June 5, 2006, - 11:18 am

GRID, Er . . . AIDS: 25 Years Later, Dire Predictions for Hetero America Didn’t Pan Out

25 years ago, today, the Centers for Disease Control recognized a new disease. They called it GRID–Gay-Related Immuno-Deficiency.
But amid political pressure from the PC and Gay lobbies, the name was changed to AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). We were told, “This is not a gay disease. This is everyone’s disease.” We heard dire predictions about millions dropping like flies from this disease. Millions of straight, non-gay, non-drug user Americans.
And yet, it never happened. Other than disease-infested athletes who slept around with disease-infested groupies like, say, a guy named “Magic,” there really weren’t too many straight people struck by the disease, unless they were prostitutes, complete sluts, and/or intravenous drug users who shared needles.

Remember all the annoying celebs with their red AIDS ribbons and all the few reasonable ones who were ridiculed when they refused to sport the ribbons at awards shows?
As reader Joel G. points out, our fave media pimp, HOprah, got in on the act, too:

Remember back in 1990 (I think it was 1990 or around that time) when Hoprah got on her show and pontificated that in 10 years time 1 in 5 Americans who were heterosexuals woudl be dying of AIDS? Guess what Hoprah, you were wrong! Nobody has ever called her or the other “AIDS breakng out into the heterosexual community” out on their fear tactics.

The millions we were told about dropping like flies just didn’t happen. In fact, it turned out that in America, AIDS really isn’t “our” disease. But drunken Congressman allocate medical research funds to the disease in such disproportionate amounts that you’d think it still is “our” disease, that you’d still think millions were or are about to drop like flies. They aren’t.
Yes, that is happening in Africa. And maybe that says something about behavior there. But it just simply isn’t happening here. So, when are non-breast cancers, heart disease, and other less hip afflictions going to get their fair share of research dollars? We’re certainly not advocating expanding the research dollars and making government even more bankrupt and large. And we’re not saying that AIDS shouldn’t be researched and treated. We’re saying there are other diseases. The world’s cosmos is not San Francisco . . . or even DuPont Circle (memo to Barney Frank).
We’re saying it’s time to stop the insanity. Time to redistribute much of the disproportionate amount medical research money from the red ribbon disease of Elton John’s friends and needle park inhabitants to the rest of us who have other, equally pressing maladies that run in our families by the misfortune of genes versus someone else’s irresponsible behavior in George Michael’s back seat and drug dens.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

35 Responses

This issue, as well as many other distortions by the GAY agenda is doing more to hurt American culture than anything else. After “they”(GAYS) have redefined civility no one will have a definition than defines anything. Go to the CDC (gov. Center for Desease Control) and try and find meaningful figures on AIDS. What a “GAY” coverup. GAY men are “ALL ABOUT AIDS” and white men in particular. There is more print about the bird flu. It isn’t even here. OHpra-shut-up! Would someone put Debbie on a National-World-wide talk show and drive these left-wingnut nuts back to a Georgia peanut farm where they belong!

SOOO right on June 5, 2006 at 12:03 pm

I have always thought that the amount of money spent on AIDS research was way out of proportion to the segment of society it would be helping. Far more people die of cancer (Which is not self inflicted) than do from AIDS, but AIDS gets the lion share of research money. Its all about being PC and doing what the Hollywood elites tell us we must do. AIDS is the one and only disease that could be virtually wiped out in a single generation, without any money spent on medical procedures or drugs. All it would take is a little self control when it comes to uprotected sex. If everyone slept only with their spouse, or if those living in sin would only have protected sex or not have sex with those of the same gender, there would be no AIDS in 15 years.

Architect on June 5, 2006 at 12:56 pm

Great take on this issue DebbieÖand we need to reflect on the aforementioned FACTS.
I have never given any contribution to AIDS research, nor will I everñ
Too many OTHER actually worthy causesÖ

The Canadien on June 5, 2006 at 1:47 pm

Oh, yes… Yesterday’s big scare: AIDS! We’re all going to die from AIDS. Anyine remember SARS from a couple of years ago?! I thought we were all supposed to be infected world-wide by now. Today, it’s HN51 “Bird Flu”. Anyone that makes a living a promoting scare tactics for these inflated projections deserves a kick in the crotch in a public forum. SHAME ON YOU!!

Yiddish Steel on June 5, 2006 at 2:58 pm

Debster, don’t know if you’ve heard or remember, but soon after the big revelation there were rumors a certain guy named “Magic” didn’t exactly get AIDS from female groupies if you know what I mean, and I’m not talking needles, either. I don’t know whether true or not, but it was mentioned at quite a few places if I recall.

