What Could Ronald Reagan Have Done [About AIDS]?

[GLWasteful]

@pervert

But there actually are lots of other expanations. The political situation at the time made it politically unwise for him to make such a speech.

Tough fucking shit. It was politically unwise to maintain that Iran-Contra never took place, then concede that it had, but he still felt that the right thing was done. It was politically unwise to pardon Poindexter. Or to say, “I did not have sex with that woman. . .” Or to rush into war sans planning.

President’s do politically unwise things all the time. Reagan had a chance to do something politically unwise that would have made him a bigger person. If he was really afraid of the Religious Right, then he was a fucking coward. Particularly since he had already demonstrated that he could do as he damned well pleased and the RR would still soil themselves in delirious joy if he deigned to look their way. And if he remained silent because he couldn’t wrap his tiny little mind around the concept of homosexuality, then he was a fucking idiot.

But there is good evidence that it would not have saved anyone.

Nobody has once made the claim that it would have saved anyone. Well, except you, in the process of standing up a strawman that you could knock over.

And I think a reasonable case could be made that if the speech had been made early enough, it may have made the situation worse. I hope you remember the homophobic attitudes which were prevelant at the time. Go back and look at the laughter parts of the post from spectrum. Derision and suspicion of gay people was very deeply entrenched at that time. The country was going through a recession in 81 and 82. Reagan’s approval numbers were in the toilet.

Horsehit, Sparky. If the fucking president of the United States had gone on television and said plnnr’s little ditty, I would say that there would have been a hell of a lot less homophobia. If the (alleged) leader of the US had said, “They are Americans and they deserve our help,” perhaps fewer people would have experienced firsthand the derision and suspicion that were entrenched. And I know that if I were in office, with my poll numbers in the crapper, that I would go to great lengths to broaden my support. Of course, I’m not the political genius that Reagan, late of this world and soon to be sainted, was.

I am not saying that Reagan handled the AIDS crisis perfectly. I’m not even claiming that he did so acceptably. If any president could have made the speech you wrote and had it have the desired effect, Reagan was the one to do it. Bush would have sounded too cold. Clinton would simply have been derided for his liberalism. So, in hind sight, it is almost certainly desireable that Reagan should have made such a speech possibly as early as 1983. At the same time, I’m not sure Reagan deserves the vitriol that is aimed at him over this issue. I understand it is an emotional issue. That does not mean that any particular person deserves blame.

Nobody has blamed Reagan for AIDS. He’s been held responsible for his callousness. And you’re goddamned right that he could have sold it. After all, he could do one hell of a soundbite.

[spectrum]

@pervert

I understand that you are angry. The suffering you must have endured to lead to such anger I am truly sorry for.

I’m 22. The only suffering I endured in the 1980s was the cancellation of Webster.

[Blalron]

But there is good evidence that it would not have saved anyone.

If you see a kid drownding you rush out and try to save him, you don’t sit on your tush for 5 years doing a lengthy cost benefit analysis and then when the kid drowns after your inaction say “well, he was too far away when I saw him for me to have effectively rescued him”. Frankly it wouldn’t matter to me if you gave me that excuse. At the time that you saw the hypothetical kid drowning you didn’t have the luxory of hindsight to justify your inaction. It is irrelevant whether it would have ultimately made a difference or not.

[pervert]

I’m not entirely sure why that much invective was aimed at me. If I said anything to offend I appologize.

I was not really trying to excuse anything in particular either.

I do not mean the following in any sort of snotty way. I a merely trying to remind everyone.

@GLWasteful

Nobody has once made the claim that it would have saved anyone. Well, except you, in the process of standing up a strawman that you could knock over.

Post #4

@Master Wang-Ka

His own scientific advisers were telling him that sooner or later, this disease was going to make the crossover to white heterosexuals. He did nothing until white heterosexuals began dying en masse due to tainted blood from transfusions, among other reasons.

I mean, talk about fiddling while Rome burned.

