PearlHowardman Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/activists-take-out-frustration-ronald-reagan_647733.html Activists Take Out Frustration on ... Ronald Reagan Jun 22, 2012 By DANIEL HALPER Last Friday, an attaché of important gay people from Philadelphia made a trip to Washington D.C. as invited guests of President Barack Obama for the White House’s first-ever gay pride reception. There, they danced to the sounds of a Marine Corps band; they dined on crab cakes and canapés; they hand-delivered letters from concerned citizens like this 18-year old who has had four people close to him gunned down, and noted rhyming raconteur CA Conrad; and some of them took advantage of photo opportunities to give the late President Ronald Reagan the middle finger. “It’s not a gesture that I would use in the White House when representing our city and our community,” opines Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal, who opted for a sarcastic thumbs-up pose in front of the portrait of George W. Bush over the more vulgar one demonstrated by his Reagan-loathing peers, Matthew “Matty” Hart, the national director of public engagement at Solutions for Progress, and self-taught photographer turned toast-of-the-town Zoe Strauss. “I have friends who work in that building,” Segal explains. “I’m not going to do something that could embarrass them or that could somehow damage a campaign that is so important. ‘Be on your best behavior,’ my staff told me.’ I think they know me too well.” This wasn’t Segal’s first trip to the White House, having twice visited during Bill Clinton’s gay-friendly tenure. “One of the things on my bucket list was to dance with my boyfriend at the White House,” remarks Segal.”And this is the second time I got to do it. We come up to the main foyer, and what do they play? Barbra Streisand. ‘The Way We Were.’ And I thought, Are they going to play nothing but Barbra, Bette and Lady Gaga? I was waiting for ‘Over the Rainbow.’ I mean, this is the Marine band!” Clearly, Segal, a dedicated activist but also an astute political hobnobber, wants to be invited back. But his counterparts couldn’t seem to care less. Hart posted his photo on Facebook with the caption, “!@#$ Reagan.” Strauss simply posted hers without commentary. After all, the murderous facial expression and double-barreled bird-flipping seem to speak for themselves. Comments ranged from “you forgot to add with a chainsaw” on Hart’s “!@#$ Reagan” note, to my personal favorite, “star wars … up yours,” on Strauss’s. ... “Yeah, !@#$ Reagan,” reiterates Hart one week after the reception. “Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands. The man was in the WhiteHouse as AIDS exploded, and he was happy to see plenty of gay men and queer people die. He was a murderous fool, and I have no problem saying so. Don’t invite me back. I don’t care.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 This has nothing to do with Obama's leadership and to suggest otherwise is a waste of time. On the other hand, it's a shame idiots like this had to ruin what was a big day for gays. How embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 On the other hand, it's a shame idiots like this had to ruin what was a big day for gays. How embarrassing. For most politically active gays, flipping off Reagan's portrait is a big day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted June 24, 2012 Author Share Posted June 24, 2012 This has nothing to do with Obama's leadership and to suggest otherwise is a waste of time. Denial! It has everything to do with Obama's lack of leadership. His uncouth guests disrespected Obama nearly as much as they disrespected the portrait of Ronald Reagan. To then take a picture of the gesture and put it on the internet is not acceptable. Obama has NO leadership skills whatsoever. No one respects him. Not even his invited White House guests. He is completely out of place in any kind of leadership role. Teleprompter speech reading is all he knows!! He belongs back in the US Senate as a junior senator. If I was a member of the Reagan family I would want the portrait pulled until Obama is out of the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 For most politically active gays, flipping off Reagan's portrait is a big day. Then tomorrow they'll wonder why they can't gain mainstream acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Reagan was responsible for the spread of HIV, and not, say, hyper-promiscuous "queers" like Gaeten Dugas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 So Reagan was responsible for HIV exploding across the world? It wasn't hyper-promiscuous "queers" like Gaetan Dugas? You learn something new everyday. He was responsible for the gross misapplication of public health resources that, had they been sanely managed, would have had a significant effect in slowing the spread of AIDS in this country (the irony being, of course, that had public health resources been properly applied, the gay community would have complained about "oppression" anyway.) And Gaetan Dugas' role as "patient zero" is overrated. IV drug use probably had a greater role in spreading AIDS than promiscuous gay sex did (although Dave in Elma probably still blames Hatians)...but there's no political activists groups staging "Heroin Users' Pride Parades," so who really gives a **** about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Oh... The humanity!!! Ban MDP! Free Tibet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) He was responsible for the gross misapplication of public health resources that, had they been sanely managed, would have had a significant effect in slowing the spread of AIDS in this country (the irony being, of course, that had public health resources been properly applied, the gay community would have complained about "oppression" anyway.) And Gaetan Dugas' role as "patient zero" is overrated. IV drug use probably had a greater role in spreading AIDS than promiscuous gay sex did (although Dave in Elma probably still blames Hatians)...but there's no political activists groups staging "Heroin Users' Pride Parades," so who really gives a **** about them? Transmission was definitely multi-modal, but gays had a large hand in its spread, at least initially, with an estimated 5% of gay males already infected in 1978. IVDU transmission probably was the major player in the later spread. But how much mobilization of public health resources would have helped is a matter of conjecture. A short while after it was discovered, gay males knew that it was spread by sex, while IV drug users didn't give a **** how it was spread. And as you said, any application of resources/sequestration would have led to major blowback. To me it's like blaming Dubya for 9/11. And while Dugas didn't bring HIV to North America, he was instrumental in its spread. He even continued to have unprotected sex after knowing that it led to HIV/AIDS, and even taunted his partners post-coitus. And he was just one person, and there were surely others like him, although not as devious. Edited June 24, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 And Gaetan Dugas' role as "patient zero" is overrated. IV drug use probably had a greater role in spreading AIDS than promiscuous gay sex did (although Dave in Elma probably still blames Hatians)...but there's no political activists groups staging "Heroin Users' Pride Parades," so who really gives a **** about them? You are clearly obsessed with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 The story said that the "thumbs up" for George Bush was sarcastic. Why would gays have any problem with him based on his efforts with AIDS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 The story said that the "thumbs up" for George Bush was sarcastic. Why would gays have any problem with him based on his efforts with AIDS? From what I've gathered, it's because he didn't publicly talk about it and was viewed to be a homophobe. But funding doubled annually from 1983 to 1989. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 hows this, !@#$ Reagan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Transmission was definitely multi-modal, but gays had a large hand in its spread, at least initially, with an estimated 5% of gay males already infected in 1978. IVDU transmission probably was the major player in the later spread. But how much mobilization of public health resources would have helped is a matter of conjecture. A short while after it was discovered, gay males knew that it was spread by sex, while IV drug users didn't give a **** how it was spread. And as you said, any application of resources/sequestration would have led to major blowback. To me it's like blaming Dubya for 9/11. And while Dugas didn't bring HIV to North America, he was instrumental in its spread. He even continued to have unprotected sex after knowing that it led to HIV/AIDS, and even taunted his partners post-coitus. And he was just one person, and there were surely others like him, although not as devious. I saw in incredible documentary regarding the spread of AIDS here in SF during the early 80's. I think it's safe to say that the spread had very little to do with IV drug use. I was working in restaurants in West Hollywood then. I was working with many gays who lamented about how many friends they lost. Some would say half of their address books was erased. No, out here the epidemic had very little to do with IV drug use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I saw in incredible documentary regarding the spread of AIDS here in SF during the early 80's. I think it's safe to say that the spread had very little to do with IV drug use. I was working in restaurants in West Hollywood then. I was working with many gays who lamented about how many friends they lost. Some would say half of their address books was erased. No, out here the epidemic had very little to do with IV drug use. In SF, where there is a huge gay population, it probably wasn't the major route of infection. However it had a big effect most other places, especially WRT crossing-over from gays to heteros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Transmission was definitely multi-modal, but gays had a large hand in its spread, at least initially, with an estimated 5% of gay males already infected in 1978. IVDU transmission probably was the major player in the later spread. But how much mobilization of public health resources would have helped is a matter of conjecture. A short while after it was discovered, gay males knew that it was spread by sex, while IV drug users didn't give a **** how it was spread. And as you said, any application of resources/sequestration would have led to major blowback. To me it's like blaming Dubya for 9/11. Gays had a large responsibility for spread, and was the major vector in SF...but as I recall, in both LA and NYC, IV drug use was just as significant (again, to my recollection, public health officials in NYC were clamoring for resources and insisting "Stop calling it GRID! It's not a gay disease here, it's an IV drug users' disease!!!" LA, as I recall, was about evenly split between those two transmission modes). Which isn't normally recognized because 1) health surveillance of the drug using community was non-existent at that time (probably still is), and 2) no one advocates for smack addicts. And while Dugas didn't bring HIV to North America, he was instrumental in its spread. He even continued to have unprotected sex after knowing that it led to HIV/AIDS, and even taunted his partners post-coitus. And he was just one person, and there were surely others like him, although not as devious. Dugas was an ass, particularly for knowingly infecting other gay men after he was diagnosed. But he was no more instrumental than a significant number of anonymous promiscuous gay men. Dugas' just happens to be the only one in that cluster of promiscuous, mobile gays unfortunate enough to be named by both the CDC and in Randy Shilts' book (admittedly excellent, regardless of criticism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 hows this, !@#$ Reagan! Yet another intelligent contribution. Actually it's about 12 times more intelligent that the misapplied stupidity you usually post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Yet another intelligent contribution. Actually it's about 12 times more intelligent that the misapplied stupidity you usually post. Given that it's his first post that's not demonstrably factually incorrect, it's an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Dugas was an ass, particularly for knowingly infecting other gay men after he was diagnosed. But he was no more instrumental than a significant number of anonymous promiscuous gay men. Dugas' just happens to be the only one in that cluster of promiscuous, mobile gays unfortunate enough to be named by both the CDC and in Randy Shilts' book (admittedly excellent, regardless of criticism). Yeah, kinda hard to name the anonymous ones. Seriously though, the reason Dugas' name was well-known is because (surprise, surprise) he was a gigantic narcissist because of his looks, not to mention he had that accent thing going, and he made himself known to everyone he could. And as a result, everyone in that community got to know him, or know of him, whereas a lot of times, men would have anonymous sex. I remember when Shiits' book came out, there was an excerpt in my local paper entitled "I am the prettiest one," which is what he would say to his friends when they'd walk into a bar, club, or bathhouse. So he was responsible for his name being out there, and his behavior after being diagnosed just galvanized his reputation further. The legendary porn star John Holmes, also a gigantic narcissist, similarly continued to have unprotected sex after being diagnosed with HIV, and was said to have exposed around 250 women to HIV. I couldn't find how many, if any, contracted HIV from him, but it was still a ****ty thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Give the guy a break: He's just trying to get laid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts