I just watched Reverend Jeremiah Wright speaking in Detroit last Sunday.  He talked about so many pertinent cultural issues.  What warmed me to him was his terrific summary of music--that is, the difference between the diatonic scale of European music and the pentatonic scale of African music.  All he had to do was hum a few bars and I could hear my beloved West African drumming and African-American gospel music, and even the terrific minimalism of Steve Reich and Terry Riley inspired by African rhythms.

Reverend Wright has more brains, heart, spirit, and soul than the entire Bush Administration put together, including Dr. Rice!
8)

well Elisabeth Hasselbeck can't stand him so I usually consider that a ringing endorsement... in his favor.  ;D

I just watched Reverend Jeremiah Wright speaking in Detroit last Sunday.  He talked about so many pertinent cultural issues.  What warmed me to him was his terrific summary of music--that is, the difference between the diatonic scale of European music and the pentatonic scale of African music.  All he had to do was hum a few bars and I could hear my beloved West African drumming and African-American gospel music, and even the terrific minimalism of Steve Reich and Terry Riley inspired by African rhythms.

Reverend Wright has more brains, heart, spirit, and soul than the entire Bush Administration put together, including Dr. Rice!
8)


Well, I'll agree with you for the last sentence... and I'm listening to The Clinton Administration's One Nation Under A Re-Groove, but that was George Clinton.

But as for Wright's speech -- come on, dude.  That's pseudoscience on a level with phrenology.  Even white racists (well, the white racists that are actually a problem) don't take stuff like The Bell Curve seriously.  Why should anyone take Wright seriously? 

No matter how it's spun, this plays poorly for Obama.

Obligatory Conspiracy Theory:  Wright knows that he'll do better under Hillary Clinton's brand of race relations (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc) than he will under Obama's brand of race relations.  It wouldn't take much in the way of prompting by strategically-placed Clinton campaign operatives to nudge a guy like Wright into destroying Obama's campaign.  Wright himself might not be aware that he's being manipulated.  Remember, if Obama loses to McCain in 2008, he can't come back in 2012 -- and Hillary, at age 64, will.  (Just like Edwards had a serious shot four years after Kerry.)

But you're allowed to wait four years for the nomination.  You're not allowed to wait eight years.  (Bush Sr. was an exception, and he only got one term out of it.)

If Obama wins in 2008 (defeating McCain, the second-choice nominee who waited 8 years for "his turn"), thenObama's also the presumptive nominee for 2012.  In that scenario, Hillary has to wait for 2016 -- and because McCain lost after waiting his 8 years, Hillary doesn't even get to run after waiting her 8 years.  For most of us, a lifetime Senate appointment would be a pretty cushy gig, but Hillary wants the big prize, and will settle for nothing less, no matter what the cost to her (wing of the depending on which conspiracy theory you believe today!) Party.

Obligatory Conspiracy Theory:  Wright knows that he'll do better under Hillary Clinton's brand of race relations (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc) than he will under Obama's brand of race relations.  It wouldn't take much in the way of prompting by strategically-placed Clinton campaign operatives to nudge a guy like Wright into destroying Obama's campaign.  Wright himself might not be aware that he's being manipulated.  Remember, if Obama loses to McCain in 2008, he can't come back in 2012 -- and Hillary, at age 64, will.  (Just like Edwards had a serious shot four years after Kerry.)

But you're allowed to wait four years for the nomination.  You're not allowed to wait eight years.  (Bush Sr. was an exception, and he only got one term out of it.)

If Obama wins in 2008 (defeating McCain, the second-choice nominee who waited 8 years for "his turn"), thenObama's also the presumptive nominee for 2012.  In that scenario, Hillary has to wait for 2016 -- and because McCain lost after waiting his 8 years, Hillary doesn't even get to run after waiting her 8 years.  For most of us, a lifetime Senate appointment would be a pretty cushy gig, but Hillary wants the big prize, and will settle for nothing less, no matter what the cost to her (wing of the depending on which conspiracy theory you believe today!) Party.


Man, this makes my head spin. Those rules and regulations make no sense to me whatsoever. Just go for it, as many times as you want - that's how we do it, anyway. Glad I'm living where I'm living...

Sorry to go off topic there.

interesting about pentatonic vs. diatonic scales. i've just been listening to little bits of the speech here and there. i don't find anything terribly offensive about it but then again i never really minded wright that much. i think much of what he said in the original speech that was supposed to be so bad is actually pretty true.

the problem to me is that the right wing simply insists on never hearing anything critical about itself. conservatives are quite sure they have everything figured out and when someone comes along like wright and calls them out that their leaders send other people off to war without going themselves (wright makes a big thing in his latest speech about serving in the marines, which i'm sure drives the right wing crazy), that they have stupid, simple-minded, absolutist and self-serving ideas about government and economic management that have done great damage to what was once the greatest economy in the world, and that in terms of race relations they have a long and unbrokenly shameful history

bah. screw it. i just hate right-wingers. i've been sitting here watching them ruin the country for years and i'm heartily sick to here of it. the most galling part is how absolutely certain they are that they're right and they base this certitude on a track record of perfect failure. they've failed their country in every single imaginable way. it's breathtaking.

HAHA! IN  YOUR FACE NOW REV. EVEN BARACK DENOUNCES YOUR SPEW!

HAHA! IN  YOUR FACE NOW REV. EVEN BARACK DENOUNCES YOUR SPEW!


The only reason why he did was to keep his political foot hold.  Reverend Wright is well aware of this.

HAHA! IN  YOUR FACE NOW REV. EVEN BARACK DENOUNCES YOUR SPEW!

Boy, you're astute!

(Don't call me a stute, dude!)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nut.gif


interesting about pentatonic vs. diatonic scales. i've just been listening to little bits of the speech here and there. i don't find anything terribly offensive about it but then again i never really minded wright that much. i think much of what he said in the original speech that was supposed to be so bad is actually pretty true.

the problem to me is that the right wing simply insists on never hearing anything critical about itself. conservatives are quite sure they have everything figured out and when someone comes along like wright and calls them out that their leaders send other people off to war without going themselves (wright makes a big thing in his latest speech about serving in the marines, which i'm sure drives the right wing crazy), that they have stupid, simple-minded, absolutist and self-serving ideas about government and economic management that have done great damage to what was once the greatest economy in the world, and that in terms of race relations they have a long and unbrokenly shameful history

bah. screw it. i just hate right-wingers. i've been sitting here watching them ruin the country for years and i'm heartily sick to here of it. the most galling part is how absolutely certain they are that they're right and they base this certitude on a track record of perfect failure. they've failed their country in every single imaginable way. it's breathtaking.


