One last memento from the Reagan Era

haha, big fucking joke indeed, asshats.

You're accused of the following charges
You're a woman trapped inside a man
Your sexuality no one denies you
But your preference we can't understand
You are the lonliness of all people

It's time for you to realize
AIDS like the plague is from God
For he sees something wrong in his eyes

Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.
Analy Inflicted Death Sentence
A.I.D.S.

Nope. It was fairly normal. I was in graduate school and post-doc'ing in that period. Originally, even in the scientific articles, it was referred to as GRID, gay-related immune deficiency. There were a lot of theories bandied about as to the cause of it and many of them were related to homosexuality. One of those most popular early on was that it was related to the number of partners and amount of promiscuous sex gay men had. Becuase the first people to be run over by the disease had such extravagant sexual histories, it was thought this was a primary cause. In fact, that was coincidental; these were men who were just most likely to show with the virus first because of the numbers game.

What does AIDS have to do with biological weapons? Other than conspiracy theory?

Research in Virology: A thorough audit of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis leads to the conclusion that the various AIDS epidemics of the US, Europe and Africa have chemical bases, namely toxic, recreational drugs, DNA-chain terminators prescribed as anti-HIV drugs and malnutrition.

duesberg is tenured but is now extremely isolated from his colleagues. he is basically a bit of a pariah in the mcb and immunology/epidemiology community. the thing is his background is extremely prestigious. so i have a bit of a hard time writing off the kookier conspiracy theories completely

as far as i know he is the most "serious" scientist endorsing the chemical AIDS hypothesis. if you go to his "links" section there is info on his AIDS work.

Paradoxically, "music journalism" has much to answer for re Peter Duesberg. SPIN was his champion at a time when no one else would give him the time of day. The magazine flogged the man
and his theories relentlessly. Someone there just decided this was a ticket to respect in investigative journalism and peddled it mercilessly. And they have much to answer for since it was an utterly worthless and shameful thing to do -- one of the most completely risible things that has been done in the history of publications
allegedly devoted to entertainment, pop culture and music.

It was a complex combination of things. It was convenient for the less well-informed to cling to any early mistakes in diagnosis that were made. It meant that the "rest" of the polity had nothing to worry about -- don't take it up the rear from a couple hundred strangers a year, get serial cases of venereal disease, and you'll be all right. In other words, simply interpreted, do "right" sex. Don't fuck around, don't be into venery, stay away from abomination and you won't be turned into a pillar of salt.

There were many things that broke this wall -- Rock Hudson, the en masse infection of hemophiliacs from contaminated blood, scientists who continued to work hard at it despite the bad climate in the US,
the latter which was in large measure due to Reagan ideology.

Yeah, I remember how the consciousness of it slowly stole into my mind -- key things I recall were a Science 83 cover story on it, a 60 Minutes piece from 1984 or so called "The Burkes Have AIDS" about a family where the husband was a hemophiliac who was infected and then passed it on to his wife and as a result their infant child (I can only assume all three are long, long dead now, but I still think about them every so often), and then definitely Rock Hudson's case.

Sorry, but I actually assisted the writer in 1988 doing work experience and it wasn't anything like that. Alex NYC also worked there and might have something to say about this too. People don't understand that magazine staff do not sit in offices cackling and rubbing their hands over fiendish career plans. There is just NO TIME for a start. Celia probably thought she was on to something and being quite idealistic, followed the trail. By the time I got there, her columns were all about the toxicity of AZT anyway.

such as Ryan White. I was 10 years old in 1985. I don't remember when his story broke but that was the big one in my memory.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Exhibit/8222/ryan.htm

What trail? The SPIN stories on Duesberg were incompetent. Further, they amounted to publication of crackpot conspiracy theory. Part of being a journalist, particularly in a subject that requires some technical rigor or a knowledge of the disciplines of science -- not just he said/she said stenography, is being able to judge when something is trash, not just to accept the say-so of any fool, even one with a Nobel prize.

I've mentioned briefly that Duesberg is not the only famous scientist in history to have gone nuts on some worthless obsession. Someone familiar with science as a whole would know this going in and be able to entertain the idea that perhaps the story was risible, particularly with such a charged subject as AIDS. A cross-examination of the real literature on the subject would quickly have confirmed such a thing.

By the time I got there, her columns were all about the toxicity of AZT anyway.

So what? Covering something prosaic that everyone else already knew makes it all better? Not likely.

Shilts really did deal extensively and well with the complex set of issues that led to a great deal of tragedy.

"[Shilts'] work is critical of the medical and scientific communities' initial response and particularly harsh on the Reagan Administration, who he claims cut funding, ignored calls for action and deliberately misled Congress."

It's a great read.

As for that press conference that leads this thread, it was a much different world then. Reagan ignored the growing issue of AIDS for a few years but the vast indifference of citizens willingly enabled him to do so. Even today, the perception of AIDS as a gay disease lingers.

Either way, ketchup + french fries = a healthy diet!

