Well, for one, he could have pumped in funding to research.
For two, once research began revealing clues (as you cite, around 1983), he could have supported, you know, ADMITTING IT EXISTED, or maybe actually EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT IT.
I guarantee, by 1987, AIDS in California, much less the rest of the US, was far more than “hidden”
Education and treatment for AIDS happened DESPITE President Reagan, and that is a terribly sad thing to have to say.
Well, given that it was not 4 years later that he had Koop put together a report, I’m not sure what you are talking about.
No, he was not (are you sure you want me to cite your hatful posts?)
Uh huh, what did they do and when. Please stop with the rambling and try and focus.
But this is exactly my point. He did not ignore them, he simply did not take action (of some amorphous and undefined nature) which would have satisfied you. If he really thought Gay people were unworthy of compasion (as you apperently thing he is) then he could have done much more to see to it that AIDS was much worse than it was.
[QUTOE]Well, for one, he could have pumped in funding to research.
[/QUOTE]
He did. The federally funded research for AIDS started in 1981. A time when the NIH was cutting its budget.
Fine. Even before 1983, he was funding research, the development of tests, and programs to ensure the blood supply was clean. Granted he did not pass out condoms or needles. But the idea that he ignored it is simply ludicrous. The idea that he fiddled while people died is more than ludicrous. It is unfounded and hateful.
Of course. And Reagan had spoken of it in public by then. His adminsitration had addressed it in some small way. The only thing he had not done was use the word AIDS. Wow. If he had only said the word earlier think of the lives he could have saved. :rolleyes:
That’s simply a lie. I understand that Reagan did not put AIDS research or education at the top of his list, but he did not actively oppose it either. As I mentioned (and posted in a link many posts ago) the NIH began work in 1981. That was shortly after the first AIDS patient entered a clinic.
You know what? Forget it.
So again, RR could have and should have increased funding sooner. He could have and he should have made a nice speech.
Nothing much would have changed but people would have felt that he did something. And doing something is (well) something.
Once again I am impressed by the high level of debate on this board and I thank you all for it.
Excuse me, he actually instructed his surgeon general not to mention an epidemic in public. For five years! That’s a pretty ostentatious way of opposing AIDS education and research.
Oh, one other thing: He could have made it clear that the disease affects everyone, since virtually every person with AIDS was shunned from society and treated as a leper.
But the fact that they lived out their miserable, painful lives in loneliness has no meaning whatsoever for some people.
I was merely agreeing with your statement. Don’t get all antsy.
Besides, calling someone stupid isn’t always hateful. In his case, it is pointing out a fact.
Like I said, sometimes not taking action is a crime in its own right.
Because… say it with me now… he was a hateful asshat who didn’t want to support the concept of anyone having sex or using drugs…
How is it unfounded? Maybe hateful, but maybe he deserves hate. That’s like calling Hitler an asshole. Are you going to get on my case about that, too?
This has been addressed by someone else.
Wow, you like Reagan so much you even act like him!
What does this mean exactly. Did Koop ask for permission to speak and was denied? I read the link you posted back on the first page, and it simply says Reagan “prevented his surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, from discussing AIDS publicly until Reagan’s second term” This sounds to me like restating the fact that Koop did not speak out until Reagan’s second term but blaming Reagan for it. Can you point me to more information?
Here is a cite which give a different spin on the facts. As in:
Note the “unprecedented action …”. Certainly he did that dispite Reagan’s wishes?
Seriously? So your post was my cite?
Now that is funny.
That’s what LEADERS are supposed to do. They’re supposed to give direction, they set an example and add clarity to the debate. They’re supposed to LEAD!! Clearly Reagan failed on this point, or at best was substandard.
Many conservatives like to point to Reagan as a great President, prehaps the greatest in the 20th century. Yet his response to the AIDS epidemic is a clear example of how he failed as a leader.
Not the point, one way or the other (although I hardly think Reagan was free of prejudice). I was responding to XTisme’s analogy about an epidemic that strikes only KKK members.
