There are days when I tire of writing about politics — and wonder if I will ever address the topic again. I have been delighted that a number of conservative writers have been changing their mind about my man Rudy, coming to believe that the GOP may well nominate a social liberal who is conservative on the key issues. As Rich Hailey (via Instapundit) put it “Conservatism has never been dominated by the religious right the way liberals have always pictures them to be.”
And I’ve been delighted to note (as per Bruce’s post) how many conservative bloggers, pundits and politicians have criticized Ann Coulter for her lame attempt at humor. I have long been critical of Ms. Coulter, seeing her as more interestec in provoking controversy than in promoting conservative ideas. It’s too bad that too many on the left would rather use her comments as an occasion to bash conservatives than to acknowledge that most conservatives have condemned her remarks. And at least acknowledge that some conservatives don’t engage in such banter and do favor civil discourse.
It just seems that sometimes we get so caught up in politics that we refuse to acknowledge that our political adversaries aren’t the demons we imagine them to be — or wish they were (to make it easier to so demonize them).
We have so many means today to communicate, yet it seems that all too often have we use those means not to foster serious discussion, but instead to vent our frustrations. There are too many people like Ann Coulter out there — on both sides of the political aisle — eager to be outrageous just to get attention. It seems more a sign of loneliness than civil discourse.
Strange that in the post below, you titled it ‘leftist hate speech’. Yet you do not consider Coulter said to be ‘rightist hate speech’?
It’s okay for conservatives to say faggot, but you eviscerate ‘lefties’ for saying it?
Conservatives really soft-pedal around Coulter. Handling her with kid gloves, almost apologizing for her.
That some conservatives are actually taking something of a stand against Coulter is quite remarkable.
I view Ann as little more than a woman flashing her panties at everyone to shock them. Anything meaningful she has to say is lost among the faggot, raghead, or a dozen other racist, bigoted, hateful remarks.
Why conservatives continue to coddle Ann is beyond me.
I half thought that Ann was looking to be Romney’s second wife, given her gushing over him.
Um, Elais, conservatives, at least the intelligent ones, have, by and large, criticized Ms. Coulter. And you’re attaching your comment to the post of a conservative writer who has been criticizing her on this very blog for nearly two years.
You are delighted by how many liberals pretending to be conservatives have criticized Ann Coulter? Really?
I am one of those “too many people like Ann Coulter” and I am neither eager nor outrageous. What is the deal with that?
sticks and stones……..may break my bones, but words will never hurt me………….
so faggot carries greater harm than stating to execute the President and Vice President???????????
interesting……………..
Americans need to get thicker hides before PCness and the cult of islam murder all of us…………
America needs to get over it and grow up……………..the left sounds like little children on the play ground. he called me a bad name………………..and made be feel bad……………..BFD……………….grow up………………..
if it wasn’t so shocking, it would be hilarious……..
death by PCness created by the left…………………
The Texican…………
“And I’ve been delighted to note (as per Bruce’s post) how many conservative bloggers, pundits and politicians have criticized Ann Coulter for her lame attempt at humor. I have long been critical of Ms. Coulter, seeing her as more interestec in provoking controversy than in promoting conservative ideas. It’s too bad that too many on the left would rather use her comments as an occasion to bash conservatives than to acknowledge that most conservatives have condemned her remarks. And at least acknowledge that some conservatives don’t engage in such banter and do favor civil discourse.”
I’m in stitches of laughter here. Just like the conservatives in the audience were when she made “her lame attempt at humor” (which was a complete hit with the CONSERVATIVES in the audience).
Wow. The mental gymnastics you will put yourself through to protect yourself from the cognitive dissonance is astounding. And fascinating.
Just like the conservatives in the audience were when she made “her lame attempt at humor”
She made a comment that really hurt nobody and some people thought it was funny. Boo F’ing Hoo.
What really hurts is that there was some truth to what she said. To whit:
but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’
What she said has come true. Speak your mind and the PC Gestapo will come knocking. Wanna know what offends me? People who are so stuck on themselves fighting over each other to see who can be more offended.
Give me a freakin’ break. Nobody here pretending to be offended will be scarred for life and nobody will remember it next week.
Looks like Edwards now has cover for hiring his Christian bashing blogger babes.
In a more perfect world, I might be inclined to agree with you, Dan. However, civil discourse to liberals mean that you bend over and lube up. “Bipartisanship” means that you give up what you believe in and genuflect at their feet. There have been way too many times when folks have bent over backwards in the name of “civil discourse” only to be screwed over by the trash that is the liberal left. They have no idea of what civil discourse is. You can hand them all the flowers you want, they’ll just cram it down your throat.
Take, for example, Bush’s “New Tone”. He bent over backwards to the liberals and got screwed over for it. He kept Clintonistas in Washington and got stabbed in the back (their form of gratitude). Lord BJ fires federal attorneys, nobody bats an eye. Bush fires federal attorneys and gets subpoenas for his trouble.
I’ve tried “civil discourse” and it gets you nowhere. No matter what you do or say, you’re going to get screwed. The choices are to bend over and smile, or tell them to go to hell. As far as I’m concerned the liberals who, despise everything you and/or I stand for and believe in, can drop down, fifth ring, cook.
Is comment #5 a mad lib?
Hey Dan-
In my view, conservatives have a far worse record where hate speech is concerned. All of the examples I’ve seen so far of lefties and liberals using hate speech are hateful toward an INDIVIDUAL — e.g., I hate George Bush. But conservatives, like Coulter, demonize entire GROUPS of people with their words. That’s the difference. Liberals might say hateful and awful things (I know I have), but people like Coulter say hateful things not only about individuals, but about groups of people who have been politically disenfranchised throughout American history. So it’s a big difference, in my view, if I say “I hate Bush,” versus, “he’s a faggot.” Bush, so far as I can recall, is not a member of a disenfranchised minority.
All that said, I am personally opposed to regulating speech of any kind, whether formally or informally. I appreciate the honesty of Ann Coulter, as I believe it exposes for all the world the true sentiments of her constituency. I’d rather have honesty than PC prettiness. I do not believe that the basic sentiments of Bush, Cheney, or Sam Brownback are any different in quality or character than those of AC.
I also understand your sentiments regarding the lowest-common-denominator character of today’s political discourse. There was a time when it was not a dirty word to be called a liberal in America. Liberals, after all, were the first to champion individual liberty (John Locke) and relatively free markets (Adam Smith). Now, though, being called a liberal is tantamount to being called anti-American, weak, a sissy, a threat to American values, and so on. Where did this come from?
In my view, it stems from the end of the cold war. I know this is only my view, but I believe conservatives are a paranoid group who MUST have an enemy in their discourse. Their enemy used to be communism and communists. But when the cold war was over, even though it was a victory for conservatives and for Reagan in particular, it was a psychic crisis for conservatives. Who to demonize? Who to fear? Liberals became, in the conservative imagination/fantasy, the new communists. They believe we are responsible for all that is wrong in America, that we are a threat to the American way of life, and therefore that there’s no real reason to have a conversation with us. Think of the very title of Ann Coulter’s book, “How to talk to a liberal…..if you must.”
So, for example, when I criticized the Iraq war, your partner Bruce called me an “al Qaeda sympathizer.” Or when John Edwards advocates getting out of Iraq, etc., he gets called a faggot or, as another poster on this blog called him, the “Breck girl.” Notice the feminizing language. Pinko commie? Ring a bell? Discursively, it’s the same tactic. Whenever someone gets feminized, you can be sure it’s because his/her opponent is fearful and paranoid, and that they wish to have no real conversation with this person, because they would lose a real debate.
I guess the reason I wanted to come on this blog, Dan, was to try to understand the mind of gay conservatives. In the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan ran an ad campaign in the south. In the TV ads he ran, it showed a picture of Harvey Milk, and the words read “the gays have elected a mayor in San Francisco.” then the picture switched to Jimmy Carter, and the words read, “now they’re trying to elect a president.” This is the very man who was tauted as a hero on this very blog. To be honest, it boggles my mind.
There are lots of reasonable republicans (e.g., Guilianni, even though I disagree with him on a lot of matters, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffe, Arlon Specter etc.). There are also a lot of idiotic democrats (Clinton at the top of the list). What I don’t understand, though, is why gay people, who have so often been used by Republicans as a symbolic demon in order to rouse their religious base, would support a party of fear-mongering and paranoic demonization. Granted, dems have failed on all fronts where gay rights are concerned. But they’ve never promoted fearing homosexuals the way republicans have in order to get votes.
–Chet
Chet, we disagree. Note how quickly most conservatives were to criticize Ms. Coulter. We rarely see those on the left so quick to fault their own for similarly nasty rhetoric — or worse.
Chet, was that the same “Reagan” who, two years earlier, stood up against the prevailing political wisdom and worked to defeat the Briggs Amendment in CA? You know th 1978 Briggs Proposition, right?
http://online.logcabin.org/about/history.html
Or was that a “Reagan ad” that was created, produced and placed by a group of ReliRighters and social conservatives in the Dixie South? Can you cite where that is a Reagan Campaign ad? And I don’t mean just from the DailyKos or BlogAmerica, ok?
Honestly, I can’t understand how, after self-professing that you read this blog, you can still support the homopohobic Democrat Party… I guess you read the blog but never learn? never progress? just taunt and spite?
Since when have I been a “disenfranchised minority?” I’ve voted in every election I could since I turned 18.
This “victim mentality” will cripple you in the long run, Chet. Have you ever tried therapy?
Regards,
Peter H.
All of the examples I’ve seen so far of lefties and liberals using hate speech are hateful toward an INDIVIDUAL — e.g., I hate George Bush. But conservatives, like Coulter, demonize entire GROUPS of people with their words. That’s the difference.
Howard Dean: “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for”.
Thank you. Move along, please.
“Honestly, I can’t understand how, after self-professing that you read this blog, you can still support the homopohobic Democrat Party…”
Hilarious!!! Thank you for making my afternoon!!
Dan, with respect, I think your point in this posting is off base and the earlier stunt to condemn Coulter and ask the American Conservative Union to keep her away from CPAC in 2008 is silly. The point is off base because the GP blog is all about politics, conservatism, gays… when you tire about writing on those subjects, you can try another… it’s ok.