Here here! If those neanderthal ninnies had anything positive to run on, they wouldn't be out there demonizing Rev. Wright and Jimmeh Cawtah.  Bush is so unpopular even the people who like him don't like him!  Go figger that one!
I predict the Whitheouse spokesman for the McCain Administration is going to be Ted Nugent! 

White Supremecists don't know the difference between the Bell Curve and the Bell Jar. 

::)

I don't agree with everything Wright says, but he's articulate and interesting.  He is also NOT Barack Obama but the media keeps conflating the two.  What about Franklin Graham, the darling of the Right, who called the prophet Mohammed a child molester after 9/11?  What about Ted Haggard?  What about Pat Robertson?  What about Jerry Falwell....
Oh, never mind.

Reverend Wright has more brains, heart, spirit, and soul than the entire Bush Administration put together, including Dr. Rice!
8)


Slightly off topic, but the other night I was watching the documentary "Carrier" on PBS.  They asked one of the seamen on the USS Nimitz if he knew who the Secretary of Defense was.  After thinking for a while, he said "Is it Cunnilingus Rice"?

True story!  ;D  ;D

Slightly off topic, but the other night I was watching the documentary "Carrier" on PBS.  They asked one of the seamen on the USS Nimitz if he knew who the Secretary of Defense was.  After thinking for a while, he said "Is it Cunnilingus Rice"?

True story!   ;D  ;D

Huh huh!  He said "semen"!
:D

It strikes me that the Preacher Wright (I can not refer to him as "Reverend" as I do not revere him) is for some reason setting out intentionally to destroy Obama's campaign.  Could it be that if a black politician "makes it big" in the USA that Wright will lose his platform of "blacks can never win" ?

When I see this whole thing unfolding, I am reminded of a quote from Malcolm X after he was ejected from the Nation of Islam.  Reworked for today's situation, it would be "Obama was the best politician the black man ever had.  But Wright ruined it."

I am a republican, I do not know if I would vote for Obama over McCain or not.  But Wright's statements and behaviour are reprehensible and are calculated to smear Obama.  It is not right, it is not the American way, and it is despicable.

In no way do I beleive that Obama shares Wright's "beliefs".  He is a little man with a little brain and with little respect for either his country or his people. Wright is a dirt bag, pure and simple.  Emphasis on the simple.

It strikes me that the Preacher Wright (I can not refer to him as "Reverend" as I do not revere him) is for some reason setting out intentionally to destroy Obama's campaign.  Could it be that if a black politician "makes it big" in the USA that Wright will lose his platform of "blacks can never win" ?

When I see this whole thing unfolding, I am reminded of a quote from Malcolm X after he was ejected from the Nation of Islam.  Reworked for today's situation, it would be "Obama was the best politician the black man ever had.  But Wright ruined it."

I am a republican, I do not know if I would vote for Obama over McCain or not.  But Wright's statements and behaviour are reprehensible and are calculated to smear Obama.  It is not right, it is not the American way, and it is despicable.

In no way do I beleive that Obama shares Wright's "beliefs".  He is a little man with a little brain and with little respect for either his country or his people. Wright is a dirt bag, pure and simple.  Emphasis on the simple.



The new ripple effect in this is how Obama in his early speaches on the Wright guy included saying along the line: I would not denounce him as I would not denounce the black population...welllllllll, as he denounced one......so goes the rest of his pronouncement??? :o 

The new ripple effect in this is how Obama in his early speaches on the Wright guy included saying along the line: I would not denounce him as I would not denounce the black population...welllllllll, as he denounced one......so goes the rest of his pronouncement??? :o 


I think that in his earlier statement, Obama was giving Wright the benefit of the doubt, after all he was Obama's preacher and there are few people who would want to publically flog their preacher.  Perhaps he felt that wright had simply gotten carried away in some of his fiery speeches and cut him some slack, albeit distancing himself from the views.

But Wright's recent press meetings were obviously cold, calculated, premeditated, and designed specifically to torpedo Obama.  So at this point, Obama now sees Wright for what he is.. a hateful, bigoted, divisive, separatist.  Obama rightfully has told Wright to hit the road.

Wright does not want Obama to succeed, for if that happened, Wright could no longer rail against "The Man" and he could no longer preach his message that a black man cannot get ahead in the USA.  Success of Obama kills the Wright franchise.  So be it, I say.

  He is a little man with a little brain and with little respect for either his country or his people....a dirt bag, pure and simple.  Emphasis on the simple.


Thought you were talking about dubya there.  So this Wright, exactly what is it that gets you so ticked off about the sonofabitch?
???

Thought you were talking about dubya there.  So this Wright, exactly what is that gets you so ticked off about the sonofabitch?
???
yeah, i'm curious too. i find him strange and mildly annoying but also, unfortunately, right about a great many things. i wonder what it is exactly that has the conservatives so up in arms about him. although i have to admit i appreciate that lyricboy and even saver aren't trying to blindly affiliate the two of them.

Slightly off topic, but the other night I was watching the documentary "Carrier" on PBS.  They asked one of the seamen on the USS Nimitz if he knew who the Secretary of Defense was.  After thinking for a while, he said "Is it Cunnilingus Rice"?

True story!   ;D  ;D

I suppose "Condoleeza" might be a bit hard to get your tongue around..

Thought you were talking about dubya there.  So this Wright, exactly what is it that gets you so ticked off about the sonofabitch?
???


Here is what ticks me off about him, and it is his disloyalty. 

Disloyalty to his people, the Blacks / African-Americans.  The first time that a truly credible black presidential candidate emerges, this guy deliberately sets out to torpedo him.  Not on "the issues" on a fair debate, but by spewing hate, by making african-americans look like buffoons.  What kind of "black leader" is Wright?  It is ridiculous.  I am not saying that all blacks should support Obama, but disagreements should be about the issues, not this sort of side-show, freak-show smear that Wright is doing.  It is wrong.

Any number of black political leaders have announced their support for Hillary (and even McCain).  I have no problem with them, they are speaking their minds regarding who they do or do not think is the best candidate. I may not agree with them but it is all on a professional level.

Will Obama win the nomination?  I do not know.  Would I ultimately vote for him?  I do not know.  But the rhetoric that Wright is spewing is not "the American way".  And it is representative of somebody who has a devious intention.

