people had died of AIDS before he even mentioned it, in 1987. Shameful
silence and willful negligence. No one should be celebrating this man
who did NOTHING about the AIDS health crisis and caused so many
deaths.
On 2/6/11, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I hope that you will take the time to read this article, as well as my
> comments below, which I wrote several years ago in another thread.
>
> Again, you are being hoodwinked by a militant secular, (I dare say
> Anti-American) movement, with a revisionist history slant:
>
>
> October 23, 2003, 8:35 a.m.
> CBS's Fictionalized History
> Reagan treated AIDS as a "handicap," not a "sin."
>
> By Douglas W. Kmiec
>
> Next month, CBS will air *The Reagans*, a new mini-series, and there is
> growing concern, based on circulating scripts, that the portrayal will be
> biased or, worse, inaccurate. The *New York Times* has
> reported<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/arts/television/21REAG.html?ex=1067...<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/arts/television/21REAG.html%3Fex%3D1067313600%26en%3D2b294d987c3356e4%26ei%3D5062%26partner%3DGOOGLE>>,
>
> for example, that "the script . . . accuses Mr. Reagan of having no interest
>
> in addressing the AIDS crisis, but of asserting that the patients of AIDS
> essentially deserved their disease."
> This is historical distortion. Indeed, if uncorrected, it may well fit the
> very definition of libeling a public figure: reckless disregard for the
> truth.
>
> How Ronald Reagan viewed AIDS was of particular importance to me, since the
> former president tasked me with advising him on certain legal aspects of
> AIDS policy. In the late 1970s and 80s, AIDS was not well known to the
> general public, and there was considerable uncertainty in the medical
> community about how AIDS was transmitted. Researchers at Harvard had
> suggested that transmission by saliva was possible, and there was a good
> deal of public hysteria driven by the thought that the fatal illness could
> be spread by such casual contact. Schools were denying entrance to children
> with the disease, and some hospitals even declined to treat AIDS patients.
>
> It was the Reagan administration that cut through this misinformation and,
> after careful deliberation, concluded that AIDS patients were entitled to be
>
> treated as "handicapped" under federal laws that protect such individuals
> from discrimination.
>
> This would have been a courageous act for any president, but it was even
> more so for President Reagan. Given the medical uncertainty and the fact
> that AIDS was transmitted largely through sexual promiscuity, President
> Reagan not only needed to educate the public, but also to encourage his core
>
> political base to have charity toward those who consciously engage in
> morally questionable behavior.
>
> He didn't hesitate to do so. When an initial legal inquiry suggested that
> those with AIDS might not be eligible for civil-rights protection because
> employers and others could assert a legitimate "fear of contagion," whether
> or not that fear was reasonable or scientifically verifiable, it was
> President Reagan who appointed a commission on AIDS that ultimately asked
> for that legal thinking to be re-examined.
>
> As the former president's constitutional legal adviser, this was primarily
> my responsibility, but President Reagan also appointed many other helpful
> and intelligent voices that helped bring about the right result. C. Everett
> Koop, President Reagan's surgeon general, readily conceded the medical
> uncertainties of the time, but in typical Koop style, he also rendered a
> medical judgment free of political bias. Said Dr. Koop: Those with AIDS,
> even those in the earliest stages of the disease, have abnormalities or
> impairments of the immune system which could affect a major life activity,
> such as the prospect for giving birth to a healthy baby.
>
> Having obtained the best available medical information, the president
> concurred with my legal opinion that, as a matter of law, individuals with
> AIDS were entitled to existing civil-rights protections and could be
> excluded from those protections only where they could be shown, on an
> individual basis, to pose a threat to the health or safety of others or to
> be unable to perform their required jobs.
>
> As anticipated, this result was not uniformly embraced. Yet president Reagan
>
> and his White House staff saw it as so important that they convened a major
> press conference at the Justice Department to highlight the opinion. The
> conference took place in October 1988 — not an ideal time to be announcing
> controversial news, as President Reagan was then campaigning for the
> election of his then-vice president, George H. W. Bush.