The stunt (CPAC, don’t bring Annie back!) is also off base. She was speaking before a group of mostly college aged kids –and I mean kids like we were: button down shirts, loaded with political pins, striped ties with chinos and navy blue hopsack blazers –immature by their station in life. The room was packed with kids… and her “speech” was more like a comedy skit of one-liners than a discourse on American political debate. It wasn’t a serious speech… it was crude humor and perfect for the kids in the room.
She was cracking jokes… like JonStewart or StevenColbert. When those guys drop a bomb, the audience reacts… they react… life goes on. When Coulter did it… the PC police come to the forefront, dust off their tsk-tsk finger pointing and declare her DOA.
Guess what? Your reaction and others’ made her point self-fulfilling.
Like someone noted here a few weeks ago (I think it was VdaK) when the issue was a case of gays not having thick enough skins, we are the biggest class of Victims around. The GayLeftBorg mentality even affects some conservative gays from time to time.
Ann Coulter doesn’t need rehab. She’s an irritant for those who want to debate issues seriously… otherwise, she’s a politico shock jock that’s matched by many on the Left. She’s great fodder for the evening and Sunday news shows… she’s spice and little that’s nice.
Would I let her sit my kids? Hell no. Would I bring them to hear her? Hell no. Would I go out of my way to hear her? Hell no.
But then, I wouldn’t for JimmyJunkYardDogCarville or HowieScreaminDean or JonStewart.
NDT — Republicans are not members of a disenfranchised minority group. Gays are. That’s why Dean’s statement, while mean, does not rise to the level of hate speech. There’s a qualitative difference in saying “I hate Republicans,” and “I hate niggers,” or “I hate faggots.”
Move along please?……don’t be so full of yourself. If you were that good your blog would have as many visitors as this one does.
–Chet
Honestly, I can’t understand how, after self-professing that you read this blog, you can still support the homopohobic Democrat Party
I know the comment wasn’t addressed to me, but forgive me if I respond anyway.
For most of us, it’s called picking the lesser of two evils, and it’s how we vote in this country, because both parties and almost all of the candidates suck. Nearly every last one of them are hypocrites, contrary to what’s asserted on both ends of the political spectrum in the blogosphere.
Michgan Matt —
The spite was in YOUR msg, not mine. My msg was respectful, even if it simply gave an opinion different than yours. I will find the Reagan reference for you. I don’t have it online because it’s not online; it’s in some files at my office. Still, don’t pretend that Ronald Reagan was somehow a gay friendly president….it’s a ridiculous position to take. And California state politics (the Briggs Amdt) cannot in any way be compared to the politics that ensue in a national election.
Bruce — notice how I was respectful and polite, but was told to go to therapy and accused of being spiteful. Tells you something about your readership and does and doesn’t violate your rules of community conduct.
Peter H — you are a member of a disenfranchised minority in this country because, until recently, many states still criminalized sodomy, because you can’t get married, because in 2004 GW Bush used the gay marriage issue to win the election, and because not so long ago, a man named Joe McCarthy led a purge of homosexuals in government. You cannot serve openly in the military. If you walked into a straight bar and kissed your lover you’d get the hell kicked out of you. Whether you like it or not, YOU are part of that history. You might try to deny that you are a member of a disenfranchised group, that everyone accepts you as “normal,” but that denial speaks to your psychopathology, not mine.
–Chet
So an anti-white or anti-heterosexual statement does not count as hate speech, since these are not minorities?
Chet, let me remind you of your original statement — AGAIN.
All of the examples I’ve seen so far of lefties and liberals using hate speech are hateful toward an INDIVIDUAL — e.g., I hate George Bush. But conservatives, like Coulter, demonize entire GROUPS of people with their words. That’s the difference.
Now you are claiming that Howard Dean’s statement, which demonizes an entire group of people, does not count as hate speech because Republicans “aren’t a disenfranchised minority”.
Or, in short, you changed the rules when you lost, because it was patently obvious that Howard Dean was referring to a group of people, which would then make his statements hate speech and demonstrate that you were wrong.
The reason you get treated like dirt, Chet, is not because you’re gay; as your behavior demonstrates, being gay is merely a convenient excuse you use to avoid dealing with your incompetence and antisocial behavior.
People like Peter and myself, for whom homosexuality is a fact, not an excuse, have a rather different view of life.
#10
It is not surprising that a liberal would be of the opinion that conservatives have a far worse record regarding most things including ‘hate speech’ (a term in want of a definition if there ever was one). While it might be of some interest to recount every ‘hateful’ public statement (were we to agree re. what is suitably ‘hateful’) from both sides for the last, say, 50 years in order to keep score, I assume we’d soon realize the futility of such an exercise because both parties (and Parties) are far too guilty.
Your point re. hate speech directed at groups and individuals and the difference in its respective sources is an odd one coming from a modern liberal. Modern liberalism (and its American champion, the Democratic Party) has made pressure group and constituency politics its bread and butter since the 60s, particularly since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (a piece of legislation that Republicans supported in far greater numbers than Democrats, incidentally — but who’s counting?). To combat the Solid South and the Southern Strategy, xenophobic and racist Dixiecrats were subsumed into the Democratic Party (see Senator Byrd, D-West Virginia for an explanation) whereupon East Coast establishment types (from white ethnic immigrant stock like the Kennedys and Cuomos) subsequently took over. A divide-and-conquer strategy was put into place that divided American society into groups according to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. (all the kinds of discrimination in which we are forbidden to engage) and created and fostered the pressure groups and constituency-rewards political spoils that fuel the modern Democratic Party. And I cannot think of anything more hateful and cynical, spoken or otherwise, than a welfare policy seemingly determined to destroy the family and the work ethic — a policy that was clung to because it was recognized that the urban poor were addicted to welfare and slaves to the politicians that kept such programs in place. Bill Clinton (who I agree is an idiot) signed a reform bill only after vetoing it twice, then realizing that the reform was supported in poll after poll by about 80% of Americans, and this after promising to ‘end it as we knew it’ while campaigning.
The Republican Party unfortunately also has its constituencies and pressure groups (business and religious leaders in particular). However, I would argue that while the Democrats are particularly interested in minorities, Republicans are interested in an even smaller minority: the individual. By and large, the GOP has done a better job of defending individual liberty than has the Democratic Party, but then I’m a Republican. In fact, this is why I am a Republican and this is why I’m not surprised that a liberal such as yourself is of ‘boggled mind’ when contemplating a ‘gay conservative’ or a gay individual who refuses to buy the line that what is good for him extends only so far as the boundary that separates himself from the rest of society. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been called a ‘self-loathing homosexual’ for expressing even the slightest objection to the entire homosexual agenda. Then again, I’ve been dogpiled at this blog, too.
This red herring is brought up constantly: “Locke (or any other classical liberal) was a liberal, so why would anyone be a conservative?” Or, “The Founding Fathers were liberals, so conservatism is anti-American”. Modern liberalism very little to do with Locke, the Founding Fathers, Smith, Franklin, St. Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, or any other philosopher concerned with the importance of individual rights. While I’m not a conservative because I think conservatives fall into their own traps re. individual freedoms, I would have to say that conservatives (perhaps inadvertently) have a better record of upholding the Constitution than do liberals. (See the 10th Amendment and tell me if modern liberalism isn’t a constitutional abomination.) The push to federalize every possible government function is one example of how modern liberalism has made our political system less democratic. For example, education policy used to be debated and legislated in Congress. Now, much of that is done by the President and the Dept. of Education, breaking the link between voters and their elected representatives. In the final analysis, it should be remembered that terms like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are relative and when considering a historical dimension, must be qualified. Jefferson would be appalled at the size and scope of our government and the thoroughness with which the American military has positioned itself across the globe, yet a modern liberal would (and often does) mistakenly claim him as one of his own.
Re. your point that conservatives tend to feminize their opponents does have some merit, though I don’t think ‘weakness’ is necessarily feminine. This may be a small-cock insecurity or a mindset that is recalcitrant and cannot break out of what was tried and true in a capitalist vs. communist environment, as you’ve mentioned. In any case, it’s neither useful nor productive.
I for one appreciate the civility of your tone. Thanks.
Hard Hobbit,
Just as classical liberals cannot be compared to modern ones (a valid point), you can’t compare today’s democracy party to the dixicrats of the 1960s. Strom Thurmond (former dixicrat) became a Republican for a reason.
Neither can you validly argue that “the individual” is a minority. A statistical minority, perhaps. But a “minority” is by definition a GROUP of people who, as a GROUP, have experienced a history of persecution, disenfranchisement, etc. This is why political scientists consider women a minority, even though they constitute a statistical majority. I know that republicans like to deny that memberships in groups affect some peoples’ fates, and that only the individual matters, but the evidence never supports that thesis. It’s a nice thing to believe in, but beyond that it has no merit.
–Chet
NDT — I also stated, at the end of that paragraph, that saying “I hate Bush” is not really as dangerous as hate speech because Bush is not a member of a disenfranchized minority. In other words, I qualified my argument that hate speech targets groups, adding that the group targeted is usually a group that has historically been disenfranchized in some way. Republicans do not fall into that category. I know you have to infer this from my statement, but I assume that you are capable of simple inferences.
So, for example, NDT, I might open my door and shout “I hate the people of Texas.” An awful and stupid thing to say, to be sure, but does it rise to the level of “hate speech?” No. Because the people of Texas, as a group, have not been the victims of systematic, historically entrenched forms of discrimination, political disenfranchisement, and so on. (This, by the way, is also the Supreme Court’s litmus test for figuring out if a person’s claim falls under the “suspect class” classification, allowing them “heightened judicial review”). On the other hand, I might open my door and shout, “I sure do hate the niggers.” Aside from being patently offensive, this statement further perpetuates an entrenched form of social inequality based on GROUP membership. See the differences? I hope so.
Also recall that I said to Dan that I am not in favor of regulating hate speech. I think people should be perfectly open about their hatred, which is why I admire Ann Coulter, even if I disagree w/ her.