And yes, I am slightly annoyed that Hillary and McCain have not spoken out with at least some collegial support for Obama in this "wright situation", but I guess that is part of the election game.  I know that if I were either one of them, I would come out and say "I completely disagree with Obama on many issues, and I plan to kick his butt in this election, but I have worked with him in the Senate  and I know him to be somebody who does not believe in this Wright spew"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHzBlKJtvpE

here is a very interesting response by a guy who i follow on youtube. i don't necessarily agree with him on a lot of things but i find him to be well-informed and he steps up for reverend wright in a way that kinda gives some perspective.

In response to people calling him unpatriotic his response was as followed.  "I served six years in the military, how many did Chaney serve?"

I think he hold himself together quite well during various inquisitions.

What some preachers should know is that "If you love Jesus, but hate Bush. Then you're just as much of a liar as he is or even more so". (1 John 4:20)

So I don't mind if someone's opionion is "I dislike Bush and he's the butt of all Presidents since 1776".

But if someone says "I hate Bush and he must go to hell" and is a Christian...then he's not being a Christian.

as a non-christian, i would like to make the un-christianish proclamation that i would like to see bush undergo every bit of the suffering he has inflicted on others. it would take him thousands of years to suffer that, and it would be his due.

of course, on a level i'm being foolish in that the war and 911 and new orleans and all the rest weren't really his doing alone, but they were the doing of him and a small group of people around them. and they should starve in the superdome and have their arms and legs blown off by an IED and they should have to dive out of the world trade center in order to avoid being burned to death. these are all horrors that have been visited on other human beings because the bush administration couldn't be bothered, and if there was justice in the world they would have to suffer some of that themselves, because they plainly lack consciences and so they'll never be haunted by what they've done to us.

sorry, i'm plainly unhinged about this subject. but i really believe that, these things happened to us because the bush administration has NO idea what they're doing, or worse, they wanted all of this to happen.

as a non-christian, i would like to make the un-christianish proclamation that i would like to see bush undergo every bit of the suffering he has inflicted on others. it would take him thousands of years to suffer that, and it would be his due.

of course, on a level i'm being foolish in that the war and 911 and new orleans and all the rest weren't really his doing alone, but they were the doing of him and a small group of people around them. and they should starve in the superdome and have their arms and legs blown off by an IED and they should have to dive out of the world trade center in order to avoid being burned to death. these are all horrors that have been visited on other human beings because the bush administration couldn't be bothered, and if there was justice in the world they would have to suffer some of that themselves, because they plainly lack consciences and so they'll never be haunted by what they've done to us.

sorry, i'm plainly unhinged about this subject. but i really believe that, these things happened to us because the bush administration has NO idea what they're doing, or worse, they wanted all of this to happen.


In that case...this should be his torture. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/crucified.gif

i seem to have bush derangement syndrome.  ;D

i seem to have bush derangement syndrome.  ;D


I forgive you.

I live in the Rust Belt and many people's opinions on Dubya is negative, so I get that a lot where I live....And it dosen't help that I live in a city where the last time it had a Championship was in 1964.

I listened to the speech and have to say that it was pretty amazing. I was impressed with his singing voice even if he only sang a few bars of a song here or a song there. And I think what he said was right on-"Different does not mean deficient."


There is also a rumor (and I haven't been able to verify it), that the Clintons consulted with Rev. Wright when they were having marital problems (after the "Monica incident".)  It is a fact that he was a guest at the White House during the Clinton Administration.



Cat 

i seem to have bush derangement syndrome.  ;D

I never had a problem with the diagnosis "Bush derangement syndrome."  Even meek Harry Reid calls him "the worst president we've ever had."  We all know in our heart of hearts that he stole the 2000 election in the first place, and then he gets in starts WWIII and sends our economy spiraling into a depression.  If you're not deranged, you're not paying attention!
:D

Anyway, I don't think Rev. Wright speaks of all black Americans any more than Pat Robertson speaks for all white Americans.  I mean, he doesn't does he?  Robertson?  Uh-oh...
:o

I never had a problem with the diagnosis "Bush derangement syndrome."  Even meek Harry Reid calls him "the worst president we've ever had."  We all know in our heart of hearts that he stole the 2000 election in the first place, and then he gets in starts WWIII and sends our economy spiraling into a depression.  If you're not deranged, you're not paying attention!
:D

Anyway, I don't think Rev. Wright speaks of all black Americans any more than Pat Robertson speaks for all white Americans.  I mean, he doesn't does he?  Robertson?  Uh-oh...
:o
lol. i keep trying to find new ways to explain the true breadth and scope of the current administration's failures. it's difficult, language doesn't have the words.

I'm not a patriotic person by any stretch of the imagination.  His disdain for American foreign policy is well justified.

On the other hand, Wright is also a nutjob.  He's like the liberal equivalent of the Religious Right.  He's a hypocrite and a race baiter.  The man claims to be held down by the white man, but he's going to retire in a million dollar home in a gated community that is 93% white.

He's basically manipulated his church into tithing for the sake of buying him a house.  In short, he's a con man, but that's basically synonymous with any supposed man of the faith.  Religion itself is probably the most successful con ever, as George Carlin once described it.

The sad thing is...  Obama is the best option we have for president, but it looks like the company he keeps will kill his shot at the presidency -- all thanks to the militancy of the Far Left.

I never had a problem with the diagnosis "Bush derangement syndrome."  Even meek Harry Reid calls him "the worst president we've ever had."  We all know in our heart of hearts that he stole the 2000 election in the first place, and then he gets in starts WWIII and sends our economy spiraling into a depression.  If you're not deranged, you're not paying attention!
:D

Anyway, I don't think Rev. Wright speaks of all black Americans any more than Pat Robertson speaks for all white Americans.  I mean, he doesn't does he?  Robertson?  Uh-oh...
:o


I think both Wright and Robertson call themselves 'Christians' because they love Jesus, but hate certain kind of people. Robertson hates fags and Wright hates whitey.

And yes, I am slightly annoyed that Hillary and McCain have not spoken out with at least some collegial support for Obama in this "wright situation", but I guess that is part of the election game.  I know that if I were either one of them, I would come out and say "I completely disagree with Obama on many issues, and I plan to kick his butt in this election, but I have worked with him in the Senate  and I know him to be somebody who does not believe in this Wright spew"

It would be a pleasant change if that were to happen, wouldn't it?

The problem is that negative campaigning works: although people when asked will always say that they're turned off by candidates attacking each other (especially personal attacks or those against friends of a candidate), it affects the way they vote.. so smear campaigns happen (while candidates pretend they're nothing to do with them), and will continue to do so until the Rovian types think that they're not effective.