I’m still reeling from xtisme’s attempt to equate gays and lesbians with Nazis and Klansmen. :eek:
I’ll probably get busted on from a mod for this…but I’m still trying to figure out if people are being willfully stupid, or they simply ARE stupid.
I never equated gays/lesbians with Nazis and Klansmen. Just for the record. Repeatedly saying this doesn’t make it so…it makes the folks saying it look like idiots, least from my perspective.
I’m sure that it played a part. People are never really focused or committed on things that are distasteful to them…until it becomes a crisis. Politicians especially aren’t known for coming out strongly on matters they don’t believe in that also aren’t popular with the majority of the citizens. Sometimes democracy has its downside I suppose. I’m pretty sure that RR’s core philosophy was such that the gay lifestyle wouldnt be high on his list of things he would worry overly much about, especially in the early days when so little was known about it, about how wide spread it was, and even how it was transmitted.
That said though, pervert has made a pretty good case IMO that the Government (and RR) DID do some things, did take some steps…in fact they didn’t just sit by and watch. As far as coming out with the noble gesture, giving heart warming speeches to the American people and words of re-assurance…again, ask put yourself in the presidents place and ask yourself honestly if YOU would have come out with such a speech for a group of people who you don’t approve of.
Since people are going apeshit (stupidly) over the Nazi/KKK thing, pick any group that is personally distasteful to you instead (which of course was the fucking POINT of the analogy), and then ask yourselfs how YOU would react…whether YOU would come out in public (for no political gain mind you, and actually some loss, especially to your core political group) and give such a speech, or if you would simply fund the programs and let others take the lead. Remember, its something you don’t agree with, don’t approve of or believe in…something that you in fact think is just wrong. I picked the Nazi/KKK thing because hate and racial prejudice is something at the top of my list…I’m quite intolerant about it and about people who advocate such things in fact. Its my own personal blindspot. Everyone has one.
I think if people were being really honest, they would conceed that it takes a special kind of person (and especially a special kind of politician) to come out strongly in support of something you don’t approve of (or even really understand at a fundamental level), something you feel is just wrong…especially if its also an issue thats not popular with the majority of the population.
-XT
It already was a crisis. Gay men had been writing their address books in pencil for some time before Reagan chose to notice it publicly.
And when it was fully on the NATIONAL radar screen AS a crisis, RR and the Government ramped up also…and started to do so in a more public way. Yes, it was a crisis before that, but it wasn’t widely CONSIDERED a crisis until fairly late in the game (mid 80’s would be my guess when people outside of the gay community REALLY started to get worried).
Here comes another analogy you guys can rip me on (I await with baited breath to see how THIS one gets spun and shredded)…it was a lot like the Peak Oil ‘crisis’, or the Global Warming ‘crisis’ today. Not in substance, not in meaning…but in the fact that there was a wide variety of opinion from ‘experts’ as to what was going on, and what it meant. There was a lot of debate going on as to exactly how bad it was, what was going on, etc. Not to say that the Peak Oil and Global Warming crisis’ aren’t real…they may very well be. But there is so much debate and difference of opinion that the common person doesn’t really know what to think. And when there is debate like this, people and governments will naturally take the path of least resistance…maybe it will all just go away. Stupid, shortsighted…and very human.
-XT
XT, I dont get why you think “approval” matters. As Americans, we are enjoined from discrimination based on religion, are we not? And is not religion a matter of choice, at least to some degree? We have sufficient reliable testimony to conclude that homosexuality is not a “life style” choice but a condition of birth not subject to choice or will. What is there to “approve” of?
I don’t particularly “approve” of Republicans, doesn’t mean I would shrug off a wretched and wasting disease decimating thier number. I don’t wish leprosy on a telemarketer. Not every day.
He must have gone to a different Sunday school than I did.
