What now in politics?

[MaineDolFan]

1:  You need not be alive in order to make judgement on the effectiveness of a particular leader.  To suggest that you actually need to live under that leadership in order to have an opinion smacks of ignorance.  I didn't live under Stalin or Hitler, should I not exercise my opinion on either based on what history his written about both?  

2:  AIDS.  It is not fair to place the blame for this at the feet of a President that lead a country when this disease was first coming to light.  NO ONE knew what is was, how you could get it or where it came from.  It wasn't even defined at "AIDS" until 1982.  Before that it was called GRID.  Regan left office in 1989.  That same year scientists were able to figure out how AIDS was transmitted.  Not before.  1988?  For all people knew it was airborne and you could catch it by someone sneezing in your face.  

Understanding that even Regan apologized for his handling of the virus, I feel that apology is coming from information he knew in hindsight and came from guilt of "what could have been."  

If you want to blame any president in this country for under funding it would be George Senior.  By the time he took office the medical community had a better grasp of what they were fighting and a general idea of where to place the financial means for research.  Before that?  It was literally like throwing darts in the dark.

I understand the popular sentiment among special advocacy groups is to blame Regan.  The initial response was slow.  But, again, if you look at the numbers the initial infected was a small sampling as well.  

[Defense54]

So racist that I'm boning the enemy.

And I never banged a hot black chick ? 

[Phishfan]

2:  AIDS.  It is not fair to place the blame for this at the feet of a President that lead a country when this disease was first coming to light.  NO ONE knew what is was, how you could get it or where it came from.  It wasn't even defined at "AIDS" until 1982.  Before that it was called GRID.  Regan left office in 1989.  That same year scientists were able to figure out how AIDS was transmitted.  Not before.  1988?  For all people knew it was airborne and you could catch it by someone sneezing in your face.  

I know you are a lot closer to this than I, but this doesn't seem right to me. Thinking back to where I was and how old I was in '88/89 it seems like transmission had been figured out by then. There was still misinformation flying around from uneducated sources, but I thought they have pretty much had it down by then.

[Buddhagirl]

I know you are a lot closer to this than I, but this doesn't seem right to me. Thinking back to where I was and how old I was in '88/89 it seems like transmission had been figured out by then. There was still misinformation flying around from uneducated sources, but I thought they have pretty much had it down by then.

Agreed. I thought by the late 80's we sort of had it figured out a bit.  Of course I could be wrong. (I'm just remembering the push to get people to use condoms.)

[JVides]

I fully believe the government was helping bring in the drugs that they were warring against. So. There's that.

Now that's conjecture.  And just to be clear:  do you believe the government was facilitating the drug trade for profit while also incarcerating poor people it snared in law enforcement stings?  Like there was this massive conspiracy to profit from the drug trade while also jailing entire communities of the impoverished?  Now, the government would get into bed with bad people if those people helped fight the spread of communism, but actively helping drugs reach the country (as policy, not as done by corrupted officials) is the stuff of movies.

The AIDS epidemic was greatly ignored at first. Reagan later admitted that and apologized for it. It should have been treated as any other communicable disease that is being spread. (Like the flu, for instance.)

The AIDS epidemic was largely misunderstood at first.  Reagan, like virtually everyone else at the time, did not understand the disease.  Allocating federal funds to, say, cancer instead of AIDS is, in my view, fully defensible, given that cancer kills many, many more people than AIDS does.  More could have certainly been done, and that is something Reagan admitted to, but to lay AIDS squarely at his feet is as ridiculous as laying any social problem squarely at any one person's feet.

[Defense54]

I know you are a lot closer to this than I, but this doesn't seem right to me. Thinking back to where I was and how old I was in '88/89 it seems like transmission had been figured out by then. There was still misinformation flying around from uneducated sources, but I thought they have pretty much had it down by then.

When Magic johnson reveled in 1990 that he had it , THAT opened peoples eyes. Until then it was treated as a terminal disease that only gay people get . He corrected alot of the mis Information out in the public.

[MaineDolFan]

Keep in mind that I am speaking only of the actual method of transmission.  They knew a ton about it before that time.  

It was linked to blood in 1982.  They still didn't have any way to rule out other methods of transmission at that time.

To my knowledge the official edict of how it's transmitted and - more importantly how it is not - was announced in 1989.

If you look at the complexity of the HIV virus, it's amazing that they figured it out that fast.

Keep in mind that people still thought you could get it from a hand shake, toilet seat or someone sneezing in your face until that time.  The mystery of that virus is still perplexing now.

[JVides]

I know you are a lot closer to this than I, but this doesn't seem right to me. Thinking back to where I was and how old I was in '88/89 it seems like transmission had been figured out by then. There was still misinformation flying around from uneducated sources, but I thought they have pretty much had it down by then.