The_Man on June 5, 2006 at 8:27 pm

Have you read…
I must say I do agree with changing the name from GRID to AIDS, as heterosexual people can contract the disease. The disease, when introduced into the Gay male communities, became frenetic due to indulgence in frequent multiple sex partners. You are right about the disproportionate amount of funds pumped into this one disease, why it amounts to nothing more than largesse for the Gay male community to ward off accusations of homophobia.
PS: Debbie, please stop watching Oprah; she’s like John Kerry… blowing in the wind. 😉

Freudianslippers on June 5, 2006 at 8:29 pm

Debbie’s got to watch and tell (what’s what).BUT NOT FROM THE MUSLIM area she feels ,she has to live in. Come to the coast Debbie . and expand

danny on June 5, 2006 at 9:34 pm

Have you ever stopped to consider that the funding in AIDS research is what has prevented a national epidemic? As for taking Big O to task for comments in 1990, you should remember that, at that time, we were just barely beginning to comprehend the disease. I’m sure there was some research somewhere that made the dire predictions … and without the enormous amount of attention and research, who knows what would have happened?
As for funding cancer research, I’m all for it. Maybe we could take the $200 billion being spent PER DAY in Iraq, and truly devote it to something that would protect our homeland.

dr. strangelove on June 6, 2006 at 5:01 am

If we stopped fighting the war on terror in Iraq AIDS would be the least of our troubles. And I seriously question the $ 200 billion/day figure-what is your source? It sounds like a figure you picked out of the air to make you anti war point. And I’ll reiterate, we don’t need enormous amounts of funding to eliminate AIDS. What we need is behavior modification by a certain cross section of society.

Architect on June 6, 2006 at 7:22 am

OK, for starters, you are correct and I erred in the cost … it’s $200 MILLION (not “B”illion). As for source, here’s but one:
And who said anything about the “War on Terror”. Iraq had and has nothing to do with that, except for the terror we have created by complete incompetence in this war. If you want to point to overseas wars on terror, what about Afghanistan … and who was that tall, lanky guy that hates us? Osama something? Where is he? Oh yea, we let him get away.
I’m not anti-war, just anti-incompetence, and anti-invasion of other countries without provocation. Yes, without provocation!
And talk about behavoir change, if we stop bullying the rest of the world, then we wouldn’t have so many problems to begin with.

dr. strangelove on June 6, 2006 at 10:06 am

I’m with you when you say there’s way too much money pumped into AIDS research when we should be pumping more money into things like cancer research, however, I don’t get how you can just say AIDS was never going to be a national epidemic. There was always a possibility that it could have been if things had been handled differently. And it certainly is an epidemic in other parts of the world.

Manatoch on June 6, 2006 at 10:35 am

Iraq isn’t involved with terrorism? How about the training camps in the Northeast of Iraq? How about the numerous documents which have recently been translated citing numerous ties to terrorist activities? How about the documented meetings between Iraqi and Al-Quida operatives? And what about the Iraqi nuclear program? Please don’t try to give me the Richard Clarke/Valarie Plame version. The Brits are sticking by there intelligence report and there is plenty of independent evidence to support its existence. As far as the other weapons of mass destruction goes, you’d have to be a blithering moron to think they didn’t exist. Sadam is on trial right now for using them against his own people and Iran. Repeating the DNC mantra of “Where are the weapons of mass destruction?” is self serving and disingenuous. Most of them proably went accross the Syrian border during the ridiculous warning period we were forced to give the Iraqi’s. I’m sure they’re piled up in the Bakka Valley, waiting to be used by other terrorists. You know, guys like Zarquawi and Zwahiri. Those are bad guys too, but I guess you are fixated on Bin Laden. As far as the U.S. being a bully, let me enlighten you. We were not in Afganistan or Iraq when 3000 of your fellow Americans were killed for nothing more than being American and trying to go to work on 9/11/01. I was there on the 71st floor of 1 WTC that day and to the best of my recollection, I wasn’t bullying anyone. Oh yeah and would you mind telling me who you think we were bullying in 1993 when the same harmless group of fun guys planted the first bomb in the basement of the Trade Center? The war is being fought very competantly, but all that the American public gets is the Drive By Media version of everything bad and nothing good or positive. It took from 1939 to 1945 to crush the Axis Powers. It took 70 years to conquer Communism. Why is it unreasonable to expect that defeating world wide Islamic terror will take more than a week or two? At least Roosevelt was not hamstrung by a bunch of second guessers and I don’t think there were too many senators and congressment in WWII tacitly rooting for failure for political purposes.

