me provide cites –it’s just too painful a task to consider going back over his comments and pulling examples.

    For Stephen, Bush could propose something radical like increasing the minimum wage by $2 or ending 6-8 weapons systems and Stephen would say: “Doesn’t Bush know a wage hike will stall the economy?” or “GOPers are no longer the party of National Defense; it’s the Democrats because they know the importance of weapon systems development for our long term interests, local economies, and working families.”

    Like Ms Pelosi, WeScreamDean, Teddy-drive-my-way-K, Sen Debbie StupidCow or Governor Good Smile Granholm, he’s going to be contrary to anything coming from Bush, the WH, Congress or the GOP because the Democrats are the party of “Just Say No; Just Do No”.

    It’s the prayer of Saint Contrarian –btw, he’s also the patron saint of hopeless causes.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 13, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - March 13, 2006

  35. #34 — I was mainly just intending to point that out by example, although I think contrarian is far too dignified a word for what he is.

    As I’ve said before, if Bush personally discovered a cure for cancer, Stephen would rant endlessly about how Bush’s idiocy was destroying the oncology profession.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - March 13, 2006

  36. I don’t, but they never said this was a problem. So why is this even an issue? If PETA said that high schools were sacrificing kittens as part of some cult, and high schools denied this, then the response shouldn’t be, “Why don’t you want to stop kitten sacrifices?”

    Again, Carl, same answer:

    “PETA is right. It is certainly inappropriate for schools to be sacrificing kittens for cult rituals. If PETA is concerned about it as a widespread problem, they should contact local school boards and lobby them to enact appropriate policies.”

    Never answer a vague charge without clearly stating what you oppose.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2006 @ 1:31 pm - March 13, 2006

  37. Oh really? What exactly does their position paper say?

    Therefore, Focus on the Family supports widespread (universal) availability of HPV vaccines but opposes mandatory HPV vaccinations for entry to public schools.

    And the “can of whoop-ass” I am using is straightening these people out on what groups like Focus on the Family are actually SAYING, so that AIDS and gay activists are no longer running around in the street making fools and liars out of the gay community by repeating false information based on their stereotypes of these groups.

    Actually NDT, the position paper proves my point. Instead of recommending it as mandatory inoculation for schools like for diphtheria, measles, etc., they want to make it optional.

    They pulled this crap when the vaccine for Hepatitis B came out a few years ago too. So instead of recommending it to be included as part of regular vaccination for newborns, they made it optional but suggested it for “high risk” populations. AKA prostitutes and homosexuals.

    But it wasn’t until they relented and did recommend it as part of newborn vaccinations that the rates of Hepatitis B infections started to go down.

    IF this weren’t a vaccine against a disease that can be sexually transmitted, there would not be this discussion. Not vaccinating people is simply stupid. But “stupid” yet politically correct is the litmus test created by the Bush Administration for important scientific advisory boards.

    Comment by Patrick (gryph) — March 13, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - March 13, 2006

  38. Critical difference, Gryph; the diseases you mention, i.e. diptheria, measles, and even hepatitis B, are spread by means other than sexual contact.

    The reason children are required to be vaccinated against those aforementioned diseases before attending public school is because they can be spread by activities that are normally carried out during the day and which cannot be easily stopped without damaging the educational process. The risk of vaccination (and there is a risk) is counterbalanced by those requirements.

    HPV, on the other hand, is spread exclusively by sexual contact. The only legitimate reason for requiring it for public school attendance is if students were regularly and repeatedly having sex during the school day as a required portion of their activities.

    In short, scientific evidence would show that there is no reason to require this vaccination for public school attendance.

    But, since you need to cover your ass after getting it kicked by facts when you insisted that Focus on the Family was “preventing the widespread use” of the HPV vaccine AND because you are unable to admit you were wrong, there’s plenty of ideological reason to insist that parents be forced to vaccinate their children against a disease to which they would never be exposed in the course of a normal school day in order to attend school.

    My suggestion: Learn to hate Focus on the Family less before you make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 13, 2006 @ 8:37 pm - March 13, 2006

  39. Learn to hate Focus on the Family less before you make a complete and utter fool of yourself.

    Too late.

    Comment by V the K — March 13, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - March 13, 2006

  40. Waaaaaaaaaaay too late for GrampaGryph.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 14, 2006 @ 9:45 am - March 14, 2006

  41. “PETA is right. It is certainly inappropriate for schools to be sacrificing kittens for cult rituals. If PETA is concerned about it as a widespread problem, they should contact local school boards and lobby them to enact appropriate policies.”-

    And then people would think that high schools were sacrificing kittens, because they gave a statement which implied PETA was right.

    Comment by Carl — March 15, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - March 15, 2006

  42. hey Bruce, how about some evidence of what you’re saying? Or is actually backing up what you rant about anathema to extremists like you?

    I want proof that SFAF sat on the sidelines, and weren’t just overpowered by a—wait for it—Republican Whitehouse and Republican Congress? It was the REPUBLICANS that let the Ryan White Act expire. It’s THEIR FAULT.

    People in San Francisco and everywhere else who actually have some understanding of the tragedy and the history wail about the lapse of the Ryan White Act because it helped.

    Yet there you are, blaming everyone but the people who actually let it end.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 15, 2006 @ 10:35 pm - March 15, 2006

  43. God of Biscuits, if Bruce can’t respond at this point, it’s not too hard for you to do your homework and answer the question you pose. Of course, you won’t do that ’cause the truth hurts. Just like any political embarrassment you and your pals feel at having to have Coburn move reauthorization forward.