Post #8

@matt_mcl

At a time when the surgeon general could have played an invaluable role in public health education, Koop was prevented from even addressing AIDS publicly.

Post #17

@Master Wang-Ka

He could have made federal funding appear a hell of a lot quicker for studying the disease, isolating it, containing it, and most importantly, testing the blood supply for its presence, preventing the slow deaths of a great many people who never did anything Reagan disapproved of.

Post #18

@matt_mcl

He wouldn’t have saved everyone who, as it was, contracted HIV after he would have addressed the issue. However, I feel that his silence intensified not only ignorance and confusion, but also hysteria, fear, and attacks on gays and PWAs among the general population.

bolding mine.
Post #29

@gobear

So I’ll pit it simply: Friends of mine died who could have been saved if the resources to find HIV and to educate gay men on safer sex had been there from the beginning.

You just spat in their faces.

Post #57

@gobear

I notice that nobody mentions the hemophiliacs and folks who received blood during surgery who died, like Isaac Asimov and Amanda Wells (Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke). Their deaths, too, can be laid at Reagan’s door because of his inaction–here you folks who despise gay people don’t have the crutch of your bigotry to fortify your indifference.

Post #62

@elucidator

And wear the opposite hat: what if RR had actually practiced the “leadership” for which he is so widely praised? What if he publicly took a morally correct but politically unpopular view? He might not have changed the attitude of the “gay community” towards Republicans in general (which, for some reason, seems terribly important to you: should I try to save the drowning child only if I am assured he will thank me? Do ungrateful little snots have no right to live?). But might he not have caused some of the bigoted amongst us to rethink thier position?

Only an analogy I know. Feel free to ingore this one.
Post #76

@Zagadka

I guess we learned something today.
A liberal would run into a burning building to save an enemy’s life.
A Republican would leave them to burn, and eat popcorn during the show, then bitch when someone calls them an asshole about it.

Again, only through analogy. Feel free to ignore it.
Post #78

@Zagadka

Now, as far as “what could Reagan […] have done” about the situation…Well, for one, THE SAME THING THEY DO TODAY.
[…]We still don’t have a cure for AIDS, but by some miracle […] not as many people are getting AIDS, […]. We have modern miracles […] like “education” and “condoms” that drop the chances of getting AIDS greatly.
Yes, that’s right, he could have launched campaigns talking about what AIDS is, what it does, how it is transmitted, and made means of stoppign AIDS available.

This one is confusing, but is not an analogy. You may need to read it twice. Notice the implication that if certain things had been done sooner, fewer people would be getting infected.
Post #81

@Zagadka

Reagan’s actions were basically a hate crime,

This one’s thin. But a hate crime is different than hate speech. Or the absence of love speech if you will. Nevertheless, this one is also somewhat thin.
I admit that you are not claiming that anyone could have been saved. I’ll even drop elucidator from the list since his analogy might not have been meant to suggest that Reagan’s inaction cost lives. But I think it does show that the claim that Reagan killed people was not my invention.

---

@Blalron

If you see a kid drownding you rush out and try to save him, you don’t sit on your tush for 5 years doing a lengthy cost benefit analysis and then when the kid drowns after your inaction say “well, he was too far away when I saw him for me to have effectively rescued him”.

Well, not in optimal conditions, no. But if the kid is a couple miles off shore, there is a thick fog and a crowd onshore clamboring to lynch the child if I call attention to him? What if I have my secratary make calls to 911 while I send order to the coast guard to do what they can? What if I had a freind of mine with a megaphone yell out to the kid to remind him that the water was only 4 feet deep. If he just stopped thrashing about (or at least did it a little less) he might survive on his own.

Again, I don’t mean any of this disrespectfully. I am honestly trying to modify the analogy a little to understand the nature of your hatred for Reagan on this issue. Notice, I did not add “What if I can’t swim?”

[Guinastasia]

Throughout Reagan’s terms, AIDS in America was confined primarily to gay/bisexual men, IV drug abusers, hemophiliacs, and their sex partners and children.