Architect on June 6, 2006 at 11:41 am

Zarquawi and Zwahiri weren’t a factor before we invaded Iraq. We can’t get true media reports because no one can go outside the Green Zone to get coffee without fear of getting beheaded. There is plenty of terrorism in Iraq because we have unleashed a secterian civil war. Yes, sadly 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 … according to GWB, that’s because of such moronic presidents as Reagan, who “cut and run” in places like Lebanon and because Daddy didn’t finish the job the first time (GW’s perspective, not mine). And what about the 10,000+ innocent Iraqi’s who have been killed in all the violence; I’m sure they didn’t deserve it either. As for worldwide Islamic terror, you’re right, it won’t be erradicated in a week or two, a year or two, or probably a century. And it sure as hell won’t be erradicated with guns and nukes, unless the idea is to kill off everybody. Besides, GW was the one who ran on the platform of anti-nation-building, declared exit-strategy, and overwhelming force. He has provided none of these in either Afghanistan nor Iraq. (Not to mention that he also ran on a small-government platform then bloated the government so massively that us liberals look conservative.) But of course, unlike good-ol’ Draft Dodging Slick Willie, W’s sterling millitary service provides him with much more competence in managing not one, but two full-blown wars. In short, the guy is a walking contradiction!!! BTW, what happened to the group of “harmless group of fun guys” that planted the ’93 bomb? Oh yeah, they are rotting in prison. Damn that Bill Clinton, why couldn’t HE start a full-fledged war over that??? (Hmmm, I think it was because the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t let him). Then there was that darn domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh — yep, got him too!

Dr. Strangelove on June 6, 2006 at 1:26 pm

BTW, while I disagree with Debbie on AIDS, at least she’s got it right on the war:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ (today, June 6th)

Dr. Strangelove on June 6, 2006 at 1:29 pm

This is a clearly hateful column. This is a straight forward utilitarian argument: more people are affected by cancer (and other ills) than AIDS. But your argument isn’t really a reasoned argument around such facts – for instance, where are the monetary totals and analysis between illnesses? The real punchline of your article is really that people who suffer from illnesses besides AIDS – that is, mostly heterosexual people – are actually better and more deserving human beings. I hope you don’t consider yourself a Christian!?
Some of your facts are simply wrong, as well. Individual behaviors can lead to cancer. My grandmother, for instance, died of lung cancer as the result of smoking. Tell me why we should dump monies into fighting the lung cancer of hygienically challenged straight people who like to destroy their lungs, smell terrible, and subject everyone else to second hand smoke!? Don’t get me wrong, I was very close to my grandmother and I think we should fund research into cancer. My point is simply that you can spin illnesses in any number of ways to blame the characteristics or behaviors of the victims. Moreover, while heterosexuals are not profoundly affected by AIDS at this point – the biggest “problem community” at the moment is the supposedly heterosexual African American community which is also a community known to be pretty homophobic comparatively (I would venture a guess that this increasing rate of AIDS has to do with social stigma and impulsive/irresponsible behavior **that results** from having to keep a double life on the “down low” – not a life that necessarily leads from being gay per se). These problems within the “heterosexual” community will only probably get worse as diversity in sexuality becomes more normalized (and it is – you guys are losing and will lose). As diversity is normalized, but yet there are still elements of hatred that try to prevent comprehensive sexual education, for example, as well as open discussion on such topics – chances are that more and more of your children have the potential to be affected. And the answer is not to shield your children from knowledge – either knowledge of sex nor knowledge of gays. It is not rocket science to recognize that such tactics usually invoke the opposite of the intended effect.
You would do better to actually lay out the facts and then a good argument for your case while drawing upon those facts in a logically consistent manner rather than appealing to a general, yet profoundly ignorant, ill-feeling towards gay and lesbian peoples. Rhetoric of this sort simply drives most of us who are intellectually inclined to immediately ignore your commentary. Or perhaps we are not your audience?

TP4 on June 6, 2006 at 1:33 pm

Capturing terrorists after they kill innocent civilians is not fighting the war on terror. Killing them before they can do it is. And not all the terrorists involved with the 93 plot were captured. Some of them are now in Iraq. And it wasn’t Reagan who cut and run from the Islamofacists, it was Jimmy Carter. If you recall, it was fear of Reagan’s agenda that secured the release of the American hostages in Iran. And your hero Slick Willie had Osama handed to him on a platter twice by the Sudanese government, but declined to act. Zarquawi and Zwahiri were factors before we invaded Iraq. They were training global jihadists and planning attacks. Zwahiri was involved in the Cole incident. And Clinton never wanted to have a full scale war over the attacks. He wanted to treat them as crimes rather than acts of war, even though Osama had already formally declared war on the United States. He preferred to throw a few million dollars worth of cruise missles at an asperin factory in the middle of the desert because he was afraid of offending the “Muslim Street”. Apparently they had no compunction about offending Americans. And lets not forget Clinton’s sterling performance in Mogadishu, when he deferred to the UN while American soldiers were being slaughtered. His Secretary of Defense, Less Aspen refused to allow an armored column to relieve the trapped troops because he didn’t want to appear to be escalating the fighting. The result was dead Americans dragged through the streets with their bodies desacrated by the mobs. I hope Aspen rots in hell for that one. The Republicans had nothing to do with Clinton’s failures. He succeded in doing that all on his own (With a little help from his co-president no doubt). Stopping Islamic terrorism isn’t going to be accomplished by diplomacy. They view that as weakness. Unfortunately, it has to be done by violence. We have to make it not worth their while to prosecute the war any longer. There are signs that they are starting to reach that point. Most of their actions are becoming more and more desperate and flamboyant. Papers in Zarquawi’s own hand captured about three weeks ago lament the lack of support for Al-Quaida and the loss of manpower and support. I also question your 10,000+ “Innocent Iraqi’s”. There are a good many of them who are not so innocent. And quite a few more who were killed by their own countrymen and “Foreign Fighters”.
We should be discussing this on some other post. This one is about AIDS

Architect on June 6, 2006 at 2:29 pm

TP5 your argument about not comparing AIDS to cancer is a bit self serving. I lost my father to lung cancer and he was a life long smoker. He started to smoke long before the Surgeon General required warning labels on cigarette packs. I don’t think anyone ever had any question as to whether dangerous sexual practices posed a greater threat to contracting AIDS. People who hang around or live with smokers are more likely to contract cancer even though they themselves do not smoke. People who are around or live with HIV positive people have almost no chance of getting AIDS unless they practice unsafe sex. The fact that the overwhelming majority of AIDS victims are male holosexuals is not homophobic. Its a fact. “Diversity in sexual practice”, now there is a cute turn of the phrase. I prefer the good old fashioned “Deviant Sexual Practices”. Trying to normalize “Diversity” in this case is like referring to the killing of babies as “Choice”.

Architect on June 6, 2006 at 2:46 pm

Also not mentioned is the disturbing trend, in America, of Gay men infected with HIV seeking out other Gay, infected men to have unprotected sex with. It would appear that some medical doctors have been remiss in educating their Gay male patients about recombinant viruses, and how their behavior may be creating a new HIV hybrid with ferocity reminiscent of the early eighties.

Freudianslippers on June 6, 2006 at 3:16 pm

First, you are right … I never meant for my comment to disentegrate into a debate of the war (FYI … I don’t believe GW was concerned with Osama pre-9/11, his “War on Terror” didn’t materialize until 9/12. So to accuse Clinton of treating terrorism as a police action is disingenous. GW wasn’t treating it as anything until the towers were knocked down! — OK, I digress on that subject. If you will point me to another thread, I’ll be happy to crossover).
Back to where we started — to follow Architect’s reasoning about cancer is very fair, and contradicts the notion about foreknowledge making a difference. Since we began AIDS education, the infection rate has subsized; however, to accuse gays of engaging in acts that would lead to infection, before we knew about this disease, is just as disingenous as your cancer arguement.

Dr. Strangelove on June 6, 2006 at 4:17 pm


Dr. Strangelove on June 6, 2006 at 7:25 pm

Your views on AIDS are very dangerous. Thinking that it won’t happen to you because you’re not gay, not African American and not a drug user is pretty ignorant. Most gay people I know have 2 very heterosexual parents. Do you think that AIDS won’t affect you even if one of your children/grandchildren etc contracts it? I know that you will say that you won’t allow them to become gay but there’s lots of evidence out there that those who deny their sexuality are most at risk from this disease. The notion that we don’t fund cancer research is just a myth. Thinking that AIDS funding takes money from cancer research is also a myth. In fact, AIDS and cancer are closely related and money spent on AIDS research has yielded startling conclusions about how many cancers are indeed caused by viruses. We didn’t know that back in the 80s. Finally, AIDS went from almost zero deaths in 1980 to being the leading or one of the leading causes of death of YOUNG PEOPLE in the world. For a seemingly intelligent person to argue that we shouldn’t be concerned with those numbers is a sign of ignorance or deep-felt hatred plain and simple. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Wayne C Clifford on June 6, 2006 at 11:29 pm

The number of people contracting AIDS in America who are not homosexual (I refuse to use the term “Gay”. I never met one who wasn’t in a snit over something) is miniscule. Maybe from a bad blood transfusion. The overwhelming majority are white male homosexuals or people with multiple sex partners and intravenous drug users. 99.9% from deviant practices. As far as funding cancer goes and the knowledge that cancer is cause by virus’, every dollar spent on AIDS is one dollar that could be used to fight cancer. My wife is a nurse. She was talking about cancer being caused by virus’ back in 1972. And your statement that the leading cause of death in young people in the world may be true, but what you don’t say is that they are mostly in Africa among people who do not practice safe sex. Should we be concerned about those numbers? Sure we should, but we should be more concerned about the greater numbers of deaths cause by cancer and heart disease which kill far more people, most of whom have not inflicted the disease on themselves. I am pretty confident that I will never contract AIDS because I only sleep with the same woman I promised to be true to 32 years ago and I don’t inject myself with illegal drugs.
And Dr. Strangelove, you’re right, GWB was not primarily concerned with terrorism until the attack. He was only in office 8 months at that time and his plate was pretty full already. Clinton had been in office for eight years, had multiple warnings which he ignored. He in fact met with his CIA director only twice in all eight years. He was however briefed on Osama’s declaration of war with the US by the NSA. He knew that it was the same group involved with the Kobar Towers, the Cole and the WTC in 1993. Being a lawyer and, by his own admission, having a deep seated “Loathing of the military, he chose to handle it through the Justice Department rather than the military.

Architect on June 7, 2006 at 7:45 am

TP4, “These problems within the “heterosexual” community will only probably get worse as diversity in sexuality becomes more normalized (and it is – you guys are losing and will lose). ”
Proof? Cute little phrase, “diversity in sexuality.” President Bush, who you guys hate and who represents the opposing side, has been elected twice. The Republicans, perceived as the party of most people who oppose the homo agenda, is in control of government. Just because people promoting the homo agenda shout the loudest doesn’t mean you are winning.
TP4, “the biggest “problem community” at the moment is the supposedly heterosexual African American community which is also a community known to be pretty homophobic comparatively…”
If it is supposedly the biggest “problem community”, how much is due to intravenous drug use? I don’t think them supposedly being homophobic has a thing to do with this.
And, “This is a clearly hateful column.” And, “Rhetoric of this sort simply drives most of us who are intellectually inclined to immediately ignore your commentary.”
Intellectually inclined? Hah! It’s not intellect causing you to ignore what Debbie posted. You just want to ignore taking responsibility for you and your community’s actions as usual.

Jeff_W on June 7, 2006 at 9:26 am

Architect, your opening line spells it out clearly. It is pointless to argue with someone so full of hatred. I pray that none of your children or grandchildren has a deep secret that they will learn early on to keep from you.

Wayne C Clifford on June 7, 2006 at 9:29 am

Thanks for your prayers Wayne, but I don’t need them. None of my seven children, ranging in age from 13 to 33 have any “deep secrets”. The older ones are married with children of their own and the younger ones are quite normal with boyfriends or girlfriends of appropriate genders. And just because I refuse to buy into the attempted mainstreaming of deviancy doesn’t mean that I’m “Full of hatred”. I can honestly say that I don’t hate anyone. I feel sorry for some who are trying to get me to validate their perversions, but I don’t hate them. And if one of my children every expressed a “Deep Secret”, I would try to get them help and would certainly never condone them acting on their inclinations. You see, I believe in hating the sin but loving the sinner.

Architect on June 7, 2006 at 10:30 am

Still trying to understand how Clinton was a scumbag for hunting terrorists and bombing areas where Osama was thought to be, and a scumbag for not pursuing terrorists? Which is it???? Can someone PLEASE explain that to me? And, if it was such a significant issue at the time (raise your hands if you voted for Bush in 2000 because he was going to be a more effective war mongerer — still waiting), then regardless of how “full” his plate was, it should have included terrorism. But it didn’t because either a) he did not perceive Osama as that great of threat or b) he ignored the warning signs that led up to 9/11. His plate was full because he was worried about tax cuts for the rich, stem cell research, and reproductive rights of citizens in foreign countries.
And you just continue to Barney Fife yourself and your cause when you say such things as “(and it is – you guys are losing and will lose).”