I think both Wright and Robertson call themselves 'Christians' because they love Jesus, but hate certain kind of people. Robertson hates fags and Wright hates whitey.


Has he said he hates white people?
???

Has he said he hates white people?
???


I wouldn't think so, considering he's one of the people that Billary called upon to counsel them after the Monica snafu....and he accepted.

Has he ((Wright)) said he hates white people?


Sorry, bud, I gotta call you out on that one. 

I'll bet you're right that Wright never said he hated white people.  And I'll bet just as much money that David Duke never said he hated black people.  Why, that'd be positively gauche.  Now, as for "standing up for people like himself", or "being proud of his heritage", on the other hand, because what God-fearin' red-blooded (as long as he's white-skinned :) American could complain about that?

I gotta calls 'em as I sees 'em, and that means that (yeah I'm going to hell for using this disgusting metaphor, even in irony) sometimes I gotta call a spade a spade.  Wright may or may not be as racist as Duke.  And Wright's racism has nothing to do with Obama's.  But that's how it's gonna be spun in both the primaries and the general election. 

Sorry, bud, I gotta call you out on that one. 

I'll bet you're right that Wright never said he hated white people.  And I'll bet just as much money that David Duke never said he hated black people.  Why, that'd be positively gauche.  Now, as for "standing up for people like himself", or "being proud of his heritage", on the other hand, because what God-fearin' red-blooded (as long as he's white-skinned :) American could complain about that?

I gotta calls 'em as I sees 'em, and that means that (yeah I'm going to hell for using this disgusting metaphor, even in irony) sometimes I gotta call a spade a spade.  Wright may or may not be as racist as Duke.  And Wright's racism has nothing to do with Obama's.  But that's how it's gonna be spun in both the primaries and the general election. 

That was not a rhetorical question.  I don't know if Wright hates white folks or not.  I did not find his rhetoric offensive to me as a white person.  Resentment of whites on the South Side of Chicago?  I understand.  OK, he dresses funny, he's big, he's filthy rich, he's got gaudy tastes, he's loud, he's obnoxious, and he has a campy sense of humor.  You can say all the same of Elvis.
:P

That was not a rhetorical question.  I don't know if Wright hates white folks or not.  I did not find his rhetoric offensive to me as a white person.  Resentment of whites on the South Side of Chicago?  I understand. 


Thanks for clarifying -- and I'll accept that hair-splitting at face value, because I also don't know if Wright hates white folks or not -- I interpreted Wright's remarks differently (I've heard the same rhetoric from white racists, and frankly, the only thing that ever changes is the color of the skin of the speaker), which led me to conclude that he did.  But having said that, there's enough wiggle room in his speech that even if Wright does hate white folks, he's by no means as over-the-top about it as Duke was about hating black folks. 

Sad thing, of course, is that none of this has anything to do with poor old Obama. The only real connection is that race-baiters like Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton would be out of a job if Obama were to take office.  At the risk of exposing my unfashionably-tinfoil-clad  hat, I think that's the real reason Wright's been working overtime for the Hillary campaign ever since this (non-)story broke.

If MLK was alive today...what would he say about Rev. Wright and Barack Obama?

If MLK was alive today...what would he say about Rev. Wright and Barack Obama?
i think he'd like barack obama. i dont think he'd be much for wright's support of louis farrakhan but MLK's comments about vietnam, in which he said things very much like "god damn america," make me think he probably wouldn't mind wright that much. although speaking for him makes me a little uncomfortable.

At the risk of exposing my unfashionably-tinfoil-clad  hat, dude, you have an actual HAT under your tinfoil? that ruins the effect!! you need LAYERS of tinfoil! LAYERS!!!! no hat man!  :o

If MLK was alive today...what would he say about Rev. Wright and Barack Obama?


MLK would probably like Obama, but Wright would get the cold shoulder -- for obviously good reasons.

I just hope the G. Gordon Liddy - McCain connection gets played up by the "liberal" media.  Being so "liberal", they've really dropped the ball on that one.

Thanks for clarifying -- and I'll accept that hair-splitting at face value, because I also don't know if Wright hates white folks or not -- I interpreted Wright's remarks differently (I've heard the same rhetoric from white racists, and frankly, the only thing that ever changes is the color of the skin of the speaker), which led me to conclude that he did.  But having said that, there's enough wiggle room in his speech that even if Wright does hate white folks, he's by no means as over-the-top about it as Duke was about hating black folks. 

Sad thing, of course, is that none of this has anything to do with poor old Obama. The only real connection is that race-baiters like Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton would be out of a job if Obama were to take office.  At the risk of exposing my unfashionably-tinfoil-clad  hat, I think that's the real reason Wright's been working overtime for the Hillary campaign ever since this (non-)story broke.



So, discussing race is considered race-baiting? That's one of the reason why America will never have a comprehensive, honest dialogue on it. If you bring it up, you're causing others to question themselves. It's the preference of those that lack maturity and truth to keep sweeping it under the rug.

What the hell did he say that was anti-white? No one is answering this question. So, America stands for white? If that's the case, the perceptions of many people of color (e.g. Latinos, Asians, Blacks) are valid.

MLK would've agreed with both. His stance on the topic of race in America was changing. It's clearly obvious that many are unaware of that and only cite his "I Have a Dream" speech when they bring him up. Ignorance is bliss, I must say.

If MLK was alive today...what would he say about Rev. Wright and Barack Obama?


I don't know what he'd have to say about Reverend Wrong or Obama...

But I bet Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. would go out on the town with Bill Clinton to do some serious partying.  ;D

i think he'd like barack obama. i dont think he'd be much for wright's support of louis farrakhan but MLK's comments about vietnam, in which he said things very much like "god damn america," make me think he probably wouldn't mind wright that much. although speaking for him makes me a little uncomfortable.

The right-wing has been using Dr. King's name as a cudgel for decades, especially the bit about "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  He's now their official "good negro," as opposed to Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Wright, and most of the rest of our melanin-enhanced citizens who aren't Bill Cosby.  Unfortunately, they didn't feel the same about Dr. King when he had a pulse.  Just ask J. Edgar!
::)

So, discussing race is considered race-baiting? That's one of the reason why America will never have a comprehensive, honest dialogue on it. If you bring it up, you're causing others to question themselves. It's the preference of those that lack maturity and truth to keep sweeping it under the rug.

What the hell did he say that was anti-white? No one is answering this question. So, America stands for white? If that's the case, the perceptions of many people of color (e.g. Latinos, Asians, Blacks) are valid.