I know that…you know that. However, not everyone thinks that way, especially not everyone in the 80’s who grew up thinking the 50’s were the golden age of America. Of course ‘approval’ matters…it matters to all of us. We all have blindspots, we all tend to focus more on things we ‘approve’ of than on things we don’t. That was the point of my analogy. Pick something you, elucidator, personally find distasteful. Say Conservative/Republicans. 
Now, come out with the noble gesture and reassure them, involve yourself in their problems, advocate their issues (even seemingly)…and do so at the cost of your own political base.
Because make no mistake, the paleolithic branch of the Republican party and many deeply religious groups definitely did/do NOT approve of the gay lifestyle, so RR wouldn’t be scoring any points with any of his own supporters. Nor would he be scoring points with the opposition, which would simply shift to something else to disapprove about him and his policies. So 'luci…what would YOU do in such a case? Would you come out with the noble gesture for people and issues you found distasteful or didn’t approve of…who you just felt were wrong?
Ah, but we are talking about the noble gesture, not actually doing something. The proof was in the fact that the government WAS doing something…and in doing anything had to at least have the tacit approval of RR and the administration. Certainly if he wanted too RR could have easily blocked ANY initiative or funding. Remember how popular he was back then? But that didn’t happen…or if it did, no one has yet shown that in this thread.
No, what you want is for RR to have come out and made stirring speeches and such. Thats a whole different ball game. Sure 'luci, maybe you would have continued to allow research dollars to be spent on those damn Republicans dieing, and allowed or even encouraged things behind the scenes…but would you REALLY have come out with a series of speeches showing your support for them?
-XT
There’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don’t you think that the fact that Ronnie kept his trap shut had anything to do with its not being on the national radar? What would be the point of his waiting to say anything before even Aunt Betty in Lincoln, Nebraska had heard of gay cancer?
This silly Klansmen argument – Don’t worry, xtisme, I understood at the beginning. As clumsy as it was, you weren’t saying gays are akin to Klansmen on our own merits.
What you were doing, however, is called a tu quoque fallacy. You’re arguing, “Conceivably, one of you might have behaved shamefully towards a group you disapprove of, if they were to be decimated by a disease while you were in power. This excuses Reagan’s own shameful behaviour.”
For one thing, you haven’t any evidence as to how we’d individually behave in that situation. For another, the bad action of A does not excuse B if he commits the same action; it’s irrelevant.
Second the motion.
That’s true enough. Remember, however, it was a crisis back in the seventies when most of the people who died in the 80s became infected. Again, however, it was not a visible crisis until the 80s. Obviously, it was much more visible to those going through it. Even then, however, the nature of the crisis was not understood for several years.
Well, yes, but only in a good way. Look at the current hubbub surrounding gay marriage. If Reagan had made a speach about the crisis in the gay community in 1982 or 1983, I think more anti gay reaction would have been generated than otherwise. I’m certainly not saying that was his plan. But the OP makes a good point in asking what Reagan could have done which would have had any positive effect at all. I’m not sure that a mushy speach would have had the desired effect then or now.
Because until then, Aunt Betty did not need to understand any of the details about it. Getting Aung Betty in a panic about GRID would not have done much good. Especially as at the time he could not have said anything like “We know it cannot be passed on through casual contact.” He would have simply had to say that a deadly disease was rocking part of the country and that it was apperently communicable.
Some of the histories I linked to above mention that the death of Rock Hudson was one of the things which galvonized public attention to the AIDS crisis. Without getting too personal, perhaps you could give us some insight into how you learned about the crisis. Were there newspaper articles before 1982 or 1983? How many and often? What sorts of things did they say?
xtisme: Take heart. The point of your analogy was pretty obvious. It is almost impossible to construct analogies of that type without engendering the responses you did.
I believe that the Republican party line has historically been as opposed to promiscuous sex. Would Reagan interrupting Cheers to say “It turns out that we were right; it seems that there is a new disease, and so far all we know about it is that virgins and people who only have sex with their spouses don’t seem to get it.” have made you feel better?
[I recognize that there were relatively rare cases where people got AIDS from blood transfusions.]