Dr. Strangelove on June 7, 2006 at 12:16 pm

I never said Clinton was a “Scumbag”. I try to never presonally characterize people who I disagree with. I like to stick to the facts. The fact is that Clinton wasn’t hunting for Osama. He was trying to shift the spotlight off the Lewinsky scandal. Remember, they called that the “Tail Wagging the Dog”? And the bombing done by Clinton of course begs the question; Why didn’t he take Bin Laden when he was offered by the Sudanese government, not once, but three times? It certainly would have saved an awful lot of money in cruise missles and it would have given him the opportunity to “Arrest” him as a criminal rather than kill him as an enemy. Call me cynical, but I have to think it had something to do with a certain intern with carpet burns on her knees. Hunting terrorists was relatively significant issue when Bush was elected. (My hand is raised), but became much moreso after 9/11. Before that it was random terrorism. After 9/11 it was a war. Bush’s plate was indeed full because we wasn’t granted the 10 month “Honeymoon” by the media that most presidents enjoy. (Including Clinto, although his media honeymoon seems to be ongoing). And please don’t trot out that tired old DNC talking point of “Tax Cuts for the Rich”. The tax cuts effected both the rich and the middle class. The wealthiest 10% of the country pay 65% of the taxes and the the middle class pays almost all the rest. The bottom 25% pays no taxes at all. How do you give tax cuts to a segment of the population that doesn’t pay them in the first place? Its easy for the likes of Kenndy, Kerry and Gore to play the class warfare card since all of their money is secure in trust funds or offshore holdings. DNC talking point #2. “Bush was against stem cell research”. Wrong! He was only against embryonic stem cell research, which most anti-abortion proponent, including myself are. I’m all for stem cell research, but don’t ask me to kill babies to do it.

Architect on June 7, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Where to start?
Well I’m solidly middle class, and GW’s tax cuts haven’t helped me one d&@! bit!!! I keeping having to pay more and more. I make roughly $50,000 a year and can barely support a wife and son. By the time I make a mortgage payment, car payment, day care and insurance, over half my TAKE HOME pay is gone. And all of these are modest expenditures, we do not live an extravagent life.
As for not paying taxes? What about Social Security, payroll, sales, etc.Besides, tax cuts for the poor is a misnomer … for starters, sales and payroll taxes are extremely regressive. Second, and extra $250 a month to someone making $1200/mo. is a LOT of money (20%).
Still, the answer is not tax cuts … the economy works best when the government is running at break even (as it was under Clinton). I think the rich made a LOT of money in the 90’s, even if their taxes were higher. We’re now 5 years and 5 tax cuts past 9/11 (and the so-called Clinton recession). And Bush has flip-flopped (and flipped ) about the need for tax cuts (too much money in ’00, economy motivator after, even though it really hasn’t done much for the middle- and lower-class).
On to Killing babies … Wait, who said anything about killing babies? We’re talking about embryos (not even a fetus), that is NOTHING but a sperm and egg. These are discarded ANYWAY (BTW, should we tell women to stop menstruating, as well?). And I don’t want my fertilized sperm and/or egg being implanted in some strangers body!!! If my wife and I don’t want kids, why should the clinic be required to a) discard it or b) give it to someone else? Why shouldn’t I have the right to determine what happens to my bodily fluids?
Finally, what the heck would Clinton have done with Osama? This is easy to trot out in hindsight, but what proof was there that he was involved? Maybe we should have just locked him up in some secret prison … OK, wish we could have, but then there’s REALITY, something Republicans refuse to live in (see every other post I made!).

Dr. Strangelove on June 7, 2006 at 9:26 pm

Where to start? Lets start here. I am self employed and make considerably more than you, but the trade off is that I usually work about 18 hours a day. (Taking a few minutes off now and then to read the news on line or send out a post to Deb’s blog). The tax cuts really helped me and by extension those who work for me. Your contention that the low and middle class have not benefited from the tax cuts is just plain wrong. Unemployment is at an all time low. Inflation is almost nill, orders for durable goods are way up and housing starts continue to break records despite the Democrats constantly saying we’re in a “Bubble” and it will burst. The economy works best when the government keeps its hands out of my pockets and lets me enjoy the fruits of my labor. As far as killing babies goes, I will probably never convince a supporter of abortion that a fertilized embryo is a human being, but those of us who are pro-life believe that and therefore that life is sacred. And “What the heck would Clinton have done with Osama?” is precisely my point. If he was arrested as a criminal, as the Clinton Justice Department was inclinded to do, the answer is nothing. He would have been afforded all the “rights” criminals have come to expect in America. However, if he were an enemy combatant, assuming he wasn’t killed, he could have been sweated for information about Al-Quida operations. We could have done all sorts of unimaginably horrible things to him. You know like depriving him of sleep and putting panties on his head or maybe flushing his Quaran down the toilet. Wait a minute, I know, we could force him to look at cartoons of the Prophet, that would show him. Dr. I’m afraid our respective realities are a bit too diverse for us ever to reach agreement.