    First, both the SFAF and CAEAR strongly advocated policy positions which were in opposition to the larger budget priorities of the WH and Congress >> for instance, opposing the 5% discretionary rule for the HHS Secy to better respond to agency needs. That’s just one of many.

    Or how about SFAF and CAEAR’s choice to irritate the WH on spending priorities after the WH acted to increase funding by about $100m this year for CARE programs, plus another $90m for prevention, plus restoring and increasing the 2006FY cuts for housing. We’re now up to $2.1b –billions! SFAF and CAEAR can grouse, bitch, whine, and undercut but it’s billions of dollars not moving until reauthorization occurs.

    And then what does the SFAF and its political actors do? They go to Nancy Pelosi –one of the best politicians to go to if you want to get anything done in DC– and encourage her to piss off the House leadership by demanding a revote on the 2006 Budget bill!! WTF, Biscuit? It’s like salt in the wound; SFAF & CAEAR knew what their stunt would solicit.

    Gheez, no wonder it takes a Sen GOP conservative with compassion to try to put the pieces back together and advance reauthorization.

    With friends like SFAF and CAEAR and the other Democrat Plantation gays, our community’s interests are being well served. Oh yeah, well served. Bruce was right in pointing out that SFAF has been sitting on the sidelines of CONSTRUCTIVE action…. 100% correct.

    Here in Michigan, we don’t work to piss off and irritate the people holding the purse strings, no matter how well it benefits the barnburners in the Democrat party or their cronies in the gay community. We work within the power structure to advance the goal of reauthorization. It’s $2.1b and that’s not chicken feed.

    SFAF is sitting on the sidelines instead of working within the power structure in DC to advance our community’s interests for reauthorization. They’d rather help their Democrat Party masters score political points. Like a lot of radical liberals, they’d rather hold clients hostage and inflame passions, beat up on political opponents and score partisan points instead of working within the system for progress.

    Hope that answers your rhetorical question. I could speak volumes to how the GayLeft’s Democrat buds have screwed us on this one, single issue. But you get the point.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 10:44 am - March 16, 2006

  44. Gosh, Matt, careful or people might think you have a thing for me.

    *I* didn’t make the initial assertion; therefore the onus of proof (or even evidence!) is not on me.

    Am I to conclude, Michigan-Matt, that when Clinton was in the Whitehouse you didn’t open your mouth and just played the lapdog until political fortunes were more in your favor?

    One thing I *will* conclude is that you agree that the Republicans put their own greed ahead of the real needs of real people who are dying.

    Sort of like the Roman Catholics in Massachusetts deciding that they won’t baptize babies of gay couples, and have stopped helping with adoptions statewide because the state refuses to discriminate against gays.

    But then, I guess only us bleeding heart types think that the money should be spend according to need, not according to how much ass kissing was done by those who need.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — March 16, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - March 16, 2006

  45. GoB, it’s ok… people will cut you some slack ’cause you’re in recovery.

    You asked for some “proof” that the SFAF sat on their collective asses and twiddled away precious time on the reauth of White; not me. I gave it; not you. Case settled there.

    As to the point about the Catholic Church in Mass. not baptizing gay couples’ babies… well, what can one say about a Church organization that allowed C Law to stay in power when his hands were bloodied by the acts of gay priests predating on innocent altar boys and other crimes of sexual misprison and abuse? I guess when it comes to gay issues, the Church is rightly a little bit shy these days. That’s ok. Bene16 is going to be kicking some royal clerical butt in the American seminaries soon. But I doubt you care about that –you’re probably bringing it up to score gay activist points.

    Here in Michigan, all 8 dioceses will baptize a baby of any Catholic parent who supports the Church. I’ve been to 3 at just our parish in 2005 and one in Columbus. In fact, in cases of illness, the baby doesn’t need to even have Catholic parents. Can’t speak for Mass. dioceses; sorry. C Law in is Rome as head of the Congregation of Priests, if you can believe that; go talk with him but be respectful –the Swiss Guards have big pikes (no, get your mind out fo the gutter).

    And as to the issue of gay activists in Boston forcing the Catholic Church to abandon it’s moral code and place at risk children in the homes of gay parents, I’d say there are hundreds of other agencies who can take care of the placement, so why are gay activists so Hell bent on forcing the Church to abandon its principles? These are special needs kids, GoB. Special needs. Mitt Romney (another Michigander) has it right: he supports the position I just outlined.

    I see your position as kind of like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, the tub, the towel, the toys, the shampoo, the onesie and that extra soft little white brush. Foolish and impractical. Might feel good, but those special needs kids deserve better, GoB.

    Now, to the heart of rant and anger: you don’t like it when gays don’t walk the marchline with you on acceptable political thought. It’s clear from your blog; it’s clear from your rants. Sorry, but policy always trump politics in my book and the politics of holding SFAF clients hostage so that CAEAR leadership can score political points with the Democrat Party is just wrong. It’s putting those most vulnerable at the greatest risk.

    Kind of like abortion. Kind like pedophile priests. Kind of like child porn producers and purveyors. Hazzarding the most vulnerable at the greatest risk –might be a Liberal tendency?

    Policy first; the politics can take care of itself. Try it GoB; it worked for the first 200+ yrs of the Republic.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 16, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - March 16, 2006

  46. Seeking other HIV positive people (AIDS, PWA) to chat about dealing with being “POZ”, please drop in and visit me on http://www.13km.com 😉

    Comment by POZ Guy — May 18, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - May 18, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.