I’m not being snarky, Shodan, but what exactly is your point there? That as long as only “gays and drug users” were affected, it was no big deal?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[pervert]

@Guinastasia

I’m not being snarky, Shodan, but what exactly is your point there? That as long as only “gays and drug users” were affected, it was no big deal?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

He was responding to plnnr’s hypothetical speech. Specifically the part which says that “there is every indication that, while it is currently found mostly in the gay community and in the community of IV drug users, it could easily cross-over into the general population”.

I don’t think that he meant that it was no big deal. <Obviously, Shodan, correct me if I am wrong.>

[Guinastasia]

Fair enough. I guess the whole, “well, it could cross over” seems to imply that those who got it originally, that it was somehow okay that they had it.

[GLWasteful]

@pervert

I’m not entirely sure why that much invective was aimed at me. If I said anything to offend I appologize.

Well, it was aimed at you because you made the statement that even if Reagan had spoken out, he coud not have saved anyone. And nobody has made that claim.

And no offense or anything, but I don’t want your fucking apologies. I want my friends back.

Well, not in optimal conditions, no. But if the kid is a couple miles off shore, there is a thick fog and a crowd onshore clamboring to lynch the child if I call attention to him? What if I have my secratary make calls to 911 while I send order to the coast guard to do what they can? What if I had a freind of mine with a megaphone yell out to the kid to remind him that the water was only 4 feet deep. If he just stopped thrashing about (or at least did it a little less) he might survive on his own.

If the kid is a couple of miles offshore, with a thick fog, you’d have no idea that he was drowning. And if you were allowing your actions to be dictated by said crowd (I’m assuming that the crowd in question is analogous to the Religious Right, please correct me if I am mistaken) after learning that the crowd would obediently drink the Kool Aid if you smiled and looked sunny, then you would be remiss in not using your bully pulpit to shame them for wishing harm on a young lad who is drowning. Your secretary made calls to 911, but gave them only spotty information that was of little help, and with the fog, the Coast Guard can’t do a whole helluva lot. The megaphone needed new batteries, and the water’s much deeper than four feet. You’re not trying to modify the analogy to understand a damned thing. You’re avoiding a question by questioning it further.

Look, I’m pissed as hell, and an upcoming memorial service is just pissing me off further. The fact of the matter is that Reagan was an ass for pretending that those dying were unworthy of attention or compassion. For that, he will be a bastard to a whole helluva lot of people. And I am proud to count myself among their number.

[pervert]

@GLWasteful

Well, it was aimed at you because you made the statement that even if Reagan had spoken out, he coud not have saved anyone. And nobody has made that claim.

Well, the statement was part of the question in the OP. And the claim was made by several posters.

If the kid is …

I am sorry for the analogy. I should have made my point in a different way. All I was really trying to way was the situation is much more complex than simply standing at the side of a swimming pool and watching a child drown.

Your secretary made calls to 911, but gave them only spotty information that was of little help[…]

I do have to question this, however. Are you saying now that the efforts of the surgeon general were of little help? Surely not because they were insufficient.

Look, I’m pissed as hell, and an upcoming memorial service is just pissing me off further. The fact of the matter is that Reagan was an ass for pretending that those dying were unworthy of attention or compassion. For that, he will be a bastard to a whole helluva lot of people. And I am proud to count myself among their number.

But, you see, you are wrong about this. He did not pretend that people were unworthy of compassion. He simply did not act in some way which would have satisfied you. As much as it is difficult for you to hear, your anger is misdirected.

I tell you what. I’m mourning someone I will miss quite a bit. I won’t pick on you for being angry if you don’t pick on me for being sad. Fair enough?

[Shodan]

@Guinastasia

I’m not being snarky, Shodan, but what exactly is your point there? That as long as only “gays and drug users” were affected, it was no big deal?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

pervert is correct. I was responding to the idea that Reagan should have addressed the issue because it was clear that AIDS would become a disease affecting mainly heterosexuals.