MLK would've agreed with both. His stance on the topic of race in America was changing. It's clearly obvious that many are unaware of that and only cite his "I Have a Dream" speech when they bring him up. Ignorance is bliss, I must say.




What did Wright say exactly... I don't really watch TV often.

What did Wright say exactly... I don't really watch TV often.


Well amongst other things, Wright said that the federal goivernment "crreated AIDS" in order to kill black men.

Which is a bit odd because more whites have died from AIDS than blacks (in America that is)

Well amongst other things, Wright said that the federal goivernment "crreated AIDS" in order to kill black men.

Which is a bit odd because more whites have died from AIDS than blacks (in America that is)

Seeeeeee....conservatives are right after all, the government mucks everything up! 

:-\\

Well amongst other things, Wright said that the federal goivernment "crreated AIDS" in order to kill black men.

Which is a bit odd because more whites have died from AIDS than blacks (in America that is)


Actually, blacks and hispanics are dying more from AIDS in America, especially women. It's not odd at all. Look up the Tuskegee Experiment.

Actually, blacks and hispanics are dying more from AIDS in America, especially women. It's not odd at all. Look up the Tuskegee Experiment.


While the infection of people with syphillis indicates that the government would use something like AIDS as an experiment, doesn't count as a shred of evidence that they did.

I seriously pondered the AIDS/Smallpox-vaccine link when the hypothesis first emerged in the 80s. The research that has since come out in the next few years is pretty conclusive: there is no link, there was no conspiracy.  On that point, Wright was wrong.  Were it possible to libel a government (and I'm grateful that it's still not possible to libel a government), he'd have been wrong to the point of libel.

The hypothesis most consistent with the observed data is that humans have been exposed to SIV ever since we started eating bush meat, and that one fateful day some few decades ago, a human with a small wound on his (it was likely a male) skin was exposed (while butchering a non-human primate) to a variant of SIV that happened to be compatible with the human immune system, and became Patient Zero.  The data from which Wright draws his erroneous conclusion was inconclusive 20 years ago, and better theories, founded upon better data, have since been advanced.

But I bet Rev. Dr. MLK Jr. would go out on the town with Bill Clinton to do some serious partying.  ;D

But I'll bet he wouldn't have gone partying with Hillary... not sure I would, either.

While the infection of people with syphillis indicates that the government would use something like AIDS as an experiment, doesn't count as a shred of evidence that they did.

I seriously pondered the AIDS/Smallpox-vaccine link when the hypothesis first emerged in the 80s. The research that has since come out in the next few years is pretty conclusive: there is no link, there was no conspiracy.  On that point, Wright was wrong.  Were it possible to libel a government (and I'm grateful that it's still not possible to libel a government), he'd have been wrong to the point of libel.

The hypothesis most consistent with the observed data is that humans have been exposed to SIV ever since we started eating bush meat, and that one fateful day some few decades ago, a human with a small wound on his (it was likely a male) skin was exposed (while butchering a non-human primate) to a variant of SIV that happened to be compatible with the human immune system, and became Patient Zero.  The data from which Wright draws his erroneous conclusion was inconclusive 20 years ago, and better theories, founded upon better data, have since been advanced.
what theories? by whom? who did this research? who "observed" this "data"? all of this seems about as vague as wright's allegations themselves.

really the crux of the biscuit is that this government has the highest clandestine budget of any government in history, combined with very very low levels of accountability. unfortunately, this makes the seemingly wildest speculation about the government's actions seem reasonable. really, they could be up to just about anything and damned if we would know. there's no way to actually "discredit" the theory that AIDS was created by the government any more than there's any way to discredit the idea that they created crack cocaine, or are spraying chemicals on their own citizens, or sabotaged paul wellstone's plane. in this environment, they could seriously be doing anything and there's absolutely no way of knowing one way or another.

the only thing we can do is poo poo the ideas as being ridiculous and hope that they really are.

While the infection of people with syphillis indicates that the government would use something like AIDS as an experiment, doesn't count as a shred of evidence that they did.the reason why the syphilis argument is relevant is that, in the absence of an objective basis to evaluate such claims (see my post above) the only fallback among the skeptics is to say, "oh, pshaw, the government would never do something like that." the tuskeegee experiments demonstrates that they would, not that they did, true, but nevertheless gravely undercuts the strongest argument the skeptics have -- that the government is above such acts.

While the infection of people with syphillis indicates that the government would use something like AIDS as an experiment, doesn't count as a shred of evidence that they did.

I seriously pondered the AIDS/Smallpox-vaccine link when the hypothesis first emerged in the 80s. The research that has since come out in the next few years is pretty conclusive: there is no link, there was no conspiracy.  On that point, Wright was wrong.  Were it possible to libel a government (and I'm grateful that it's still not possible to libel a government), he'd have been wrong to the point of libel.

The hypothesis most consistent with the observed data is that humans have been exposed to SIV ever since we started eating bush meat, and that one fateful day some few decades ago, a human with a small wound on his (it was likely a male) skin was exposed (while butchering a non-human primate) to a variant of SIV that happened to be compatible with the human immune system, and became Patient Zero.  The data from which Wright draws his erroneous conclusion was inconclusive 20 years ago, and better theories, founded upon better data, have since been advanced.


My argument was that the government is likely to do anything it wants when its people decide to show daily apathy. If you honestly believe that they wouldn't, then you are in a form of trouble that I can't help you with.

I am fully aware of the history of AIDS, thank you.

Well amongst other things, Wright said that the federal goivernment "crreated AIDS" in order to kill black men.

Which is a bit odd because more whites have died from AIDS than blacks (in America that is)



I don't think that U.S. government created AIDS but I had always held the belief that U.S. government didn't do anything to stop it once it was first discovered because everyone was under the impression that it was a "gay disease". It was first called GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) or the "gay plague". I think that the government thought it would take care of the "gay problem" so they did nothing (when it probably could have been stopped in its tracks). But, once it started getting into the heterosexual community, then they started to panic. That was when they started paying for research. I don't think it was in order to "kill black men" but in order to "kill gay men".



Cat

what theories? by whom? who did this research? who "observed" this "data"? all of this seems about as vague as wright's allegations themselves.

really the crux of the biscuit is that this government has the highest clandestine budget of any government in history, combined with very very low levels of accountability. unfortunately, this makes the seemingly wildest speculation about the government's actions seem reasonable. really, they could be up to just about anything and damned if we would know. there's no way to actually "discredit" the theory that AIDS was created by the government any more than there's any way to discredit the idea that they created crack cocaine, or are spraying chemicals on their own citizens, or sabotaged paul wellstone's plane. in this environment, they could seriously be doing anything and there's absolutely no way of knowing one way or another.

the only thing we can do is poo poo the ideas as being ridiculous and hope that they really are.