Architect on June 8, 2006 at 7:37 am

Who said I don’t work 18 hours a day? I hold down two jobs to support my family, as do many people in the low-to-middle income bracket. And I actually consider myself lucky and blessed to be in a professional occupation that pays a reasonable salary. Just 10 years ago, I was making barely minimum wage, trying to finish college; 5 years ago, I was making $10/hr and getting burned out working nights and weekends, never having time off or seeing my wife. Unemployment may be at a low, but real wages are not increasing! Over the last four years, my salary has increased about 15%; just the cost increase in health care alone has eaten that up!
I am pro-life as well, and think that life is sacred; I just have a different perspective on when life begins. As for the JD under Clinton, there was never any direct evidence linking him, so he couldn’t be tried as a traditional criminal (and executed, which is probably what you would support, even though all life is supposedly sacred — no sarcasm intended, and if you are anti-death penalty and anti-torture, I stand corrected). And what about GWB letting Osama get away at Tora Bora?
BTW, I’m very glad they got Zarqawi, although it will probably make about as much difference as getting Sadam and his sons did; I am also very, very saddened to hear there was a child killed in the attack. Contrary to popular opinion, very few people are truely anti-millitary or anti-war, just anti-war mongering, and anti-screw-up and …
OK, OK, I tried once before to turn this conversation away from the war and politics in general in order to keep it on thread, so let’s try that again. Arch, you are right that our individual perspective on almost every issue is so dramatically different — we don’t even seem to live in the same world, even though you could be my neighbor. Thanks at least for the endearing (enduring? :-> ) conversation.

Dr. Strangelove on June 8, 2006 at 1:44 pm

Your welcome. And by the way. I’m no stranger to working multiple jobs to pay the bills. When I first started out (1972) I worked in an architects office all day unitl 5:00PM, then sold men’s clothing until 9:30 and after that cleaned office buildings until about 1:00 AM. I was such a stranger at home that my kids started calling me “Uncle Daddy”. There seems to be some sort of perception among liberals that just because you have amassed a few dollars that you have not worked hard for it or you should give it away. It took me 34 years to get where I am today and I’ll be damned if anyone will make me feel guilty for wanting to keep what I have worked for, either through disproportionate taxation or confiscation through the death tax. I worked very hard to make my family secure, not to subsedize someone elses who may not be willing to put in the same kind of hours and effort.
You’re only partially right about there not being any evidence linking Osama to 9/11. There was no paper trail, but we do have him on tape taking credit for its planning. And handling it like a criminal offense is just not practical. There are literally thousands of terrorists and if we were to route them all through the courts it would never end.
I am not anti-death penalty. I believe in the prservation of “Innocent Life”. And who could be more innocent than a baby? Osama and Zarquawi, what ever your opinions of them are, could never the defined as anything other than pure evil. I have a friend from Texas who once told me that some people “Just need killing real bad!” I think these two qualify in that regard. The concept of torture is a troubling one. I am not in favor of it persay, but if we know that applying a little bit of unpleasant treatment will save hundreds or thousand of lives, I’m hard pressed to say it shouldn’t be done. I am a bit conflicted on that one.
You may live in my world some day. My journey is a bit further along than yours and I wish you success. And thank you for the “Spirited” give and take.

Architect on June 8, 2006 at 2:21 pm

Why is it assumed by conservatives that as long as you work real hard, it will all come to you someday. For some people, for a lot of people, that is just not the case! I’m not just talking race here, as there are plenty of white, mostly rural people who live in the squalers, despite working 18 hours day. That’s one big thing that I have trouble with.
Also, you shouldn’t feel guilty about wanting to secure your family, nor is that the perception that should be fed (mind you, it’s fed more by Republican talking points perception of “liberals”, than by what liberals actually believe). But, in making your family secure, I hardly have sympathy for the Donald Trumps of the world when it comes to taxation. The problem that I see with America is the “Well, I got mine” syndrome. My goodness, the estate tax doesn’t kick in until $2M (and only on estate values AFTER that), and there are numerous tax havens for that kind of money. The point of the estate tax is not to fund government (it’s really only a modest amount), but rather to prevent large concentrations of wealth, which we all know leads to large concentrations of power. We’re simply not talking about $2-300K here.
As for life … I really, really, really have a hard time grasping the concept of a microscopic sperm attached to an egg, in a petri dish, being a “baby”. As I said, if you implant 100s of these, you are lucky for one to actually attach to the uteran wall and become a fetus; and again, if the option is for these embryos to a) remain frozen or b) be discarded, then what’s wrong with c) advacing science. BTW, if they really are “life” or a “baby”, then shouldn’t we outlaw the actual disposal of them? Shouldn’t we mandate that they be implanted in someone that wants them? You see, the problem with us liberals is that we don’t live in the black and white. We are constantly looking at the gray areas.
I think the concept of torture as an interogation technique is oversold. If these people are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, what makes you think that a little “tough love” will bring them to their senses? And how do we even know that the information they give is accurate? There are those darn gray areas … Despite that, and even being anti-death penalty, it is hard to dispute that Zarqawi got what he deserved [At least that’s our perspective. Remarkabley, there are people who don’t share our opinion] The problem with the death penalty is … no wait, I said I would stop, so I will 🙂
Yes, I too have enjoyed the give and take. Thanks for not holding my liberalism against me 🙂