It wasn’t clear, and it hasn’t happened (in America).

It doesn’t mean that it was OK for gays and IVDAs to get AIDS. It means that AIDS is a threat for a much smaller population, and can be addressed in much different ways.

If you could get AIDS from sneezing or mosquito bites, it would be a far different disease than it is. Because far more people would be at risk, and the death toll would be likely to be far higher. And prevention would have to be addressed in a radically different way.

And, to give Reagan credit, even when we weren’t entirely sure that AIDS is not spread by casual contact, he never called for radical measures to prevent its spread. (Except in the view of those who consider closing public bathhouses to be a radical measure.)

But by and large, both in the 80s and today, you can prevent yourself from getting AIDS by not having unprotected sex (especially anal sex), and not using IV drugs. For most Americans, these are not particularly onerous requirements. And frankly, it can be a little tiresome to hear people complain “I got AIDS because I didn’t use condoms, or I stuck a needle in my arm - and it’s Reagan’s fault for not making enough speeches.” It doesn’t mean you deserve to die. It also doesn’t mean that anyone else should be blamed for it either.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

@Shodan

…And frankly, it can be a little tiresome to hear people complain “I got AIDS because I didn’t use condoms, or I stuck a needle in my arm - and it’s Reagan’s fault for not making enough speeches.” It doesn’t mean you deserve to die. It also doesn’t mean that anyone else should be blamed for it either…

Excluded middle. No one is claiming that if Reagan had spoken out, AIDS would have been significantly reduced. We are claiming that such a gesture was the decent thing to do. You’re quite right, they did not deserve to die. Neither did they deserve to be ignored.

[GLWasteful]

pervert:
Okay, first of all, the claim that Reagan could have saved people’s lives if he had spoken out is nowhere to be found in the OP. Now, let’s look at the post numbers that you have quoted:

#s 4, 8 & 17 say nothing of the sort. #18 actually says that Reagan wouldn’t have saved people. #29, well, maybe. In a really roundabout fashion, it kinda sorta might almost say that if Reagan had acknowledged the presence of those dying, they might still be alive. #57: Maybe. As a matter of fact, this one comes closest to claiming that Reagan was complicitous in the deaths of others. I’ll just go ahead and ignore the ones that you so graciously allow me to. #78: Well, it says that if education had existed then that fewer people might have gotten AIDS. So this one also says that Reagan could have positively affected the future. So I suppose it says that if Regan had done something that lives might have been saved. And #81 is accusing him (or, if you prefer, Him) of a hate crime. I disagree, and it appears that you do as well. Nowhere does it mention that he could have saved anyone by speaking out.

So, to tally: you are 2 for 10 if we include the analogies that you allowed me to ignore. (.2) And 2 for 8 if we exclude them. (.25) Hell, these stats would get someone scrubbed from little league.

So, to amend my statement: Virtually no one is claiming that Reagan could have saved lives if he had spoken up. Again, with the exception of you. Better?

I am sorry for the analogy. I should have made my point in a different way.

Yeah, maybe by answering the question posed.

All I was really trying to way was the situation is much more complex than simply standing at the side of a swimming pool and watching a child drown.

True. But redefining the terms of a hypothetical until it can be answered in a way that you find acceptable is pretty weaselly. It’s all part of why I don’t care for hypotheticals.

Are you saying now that the efforts of the surgeon general were of little help? Surely not because they were insufficient.

No. I’m saying that by the time Koop was allowed to speak out, Pandora’s box had already been opened. Again, I don’t care much for hypotheticals, and I was throwing reasons out why your redefinition could be used against you.

But, you see, you are wrong about this. He did not pretend that people were unworthy of compassion. He simply did not act in some way which would have satisfied you.

No, he ignored huge swaths of the population that were dying like flies. Now, I don’t know what you consider to be compassionate, but where I live, ignoring dying people is a pretty tell-tale marker that you are not being compassionate. And offering solace to the dying is a surefire way to satisfy li’l ol’ pissy me. YMODV

As much as it is difficult for you to hear, your anger is misdirected.