>
> When a reporter at the conference demanded to know "Why is it good to extend
>
> protection to people with AIDS?" and "Why is it good to include this group
> with people in wheelchairs and crutches?", Reagan gave a straightforward
> answer: Because that is the law as we believe Congress wrote it. "We have
> fairly interpreted the statute," he said.
>
> The historical record is plain: Ronald Reagan was not indifferent toward
> those who suffered with AIDS; rather, having taken an oath to "take care
> that the laws are faithfully executed," he did just that — even when it was
> of no discernible political benefit to him or his party, and reasonable
> minds could and did disagree. History should be retold, not rewritten.
>
> — *Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Chair and professor of constitutional law at
> Pepperdine University and former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents
> Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The full story of the AIDS inquiry can be
> found in his book,* The Attorney General's
> Lawyer<http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0275939839<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p%3Fj%3D0275939839>>
>
>
>
> Just to add my perspective, which is admittedly a bit different.
>
> I lived in Charlotte North Carolina in the mid to late 1980s. I can recall
>
> being at a party in the recently built condominiums at the Charlotte Motor
> Speedway during the summer of 1987, where a number of prominent NASCAR race
> car drivers were present. Among them, was Tim Richmond. I was not "close
> friends" with Richmond, but I knew him, as well as a number of the other
> drivers from work related activities.
>
> I also would, from time to time and on occasion, "partake" in the snorting
> of cocaine. (I haven't seen any cocaine, much less snorted any since
> October of 1988, but I digress) and at this particular party in the summer
> of 1987, I did snort some cocaine with Richmond....We shared the same
> straw......
>
> The following year, Tim became deathly ill, and no one knew what was the
> cause of his illness; it was a well guarded secret. Richmond died in August
>
> of 1989, and when he died, there was still relatively little known about
> AIDS. I can recall exactly where I was at, when I heard the news of
> Richmond's passing, and immediately got in touch with another race car
> driver, whose family is well known and who is the son of "NASCAR Royalty",
> because he too was at that party the evening that I am referencing, and also
>
> "partook".....With the same straw. The both of us literally had no clue as
>
> to whether we had been exposed; what the symptoms were; and just how
> significant our risk was.
>
> The point of telling this story, is to demonstrate the mindset at the time,
> with most Americans. Although there were many in the Gay community who had
> been suffering from this dreadful disease, most of America was unaware of
> what was going on with AIDS in the late 1980s, and we were totally ignorant
> regarding individuals who were suffering and dying! Tim Richmond is a good
> example!
>
> After I started reading up and understanding what was going on with AIDS, it
>
> literally changed my lifestyle! I was thirty-two years of age in 1989, in
> the prime of my life; making a considerable amount of money for my age and
> that era, and I had never engaged in any homosexual activity. I traveled a
> good bit, and I could best be described as "promiscuous", (or maybe better
> said, "A Cheap Slut") when traveling.
>
> That all changed in 1989 after Richmond's death. I was so naive, that I
> didn't have a clue Rock Hudson was Gay until after he had passed just a few
> years earlier from this dreadful disease. Freddy Mercury with "Queen"?? I
> am dead serious, I literally never considered him to be a Gay man! I don't
> think most Americans did!
>
> Later, in the early 1990s, I did become somewhat involved with friends of
> mine in New York who were actively involved in trying to get our government
> and the general public informed and attuned to what was threatening, but
> more importantly what was non-threatening about AIDS. I also lost a dear
> friend in New York to AIDS, which also hit close to home.
>
> So, to put it in perspective, Ronald Reagan was no different than the rest
> of America in the mid to late 1980s, and like it or not, Reagan was
> literally instrumental in sounding the alarm bell to mainstream America.
>
> We were ignorant, as a Nation and individually, and America literally had no
>
> clue back in the late 1980s. When pointing fingers and framing who it is
> that should be to blame, it is requisite that this ignorance needs to be
> kept in mind.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment