Bush to gays, minorities: "Bite me!"

Feb. 7, 2001 | WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush has decided not to keep White House offices on AIDS and race relations created by his predecessor, shifting the issues to other West Wing offices.

AIDS policy is to be handled by a new AIDS coordinator in the Domestic Policy Council, a panel established by Bush and run by top aide John Bridgeland. It includes Cabinet secretaries who deal with domestic policy.

Eve.
I’m not surprised, merely shocked.
I don’t hate that punk, I’m just gagging because I’m severely disappointed.
Maybe his second term will be better.

How sad. Not unexpected, but sad.

It’s especially troubling in the wake of a recent study which concluded that urban black gay males will have a 30 percent chance of contracting AIDS by age 30. Of those surveyed, half admitted to having unprotected anal sex in the last six months. Apparently those infection rates that were dropping in the 80s are rebounding with a vengeance.

Maybe if the AIDS victims had some crude oil to sell, they might get some attention from the Shrub.

[old Billy Connelly joke] If you do, he’ll fart and fly out the window.

I don’t normally post to political threads, but I just want to say (since this is the pit)

It’s going to be a very long fucking 4 years.

There- it’s out. Funny, I don’t feel any better. :frowning:

Zette

This is, perhaps, the funniest sentence I’ve read all week.

Two things:

First - If the damn AIDS office Clinton created worked so well, why are 30% of urban black gay men HIV-infected? Why are 10% of urban gays HIV-infected? Why do only 29% of HIV-infected urban gays know they are infected? Not exactly a rousing success, was it? Political offices can’t regulate behavior, and this office seems to have been particularly ineffective in fostering attitudes among gay man that HIV is anything they need to worry about.

Second - it looks like the closure was a misunderstanding to begin with. This story
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010207/ts/bush_aids_dc_2.html
Suggests the AIDS office, as well as the race office, are being moved in a reorganization, not closed.

Facts—Read the second paragraph in the OP; I never said the offices were going to be eliminated.

I agree with you that more needs to be done about AIDS, and more effectively—but Bush’s move hardly seems to be one in the right direction. Remember, under the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations, even the words “AIDS” was rarely spoken . . . Looks like we are indeed going back to the Reagan years.

And as for “smallening” the race relations dept., that just seems to be an unecessary slap in the face.

According to a Washington Post article, both offices will remain open.

Oh, that’s reassuring . . . So, basically, they just don’t know what the hell they’re saying at all, then . . .

Yep, NPR just said that Bush’s Press Sec. Ari Fleicher (sp?) said that the comment about closing those offices and having them administered by other offices was a mistake. Both offices will remain open.

Yep. Either they were thinking about closing the offices and decided to float a trial balloon, or they were just confused. I don’t know how much difference it will make in policy whether these offices remain separate entities, but it does have some symbolic significance.

I’ve never understood what government had to do with race? I beleive that they do have a part in making sure that a human being is treated like a human being, and there are laws for that, but a race relations department? Come on, if people can’t get along by themselves no governing body in the world will make them get along. I for one wish that they would get rid of useless offices like this and put my money into something worthwhile, like my back pocket.

This is because of lack of AIDS awareness and education. When I worked in a deeply urban area as a phlebotomist, from what men were saying, they had unprotected sex quite often.
They saw AIDS as a white person’s disease.

AIDS in heterosexuals has been surpassing gay men for a few years. Gay men know HIV is something to worry about, which is why the cumulative rate for infection has dropped.

WTF?

Hastur, did you even so much as look at the article cited by neutron star?

Infection rates in gay men are NOT going down; they are going up, and going up dramatically. Gay men may “know” about the risks, but they are not acting on them. They either hear about the rising rates in heterosexuals, and somehow rationalize that that no longer means gay men are at risk, or they think HIV is no big deal because nobody’s dying since any more so many new drugs have been introduced.

Well the dramatic downturn in AIDS deaths may prove illusory - many suspect these drugs delay progression of HIV disease, but cannot stop it entirely, and have only postponed for 5-10 years the number of deaths that would have happened in the last 5 years with the newer, more potent meds like protease inhibitors, but that barring additional new meds, the US is in for another period when HIV-infected patients start dying in large numbers.

Eve, it may not have been Reagan’s gameplan, but C. Everett Koop (Reagan’s Surgeon General) did more to limit the spread of HIV, and to assemble and fund the very productive reseach programs that have given us protease inhibitors and other potent anti-retroviral agents than anyone Clinton ever appointed.

It was Army researchers studying potential Army recruits during the late 1980’s under Reagan/Bush administrations who first sounded the alarm that HIV rates among female recruits from NYC were approaching HIV rates among young men, highlighting the fact that HIV was evolving into a heterosexually transmitted disease.

I read it, did you? Urban black gay males. Which I proceeded to explain the why and wherefores of. Learn to read before you post, newbie.

Maybe this will come off sounding dumb, but what damned difference does it make what office AIDS programs are coordinated out of? Do you really need four walls and a door for every disease? They’re not actually performing medical research in the White House.

Who is this John Bridgeland? Is he evil? Are we supposed to not like him? I’m sorry, but I really think I’m missing something because I’m not that worked up at all by anything that was stated in Eve’s OP.

If the story is true, then AIDS policy will now be decided by a special cabinent on Domestic Policy that Bush has created and to which he helped install members.

If the story isn’t true, then it’s status quo, and AIDS policy stays in the White House.

So I must be missing something because I don’t see a problem here.

And it’s all Bush’s fault. We can’t put the blame where it really belongs. On all those people who have multiple sexual partners and share dirty needles.

Marc

You’ve never heard of HIV transmission through transfusions, or any of the other ways it is transmitted? At this late date of the virus, you still think that it is just sluts and junkies who contract HIV? :wally