I’ll try to find the Reagan reference for you tomorrow when I’m at my office.
–Chet
p.s. The fact that you say I’m “incompetent” and “antisocial” only betrays the anxiety you have about your own views. It doesn’t depict anything true or “real” about me. I’d venture that you wouldn’t say such things if you didn’t have the safety zone of a modem and a screen to protect you.
HardHobbit, best post I’ve seen on this site on this topic to date – and that says a lot, with all of the great posters around.
And not to sound like the amen corner here, but you have brilliantly expounded upon Peter’s Principle of Politics #3:
Conservatives like you for WHO you are. Liberals like you for WHAT you are.
Again, well said and well done. Kudos!
Regards,
Peter H.
“If you walked into a straight bar and kissed your lover you’d get the hell kicked out of you.”
Uh, Chet, there are two problems with that:
1. I don’t go to straight bars with my partner. He doesn’t drink. Besides, that’s why there are gay bars – to have a community have its own place to congregate. (Would you go to an all-black establishment?)
2. When we do go out in public, it would be difficult for any intolerant moonbats (mostly of the “big tent” DNC out there) to try anything. Hubby served in Operation Desert Storm and yours truly can bench 210 pounds – free weight. We kick tail and take names.
Thank you for playing. We have some nice parting gifts for you backstage. Good-bye.
Regards,
Peter H.
Something quick for the record.
Someone claimed above, “when I criticized the Iraq war… Bruce called me an al Qaeda sympathizer.” Here is what really happened.
First, the person made absurd mis-representations of America as a land oppression and “fear”, rule by clerics and suffering a “complete destruction” of civil liberties and due process, and on and on. (And incidentally, mis-attributed the awful Kelo decision to conservatives, when SCOTUS ****liberals**** gave us Kelo. But that’s a very small point.)
Alongside a proclamation of his “hating” the President (that’s hate speech, right?), he then said, “I do not need to declare myself on any ‘side’ in the [Iraq] war. It’s not a football game.”
At that last, Bruce said, “No bro, it is the future of your nation… [With ever-increasing evidence and reason,] I may ban you from this site for being an al-Qaeda sympathizer.” The person responded with pathetic name-calling on Bruce, as he often does when challenged. The exchange can be read here: http://gaypatriot.net/2007/02/28/you-must-be-in-an-arab-country-if
One can criticize the Iraq war and one can agree or disagree with Bruce’s threat to the person, but I just wanted to stop Bruce being demonized. And Dan: when you (as a blog author) have to contend with critics operating down on that level – or worse – I can well see why you would tire of writing about politics. But please don’t. This blog is an important voice.
Peter,
Thanks loads. You’re my favorite poster in these parts, so I doff my hat (ski cap) to you!
There’s so much to say and I think much of what we type here is lost due to the lack of inflection inherent in speech. Perhaps the future of blogging is the teleblog — a teleconference call with video/audio uplinks via satellite. In the meantime, perhaps we could wish for a chat utility.
Thanks again for all your great input. I read them all.
Oh – And C, please do come up with some evidence of Reagan running anti-gay ads linking Jimmy Carter and Harvey Milk ads. It sounds like a Gay Left myth.
By contrast, I personally remember the Briggs Initiative story (in which Reagan was pro-gay, and made a difference) as I was living in California at the time.
I tried to google for the Reagan-Carter-Milk story, just a couple of minutes, and nothing leaped out… except for things like this review of The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, which favorably note Reagan’s positive role against the Briggs Initiative and make no mention of the negative Reagan-Carter-Milk ad story. One would think that, if the latter story were true, it would be mentioned somewhere.
Chet writes, with a straight face too: “Still, don’t pretend that Ronald Reagan was somehow a gay friendly president….it’s a ridiculous position to take.” Wow, you just make this stuff up on your own?? Or is this trace elements of the dried up and discredited ActUp nonsense ala 1980’s?
Having waged war in the trenches against RR in the Michigan GOP primary in 80, I can tell you that he was viewed by social conservative religRighters as being “soft” on the homosexual agenda –as the Moral Majority liked to call the future GayLeftBorg’s political action primer. RR lived and worked among gays in Hollywood all his adult life, he didn’t view his gay son any differently than his straight son… he loved them both to his death. The ReligRighters looked past that “soft side” of RR because he was willing –unlike JimmineyCricketCarter— to take on the godless atheistic Soviets.
Now, as I’ve and others have noted… he stood against the Briggs Proposition when conventional wisdom said “Stay low, don’t be opposed to this ReliRight effort”… but RR did the courageous thing and made it clear the proposal was idiotcy in search of an exercise.
RR was an anti-gay Prez? Pleeeease… go peddle the ActUp nonsense somewhere else. What next? Bush told Scooter to lie? You guys just keep making this crap up… no shame at all.
Pete H —
1. I don’t go to straight bars with my partner. He doesn’t drink. Besides, that’s why there are gay bars – to have a community have its own place to congregate. (Would you go to an all-black establishment?)
–>Yes, I would and have gone to all-black establishments. Sorry to see that you limit yourself as to where you go. I guess you’re a victim after all.
2. When we do go out in public, it would be difficult for any intolerant moonbats (mostly of the “big tent” DNC out there) to try anything. Hubby served in Operation Desert Storm and yours truly can bench 210 pounds – free weight. We kick tail and take names.
–> Good for you. Too bad that doesn’t apply to all gay people. It’s fine, I suppose, for you to deny that you are a member of a discriminated minority, but that doesn’t mean your situation applies to everyone. And you can kick all the “tail” you want, but your bf still can’t serve openly in the military — thus proving my point. You can’t deny existing hierarchies, Peter. I know it’s painful to acknowledge, but you’ll be better for it in the end. There’s no weakness in admitting you’ve been socially positioned as inferior to straight people.
By the way, which parting gift do I get? I like gifts.
–Chet
Michgan Matt and Calarato —
I said I’d try to find the Reagan piece tomorrow. It’s not on the internet; it’s from a very old magazine article. If I don’t find it tomorrow at my office, I’ll take the comment back. I’m fair.
Still, let’s pretend the link between Reagan and anti-gay campaigns in the south against Carter DIDN’T exist.
Reagan did not utter the word AIDS in public until more than 30,000 people worldwide had died from the disease. I suppose you think that had NOTHING at all to do with homosexuality,or the fact that, in the beginning, people called AIDS “Gay Related Immune Deficiency.” Furthermore, Reagan’s own Press Secretary (I believe), Pat Buchanan, said at the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION: “the gays declared a war on nature, and nature has fought back [with AIDS].”
Now, this is not to say that democrats have not been equally opportunistic and hypocritical in their stance toward homosexuality, gay rights, etc. But if you guys are going to argue that there’s the GOP doesn’t use this issue to rally its kooky religious base, your arguments will fall on deaf ears. The only difference between republicans and dems on this issue is that Republicans have appeased the right-wing of their party with the gay issue, whereas democrats have tried to appease the middle of their party. Republicans have been far more successful.
Now Matt, you may be right that PRIVATELY, Ronald Reagan was not homophobic, that he had a gay son, friends, was okay with it, etc. But I don’t particularly care about the private lives of politicians. I care about their policies, and the way those policies shape existing social relations. As a politician, Reagan was no friend of gays. He may have been in CA (Briggs Initiative), but just like all Republicans, when it comes to national office, he new he had to please the south and the Baptists.
If you don’t believe me that this is true, let’s take bets on how quickly Rudy turns around on this issue if/when he wins the Primaries. He’s already begun an about-face on the abortion issue; gay rights will not be that far behind.
And BTW, if Rudy doesn’t do the above, I’ll vote for him against Hilary any day of the week.
–Chet
Chet (#23),
As I pressed the ‘Say It!’ button, I wondered whether I should have mentioned Strom Thurmond and you did. You’re right, some Dixiecrats fled to the GOP, but I would argue that the Democratic Party leapfrogged the Republicans over to the left. The GOP used to be the more liberal of the two parties. Beginning in the 60s, leftist radicals took over the vocal minority of the Democratic Party. True to form, reactionaries reacted by taking over the vocal minority of the Republican Party about a decade later. Moderates in both parties (Reagan Democrats, 40% of union members being Republicans, East Coast establishment Republicans, Blue Dogs, etc.) were left wondering what the hell happened. Some are still wondering and the vast middle isn’t too happy with the idealogues on either side. Enter Giuliani.
I think most would agree that when comparing a single person with a group of one hundred persons (whatever the criterion), the single person is in the minority. This is how I define the term. Using this definition, all other means of dividing the human population are artificial and only serve to divide us based on what differentiates us rather than the individual, natural rights that unite us. While the United States has not always done so, our goal should be to treat all individuals equally where individual rights and behaviors are concerned. Equality under the law is the only equality a nation and its institutions can attempt to guarantee. Equality of outcome can never be guaranteed because it is against human nature.
#10
There was a time when it was not a dirty word to be called a liberal in America. Liberals, after all, were the first to champion individual liberty (John Locke) and relatively free markets (Adam Smith).
I read the same thing, word for word, in a letter to the editor of my local paper. Hmmm.
Where did this come from?
Perhaps from those of the 60s onward. I’d have to say grabbing power from the CIC, allowing the Communist invasion of S. Vietnam, allowing the slaughter of millions in Vietnam and Cambodia etc. and the passionate desire libs have to let it happen in Iraq. I could go on with a litany of examples, but you know what they are.
I know this is only my view, but I believe conservatives are a paranoid group who MUST have an enemy in their discourse. Their enemy used to be communism and communists.
THEIR enemy???
Who to fear? Liberals became, in the conservative imagination/fantasy, the new communists
Became??? The Neo-Socialists and environmentalists have always BEEN the new communists.
and that they wish to have no real conversation with this person, because they would lose a real debate.
You’ll let us know, won’t you, when there is a real debate here?
This is the very man who was tauted as a hero on this very blog. To be honest, it boggles my mind.
You ought to read DeRoy Murdock’s article Anti-Gay Gipper.
There’s a qualitative difference in saying “I hate Republicans,” and “I hate niggers,” or “I hate faggots.”