Dr. Strangelove on June 8, 2006 at 7:14 pm

What a fascinating discussion.
This site is truly moving!

dolly on June 9, 2006 at 12:14 pm

Dr. you are correct. I assume that “It will come to me some day” precisely because I have worked hard. And it has. What a wonderful country we live in. If you work hard and apply yourself, you have the opportunity to succeed. It applies to everyone. The estate tax may not kick in until $ 2 million, but when you divide that amount between my 7 children, it doesn’t amount to a really enormous windfall for any of them. And what I’m really concerned about is the current income tax levels. The government takes 49% of every penny I make. I don’t think that fair or equitable. I would gladly give up all my deductions and pay a flat 16%. If everyone paid the same percentage, with some exceptions for those below the poverty level it would be fair for everyone and would boost the economy. No economy was ever taxed into prosperity.
Regarding tortue and the terrorists being willing to kill themselves. Death by blowing your self up is instantaneous and probably relatively painless (My assumption because I’ve never blown myself up). Torture is unpleasant and can last a long time. Thats why in the middle ages they tortured traitors by hanging, drawing and quartering. I would think you could get alot of information this way. (By torture less barbaric than the previously mentioned procedure) And the information could be pretty reliable, because the consequences of lying would be more torture. Actually, I don’t think that you would have to use torture very much anyway with the drugs available today. I don’t know if the ACLU (American Criminal or Communist Liberties Union) considers the administration of coercive drugs torture.
We will obviously never agree on the concept of human life, but I will pray that you see the light some day. And there is nothing wrong with looking at some issues as “Black & White”. There are some moral absolutes.

Architect on June 12, 2006 at 9:25 am

How do you figure that the government takes 49% of every penny you make? I’d like to see that documentation. The highest tax rate currently 35% on all money OVER $336,550 (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html). If you are counting such things as social security (hardly a “tax”) or sales tax, those taxes are extremely regressive because they are “flat”. That is, a family of 4 with a household income of $200,000 doesn’t require more groceries (on average) than a household of $20,000. (Arguably, they may spend more, but the *requirement* is the same), yet the sales tax is equal on both of those; therefore the percentage of income for the less-fortunate is significant.
There are many problems with a flat tax, but I don’t even bother with that arguement because it is not on any radar currently and is not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
As for torture, I hope that our soldiers are not subjected to the same inhumane treatment that you can justify for our enemies. I hope that their Bibles are not taken and stomped and pissed on; I hope the crosses are not ripped off their neck; I hope they are not prevented from praying to their Messiah. Besides, if we truly treasure life, all life, then why don’t we follow the “do unto others” mantra? We want to encourage societies where all men are created equal, but we don’t have to treat them all equal here? Do as I say, not as I do? [Furthermore, what if, just maybe, that person doesn’t know, or isn’t who we think they are.] And, of above all, shouldn’t we listen to those who have *been* there; listen to veterans on Capitol Hill, such as McCain. They have been POWs, they should know!
Finally, why do you assume that I need your prayers to see the light? You do not answer my question that, if the embryos are life, why should we be allowed to dispose of them at all? Frankyly, I am tired of science being impeded by religion, when God is the one that gave us this beautiful universe to discover. While I certainly appreciate any prayers I may receive, perhaps I should be praying for you. As a born-again Christian, I try every day to follow the examples of Jesus; yet, because my interpretation of the Bible is different from yours, and because I don’t see things in the same way, you make callous remarks and assumptions about my moral fortitude. By assuming that you know exactly God’s will on every issue and that those who disagree with you are not true Christians, you seemingly reject the teachings of Christ himself. My friend, the Bible has been used to support violence and oppression since the scriptures were laid to parchment centuries ago. [In fact, regarding your $2 million estate tax, please see Matthew 19:23.] As for inheritances, a family memeber of mine died leaving a significant amount, although substantially less than $2 mill, to be dispersed among 6 of us. The 10% that I receive DOES consitute a significant windfall for me; if it doesn’t to you, then your idea of windfall is far outside of the mainstream of America.
Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Strangelove on June 12, 2006 at 2:22 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field