Occam's Razor is best applied here.  To actually support a claim like "the government created AIDS to kill minorities" without any direct evidence is pretty ridiculous.  The most ridiculous thing about it is that AIDS has been around for quite some time.  The earliest known case was not even verified as being AIDS until recently.

"In late 1968, a 15-year-old African-American male known only as Robert R. (his last name was kept private) was admitted to a hospital in St. Louis following a breakdown of his immune system and aggressive Kaposi's sarcoma. Doctors were baffled, and Robert's condition worsened over the next few months, and he died following a bout with pneumonia in April 1969. In 1987, Dr. Theresa Witte, one of the physicians who cared for Robert, asked a fellow doctor to test some of Robert's tissue samples. All three tests came up positive. While it is almost certain that he caught the disease through sexual intercourse, it is not known whether he caught it through homosexual or heterosexual sex; however, some of his physicians suspected that Robert was gay. He had never been to Africa or out of the midwest meaning Robert was likely infected by a person in America who already had AIDS, but who remains unidentified.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_early_AIDS_cases

It's more than just a hunch we have to discredit Wright's allegations.  It's logic and historical record that thoroughly discredit his hysteria.  There is a wealth of evidence that proves AIDS started in Africa, and the most substantial theory suggests AIDS started as a result of people eating monkeys' brains (the monkeys having AIDS to begin with).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060525-aids-chimps.html

It would be more believable to assume the government spread AIDS to minorities intentionally, but even then, it's little more than the 9/11 truther nonsense when it comes to actual evidence.

My argument was that the government is likely to do anything it wants when its people decide to show daily apathy. If you honestly believe that they wouldn't, then you are in a form of trouble that I can't help you with.

I am fully aware of the history of AIDS, thank you.


You mentioned the Tuskegee experiments, but that was a controlled study.  There would be no logical reason to spread AIDS to minorities in open society because it could then spread to everyone.  It would be more believable to assume the government did a secret study on homeless people with AIDS than to believe they spread it to free society, because it wouldn't serve anyone's best interest to do the latter.

It sounds like you're letting your emotions and suspicions get the better of your reason.

Well amongst other things, Wright said that the federal goivernment "crreated AIDS" in order to kill black men.

Which is a bit odd because more whites have died from AIDS than blacks (in America that is)


(I can't wait to get my own actual computer, I was typing in response to this and the window got removed during the preview, $%^$)

I remember hearing "God **** America" and some speaking out against the media(heck I think the news and media are full of **** too, which is why I don't watch the news or TV for the most part).

You mentioned the Tuskegee experiments, but that was a controlled study.  There would be no logical reason to spread AIDS to minorities in open society because it could then spread to everyone.  It would be more believable to assume the government did a secret study on homeless people with AIDS than to believe they spread it to free society, because it wouldn't serve anyone's best interest to do the latter.

It sounds like you're letting your emotions and suspicions get the better of your reason.


Excuse me? My reason is in full control. A controlled study? As if that makes a difference. Guinea pig experiments have been long established in this country. You'd be quite surprised.

It sounds as if you are letting your ignorance serve as a guise for topic knowledge.

Excuse me? My reason is in full control. A controlled study? As if that makes a difference. Guinea pig experiments have been long established in this country. You'd be quite surprised.

It sounds as if you are letting your ignorance serve as a guise for topic knowledge.


Given the inherent angst shown in this response, I beg to differ.  Guinea pig experiments do indeed exist, but not involving things as dire as spreading AIDS to people.

You mention your topic knowledge on this, so why not provide a link to an experiment involving something comparable to spreading AIDS to people?  You seem quite convinced the government is doing things like that, so I'd like to know what comparable things they've done.

To be fair, I don't like our government much either, but I generally limit my suspicions to realistic premises, like the idea that the Iraq invasion occurred to support the war profiteering of companies like Halliburton.  There is a lot of evidence to support a suspicion like that, and the reason things like that occur is because of the money that can be made.

There's not much money to be made in heightening the misery of the black community by spreading AIDS in it.  Now, the government has done some very irresponsible things with regard to drug policy that have harmed the black community, but that's a different discussion altogether.

well, the government has exploded atomic weapons and deliberately exposed soldiers to it to test the effects it would have on them. hell, when they first tested the a-bomb in trinity new mexico they didn't know if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere but they did it anyway. and they were quite clear that they were willing to have a nuclear war that would end life on earth. if they did do something like release AIDS who knows what rationalization they told themselves to convince themselves it was worthwhile. for one thing if they thought they weren't going to have sex or do drugs they probably wouldn't get it and to hell with the people who would. it's like all these preachers who say that the folks in katrina deserved what happened to them because they're gay or we deserved to have 911 happen to us because we tolerate lesbians. i mean seriously, dude, these people are CRAZY. they make reverend wright look like dr. spock.

Actually, blacks and hispanics are dying more from AIDS in America, especially women. It's not odd at all. Look up the Tuskegee Experiment.


Since the inception of the AUDS epidemic, calculating deaths from way back when it was called "GRIDS", more whites have died from the disease in the United States than any other racial group.

That said, today... twenty-five years into the epidemic you are correct that black and hispanic whites are dying in greater numbers than non-hispanic whites.

As to the Tuskegee reference, are you implying that somehow the government shoved contaminated needles into the veins of minorities, or somehow intrude on their love lives to implant the virus?

Because I kinda think that Gia Carangi, John Holmes, and Magic Johnson (a white drug addicted model, a white hetero, and a black athlete) would all say that they caught it by having promiscuous sex or doing drugs.  Arthur Ashe and Ryan White got theirs from transfusions.  Nothing racial about those modalities.

People do not get AIDS because the government did something to them.  They get it either because:  (a) They are promiscuous or connect with promiscuous peoiple and do not protect themselves, (b) they use contaminated needles, (c) received a contaminated blood transfusion from an AIDS victim, or (d) received it at birth from somebody in categories a, b, or c.  And category (c) is exceedingly rare these days.  Category (a) sux, but that's why they invented condooms, although if somebody gets it because their cheating husband has been sneaking around on the down low, partying with druggies, it is somewhat outside their control.