WTF? Who said that?
p.s. The fact that you say I’m “incompetent” and “antisocial” only betrays the anxiety you have about your own views. It doesn’t depict anything true or “real” about me. I’d venture that you wouldn’t say such things if you didn’t have the safety zone of a modem and a screen to protect you.
The fact remains that you’re a “victim” and based on all of your posts, you love it. You wouldn’t give it up for the world. Nor would you dare try to improve yourself and rise above it. It’s “comfortable” being a down-trodden victim. There’s far more perks and pity that you wouldn’t have if you actually bothered to change it, which only you can. Talk about a “safety zone”. I’ll feel sorry for your victimhood if you want. Oh wait, no I won’t.
BTW, you can bet your sweet a$$ I would tell you to your face. I’ve told others the same thing before and I’ll do it again. The only reason I can’t is because you’re there and I’m here.
Oh and speaking of using fear, who was it that gave us such gems as:
“Bush wants to steal your money from your 401(K)!”
“Bush wants to destroy Social Security!”
“Bush only goes to war for oil!”
“Bush wants to make the elderly starve to death!”
“Bush wans to go into the schools and personally take little Billy’s lunch from him!”
“Support for Bush = support for burning black churches!”
“If you support Bush, you support dragging black men to their deaths!”
“Bush creates and controls (pick one) hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires etc.!”
“Bush blew up the levees just so he could kill all the blacks!” Nevermind that more whites died.
“Bush created hurricane Katrina just so he could kill all the blacks!” Then why did it hit Mississippi?
“Bush wants to destroy Medicare!” I think that one’s been thoroughly debunked.
“Bush only gives tax cuts to the rich!” Maybe because they’re the ones who pay taxes?
“Vote for Bush and he’ll reinstate the draft!” Yeah. Still waiting on that.
“The earth will become a boiling caulderon thanks to global warming!
etc.etc.etc.???
Chet writes: “Reagan did not utter the word AIDS in public until more than 30,000 people worldwide had died from the disease.”
I wrote earlier “Wow, you just make this stuff up on your own?? Or is this trace elements of the dried up and discredited ActUp nonsense ala 1980’s?”
I see the answer for Chet is to trot out the ol’ ActUp glory days nonsense and try to peddle it to another generation. I figured he would and Chet doesn’t disappoint in proving the GayLeftBorg keeps on spinning in outer space.
Chet, it reeks. Nice try at discrediting RR but you lost on that one, too.
Hard Hobbit — I agree with almost everything in your post. Except I think minorities ARE real. There is inequality, whether we like it or not, and only by recognizing it and trying to do something about it can we try to achieve the noble goals you cite. By ignoring the way some groups of people, based on their membership in that group, get unfairly positioned as inferior, we fail to live up to those goals. Simply saying “everyone’s an individual” is to deny those realities. Also, I don’t think human beings have a singular, monolithic “nature” (either benevolent or malevolent) that would stop us from trying to equalize some of those inequalities. Just my view.
Thanks,
–Chet
Chetster, your argument is so full of holes I will need a cement mixer to fill them.
For starters, unlike most liberals, I don’t wallow in self-pity or group sympathy. Conservatives are mostly individualists – what is good for us may or may not be for the “greater good,” which is the argument Stalinists use (like Shrillary).
Glad to see you go to all-black establishments. Would YOU kiss your boyfriend there? Methinks not. So I do not accept the premise of your argument.
And if we’re limited AS A COMMUNITY to going to gay bars, then we are doing our own self-segregation according to your premise. Again, that is proven false.
So excuse me if I do not weep for your excuse that it’s “[t]oo bad that doesn’t apply to all gay people.” There is a difference between being the victim of a so-called “hate crime” and those who go out looking for trouble. And I suspect you are the latter.
Your parting gift will be a weekend in therapy with Ann Coulter. Enjoy.
Regards,
Peter H.
Sorry to say, that would be first for you on this blog.
Blah, blah, blah. Why care? Reagan had other things on his mind. I don’t offer Reagan as a pro-gay President. I have never claimed Reagan was the Great Liberator of gay people.
And there can be no question that at the time, SOME of Reagan’s SUPPORTERS were homophobic, anti-gay bigots. As also were some of Carter’s, Mondale’s, and Al Gore’s.
As has been noted in other discussions on this blog, certain Republicans and certain Democrats remain homophobic to this day.
I am saying that Reagan was pro-gay, with positive effect, in the Briggs Initiative case. And, if Reagan wasn’t the Great Liberator of gay people as such, perhaps he had on his mind, oh, I don’t know, maybe the fall of Communism and the restoration of human freedom in general? From both of which, incidentally, gay people greatly benefit.
What I argue there, Chettie, is that the Democrats use the gay issue to rally what they mistakenly think is the GOP’s “kooky religious base”.
The national GOP tried to play the anti-gay card in a big way, in 1992. Remember Pat Buchanan and the “culture war” speech? Fell flat on its ass. Led to no GOP election victory whatever. And received no “echo”, similar theme or validation at any future GOP convention.
Now fast forward to the twenty-first century. What have we got?
1) Johns Kerry and Edwards flaunting Mary Cheney’s sexuality in a kooky, clumsy effort to get the GOP base to turn on her (i.e., on Bush-Cheney).
2) Nancy Pelosi openly spreading the gay=pedophile meme – throwing gay people under the bus – in her effort to exploit the Mark Foley non-scandal. (I say “non-scandal” because, creepy as he was, (a) he resigned and (b) we do not know that he actually had sex with anyone.)
That’s your Democratic Party.
As a rule, I don’t take bets with anonymous characters on the Web. Plus, from past discussions, I know you don’t come through on your rhetorical promises.
Having said that: you’re wrong here. Rudy (whom I don’t even like that much, BTW) will never turn on gays in the slightest. Did you read the following GP entry? http://gaypatriot.net/2007/03/04/top-gop-prez-candidates-denounce-coulter
Reply to #32 coming – held in moderation.
Lets not forget the Mark Foley story.
Democrats knew the gist of this story for a year before it hit the public.
It hits public.. obstenstively to protect Pages from sexual assualt (seems odd one would wait a year to do this).
The allegation is that the Republicans should have used police state power on Foley only because
– He’s gay
– He emailed a male page
No Democrat has any claim to a moral high ground after those tactics were used soley for electioneering.
NDT et al. —
Here’s the Reagan reference:
Randy Shilts, “In Cold Blood: Why the Reagan Administration Ignored Its Own Medical Advisors on AIDS,” Mother Jones News, November 1987, page 26. Pertinent paragraph: “…for the first time, gays had been a serious campaign issue — but for the other side. ‘The gays in San Francisco elected a mayor,’ announced the solemn voice in Reagan’s television ads aimed at Southern voters. The visuals shifted from photos of a deviate-looking gay rights marcher to a still of President Carter. ‘Now they’re going to elect a president.” Note that it does not say the ad was sponsored by anyone else — it was a Reagan campaign ad. Of course this was before the day when one had to say, “I approve this message.”
Still, the Shilts article, should you wish to find it and read it, is full of all sorts of other condemnatory evidence regarding the Reagan administration and gays.
–Chet
And of course Randy Shilts does NOT have an agenda-driven motive for writing such a screed, now does he?
Plus, his article was in Mother Jones. I guess that means that it’s credible, right? Well, in claiming moral objectivity, that means that any articles which appear in National Review, NewsMax and the Limbaugh Letter are just as credible should we care to source them.
Please. Randy Shilts’ outlook on Reagan is about as objective as a “History of the Jewish People” commissioned by Ahmadinejad.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Ah. Randy Shilts and Mother Jones. What wonderful sources.
As I said: It sounded (and still sounds) like a Gay Left myth to me. I mean, could there be any sources gay-and-more-Left than them? Other than N(S)GLTF press releases, I mean?
But, I’ll give you points for trying to answer.
sorry, typo, should read “gayER-and-more-Left”
Chet (#37),
No one denies the proven effects of membership in certain groups in society. I would never deny that the differential in academic achievement between blacks and whites is part of the legacy of slavery, for example. But slavery was caused by the kind of thinking you apparently espouse: judgment of potential based upon an artificial (non-individual) membership in a group of a certain criterion. Merely because of common skin color and physical features (and an inability to resist), people were enslaved. Now, in order to attempt to make up for that tragedy, we are doing the same by imposing double standards, engaging in race-norming, discriminating against the better qualified, etc. — this is all of the same immoral mindset of judging a person based upon membership in this or that racial group and all while preaching that to do so is wrong.
I understand your empathy, but the only way to combat the effects of, as you might say, minority disadvantage is to cease judging people as representatives and to judge them only as individuals. To judge others as individuals isn’t to deny, for example, racism. (I keep choosing racism because it’s obvious.) Discriminating against and judging negatively those of specific race is racism, but so is making up for it by doing the opposite against other races. I advocate ending racism but from what you’ve implied, you are advocating engaging in it in an attempt to end it. Do I understand your position correctly?
Once again, your last two posts dismiss individualism as a shallow denial of the supposed deeper realities faced by those members of specific groups, all named minorities. I do not deny the existence racism, sexism, homophobia, or any of the other malevolent bigotries that drive us apart. But a bigot is an individual and must be judged accordingly and not as a representative, the same with his/her target. To advocate that the government ‘equalize’ ill effects of such thinking sets up a system whereupon social engineers decide which group is ‘underrepresented’ in this or that endeavor and then discriminate against some in order to promote the few, all in the name of what they think is ‘fairness’.
Somehow I knew that you would attack both the messenger and the source, but not the facts. Maybe you guys are right: maybe Shilts (such an awful person, I know, all that he did for the AIDS community…..just an awful, awful person, nowhere NEARLY as wonderful as Reagan) is just partisan and MADE UP the quotations from the TV ads.
The article also states that “by the time Reagan publicly used the word AIDS, 27,000 people were dead from the disease [earlier I said 30K, my bad].” Is Shilts just making that up? Is mother Jones just randomly picking figures?
If so, then act like REAL debaters and prove him/mother jones wrong rather than just dismissing the messenger and source.
Or, just show me some sort of record where both Randy Shilts and Mother Jones news have said things that are INACCURATE.
