Angels, Reagan and AIDS in America [BARF Alert]

The New York Times ^ | 11/16/03 | Frank Rich

[ppaul]

a searing indictment of how the Reagan administration's long silence stoked the plague of AIDS in the 1980's.

Gee, silly me.
Here I thought it was caused by a bunch of perverts who wanted to have sex with as many anonymous same-sex partners as possible.

[gunner03]

God, I hate the Times and the rest of the lib media. How long can this country survive. When will we take it back?

[Thebaddog]

Franky misses the point completely about why the "whiners", which is us, reacted to the movie. It's amusing that he compares a true American hero in his last days to some fruity NY musical about AIDS as if it were a scourge that couldn't be stopped by self control.

Winning the cold war and reversing decades of economic decline under democratic mismanagement are made equivalent to a bunch of NY pretty boys and their inability to control their sexual appetites for their own well being.

[RightWingAtheist]

So the people who forced "The Reagans" off the air are "whiners and "hypocrites", hmm? And what does that make Frank Rich, who blasted the passion before seeing it, resulting in Mel Gibson shopping for a new distributor, and has engaged in continual ad homneim attacks against the director?

[JoeSchem]

Whatever his script's fictions, it accurately conveys the rancid hypocrisy

There is no hypocrisy greater than that of falsely accusing an honorable man of hypocrisy.

[ghost of nixon]

Rich is still steaming about "The Reagans" mini-series being canned. So steamed that he writes this pissy column. Pretty funny. How does any politician or govermental agency help stop Aids when the carriers & transmitters refused to modify their behavior that brought and spread the plague? There are plenty of truly unfortunate victims of disease in this world that we can have sympathy for - including people with aids - but how does one specific disease require the full & total attention of the federal government when it can be easily avoided by almost everyone in North America?

[KantianBurke]

To compare a great work such as "Streetcar Named Desire" with the laughably inane and immature "Angels in America" is outrageous. Having read both, the former is clearly a play of enourmous depth and talent. The latter is a bunch of bs which is only given such toutings due to its subject matter. In a hundred years Streetcar will still be recognized. Tony Kushner's "piece" will be long forgotten.

[netmilsmom]

What % of the US actually have HBO anyway?

[goodnesswins]

We HAVE HBO....but that does NOT mean we watch it! (Comes with the basic cable package.)

[stanz]

What do you expect from this p.o.s. Frank Rich?
It's just eating at him that the mini series was cancelled. He, together with Michael Moore and Al Franken will be on a lifelong crusade to crucify Bush, Reagan and anyone else who's not an America-hating leftist.

[Restorer]

This is a hilarious article. In 1980, AIDS could easily have been contained, using standard anti-epidemic methods worked out over a hundred years ago. The major reason they were not implemented was gay activist opposition.

See, the first thing you do to stop an epidemic is to close the places where it is being spread. That would mean all the bathhouses would have been shuttered. Then you implement mandatory contact-tracing.

Both of these were fought with great zest by homosexuals for whom, apparently, the ability to continue their random promiscuous sex was infinitely more important than slowing an epidemic that was killing them.

[Jorge]

This epic is, among other things, a searing indictment of how the Reagan administration's long silence stoked the plague of AIDS in the 1980's.

Funny how everybody except those who's conduct spreads AIDS, are to blame for it.

Typical liberal irresponsibility.

[Greybird]

Yet another alert for THE POSTING RULES!

Rule 1, official:
"Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts."

Rule 2, unofficial:
Denigrating, insulting, or misrepresenting homosexuals, however, is always acceptable.

{/sarcasm OFF}

[Dat]

What's your problem?

[Dat]

Nevermind, I see that you are part of the lunatic left that thinks everyone is out to get you. Don't worry, after reading some of your previous posts I don't think anyone will care what you do with yourself.

[DoctorMichael]

Local officials in San Francisco TRIED to stop the spread, but the homosexual 'community' tied their 'right' to further infect more individuals to their civil 'rights' and fought the closing of the bath houses. During the influenza epidemic of 1918-9 they shut down movie theaters et al. in the public interest to stop the spread of THIS disease.

Can anyone even imagine what would have happened if Reagan became involved early in the epidemic and 'DID' something about it? Hoo-boy!

Plus, no one REALLY knew what we were dealing with early on anyways.

[Arpege92]

These idiots can't get over the fact that it was everyday Americans who managed to ax the Reagan movie. They're not used to this and their bruised ego's can't seem to subside.

[ppaul]

ping.

[TaxRelief]

That he actually believes this movie would do the harm that The Reagans would have done, just shows how far out in left field these people are.

This movie is not subtle. Apparently it glorifies behaviors that most would find repulsive. Because it is a turnoff at the gut level, it cannot easily decieve most viewers.

[Thebaddog]

I went back to Ann Arbor last month for a twenty-fifth anniversary of my architecture class, and I can easily report back to you that the liberals are WAY out in left field. The jargon was coming at me steadily and no other ideas were even considered. Rich is just parroting the NY dogma and can't see the other views as relevant.

And Bush and Reagan are icons to be attacked, not people in any way to these dopes. We all knew that Clinton was a person what with those stains and all.