Okay then, I’ll tell ya what. You point out to me where my anger should be directed, and I will take it under advisement. Howzat?

Understand, though, that I kinda doubt that you’ve got any new targets.

Again, this time con brio: Ronald Reagan, late of this world, and soon to be installed at the right hand of God (because, after all, who needs Jesus when Ronnie is available), had a unique opportunity to do something good that would have stood him in good stead among my friends (see, I’ll betcha thought I forgot and would never ask, anyway). And if he had been a stand-up guy, I would not be in here pissing and moaning about his abysmal response to AIDS. Now, I would definitely be somewhere, complaining about something. But it wouldn’t be this. And I daresay that most of those here would also be elsewhere. If I have spoken for anyone who disagrees with the former, I apologize.

[pervert]

@GLWasteful

(or, if you prefer, Him)

Can I ask where this invective towards me comes from? Seriously, I understand your anger. I don’t understand how I earned any of it. I have never refered to Reagan as holier than anyone else. I am an athiest if it is any of your busines.

So, to amend my statement: Virtually no one is claiming that Reagan could have saved lives if he had spoken up. Again, with the exception of you. Better?

Ok. Except I did not make the claim either. I was responding to this statement by plnnr “… I have no idea as to whether Ronald Reagan appearing on national television and giving the speech I suggested would have saved anyone”. And All I did was suggest that there is evidence one way.

Yeah, maybe by answering the question posed.

I thought I did. Are you seriously asking me if I think it is ok for a man to stand at the edge of a pool and watch as a child drowns? Really? You’re sure the question was not ment rhetorically? If not, then no, I do not think such actions are ok. You may need to explain to me what it has to do with this debate.

But redefining the terms of a hypothetical until it can be answered in a way that you find acceptable is pretty weaselly.

Quite. I did say I regret it.

No. I’m saying that by the time Koop was allowed to speak out, Pandora’s box had already been opened.

I still do not understand this. Pandora’s box was the AIDS virus, no? Also, do you have actual evidence that Koop was prevented from speaking out? The only thing we have had so far is the claim in the Encyclopedia of AIDS. It would help a great deal if we had evidence that Koop wanted to speak but was told not to.

I watched video of Everett Koops talking about the history of AIDS. He characterizes the events this way: “Ronald Reagan’s advisors wanted to stop me and could not. Ronald Reagan could have stopped me and did not.”
Here is a link to the cite. The video in questio is the first one with Koop’s picture. It is titled "Dr. C. Everett Koop talks about AIDS and the Reagan years when he was Surgeon General to the United States. This is particularly fascinating. Please view it.

No, he ignored huge swaths of the population that were dying like flies.

Again, ignore is far too strong a word. Please view Koop’s video. It tells a very different story.

Okay then, I’ll tell ya what. You point out to me where my anger should be directed, and I will take it under advisement. Howzat?

Well, I don’t think your anger should be directed at any person in particular at all. 50,000 people died of the flu last year. Should we or their friends be angry at someone? We could be angry at Bush. We could be angry at the Chinese. We could be angry at ducks. But such emotions would ill serve us in the fight to save people next year. The proper thing to deal with a crisis is calm reasoned action. Anger for a man who is dead and who has not been president for almost 16 years now is simply misdirected energy.

I don’t know what to say about the anger directed at me. I feel I have tried to be fairly reasonable during this whole thread. Obviously I have failed in some way. I guess I will have to think about it.

I hesitate to ask this. As soon as I do, some odd person is going to take it the wrong way. But I think I have to. Did you take anything I said to indicate that I believe Reagan should not have saved anybody who died of AIDS? I can hardly imagine that you did, but I am at such a loss to explain your anger that I am grasping at straws. I sincerely hope I have not insulted anyone by asking this question.

[Magiver]

@Zagadka

…

Addressing an epidemic threatening the lives of millions of Americans would be a “nice gesture”?