WASHINGTON (AP)--Batter-coated french fries are a fresh vegetable, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department - which has a federal judge's ruling to back it up.
But the department said Tuesday that the classification applies only to rules of commerce, not nutrition, and it doesn't consider an order of fries the same as an apple in school lunches.
...
Regulations under the law help to assure buyers of commodities such as french fries that they are getting what they ordered, said George Chartier, a spokesman for the department's Agricultural Marketing Service.
...
The commodities act does not apply to nutrition, where batter-coated french fries are still considered processed food.
The department does not plan to repeat its experience in trying to classify
ketchup as a vegetable in school lunches, Chartier said. The
ketchup-as-vegetable proposal was put forward in the Reagan administration, and the department dropped the idea after it found itself not only opposed but laughed at.

Excellent book. Read it soon after publication.

More reason to kick the crap out of the Duesberg thing.

Even today, the perception of AIDS as a gay disease lingers.

Certainly it is very strong in the U.S. I doubt if it will ever die, since it's been wrapped up so publicly in things like "morality" and "sin."

My prostate never felt better.

Which is undoubtedly compounded by the fact that a significant proportion of AIDS afflicted people are gay men.

Way to keep up the disinfo, weiner.

My advice is that you do the same instead of trying to make me look like an asshole. I have no idea where you are getting your information, but the latest stats over at the CDC website (2002) directly contradict your quote. It is available in PDF format for your viewing pleasure. In fact, IDU diagnoses have been going down for the past four years and MSM are going up.

Go argue with the CDC all you want--I'm not trying to blame gay men for being the vast majority of people suffering from AIDS, I'm only pointing out that their demographic carries a stigma that is reinforced by, according to the CDC, their disproportionate number of AIDS diagnoses. I'm not equating being gay with sinning, only pointing out that as long as there is a huge discrepancy between gays and non-gays having AIDS, the wackos will be further encouraged to continue their bitter bigotry.

In fact, the sub-strains of AIDS virus in Africa are somewhat different than that found in America. Why this should be is fairly complex but it's been discussed in books and the scientific literature for some time.

Rather than go into it here, a good book if interested, is Laurie Garrett's "The Coming Plague." It is not just about AIDS but, rather, is a comprehensive thing on emerging and existing viral infectious disease worldwide. Garrett's a journalist and writes in a clear, if dry, style on the subject. It, too, is an excellent read but perhaps just a little more off the topic than this thread.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/Cases_HIV-Infection_AIDS-by-Race_Ethnicity_1998-2002.pdf

Direct your attention to page 6 and page 12.

Your repeated accusations of "disinfo" are below what I expect of you, hstencil.

And yes, George, AIDS in Africa is primarily a hetero problem. But that's not going to change the minds of the bigots that live in the US.

though i'm sure if africa was identified as the "source" ca. 1982 the reaganites and other conservatives would have had a field day with "the African disease" (or, insert your least-preferred racist epithet here).

Agree. Never did and never will.

the thing I wonder about is if heterosexual practices are different in Africa that spur the difference in cases...is there more hetero-anal going on over there, is it a lot of rape, is bareback hetero vaginal sex a lot more risky than we know?

My memory could be bad on this but I do seem to recall early papers commenting on the possibility that an African wasting disease, known as "slim," was related to or the same as AIDS -- which in fact, it turned out to be.

And this was another piece of the puzzle contributing to knowledge of it as a transmissible agent with a wide spread of potential hosts in humans, rather than something that was the consequence of multiple exposures to semen in the anus, or use of poppers, or consecutive and serial cases of infection with known venereal disease, which were some of the early notions.

A couple of things re this came out over the years. I do believe the African flavor of the AIDS virus is more efficient at heterosexual transmission than the American flavor. This isn't an unreasonable or unexpected thing to see in infectious disease.

There are other contributing factors to ease in hetersexual transmission. Pre-existing venereal disease, or even asymptomatic
venereal disease, makes transmission more efficient.

This is substantially true.

It's a completely different strain, yes, (HIV-2, I believe it is called) and it's far more passable from vaginal sex. I don't believe it has anything to do with sex practices.

There you go.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9947/schoofs.php

In this segment, Schoofs covers some of the superstition and misinformation that hinders effective recognition of the disease.
Even the Africans, it turns out, have their preoccupations: AIDS is a
gay disease that started in America, or something cooked up in a biological weapons lab, or --

"In Senegal, Sara Sagne, the leader of a traditional healing cooperative, offers probably the most poetic theory. He believes that after diseased dogs urinate, a flame rises that chars the earth and leaves a foul stench. A person who smells the odor can get AIDS. But this is no more fanciful than University of California professor Peter Duesberg's idea that AIDS is not caused by HIV but by drug abuse, and even by the AIDS drug AZT."

LONDON—

Ronald Reagan was hailed as “a great American hero” Monday as his admirers unveiled a 10-foot-tall (3-meter-tall) statue of the former U.S. president near the American embassy in London.

Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser and secretary of state in President George W. Bush's administration, joined British Foreign Secretary William Hague at the morning ceremony in Grosvenor Square.

“Statues bring us to face to face with our heroes long after they are gone,” Hague said “Ronald Reagan is without question a great American hero; one of America's finest sons, and a giant of 20th-century history. You may be sure that the people of London will take this statue to their hearts.”

Hague also brought a message from former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Reagan's staunch ally, whose frail health has made her public appearances very rare.

“She has asked me to say these words to you: Ronald Reagan was a great president and a great man — a true leader for our times,” Hague said.

“He held clear principles and acted upon them with purpose. Through his strength and his conviction he brought millions of people to freedom as the Iron Curtain finally came down.”

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/62986365.jpg

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-07/62986344.jpg

With a milk chocolate center!

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/media/ALeqM5ibnWrr5JeqSE61t1Qph1oUYXGhPQ?docId=be70c3bb719042399175a13a70d0f8a5&size=l

US Air Force and Army officers, serving in Hungary, pose with the new statue of late US President Ronald Reagan after a centennial commemoration in Budapest, Hungary, Wednesday, June 29, 2011. The 180 kilograms (400 pounds) and 2.18 meter (7 feet, 2 inches) tall bronze statue honors Reagan at the Freedom Square in central Budapest, to mark his efforts to free the people of Hungary from the yoke of communism.

lol

Got a confident swagger about him. London one just looks befuddled.

Free the people from the yolk of the Reagan statue!

US Air Force and Army officers, serving in Hungary, pose with the new statue, a conceptual artist's impression of how Dean Martin might look, had he lived to be ten thousand years old

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/8140/eabf0916republikanparty.jpg

Mr. Burns: Welcome, fellow Republicans. To start with the old business, Brother Hibbert will read a report on our efforts to rename everything after Ronald Reagan.

Dr. Hibbert: All Millard Fillmore schools are now Ronald Reagans, the Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan...

Dracula: And my good friend Frankenstein is now Franken-reagan. Blah!

Mr. Burns: Excellent!

http://cdn.theawl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/image00-16-copy.jpg

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

Watched Eugene Jarecki's Reagan last night. (You can lift it off of YouTube.) Don't think I learned anything that wasn't in Rick Perlstein's book, but not bad. It felt a little detached--when Jarecki was critical, it almost felt like he was doing so because he'd just remembered that most people watching it would be looking for critical. The strongest criticism actually comes from Ron Jr.

I still don't find Reagan 1/100th as interesting as Nixon or LBJ.

Reagan had a bland, optimistic personality, coupled with a simplistic, uninformed worldview, largely shaped by Hollywood's mythologizing of America. That combination slotted nicely into reactionary politics. Without his handlers and enablers he would have topped out as president of SAG. I agree that Nixon and LBJ are x1000 more interesting, but Reagan did more damage to our domestic politics than either of them.

As the film points out, the one time he departs from his persona--or, more accurately, speaks unfiltered, before the persona really exists--is during his governorship in the mid-sixties, when he comes across as a really angry parent, befuddled and exasperated by the ungratefulness of the next generation.

comes across as a really angry parent, befuddled and exasperated by the ungratefulness of the next generation

Thus, exactly mirroring the feelings (it would be too charitable to call them thoughts) of millions of American parents.

I find this amiable nullity fascinating, in part because the Gatsby/Kane story is the American story.

Without his handlers and enablers he would have topped out as president of SAG.

This isn't correct. The guy's will was inexorable. I mean, yeah, every politician needs handlers and enablers, but it's clear in his letters and private papers that he was no one's puppet.

He got lazy when he got what he wanted -- and when he got old.

Handlers are tools to be discarded when the mission's accomplished, and Reagan's career was littered with them (Paul Laxalt, John Sears, Deaver, Haig, any number of national security advisors).

The film--like Perlstein, as I remember it--presents him as very ambitious.

Yep. No man who came close to stealing the nomination from the sitting GOP president can be called a lazy.

Factor in that Ford had never been elected in a national election and was replacing a disgraced president, who had hand-picked him and who he had immediately pardoned. He was in a much weaker position than the usual sitting president. Plus, he was Gerald Ford.

Except for Truman and Eisenhower--and maybe it's just because I've read less about them; I'm probably wrong about Eisenhower--every postwar president strikes me as consumed by ambition. Many of the losers, too.

Maybe Ford, too, who seemed content in the House (albeit in a leadership position).

You have to understand that even Dwight Eisenhower had more charisma than Gerald Ford.

Ike's effort to wrest the nomination from Robert Taft was herculean.

yes, the herculean effort required to become POTUS reflects what shits they all are

So, once you've disposed of the possibility of a non-shitty president, and recognized the impossibility of there being no president at all, the remaining question becomes how can we acquire the least shitty president. It may not be a fun question, but then having no good choices, while still having to choose one among the bad choices, is an integral part of life in more categories than just politics.

Another last memento:

http://www.littlebrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9780316513272-2.jpg?fit=435%2C675

Halfway through--amazing story. I'd almost guarantee it will be made into a movie at some point.

I forgot that the "welfare queen" attack was based on a real person

Yeah--the actual person drifted in and out of the news; at times she was more like a phantom.

One strength of conservatism is that people respond x100 more strongly to anecdotes than statistics, and more strongly to negative anecdotes than to positive ones, so once you've got a powerfully memorable anecdote to tell, you can establish whatever negative version of "the truth" suits your needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cFzGDT8Spc