I wager neither of you has ever even read a single copy of the magazine. I, on the other hand, do read National Review and the Journal of Foreign Policy, both right-leaning, and both of which I often disagree with but find very interesting and informative. I’d never say to someone, “well that comes from National Review…..that’s just rightist nonsense!”
I was at least honest about the fact that the article does not say that the article was or was not sponsored by Reagan’s campaign. It seems to attribute the quotes to his campaign and does not say that it was released/aired/paid for by anyone else. I was also honest about the fact that this ad occurred before the rules requiring candidates to approve messages paid for/endorsed by them. So you guys could at least go with those points and try to prove your position.
But instead all you can say is “oh well it’s Randy Shilts so it’s worthless…..just another gay leftist,” or “oh it’s Mother Jones News, of COURSE they’d say that.”
When you debate someone, disprove the FACTS — frankly (I know this will seem odd coming from me), you guys seem better than that. Debates and conversations about politics require that interlocutors ASSUME the honesty and well-intentions of each other. I do that for you guys, and I do it for most conservative commentators (Ann Coulter et al. aside). You could at least pay people like me (and Randy Shilts) the same sort of courtesy.
–Chet
And also, a denialist like Chet quoting Randy Shilts is hilarious; if you’ve ever read And The Band Played On, Shilts is far more harsh on gay leftists, gay activists, and others who refused taking measures to stop the spread of AIDS, who blocked attempts for government intervention, and who protested when their public sex and bathhouse culture, which was responsible for the vast majority of the rapid spread, was shut down.
And now, of course, these same gay leftists are engaging in revisionist history, using puppets like Chet who don’t know any better, to insist that it wasn’t THEIR fault, that it was all Reagan’s fault, that he forced gays to have unsafe sex and use drugs and that he was going to put all gays in concentration camps.
On the contrary: I challenge exactly and only the facts.
This is what I said:
By “somewhere”, I quite obviously meant “somewhere online – ideally a neutral source, but at any rate, some source that could at least be LOOKED AT by people, such as myself.” And you haven’t provided any such reference or substantiation!
But hey, at least you took the effort to flip through some old Gay Left publications and type a carefully selected quote.
By the way: I am well familiar with Shilts’ work, having read considerable chunks of it quite closely. I am aware, as a critical and close reader, of when Shilts tends to give fair, coherent and complete accounts vs. when he gives slanted and incomplete accounts, so as to support his agenda. (He does a fair amount of both.)
What an absurd claim / demand that is. YOU YOURSELF HAVE NOT PROVIDED THE SOURCE IN ANY FORM THAT IS EVEN CHECKABLE BY OTHERS independently.
Once you do that: then we can talk about facts. Then we can talk about whether Shilts’ claims are verfiable from any other source; whether he would have omitted certain facts from his account in order to slant it – perhaps the fact it was NOT a Reagan-sponsored ad, as a theoretical example – and so forth.
To underline Dallas’s point, AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
*********************************************************************
An interesting side note: Cuba has dealt with its AIDS problem via testing and quarantine, eradicating it from the general population. Thus, Cubans who aren’t infected (including gays) can copulate without fear of HIV.
Some questions (and they are just questions — nothing implied here):
The United States used to deal with communicable fatal diseases like this. Have civil rights become more important than the safety of the population, or does the Acquired nature of AIDS disavow any publicly imposed action such as universal testing? If requiring testing is not O.K., why do we force the closure of sex clubs?
Universal testing and quarantine would ostensibly identify those with HIV, prevent others from acquiring it, and direct medical help to those who need it. Would such testing be used as a means of discrimination, even though it would likely help the health of the overall population? Does this overall health outweigh any de facto effects of identification of the infected?
The presence of sexually transmitted diseases has undoubtedly put curbs on many who engage in unsafe behavior. Is behavior only moral if internally generated rather than externally enforced?
NDT Wrote:
“And also, a denialist like Chet quoting Randy Shilts is hilarious; if you’ve ever read And The Band Played On, Shilts is far more harsh on gay leftists, gay activists, and others who refused taking measures to stop the spread of AIDS, who blocked attempts for government intervention, and who protested when their public sex and bathhouse culture, which was responsible for the vast majority of the rapid spread, was shut down.
And now, of course, these same gay leftists are engaging in revisionist history, using puppets like Chet who don’t know any better, to insist that it wasn’t THEIR fault, that it was all Reagan’s fault, that he forced gays to have unsafe sex and use drugs and that he was going to put all gays in concentration camps. ”
–>I wasn’t posting a critique of the gay community’s response (lack thereof) of the AIDS crisis. That history is well documented by people like Larry Kramer, a vocal critic of the Gay Men’s Health Crisis organization (and also founder of Act-Up). I don’t disagree with any of what you said above (except the part about me being a denialist), but the subject of our conversation was why gay people would hero-worship Ronald Reagan. So my main question is, if you readily accept Shilt’s critique of the gay community’s response to HIV/AIDS, then why don’t you accept his equally well documented critique of Reagan?
–Chet
Calarato — if you want me to photocopy the article for you and mail it to you, I will. I can’t sit beside you at night and read it to you while you fall off into dreamland, of course. You guys asked for a source, I provided it (including the page number so that you don’t have to read the entire article if you don’t want to). Your IMMEDIATE response was not to say, “well we can’t find that article ourselves to check the facts,” but rather to simply say, “oh, it’s that LEFTIST Shilts [whom NDT is claiming is CRITICAL of left-gay organizations, and he’s right], and OH that’s Mother Jones, so who cares.” Also, if you have access to any university library, you can request the article from the reserve services.
–Chet
That’s a euphemistic statement of Cuba’s policy, HardHobbit.
Cuba has put tens of thousands of gays in prison: many with HIV, and many not. They also expel them from the country, or worse.
Hard Hobbit —
My responses follow –>:
To underline Dallas’s point, AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.
–> I think I understand your point, but let’s remember that in the early 1980s, no one had heard of nor fathomed this disease. You can’t exactly blame those who “acquired” AIDS then for, for example, making dumb choices. Today, given what we know, you can: for example, I think people who practice barebacking are utterly stupid and insulting and I don’t feel particularly sorry for them when they acquire HIV (except for the impulse to feel sorry for anyone suffering from a disease).
An interesting side note: Cuba has dealt with its AIDS problem via testing and quarantine, eradicating it from the general population. Thus, Cubans who aren’t infected (including gays) can copulate without fear of HIV.
–>I don’t want to live in Cuba because I value living in an open society which exercises tolerance. I also did not agree with Reagan’s attempt to turn away legal immigrants if they were HiV+. We can never live in an entirely safe/secure society. The best we can do is teach safe sex, intelligent decision making, and so on.
The United States used to deal with communicable fatal diseases like this. Have civil rights become more important than the safety of the population, or does the Acquired nature of AIDS disavow any publicly imposed action such as universal testing? If requiring testing is not O.K., why do we force the closure of sex clubs?
–> I’m not in favor for either remedy for precisely the reasons I stated above re. Cuba. There’s this book I like by Ulrich Beck called “Risk Societies.” Beck’s point in the book is that living in modern societies requires risk, but the reward of risk is greater freedom and liberty for the individual. So I think in cases like this one, we have to be very careful about trading security for liberty. we have to be willing to face risk. I think rather than requiring testing, branding people (not that you suggested that), closing sex clubs, etc., we should give people as much education about the issue as possible (not the “abstinence only” nonsense either) so that they can exercise intelligent decision making. (At the same time, I agree with people like Kramer and Shilts that, in the very beginning, it would have been a wise thing to close bathhouses in places like SF, but only until we got a reasonable sense of what was going on.) Beyond that, you can’t protect people too much, otherwise we end up living in a rule-bound society that infringes on our openness and liberty. None of us really wants that, whether the issue is AIDS or….dare I say it….terrorism.
–>On a side note, Hobbit, I appreciate that you discuss things with me civilly. Thanks!
–Chet
This was to be a continuation of my #49. Filter giving me terrible problems today.
“I wager neither of you has ever even read a single copy of [Mother Jones].” – Bad wager… once again showing your tendency to insulting and foolish stereotypes.
“I’d never say to someone, ‘well that comes from National Review…..that’s just rightist nonsense!'”
Oh please… YOU HAVE.
“I was at least honest about the fact that the article does not say that the article was or was not sponsored by Reagan’s campaign…”
Yes. That is good.
“Debates and conversations about politics require that interlocutors ASSUME the honesty and well-intentions of each other. I do that for you guys…”
Oh my!!! 🙂 I don’t know if I’ve engaged a “debater” more consistently suspicious, insulting, and willing to accuse others of bad faith, than you! How is this, for only one example: http://gaypatriot.net/2007/02/17/congressional-cowards-give-up-on-the-troops#comment-395883
Have you no shame?
(Note: In the particular example, Matt and I both did provide MULTIPLE Web references YOU COULD VIEW YOURSELF – from neutral sources, even!)
#52 – Translation:
Chester still got nothing. (Except his wounded ego.)
I can’t say everything at once, Chet. My comments are too long as it is.
As it happens, both apply – and in due course, I said both. LOL 🙂
I don’t disagree with any of what you said above (except the part about me being a denialist), but the subject of our conversation was why gay people would hero-worship Ronald Reagan. So my main question is, if you readily accept Shilt’s critique of the gay community’s response to HIV/AIDS, then why don’t you accept his equally well documented critique of Reagan?
Because, as Calarato neatly put it above, we have more important things to think about than the gay community’s self-inflicted wounds that it tries to blame on other people.
The ultimate proof of the irrelevancy of Shilts’s vendetta against Reagan is obvious when one looks at the fact that HIV infection rates in the gay community would still do the Third World proud. Presidents come and presidents go, but the gay community refuses to change its behavior — especially its blaming everyone else for its inability to keep its pecker in its pants and use condoms when it doesn’t — and continues to reap the same results.
Chet, thanks for circling back around and providing the reference to prove RR was anti-gay.