Sickening. I hate this country more every day.

That’s kinda harsh.

I have the usual sympathy for someone who died from AIDS in the early 80’s. I feel even worse for the people who got it from blood transfusions.

However, early in the process it was easy to identify the methods of transmission. Once it was identified (and screened from the blood supply) it ceased being a threat to the lives of millions of Americans. To get the disease you had to knowingly engage in high-risk behavior. The only way President Reagan could have influenced the course of the disease was to address the behavior. He was summarily laughed at for his “just say no to drugs” program.

If I could see the world through Ray Charles’ eyes I would be a better man for the journey.

[GLWasteful]

pervert:
Wel, it’s not so much invective as it is simple anger projection on my part. You just happened to get caught in the shitstorm. When I get wound up, nobody needs to earn my scorn, they just need to be in my way. I apologize for dumping such a huge amount of crap on you. And I suppose that I appreciate your understanding of my anger, but I don’t want understanding. I want my friends back.

And it is none of my business whatsoever. And I, too, am an atheist. Y’know, just in the, “Let’s get it all out on the table,” spirit and everything.

And in going back and re-reading everything, I see that you are correct. It does indeed look like you were simply responding to plnnr’s statement. I do, however, stand by everything in my response besides that. If Reagan had stood up and done the decent and humane thing, I can assure you that I would have a helluva lot more respect for the man. But he didn’t, and he is (IMO) deserving of every epithet hurled his way. And in the interests of fair play, I’m one of the ones hurling those epithets. But I imagine that you had picked up on this already.

Pandora’s box, as I used the term, refers to the HIV as well as so very much more. By the time that anyone had gotten off the dime, huge numbers of people were dead and dying. Inre evidence, I’ll hafta look.

I watched video of Everett Koops talking about the history of AIDS. He characterizes the events this way: “Ronald Reagan’s advisors wanted to stop me and could not. Ronald Reagan could have stopped me and did not.”

Yeah, I watched it too. And I was appalled that Koop was, as he claims, excluded from the inner circle that made decisions about policy regarding AIDS. I don’t really care if Reagan was the clueless fool that Koop makes him out to be, or if he was, as has been maintained, an actively ignorant person. The fact of the matter is that he was the leader of the US, and if he truly had no idea what was going on, then Bush II is not the first clueless boob to serve.

And if you watch Koop’s video, you hear him say that Reagan’s advisors were the ones setting and maintaining policy inre AIDS. Y’know, I and a lot of others have maintained for some time that Reagan was either an actively uncaring man, or an addlepated figurehead. According to Koop, it was the latter. And if Koop was really so in the know, we must wonder why he didn’t grow a set and just speak out on his own. Hell, Elders spoke on the goodness of masturbation. A subject that I don’t think it likely Clinton had vetted. Furthermore, if Koop didn’t say anything, then he was even more complicitous than anyone has noted.

And I am quite good at calm, reasoned action. Just as I’m good at flinging invective. Multi-tasking is my life. And while your analogy between the flu and AIDS kinda works, you screw it up by saying that anger could be directed at Bush, the Chinese and ducks, in that order. None of those have distanced (or, if we take Koop at his word, have been distanced by an uncaring staff) themselves from people suffering from the flu.

And I’ve got so much energy, that I’m actually best served by finding a target for some of it that can’t fight back. I’m a regular fucking dervish.

The only anger directed at you came when you tried to redefine an hypothetical until it had so many caveats that it was in danger of tipping over. Well, and when you were telling me that this thread was filled with instances of people claiming that deaths happened due to Reagan’s silence. Once we got those things straightened out, it’s all sweetness and light. You’ve not failed. You have been unfailingly polite. Politesse in defense of untenable positions, though, just don’t haul much cartage.

I hate to ask this. As soon as I do, some odd person is going to take it the wrong way. But I think I have to. Did you take anything I said to indicate that I believe Reagan should not have saved anybody who died of AIDS?

