Reagan Threw Him Under The Bus
-
smjensen312-158-669840 — 13 years ago(June 15, 2012 09:29 PM)
The government of South Africa (where more than 30% of the population is HIV positive) was led by a man who doubted that HIV causes AIDS and espouses "alternate" theories. He was certainly approved of by most leftists, since it was a government led by the African National Congress. The fact that his ignorance costed lives (South Africa's population is actually declining, in large part due to AIDS deaths) is something that is not being criticized by the left.
There's no question that Reagan waited too long to publicly address AIDS. But was malice or callousness towards AIDS victims the primary reason for this? There were a lot of very ignorant attitudes that were rampant in the early 1980's- people who in one breath saw AIDS as "God's punishment to gays" and in the next breath theorized about transmission through casual contact. At least Reagan did not promote (or exploit) the hysteria. -
SnoozeAlarm — 13 years ago(June 16, 2012 03:08 PM)
People love to blame Reagan for not doing anything.
The biggest villains in the A16d0IDS epidemic were the homosexual community leaders who fought tooth-and-nail any efforts to close the bath-houses, all in the name of preserving the homosexual lifestyle, when that was the act that could have saved tens of thousands of homosexual lives.
http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c -
puirt-a-beul — 11 years ago(December 22, 2014 08:03 AM)
People love to blame Reagan for not doing anything.
Sure, because that's what exactly what happened: he did nothing. Until Gallo stole the Pasteur Institute's research, and he and Heckler could make political mileage out of it, Reagan had never even mentioned the word AIDS in public.
The biggest villains in the AIDS epidemic were the homosexual community leaders who fought tooth-and-nail any efforts to close the bath-houses, all in the name of preserving the homosexual lifestyle, when that was the act that could have saved tens of thousands of homosexual lives.
Not quite. One of the tragic aspects of AIDS in Western countries was that it emerged just as the fight for civil rights for gay people was heating up; with no knowledge of transmission vectors, both the bath-house owners and the gay community itself saw attempts to shut down the bath-houses as an effort to shut down gay rights. In hindsight we can judge the choices as unwise, but you have to put them in the context of the knowledge and social dynamics of the time.
Of course, if Reagan and Heckler had responded to any of the dozens of alerts from the CDC and made the gathering information about the disease public, then the choices could have been better and *
that- could have saved thousands of lives. Plus it would have retarded the spread of the disease and kept it from becoming so entrenched before any treatments started to appear.
On the matter of Hudson, I don't believe Reagan's (in)actions were any more detrimental to him than to any other specific gay man. Reagan couldn't make Hudson a special case, and he could hardly say anything about Hudson that Hudson himself had not already disclosed. But since there's a lot of talk on this thread about personal responsibility, then Reagan too should be held responsible for his lack of leadership or diligence in the situation just because it didn't affect any sectors of the community he particularly cared about.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
- could have saved thousands of lives. Plus it would have retarded the spread of the disease and kept it from becoming so entrenched before any treatments started to appear.
-
TheLightFantastic — 13 years ago(October 25, 2012 02:05 PM)
I had to do a paper for school recently about AIDS during the early days so I read quite a bit about it.
I don't think Reagan "threw Rock under a bus". Rock was already dying of the disease by the time Reagan found out. Rock kept his illness unknown for quite some time. While Reagan didn't publicly say anything about Rock's illness, he did call him and made sure he was getting the best treatment.
I think people need to remember that little was known about AIDS at the time and yes, it did (and still does) carry the stigma of a "bad person's disease". Even now some people think it's a punishment for being gay or being a drug addict. More enlightened people know that's not true.
Reagan could have done more but considering his limited knowledge on the subject and the fact that he was a politican and was attempting to please everyone (an impossible task), I can somewhat understand why he did so little. Understanding something does not mean I approve however.
That brings us back to Rock. He wasn't thrown under a bus by anyone. He lived his life and, sadly, made a fatal mistake that cost him his life. He didn't "deserve" to die a painful death because of he lived a lifestyle that some don't approve of. If we all died in accordance to how we live, there would be quite a few people who would be struck by lightening on a daily basis. -
-
The_Tropics — 12 years ago(September 11, 2013 09:13 AM)
So funny how not one person takes in to consideration that Rock Hudson had open heart surgery and then blood transfusions somewhere from
1979 - 1981
in a hospital located in, wait for it,
SAN FANSCISCO
! Look at that time frame and look at what city it took place in.
Totally possible that he could have contracted it then.
Oh, and for all of those out there that actually believe Marc Christian, they weren't even in a romantic relationship the last 3 years of Rock Hudson's life.
All you need to do is pick up a copy of the biograph. It all comes out there.
Here's a treat for Rock Hudson fans:
http://therockhudhadsonproject.com/ -
TonTon — 3 years ago(June 15, 2022 11:49 AM)
Reagan did not mention AIDS until 1987. Reagan's own daughter said that there was no excuse for that, but that he was not homophobic. Reagan and Hudson were friends. Reagan knew Hudson was homosexual.
Glad to see all the bigoted christian conservatives show up. You all talk about "personal responsibility" only when something bad happens to people you don't like. You can quote the bible as much as you like, but it's just a shield that you hide behind to justify your bigotry.