Problem is, like Calarato and others here, I think “the reach” is really a stretch. By reach I mean your implication that RR’s campaign (or “campaign surrogates” to give you the benefit of the doubt) would have spied brilliantly that they could portray Carter as being pro-gay and thought that was the proverbial nail in the coffin for social conservatives, southern voters, etc. Sorry, but there were hundreds of other reasons far more persuasive to nail the coffin shut on JimmineyCricket’s presidency. And, remember, RR got 91% of the Electoral College, carried the South except for Carter’s homestate of GA and the hillside dwellers in W VA.
But let’s try some logic… although I doubt you’ll be convinced if you’re willing to earlier trot out the ol’ ActUp crap/spin that’s been discredited roundly by unbiased commentators in a plethora of media.
Let’s say some mean-spirited anti-gay bigot in the RR campaign had the opportunity to earmark $$$ for producing the ad –remember you said it was a TV ad. Even shaky, low budget, 3rd tier ads ran about $1.2m/minute in 1980… if one could have gotten the RR people to even agree to produce an ad not reflective of the high production values evident in other RR ads. RR’s ads in 1980 ran a whopping $3.3m/minute.
The funds would have had to been raised independent of RR’s official campaign, because despite what you said… we did have campaign finance laws in place at the federal level… reporting requirements for candidates, for natl parties, for state parties, etc. The laws went into effect under Ford as a backlash against Watergate, Chet. Nice try at revisionist history, but it doesn’t get you there. In FEC filings, there is no evidence of late TV ad batches being made by either the RR Campaign or RNC-DC or RNC-NYC… the only two other sources with the cash to do the ads. It’s possible a state GOP group did them; I didn’t check there… but I gotta tell ya, Chet, it would have been redlined when RR’s folks were asked to approve because they (the RR people) were anal-retentive when it came to TV or radio ads. Control over content, images, message etc. You just don’t go off message in a controlled, precise campaign like RR’s people ran in 76 primary, 80 primary and general and the 84 general.
In 1980, the real –not figurehead– lead finance guy for RR was Malcolm Walbridge and the expenditures were controlled out of RR Campaign hdqtrs in LA under John Sears’ imperial control. The campaign worked extensively throughout 1979 to pull together 5 ads… http://www.4president.us/tv/tv1980.htm
Five ads, Chet. Not a single anti-Carter as a sleazy tool of gays ad. Those were the 5 campaign ads, Chet (absent the 3 longer TV “addresses” he was personally fond of). Could an independent, unaligned sympathetic supporter paid for a vicious anti-gay ad and gotten airtime in fall 1980?
Well, again, it’s a stretch. In 1980, the two major campaigns spent so much money in ads that toward the end Sept, conventional ad buyers were complaining that there was no air time left for normal routine ads to air until after Nov… here in Michigan, the RR ads ran non-stop… sometimes 2/hour… an obscene hallmark of saturation in 1980.
So we have the alleged “RR campaign” ad proving RR was anti-gay from your source and the ol ActUp crap/spin about RR letting millions die of AIDS before he acted.
Sorry, Chet, but with all due respect, I join Calarato and others here who find it a stretch.
Chet (#54),
Firstly, thanks to you for being civil and thoughtful. I’m responding to the tone you established with others and I admire you for it.
Secondly, did you read my #47? (I don’t mean to nag, but am expressing interest in your opinion and response. You’re popular in these parts.)
Thirdly, I’d just like to reiterate that my questions re. AIDS are some off the top of my head. I pretty much agree with you on all your responses, especially the necessary relationship between liberty and risk.
One more question re. AIDS: You write, “I think I understand your point, but let’s remember that in the early 1980s, no one had heard of nor fathomed this…” Surely this includes Reagan, does it not? I remember having a long, difficult conversation with a guy who insisted that the lives of many Jews were lost because Roosevelt didn’t recognize their plight at the hands of the Nazis. This may not be a perfect analogy, but I’ve always thought this was unfair to Roosevelt — as if the U.S. should have dropped everything and run to help those based on information that was far from definitive. Likewise, I’ve never bought the line that Reagan is to blame for the deaths of many gay men and drug users in the early 80s because he didn’t mention AIDS in his speeches and didn’t immediately direct our national attention and resources toward the problem. Was there more the administration could have done? Perhaps, but I’m not sure how productive it is to saddle Reagan with a legacy of malevolent inattention or worse. Reagan didn’t hate gay men at all. Perhaps this isn’t your position — I’m responding to an amalgamation of several posts. I’m sorry if I’m tranferring.
#60 – HardHobbit, well said.
But I am curious: Is Chester going “cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo” at people who provide stronger cites than he, really part of that “civil tone with others” you keep wanting to praise him on? Ummm…. LOL
#59 – Matt, well said.
#58 – NDT, well said. My (longer) version:
1) We’ve established that Reagan wasn’t anti-gay.
2) We’ve established that SOME of his supporters were – like some Democrats. The “TV ad” question left open.
3) We have NOT established that the Reagan Administration was altogether too slow in responding to AIDS, to the detriment of humankind.
If you look at both the contemporaneous CDC reports / actions, and the AIDS funding provided by the Reagan Administration (figures in Shilts’ book show it growing rapidly), they weren’t all that bad… they might even be kind of impressive.
4) We’ve established that Reagan did take a few years to personally, Presidentially mention AIDS.
5) We’ve established that I couldn’t care less about (4). As a principled individualist, I don’t expect / need government to validate this or that group (that I may belong to, or not) by having the President mention it.
6) We’ve established – via Shilts’ book, no less – that gays themselves were among the slowest to respond to AIDS (or to change behavior), and that to any reasonable person, that had far more to do with the horrific spread and damage of AIDS than the Reagan Administration.
7) We’ve established that Reagan had a giant agenda of human freedom… which he mostly accomplished.
Conclusion: I don’t “hero-worship” Reagan. I do greatly admire the vision and philosophical clarity, whereby he brought point (7) about. I, as a homo, have benefitted enormously from his vision and legacy of protecting America and promoting Freedom.
You wrote: I have long been critical of Ms. Coulter, seeing her as more interestec in provoking controversy than in promoting conservative ideas.
When Ann wrote about the 9-11 widows as “innoculated” spokespersons she brought about the end of innoculated spokespersons from the Left.
At first I thought she was way out of line, but after seeing this result, I think it was worth the woe of the time.
What will be the eventual consequence of Ann’s use of the “F-word” to describe the preening, weak-on-national-defense Edwards?
Unknown as of this time. Let’s give it a chance.
Well, you all certainly do keep my on my toes, I’ll give you that. I’ll try to respond to everything. Forgive me if I leave anything out.
Calarato — you state (#55) that I have refused to read the National Review. I read it frequently. I usually don’t agree with a lot of what’s said, but I don’t like only hearing the sound of my own voice. So your statement is, I believe, an unfair characterization. In my memory, the only thing I’ve refused to read that was recommended to me here was a sort of Ann Coulterish political trash tract, which I usually do refuse to read (I don’t have that much time in a day). If you ever have any serious (i.e., National Reviewish) reading to pass my way, I’ll read it (even if it requires me going to a library to look it up, which is what reading the MJ/Shilts piece I cited would require of you).
Hard Hobbit — I can’t find the #47 comment you’re talking about. Can you clarify? I’d be happy to respond.
Regarding your comments on Reagan. It’s true that no one knew in 1980 what was going on, including Reagan. If Reagan had only been silent in 1980, 1981, 1982, even 1983, and 1984, sure, I’d say, give the guy a break, no one knew what to make of this. But he didn’t issue a single public statement even using the word “AIDS” until 1987!!! 1987! To me, that’s an awfully long silence. Also, when he did finally speak about aids in 87, he mentioned single mothers, third world people, and IV drug users, but not gays (who, at the time, were the primary victims of the disease). This, to me, betrays at the very least a certain “discomfort” on the part of Reagan when it came to talking publicly about gay people. Coupled with this, Shilts argues (in the article I cited) that key players in Reagan’s admin (not Reagan himself, but still) CUT funding to the CDC and the NIH during the key “ramp up” years of the disease (the early 1980s, through 1987 when he finally increased funding). Now, it might be that Reagan as a personal man was not homophobic. I don’t know because I didn’tknow him. But his policies, in my view, left a lot to be desired. He seemed to have no qualms, for example, surrounding himself with people like Pat Buchanan (Press Secy who at the RNC convention said “the gays waged a war on nature and nature has fought back”). He openly advocated a policy that would deny otherwise legal immigrants entry to the US if they tested positive for HIV (he did this, I believe, in 1988). And he was the first Republican to really forge strong ties with the Moral Majority. So maybe he wasn’t as “anti-gay” as Buchanan, Jesse Helms, or Jerry Falwell, but I don’t think he was exactly “pro-gay” in any discernible way either.
Michgan Matt — Well, you know a hell of a lot more about campaign rules than I do. Point granted. I still think, though, that if this ad were something Reagan strongly objected to, something would have been said and, as far as I can tell, nothing was. You’re also right that Jimmy didn’t have a heck of a lot going for him during that election (he also wasn’t exactly a gay friendly democrat himself, making the ad campaign I mentioned extremely ironic!). But in my mind, it was at the time (and probably even now) impossible for a Republican to really win the south without some sort of msg demonizing either (a) gays or (b) pro-choicers. This has been a key Republican tactic since Reagan. I just don’t see someone like Reagan, with the ties he had with the new “moral majority,” stepping up during the 80 campaign and saying “hey, that ad is way off base….I have nothing against the gays.” And to be perfectly honest, I was not trying to “revise history”; I think you’re probably right that this ad was issued by a pro-Reagan independent (religious) group; but given the totality of Reagan’s policies, given the strong presence of anti-gay forces that surrounded his presidency, I have a hard time believing that he was terribly disappointed or disturbed by the ad’s msg.
NDT —
You stated:
“The ultimate proof of the irrelevancy of Shilts’s vendetta against Reagan is obvious when one looks at the fact that HIV infection rates in the gay community would still do the Third World proud. Presidents come and presidents go, but the gay community refuses to change its behavior — especially its blaming everyone else for its inability to keep its pecker in its pants and use condoms when it doesn’t — and continues to reap the same results.”
–> Some African countries have a more than 50% infection rate. How does this “do them proud”? The fasted growing population of HIV positive people are black women. Is this because they’re not “keeping their peckers in their pants?” In 1980 no body knew to “keep their peckers in their pants” as you so eloquently put it. If you were 20 years old living in NYC in the 1980s, you’d probably be dead from the disease now like so many others. And the gay community has “changed its behavior.” A big reason for the disease’s slow decline among gay men is because of the gay community’s own education efforts, their efforts to create more affordable drugs, and so on. It would be nice if, while not sacrificing your own political principles, you could show at least a modicum of respect and decorum for not only the people who died from this disease early on, when so little was known about it, but also the people in the gay community who (even though they might differ from you politically) tried to do something. I suspect that might be too much to ask of you.
–Chet
Last for the night. Sorry but I am still shaking my head over this…
Randy Shilts… Gay activist-journalist from the 70s, who died in 1994 of specific illness… Good guy on his own terms, but known to be very agenda-driven… Known to have tremendous bitterness toward conservatives, particularly toward Reagan over his (Randy’s) specific illness… Telling a story in 1987, to his comfortable fellow Reagan-haters at Mother Jones… a story of alleged Reagan behavior 7 years earlier, that would have been public (TV ads running throughout the South)… yet nobody else seems to remember it or possess any evidence…
That has got to be the *definition* of a questionable source on something. I’m sorry, I can’t believe it was offered straight up.
Now let me acknowledge, the story could still be true. Or partially so. And if it is: then it is. (Though it still wouldn’t reflect on Reagan, if the ad was done independently of Reagan or his top managers.)
But it’s up to the person spreading the story, to furnish a second source, if the first is that questionable – and seemingly “alone”.
Mother Jones is perfectly capable of printing things that aren’t true, for whatever the reason. Even first-tier publications – like the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Associated Press – do it all the time.
As Dildo said to Frito, in Harvard Lampoon’s _Bored of the Rings_, p.31:
Note that it does not say the ad was sponsored by anyone else — it was a Reagan campaign ad….I was also honest about the fact that this ad occurred before the rules requiring candidates to approve messages paid for/endorsed by them. So you guys could at least go with those points and try to prove your position.
Fast forward to the 2000 campaign: The liberals maintained (and still do) that Bush supposedly smeared McCain. They don’t mention that it was not Bush, but campaign workers.
Fast forward to the 2004 campaign: Using that logic and the Mother Jones logic of the “Reagan ad”, we can conclude that it was actually Kerry & Edwards who were shooting at and vandalizing Bush/Cheney headquarters here in Orlando and elsewhere. If those responsible had not been caught, we could conclude that Kerry was the one who slashed the tires on vans rented by Republicans to transport voters thereby “disenfranchising” Republican voters.
such an awful person, I know, all that he did for the AIDS community…..
Frankly, I don’t care what a person does. If he’s a liar, he’s still a worthless POS, to me. If you have great sex with a guy but he’s a pathological liar, do you keep him?
Is Shilts just making that up? Is mother Jones just randomly picking figures?
And the numbers are based on what? Where do those numbers come from? Was that in America or worldwide? Who did they get them from? Mother Jones usually has “footnotes” for their allegations. Aren’t there any references in that article?
AIDS was identified in 1982. Budget funding started in 1984, according to Peter Robinson. Does Mother Jones say when Reagan first mentioned it?
“well that comes from National Review…..that’s just rightist nonsense!”
I’ve glanced through a few issues of Mother Jones. Any retard with half a brain can conclude that it’s total fabrication, spin and liberal wishful thinking. It’s nauseating that anybody could find it at all credible. The Masonic conspiracy theories, Tri-lateral Commission, Build-a-Burgers (or whatever the hell they are) are more credible than that drivel.
What’s next? Alex Jones quotes? BTW, when Art Bell says you’re full of it, well that’s pretty much it.
I think Reagan first mentioned it in ’87. Could be wrong.
Again, I see no rational (as opposed to emotional – or emotionally needy) reason to care when he did or didn’t.
Cal wrote:
“Randy Shilts… Gay activist-journalist from the 70s, who died in 1994 of specific illness… Good guy on his own terms, but known to be very agenda-driven… Known to have tremendous bitterness toward conservatives, particularly toward Reagan over his (Randy’s) specific illness… Telling a story in 1987, to his comfortable fellow Reagan-haters at Mother Jones… a story of alleged Reagan behavior 7 years earlier, that would have been public (TV ads running throughout the South)… yet nobody else seems to remember it or possess any evidence…
That has got to be the *definition* of a questionable source on something. I’m sorry, I can’t believe it was offered straight up.
Now let me acknowledge, the story could still be true. Or partially so. And if it is: then it is. (Though it still wouldn’t reflect on Reagan, if the ad was done independently of Reagan or his top managers.)”
–>Lots of opinions about the guy and the article for never having read it, Cal.
–Chet
TGC–
“I’ve glanced through a few issues of Mother Jones. Any retard with half a brain can conclude that it’s total fabrication, spin and liberal wishful thinking. It’s nauseating that anybody could find it at all credible. The Masonic conspiracy theories, Tri-lateral Commission, Build-a-Burgers (or whatever the hell they are) are more credible than that drivel.”
–>I doubt you’ve ever read a single issue. Sorry, I just doubt it.
–Chet
Chet, take everything you’ve written, take everything that’s been written to rebutt it in a reasonable, rational, respectful fashion and the run of it is hidden in your response to me:
“But in my mind…”
That’s the problem you have, Chet. No matter how compelling, no matter how well documented, no matter how sane the rebuttal… it still boils down to your personal opinion based on what you think you know.
You’re wrong about RR being anti-gay. You’re really silly to keep trotting out all the discredited ActUp blather of the 1980’s and you need to learn to accept that others know a hell of lot more than you can ever appreciate because of your narrow, partisan, gay-locked mindset.
The beauty of the public square isn’t that all opinions are equal nor should they be treated with equal credibility… the beauty is that we’re allowed to offer them even if, like your’s here, they ultimately boil down to misinformation, bad analysis, wishful thinking and the wrong conclusions… you said it best: “But in my mind”.
The latest date that it is possible for Reagan to have mentioned AIDS in a press conference is sometime in September 1985. The press conference was published verbatim in the New York Times. I had a printout of a microfilm from my public library but not anymore. I can go get another one if you would like, but you won’t believe me anyway.
April should check out the blog of (I’m probably getting the name wrong and I do not care to find out if that’s the case) Max Blumenthal on Huffington Post. Check out that leftists apparent obsession with all gays he disagrees with politically and his agenda of “exposing” to them in order to delegitmitize them .
Then April, come back to me about whatever invented tactics you’re inventing about consevatives.
You have yet to write anything that is coherent here.
Attmay, good one!
“Lots of opinions about the guy and the article for never having read it, Cal.”
Chester – Now your implication, or claim-in-effect, is that because I didn’t read a specific UNAVAILABLE article in Mother Jones in 1987 that you wish to quote and drive your personal anti-Reagan agenda from, I somehow wouldn’t or can’t possibly know enough about Shilts’ biography and work to have an opinion about his journalistic character or tendencies.
Even though in reality, I have read as much – quite possibly more? – of Shilts’ work over time as you or almost anybody. And taken the trouble (before all this) to learn his biography, etc.
And even though you’ve been completely unable, up to this point, to supply ANY corrobating evidence for that wild story of his you want to push – and for which he is (again, up to this point) the one and ONLY source.
Dude… do you even ‘hear’ the words coming out of your keyboard anymore? LOL 🙂
‘In your mind’, indeed – Excellent one, Matt.
sorry, typo… ‘corroborating’
Calarato, it’s a troubling reality… just because the village idiot speaks, does it mean we all have to listen? In this case, Chet, thinks Reagan was anti-gay because ActUp told him so. In Ian’s case, BushCo is the all corrupting evil criminal empire because the DailyKos voices told him so.
Not all opinions are equal. The informed ones are worth more to all but the GayLeftBorg.
Chet,
My mistake. I meant #46, but that’s awhile ago and perhaps that thread has grown stale.
To my mind, there are four general ‘states’ or possible responses to homosexuality and/or homosexuals: outright rejection, tolerance, acceptance, outright advocacy. I’m guessing Reagan stood somewhere between tolerance and acceptance. Mark Twain wrote “Travel is fatal to prejudice” and I think he meant that segregation necessarily breeds ignorance — that simple exposure can break down prejudice because most prejudice isn’t malevolent, it’s just ignorant. I haven’t read any statements Reagan made either in support of homosexuals or against them, but it’s likely he knew them and worked with them in Hollywood and because I haven’t read anything negative from him, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I don’t think he should be held responsible for statements made by others, deplorable though they may be. Moreover, while some were certainly making anti-gay statements (a subjective term) during those years, I don’t recall anyone making ‘pro-gay’ statements (another subjective term) as they would be understood today, Republican or Democrat. And who is more responsible for negativity towards gay men, Ronald Reagan or Gerry Studds?
I also think Reagan had bigger fish to fry (the Soviet Union, for example). It’s sometimes difficult to look back over history and resist the temptation to apply today’s sensibilities to a time in which they were not applicable. (I’m not stating that you are doing so — it’s hard to draw that conclusion from a few posts in a public forum’s thread, well-written though they may be.) In the 1980s, gays were not nearly as visible and mainstream as they are today and we weren’t nearly as sensitive to hurting the feelings of others as we are today. I’m not sure why it was so important for Reagan to mention AIDS in a speech (I don’t think such an acknowledgment would have made a difference), especially early on when it wasn’t very well understood and didn’t effect a large segment of the population; gays, because of their sexuality and social position, who are so critical of Reagan re. AIDS naturally have an extremely skewed perspective. Do you see why someone might conclude that the alacrity you expect isn’t applicable to an earlier, more ignorant time?
Let me also state that I do respect those who worked in the trenches educating and advocating sane behavior during those years when AIDS was just becoming known and later. I was pretty young at the time and was engaging in straight sex (though I had had one gay encounter), so I wasn’t really aware of what was going on, but I do remember how scared people were, yet it was considered ‘the gay disease’. By the time it was a national issue, irresponsible statements were made on both sides (Pat Buchanan, Oprah Winfrey).