I’m not sure I follow what you’re asking here. And I, sir am not some odd person. I am the oddest motherfucker in the valley. Do you mean could have instead of should have? Because AIDS was a virtual death sentence at the time. Please explain.

[pervert]

@GLWasteful

pervert:
Well, it’s not so much invective as it is simple anger projection on my part. You just happened to get caught in the shitstorm. When I get wound up, nobody needs to earn my scorn, they just need to be in my way. I apologize for dumping such a huge amount of crap on you.

Oh, ok. No problem.

And in going back and re-reading everything, I see that you are correct. It does indeed look like you were simply responding to plnnr’s statement. I do, however, stand by everything in my response besides that. If Reagan had stood up and done the decent and humane thing, I can assure you that I would have a helluva lot more respect for the man.

This I understand, and take your word for.

But imagine for a moment that he had made such a statement and we had been treated to 19, 20, or even 21 years of interpretations of the statement by those in the gay community not as reasonable as yourself. I’m sure you don’t disagree that there would have been many deriding the statement (whatever it would have been) on the right and the left. Consider the derision surounding Nancy Reagan’s call to “just say no”. It was roundly derided as political pandering, irrellevant posturing, and incompetent leadership. If Reagan had said anything which included an admission that AIDS was affecting primarily drug users and Gay men, he would have been denounced on the right for using the word gay, and denounced on the left for gay bashing. (I’m sure that’s what his advisors meant by lose lost, BTW) Can you honestly say that after 20 years of such an interpretation of such a statement, that you would really not be in here still pissed at Reagan? I don’t mean this accusationally. If I were in your shoes, I can probably guarantee that I would be making the same statements as you (perhaps more invectively though).

But he didn’t, and he is (IMO) deserving of every epithet hurled his way.

Well, again, this seems a bit harsh. That he should be chided for failing in his leadership duties in regards to this issue is pretty clear. But “deserving of every epithet” seems to go too far. Derserving of some epithets, perhaps, but all of them?

Pandora’s box, as I used the term, refers to the HIV as well as so very much more. By the time that anyone had gotten off the dime, huge numbers of people were dead and dying.

Agreed. What I was talking about was the fact that with such a long dormancy period, many if not most of those who died of AIDS related illnesses in the 80s (and especially the early 80s) had become infected before Reagan took office.

And if Koop was really so in the know, we must wonder why he didn’t grow a set and just speak out on his own.

He did. go back and listen again. He clearly says that the public knew everything he knew. That is, he made statements about the current knowledge concerning aids as early as scientifically prudent.

Furthermore, if Koop didn’t say anything, then he was even more complicitous than anyone has noted.

This is the myth that I am concerned with busting. The fact of the matter is that Koop did say things. The Center for Disease Control said things. Investigations were done. Clinical studies were performed. Treatment was given to those stricken. It is simply unfair to claim now that nothing was said or that nothing was done. I’ll agree that more could have been done.

What do you think of Koops claim that “AIDS was not treated in 1981, 82, 83, as a public health problem. It was treated as a political disease.” for instance. From your perspective, did you see presures of this type on the public health community from the left?

And I am quite good at calm, reasoned action.

Fair enough. I have never doubted this.

The only anger directed at you came when you tried to redefine an hypothetical until it had so many caveats that it was in danger of tipping over.

Again, I do regret that. I really was only trying to say that the situation was more complex than the original analogy suggested. I fell back into old habits and proceded to create another analogy which was more snippy than I intended.

Well, and when you were telling me that this thread was filled with instances of people claiming that deaths happened due to Reagan’s silence.

I was not trying to claim that the thread was filled with them. Merely that your suggestion that “*Nobody has once made the claim *” was untrue. I did not intend to imply that the claim was being thrown around right and left. In retrospect, I deleted some text around my listing of previous posts in order to remove the possibility that they would be misunderstood. Perhaps in doing so I opend the door to another misunderstanding.

Politesse in defense of untenable positions, though, just don’t haul much cartage.

Well, now, the only positions I’ve taken, though, have seemed pretty reasonable to me.

• Reagan and his administration did take actions in the very early stages of the AIDS crisis. Not enough, perhaps, but they certainly did not “fiddle while rome burned”.
• Koop was not prevented from speaking out.
• No one has proposed any actions which would have made any material difference in the spread of AIDS.
• The argument that he would have been better regarded if he had spoken earlier, while ture, does not contain enough quantifiable information to tell if the extra regard would have changed this debate. That is, there would have still been enough people pissed at Reagan about AIDS to prompt this thread and the same numbers of people would have been against him as are now.

[GLWasteful]

pervert:

But imagine for a moment that he had made such a statement and we had been treated to 19, 20, or even 21 years of interpretations of the statement by those in the gay community not as reasonable as yourself. I’m sure you don’t disagree that there would have been many deriding the statement (whatever it would have been) on the right and the left.

Yes. And? I mean, one of the things that Reagan did was bring a level of partisanship that had not been seen in quite some time. I don’t expect people to
weep bitter tears when any president dies.

Consider the derision surounding Nancy Reagan’s call to “just say no”. It was roundly derided as political pandering, irrellevant posturing, and incompetent leadership.

And that’s because it was all of the above. And Nancy wasn’t the president. Her astrologer was the president. Didn’t you follow the papers at the time?

If Reagan had said anything which included an admission that AIDS was affecting primarily drug users and Gay men, he would have been denounced on the right for using the word gay,

Tough shit. Again, he had an opportunity to do the right thing, and he didn’t. His actions speak volumes.

and denounced on the left for gay bashing. (I’m sure that’s what his advisors meant by lose lost, BTW)

Probably. However, he would have been doing the stand up thing and demonstrating some of that leadership that he’s been toasted for repeatedly over the last week. And in addition to this, he would have had science on his side. And who can argue with science? It’s like toying with Steve McGarrett, a bad idea all the way around.

Can you honestly say that after 20 years of such an interpretation of such a statement, that you would really not be in here still pissed at Reagan?

You betcher ass I can. Not to say that I wouldn’t be somewhere else ragging on him for some other boneheaded thing that he did, but I guaran-goddamn-tee you that I wouldn’t be here.

And Koop spoke out on AIDS in 1985. In the video link that you provided, he said that they knew in September of 1981 that they had found something really scary. So despite what he said, the public most assuredly did not know what he knew. At least not until 1985.

• Koop was not prevented from speaking out.

Well, this hasn’t been proven one way or the other. And if he was kept away from Reagan, and Reagan was kept away from AIDS knowledge (a laughable position. Too many people were dying), then he should have stood up and spoken out of his own volition. You remember that Joycelyn Elders issue I brought up, right?

• No one has proposed any actions which would have made any material difference in the spread of AIDS.

No. They have, however, pointed out that Reagan had an opportunity to demonstrate his leadership and be the bigger man. Of course, he didn’t, and we’re here.

• The argument that he would have been better regarded if he had spoken earlier, while ture, does not contain enough quantifiable information to tell if the extra regard would have changed this debate. That is, there would have still been enough people pissed at Reagan about AIDS to prompt this thread and the same numbers of people would have been against him as are now.

I dunno if you’ve noticed, but this has become our playground. Damned few people are still interested in beating on this. And I already told you that I wouldn’t be here. And if I weren’t here, then at this point you wouldn’t be here. And this thread woulda died some time back.

On that note, I’m off to ride my bike. It’s far too nice a day to spend the rest of it here.

[pervert]

I dunno if you’ve noticed, but this has become our playground. Damned few people are still interested in beating on this. And I already told you that I wouldn’t be here. And if I weren’t here, then at this point you wouldn’t be here. And this thread woulda died some time back.

Agreed. If I had not thought I had insulted you I would have let this die several posts ago. But I’m willing to be done now. When you get back from your ride, respond if you like. I’ll let you have the last word.

I’ll let my last post be my last word on the issues themselves.