I remember people thinking you could get it from toilet seats and people coughing on you in 1986.  I distinctly remember watching news commentary where they were trying to dispel these rumors, among others (like that it was only a gay disease).  It was 1986, I remember, because I'd just moved to the United States from Costa Rica.

Even as a freshman in college (1993), we had a guy come into one of my classes to talk about living with AIDS (back then the drug "cocktails" had just begun to come out, and he talked about their cost and their effects on his body and the fact that they only worked in a small percentage of people).  Even then, he spent half of his time dispelling myths about AIDS (like "can you get it by shaking hands with someone with a scab on his hand?").  This was at 8 months into Clinton's term...

[Buddhagirl]

Now that's conjecture.  And just to be clear:  do you believe the government was facilitating the drug trade for profit while also incarcerating poor people it snared in law enforcement stings?  Like there was this massive conspiracy to profit from the drug trade while also jailing entire communities of the impoverished?  Now, the government would get into bed with bad people if those people helped fight the spread of communism, but actively helping drugs reach the country (as policy, not as done by corrupted officials) is the stuff of movies.

I believe that the government actively helped crack/cocaine reach the country, and helped spread it through the ghettos and then locked up the poor/people of color. I think blacks in particular were targeted.

The AIDS epidemic was largely misunderstood at first.  Reagan, like virtually everyone else at the time, did not understand the disease.  Allocating federal funds to, say, cancer instead of AIDS is, in my view, fully defensible, given that cancer kills many, many more people than AIDS does.  More could have certainly been done, and that is something Reagan admitted to, but to lay AIDS squarely at his feet is as ridiculous as laying any social problem squarely at any one person's feet.

I don't lay it squarely at his feet, but I do believe he and his administration could have done more.

[Phishfan]

Even as a freshman in college (1993), we had a guy come into one of my classes to talk about living with AIDS (back then the drug "cocktails" had just begun to come out, and he talked about their cost and their effects on his body and the fact that they only worked in a small percentage of people).  Even then, he spent half of his time dispelling myths about AIDS (like "can you get it by shaking hands with someone with a scab on his hand?").  This was at 8 months into Clinton's term...

I am not referring to the uneducated. I am referring to people who were paying attention. By 1993 if you still needed to have transmission myths explained you were really behind the curve. Science had it fully understood by then. I had transmission understood well before then and I was a hillbilly.

[Phishfan]

When Magic johnson reveled in 1990 that he had it , THAT opened peoples eyes. Until then it was treated as a terminal disease that only gay people get . He corrected alot of the mis Information out in the public.

Really? I wasn't in those circles. By 1990 it was clearly not a "homosexual" disease.

[Dave Gray]

I don't like some of the fiscal stuff that Reagan did with voo-doo economics and trickle down, etc.  However, I think that he did an excellent job with foreign relations for the time.  His policy style worked well in the 80s and in a time where the cold war was a serious threat, his steady hand and, more importantly, lack of rash actions helped oversee some pretty major events.

That's not to say that he didn't have his share of debacles, but what two term president doesn't?

[MaineDolFan]

FYI, to clarify - I am not letting Regan completely off the hook for this.  However, between '81 and '89 there were less than 10,000 deaths in this country from this virus during that time.  Lesser known illness killed people more rapidly.  In retrospect alone I can see where this wouldn't warrant a lot of attention.  Look at H1N1.  That virus has killed more people in this country in under a year than the documented cases of HIV / AIDS in the first five years (after 1981).

Factor in the "this is a gay disease" and now you have a recipe for disaster.

That said, by '85 or '86 we knew we have a larger problem on our hands and more action should have been taken.

Here is a good reference / time line:

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-01-03

[Defense54]

I believe that the government actively helped crack/cocaine reach the country, and helped spread it through the ghettos and then locked up the poor/people of color. I think blacks in particular were targeted.

I don't lay it squarely at his feet, but I do believe he and his administration could have done more.

yeah.......and Bush is responsible for hurricane Katrina right? 

[Sunstroke]

1:  You need not be alive in order to make judgement on the effectiveness of a particular leader.  To suggest that you actually need to live under that leadership in order to have an opinion smacks of ignorance.  I didn't live under Stalin or Hitler, should I not exercise my opinion on either based on what history his written about both?

You should certainly exercise your opinion on past leaders...as long as you understand (and appreciate) that every bit of info that is forming that opinion is based on other people's perspectives, opinions, etc..., rather than being based on firsthand knowledge.

Personally, I've read too many "historical accounts" that I felt were biased or otherwise skewed by perspective to be completely comfortable walking down that path.