Well, I was going to insert my $0.02 here but HHobbitt, MMatt, Cal, Attmay, VinceP, and TGC have already done a brilliant job debunking Chetster.
I am humbled to be in such exalted company. You guys are great.
And Mean Gene – are you “Gene in PA” on a good day? (Just wondering!) If you are not, welcome aboard!
Regards,
Peter H.
Hey Hobbit–
I think the context of Reagan’s early presidency is important. In cities at least, gay people had achieved a level of tolerance after the gay liberationist uprisings of the early 1970s. Groups like the Gay Activist Alliance (it’s legal wing later became Lambda) advocated for civil rights measures at the local level, education, tolerance, and so on. Then, toward the late 1970s, there was an enormous backlash — people like Anita Bryant believed that homosexuals were destroying America. Then Briggs (yay Reagan for not supporting it), and so on. This backlash culminated in 1986 with Bowers versus Hardwick. this was the cultural context of Reagan’s presidency.
Again, you and others might be completely correct about Reagan’s private sentiments regarding homosexuality. And, in all reality, a man of his generation probably just thought, like my grandfather did, that not many homosexuals really even existed so why worry about it! But as a public figure and a politician, I believe Reagan and his policies have to be situated in the context of the backlash against gay rights I mentioned above. Like all politicians do, I believe Reagan and his administration sort of passively rode the wave of this backlash — being anti-gay, even if through mere silence, meant votes and support. It was an awful time to be gay, and I’m glad I was just a youngster then. Aside from the ad I mentioned above — which Matt claims (probably rightly) was not paid for by Reagan himself — I do not recall Reagan publicly saying nasty things about gay people; and he probably didn’t.
But passivity of the sort I’ve tried to document and reference here in the face of a crisis like the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, during such a crucial time….to me it can’t be simply ignored or forgiven. And you and others are right that dems would have likely been no better. It was taboo to tlk about aids then because talking about aids meant talking about homosexuality. Carter would have been just as mum, I suspect. But I’ve never been an apologist for democrats….I’ve stated my outrage before at Clinton for his hypocrisy, and I’d rather be shackled to a led zepplin than vote for Hilary. To me Reagan has to be judged in his own right, not in comparison to equally incompetent dems.
I guess my main problem with Reagan goes far above and beyond his silence about aids and gays (you can’t, after all, expect all that much from public figures). As a student of western democracies, I have always thought of the period from the French Revolution until 1980 as following a rather direct evolutionary pathway in terms of rights, liberties, enlightenment, and so on — what Hegel would have called the unfolding of reason in humanity. And then, in my view, 1980 happened, it was Morning in America, and a 200 year period of the slow unfolding of enlightenment suddenly, with Reagan, took a very, very strange turn. Only my view. But we can talk about all that another time.
See you soon,
Chet
In 1980 no body knew to “keep their peckers in their pants” as you so eloquently put it. If you were 20 years old living in NYC in the 1980s, you’d probably be dead from the disease now like so many others.
As I put over on Boi From Troy, Chet, my dogeared copy of The Joy of Gay Sex, copyright 1977, has a very in-depth section on how to avoid ending up with sexually-transmitted diseases. Oddly enough, what it tells you to do protects one nicely against HIV as well.
Pleading ignorance only works when one DOESN’T have clear instructions.
A big reason for the disease’s slow decline among gay men is because of the gay community’s own education efforts, their efforts to create more affordable drugs, and so on.
Key words: “slow decline”.
Considering that the gay community has known what causes AIDS for over twenty years, we should hardly have any new cases at all. Yet still, the disease persists at double-digit rates, especially among those who have never known anything BUT “safe sex education”.
It’s because gay leftists have avoided blaming the cause of HIV/AIDS — unsafe sex among gays — and instead have been blaming the disease on people who had nothing whatsoever to do with it, like Reagan.
It would be nice if, while not sacrificing your own political principles, you could show at least a modicum of respect and decorum for not only the people who died from this disease early on, when so little was known about it, but also the people in the gay community who (even though they might differ from you politically) tried to do something.
Their idea of “doing something” was to promote and try to protect bathhouse sex while blaming Ronald Reagan for allegedly trying to kill gays.
More gays died in vain because gay leftists like you were busy bashing Ronald Reagan rather than deal with your own inability to control your sexual urges and act responsibly. And frankly, to allow you to continue profanes the memory of all those who died doing what the gay community wanted — irresponsible and promiscuous sex — while you were busy blaming Reagan for killing them.
I missed that bit earlier.
If it’s meant to refer to ACT UP type of screeching for drug giveaways, for cures to be invented, etc.: What a misconception!
Inventing / creating drugs is a *difficult, creative* act. Scientists and drug companies create drugs. Not screeching activists.
And it takes profit to create new drugs. Creating new drugs is one of the absolute riskiest businesses there is. It’s riskier than oil wildcatting. It takes anywhere from 100 to 200 difficult, expensive and exhausting separate drug projects (that are eventually abandoned) to lead to one large medical & market success.
It’s possible that the screeching activists knocked down a few government barriers to drug creation. Maybe. Because it’s equally likely that the drug companies – justly eager for profits – would have used the same deadly AIDS statistics as the screechers, plus the companies’ advertising and political budgets, to get the barriers knocked.
It’s possible the screechers lined up a few study volunteers that wouldn’t have been there. But again: If they hadn’t, the drug companies would have. Can’t miss out on that market opportunity!
To the extent that the screechers have imposed price controls (in effect) on the drug companies: they have *slowed* and *harmed* drug development efforts. Again, the economics of the industry are such that there is a direct connection between the size of the profits drug companies are able to earn and the new drugs they are able to develop. Even a non-conservative like Andrew Sullivan concedes this.
So on balance, the screeching activists have probably done more harm than good, in terms of AIDS drug development.
That’s the trouble when screechers screech for something, then SEEM or APPEAR to get it: they end up thinking that they did something, or that screeching is somehow creative. It isn’t.
The “gay community” doesn’t create AIDS drugs; nor make them more “affordable”. Drug companies do.
Hey, Chet —
Thanks for responding.
To me, Reagan’s ‘strange turn’ (as you put it) was a renewal. I’m not going to bore you with vague, florid turns of phrase to describe him (read Peggy Noonan for that), but he is a political hero of mine and probably one to most of the members of this blog.
I’ve never really been much of a student of German Idealism, so I can’t really deny or concur with your statement re. Hegel. I’ve of course read the Critique of Pure Reason (Kant) which influenced him and have compared Schopenhauer and Fichte, but the problem with Hegel seemed to me to be that he assumed a trajectory that is entirely divorced from the human’s natural state and the natural laws espoused by true Enlightenment figures we’ve mentioned before (Locke, etc.). That essentially, if a concept that adds to ‘social knowledge’ (sorry, I’d try that in German, but I’d likely generate peals of laughter) and is subsumed into a society’s concsiousness, the society is thus enlightened and the society must then act to uphold this value (which to me means government action). To my knowledge, Hegel never preached a specific brand of politics, but isn’t the logical extreme of his ‘enlightenment’ embodied in Marx? It all seems so concerned with society and not concerned with the individual. Am I completely off?
I do find it interesting that you chose the French Revolution as the head of your ‘gradual unfolding’ and not the Age of Reason. The French were inspired by the American Revolution, but their slogan (Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood) was one of the great misinterpretations of history, in my view.
Take care.
–>I doubt you’ve ever read a single issue. Sorry, I just doubt it.
–Chet
You meand you ASSume that I’ve ever read a single issue. Well, you are correct in that I’ve never read a single issue cover to cover (I can’t do so without nausea), but I’ve skimmed through several. Recently, I flipped through an issue that had a multi-page timeline supposedly laying out how “Bush lied, people died” in Iraq. As is their wont, it was a collection of half-truths and liberal wishful thinking. Of course, they left out any references of the liberals who demanded something be done about the Iraq threat and left out the IAEA complaints, but you knew that already.
NDT — Do you mean the same “Joy of Gay Sex” that was written by Edmund White — a LEFTIST who also supported not only the GMHC but Act Up during the ramp up years of AIDS?
–Chet
HardHobbit, you’re not off at all.
Classical Marxism borrows VERY heavily from Hegel – in dialectic (logic-by-contradiction) structure, in other-worldliness (or lack of concern for humans-as-they-are) and collectivist tone, and to a certain lesser extent even in specific content.
Kant’s misguided epistemology and metaphysics were a contributing factor in both. Kant led to all the German Idealists, led to Marx, led to the “Frankfurt School” (Marxist Freudians cited as justification by 60s radical terrorists). Kant and the German Idealists also led to Heidegger as well; he, the Frankfurt School, and Nietzsche then together led to what we now call Post-Modernism (Foucault, Rorty, Derrida, etc.).
It’s neatly summarized here: http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/1592476422/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0629992-7104110?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173453663&sr=8-1
A high-level, reasonably short and readable book I can recommend highly.
By the way: That Ch. is into the French (somewhat more than the American) Revolution doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Valuing ‘equalite’ and ‘fraternite’ as much or more than ‘liberte’ – or to put it another way, emphasizing equality of results in life over equality before the law – is indeed a great historical mistake. And it is typically made by Rousseau-ian mush-heads, i.e., by closet (unadmitted) Leftists.
#84 – Cal, they should really try reading more of John Locke instead.
Regards,
Peter H.
Do you mean the same “Joy of Gay Sex” that was written by Edmund White — a LEFTIST who also supported not only the GMHC but Act Up during the ramp up years of AIDS?
Why not?
After all, that makes it more amusing that, even after writing a book that specifically TOLD people how to avoid STDs, he tried to blame the wildfire spread of HIV on anyone BUT the gay community.
And that explains why the gay community still has such incredibly high rates of infection, both new and continuing. They blame other people for their not following through on what they know they should be doing.
Blaming other people for something over which you have control. I like to call it the “it’s pizza’s fault I’m fat” defense.
Ironically, Edmund White is HIV-Positive, according to this article about him:
http://www.econoculture.com/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=254&Itemid=46