So... if AIDS was a government plot to kill blacks then it would have been quite a masterstroke.  "Hey, let's create a disease that first kills all sorts of gay white men, random blood transfusion recipients, and white druggies.  Eventually they will wise up and reduce their own incidence rate, and then the blacks will get it instead".  But to believe this story contains quite a bt of racism in itself, because it would mean that one can assume that some races care more about their health than others...

In 2008, twety-five years into AIDS epidemic, the vast VAST VAST VAST majority of people (white, black, any race) who get AIDS get it due to their own irresponsibility and it is preventable (I exclude the minor modalities of blood transfusion, birth, and catching-from-hisband).  The epidemic will not stop until people use more judgement, or an absolute curative medicine is discovered.

Note... having AIDS sux big time.  I am not saying that the people who get it (regardless of how) somehow "deserve it".  It is a disease, not a "punishment".  But it IS in the vast majority of cases PREVENTABLE.  And that PREVENTION is the responsibility if us as individuals making choices.

When I was a kid I got run over by a car.  I didn't get run over because I deserved it.  I got run over because I did not watch where I was crossing and so a car slammed into me. My bad.

if you believe the theory, you think the government created the virus, not that they physically were shoving needles into anyone to help propagate it. 

i just think it's interesting that the virus seems to favor infecting everyone whom the christian right thinks doesn't deserve to live anyhow. they wouldn't have had much more love for porn stars, gay whites or drug addicts than they seem to have for minorities and i don't know much about biology but i bet it would be possible to design a virus that propagates through anal sex and dirty needles. the mechanics of transmission are pretty simple and, by and large, except for blood transfusions, tends to absolve those the christian right might think redeemable.

you know, i started off not believing aids was a government product but if these are the arguments against it maybe it was. ;D the fact that it's possible, though deeply misguided, to say that people who got aids "deserve it" is exactly the point. the right wing hates these people and doesn't think they deserve to live. they've said so publicly repeatedly. and they get untold tens of billions of dollars a year to research bioweapons, clandestine operations, whatever, and we have no idea what they do with it.

So... if AIDS was a government plot to kill blacks then it would have been quite a masterstroke.  "Hey, let's create a disease that first kills all sorts of gay white men, random blood transfusion recipients, and white druggies.  Eventually they will wise up and reduce their own incidence rate, and then the blacks will get it instead".  But to believe this story contains quite a bt of racism in itself, because it would mean that one can assume that some races care more about their health than others...


HIV is a terrible disease, but it's a piss poor biological weapon: it's non-selective, requires a direct vector for infection, takes too long to act (if you're assuming a genocidal angle...) and is only passed on in childbirth ~1/3 of the time. There's also no cure, and unleashing such a virus into the general population would be the work of a sheer madman (or organization) that wanted everyone dead or to suffer. One has to have a really warped imagination to think that is even possible. Josef Mengele would look like Mother Teresa compare to this hypothetical individual. Even if our government designed it (extremely unlikely) and it got away from them, there is no way it was purposefully designed to kill minorities, gays or drug users.

Making a virus that can selectively target certain types of people is still beyond our ability, and hopefully ever beyond our humanity.

Ant

well, the government has exploded atomic weapons and deliberately exposed soldiers to it to test the effects it would have on them. hell, when they first tested the a-bomb in trinity new mexico they didn't know if it would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere but they did it anyway. and they were quite clear that they were willing to have a nuclear war that would end life on earth. if they did do something like release AIDS who knows what rationalization they told themselves to convince themselves it was worthwhile. for one thing if they thought they weren't going to have sex or do drugs they probably wouldn't get it and to hell with the people who would. it's like all these preachers who say that the folks in katrina deserved what happened to them because they're gay or we deserved to have 911 happen to us because we tolerate lesbians. i mean seriously, dude, these people are CRAZY. they make reverend wright look like dr. spock.


Yes, but the question is...  Do you really think the people running our government now are THAT crazy?  I mean, Bush is definitely incompetent and idiotic, but he's not crazy.

Back when AIDS first appeared in America, our government might have had some evil or maybe even crazy people in it, but...  would there have been enough crazy people present to orchestrate an AIDS epidemic, especially when you consider how little any of us even knew about it?

Even on a basic logical level, it wouldn't make any sense to start an epidemic because of the risks involved.  Again, the Tuskegee experiments were controlled and behind closed doors.  They were very much evil, but they had no potential to affect society as a whole.

The atomic experiments were also controlled, and while the risk of setting the atmosphere on fire was not a foregone conclusion, those were desperate times.  We were in the midst of a war unlike any seen before.  We were desperate to find solutions.  The same can't be said for when AIDS first appeared (we were in a war, but we weren't anywhere near as desperate).  Also, there would be no appreciable benefit to spreading AIDS to the black community or any other group for that matter.

if you believe the theory, you think the government created the virus, not that they physically were shoving needles into anyone to help propagate it. 

i just think it's interesting that the virus seems to favor infecting everyone whom the christian right thinks doesn't deserve to live anyhow. they wouldn't have had much more love for porn stars, gay whites or drug addicts than they seem to have for minorities and i don't know much about biology but i bet it would be possible to design a virus that propagates through anal sex and dirty needles. the mechanics of transmission are pretty simple and, by and large, except for blood transfusions, tends to absolve those the christian right might think redeemable.

you know, i started off not believing aids was a government product but if these are the arguments against it maybe it was. ;D the fact that it's possible, though deeply misguided, to say that people who got aids "deserve it" is exactly the point. the right wing hates these people and doesn't think they deserve to live. they've said so publicly repeatedly. and they get untold tens of billions of dollars a year to research bioweapons, clandestine operations, whatever, and we have no idea what they do with it.


If you believe the above conspiracy for the reasons you listed, then you're ignoring the fact that the lifestyles that right-wingers target do tend to be risky.

I'm against the War on Drugs, but that doesn't mean that I think doing heroin or sharing needles is a good thing.

I'm in favor of gay rights, but I realize that it is far more likely to get AIDS in this country from unprotected gay sex than from unprotected straight sex because of sheer statistics.

I think premarital sex with multiple partners is fun and not immoral, but I also realize that the more partners you have, the more you up the chances of catching an STD or more specifically, AIDS.

So, I think you're using a fallacious sense of causation here due to the fact that, even if AIDS didn't exist, these lifestyles would lead to more health issues than the typical monogamous right wing hatemongering one.

It sucks that the nature of life can sometimes serve to fallaciously validate right wing prejudices, but that doesn't mean that right wingers are behind it.  It just means they let their prejudices overrule their logic, but by the same token, conspiracy theorists like to do the same because they WANT to believe religious nuts are behind everything.

If anything, take comfort in knowing that most religious nuts are nothing more than incompetent idiots with loud mouths.

I don't believe AIDS was any kind of government conspiracy, but it did not help for Reagan to make like it didn't exist for four years.

Since the inception of the AUDS epidemic, calculating deaths from way back when it was called "GRIDS", more whites have died from the disease in the United States than any other racial group.

That said, today... twenty-five years into the epidemic you are correct that black and hispanic whites are dying in greater numbers than non-hispanic whites.

As to the Tuskegee reference, are you implying that somehow the government shoved contaminated needles into the veins of minorities, or somehow intrude on their love lives to implant the virus?

Because I kinda think that Gia Carangi, John Holmes, and Magic Johnson (a white drug addicted model, a white hetero, and a black athlete) would all say that they caught it by having promiscuous sex or doing drugs.  Arthur Ashe and Ryan White got theirs from transfusions.  Nothing racial about those modalities.

People do not get AIDS because the government did something to them.  They get it either because:  (a) They are promiscuous or connect with promiscuous peoiple and do not protect themselves, (b) they use contaminated needles, (c) received a contaminated blood transfusion from an AIDS victim, or (d) received it at birth from somebody in categories a, b, or c.  And category (c) is exceedingly rare these days.  Category (a) sux, but that's why they invented condooms, although if somebody gets it because their cheating husband has been sneaking around on the down low, partying with druggies, it is somewhat outside their control.

So... if AIDS was a government plot to kill blacks then it would have been quite a masterstroke.  "Hey, let's create a disease that first kills all sorts of gay white men, random blood transfusion recipients, and white druggies.  Eventually they will wise up and reduce their own incidence rate, and then the blacks will get it instead".  But to believe this story contains quite a bt of racism in itself, because it would mean that one can assume that some races care more about their health than others...

In 2008, twety-five years into AIDS epidemic, the vast VAST VAST VAST majority of people (white, black, any race) who get AIDS get it due to their own irresponsibility and it is preventable (I exclude the minor modalities of blood transfusion, birth, and catching-from-hisband).  The epidemic will not stop until people use more judgement, or an absolute curative medicine is discovered.

Note... having AIDS sux big time.  I am not saying that the people who get it (regardless of how) somehow "deserve it".  It is a disease, not a "punishment".  But it IS in the vast majority of cases PREVENTABLE.  And that PREVENTION is the responsibility if us as individuals making choices.

When I was a kid I got run over by a car.  I didn't get run over because I deserved it.  I got run over because I did not watch where I was crossing and so a car slammed into me. My bad.


I used the reference to say that anything's possible with regards to the government. I do not agree about AIDS. I don't agree with the thought that some races care more about their health. It's all about opportunity and some groups are not given fair assessment and treatment, especially when you pair it with financial means.

I used the reference to say that anything's possible with regards to the government. I do not agree about AIDS. I don't agree with the thought that some races care more about their health. It's all about opportunity and some groups are not given fair assessment and treatment, especially when you pair it with financial means.



There is no real way to give a fair assessment to some groups.  If you're dealing with Spanish, there is such shame if a person has AIDS from the Spanish community that the person may never get proper treatment. If were talking about the gay community, go to any M.C.C.church you'll find that there are very few males between the ages of 35-60.  Why? Because of AIDS.  Most in the gay community accept it as a fact of life.  Not only that they have to deal with people who have the same views as Huckabee has about people with AIDS.  Stick them all on an island away from every one else.

There is no real way to give a fair assessment to some groups.  If you're dealing with Spanish, there is such shame if a person has AIDS from the Spanish community that the person may never get proper treatment. If were talking about the gay community, go to any M.C.C.church you'll find that there are very few males between the ages of 35-60.  Why? Because of AIDS.  Most in the gay community accept it as a fact of life.  Not only that they have to deal with people who have the same views as Huckabee has about people with AIDS.  Stick them all on an island away from every one else.

The Methodists?
???

The Methodists?
???


No, Metropolitian Community Church.  It's a church mainly for the GLBT community because they're usually not accepted in their own denomination.

No, Metropolitian Community Church.  It's a church mainly for the GLBT community because they're usually not accepted in their own denomination.


What is GLBT?

What is GLBT?




Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender

Ant

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080511/lnq080512.gif


In case you can't read it:  http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080512/cx_nq_uc/nq20080512




Cat

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender

Ant


the GLBTA:  The Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual Transit Authority.

Ring, ring, ring goes the trolley....

(The is is a test to see just how far PC has gone around here!)
;)

  and i don't know much about biology but i bet it would be possible to design a virus that propagates through anal sex and dirty needles.


I'm gonna pull techno-rank here - what you suggest is barely possible (read: the required technologies are glimmers in the eye of the people writing open literature, so I'm going to blindly assume the existence of a conspiracy group that isn't publishing in the open literature and is a good decade ahead of the times) today.  It really wasn't possible in the 70s.  Not even close.

So suppose you're a techno-ignorant senator in the 00s -- why, the Internet's "not a dumptruck, it's a a series of tubes".  Now wind the clock back 20 years and suppose you're an even-more-bio-ignorant politician in the 80s -- who cares about this "weird disease that only kills gays and drug users".  Who cares about either issue as long as most of your constituents are just as ignorant, right?  Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. 

No matter where you stand on this, you're all going to want to stop an read Greg Egan's The Moral Virologist.  By 2020-2030, something like that story will probably be possible for a government, and by 2050-2100, any colllege student should be able to pull it off.  The super-duper-classified work being done today is probably being done to anticipate threats like the one illustrated in the story.  I hope.  Because if it's not, the future won't be quite like that... it'll probably be worse.

the GLBSTA:  The Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual Transit Authority.

Ring, ring, ring goes the trolley....

(The is is a test to see just how far PC has gone around here!)
;)


It would be in a color of a rainbow.

the GLBSTA:  The Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual Transit Authority.

Ring, ring, ring goes the trolley....

(The is is a test to see just how far PC has gone around here!)
;)


There's no way bull dykes and gay guys deemed "fabulous" would ever be caught on the same bus. (I'm going to get nailed by someone for that.)

It would be in a color of a rainbow.


With Judy Garland songs blaring. Yep, sounds like Gay Pride mass transit to me.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080511/lnq080512.gif


In case you can't read it:  http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080512/cx_nq_uc/nq20080512




Cat


Haha I like that one, Cat!

There's no way bull dykes and gay guys deemed "fabulous" would ever be caught on the same bus. (I'm going to get nailed by someone for that.)

Not to call your bluff ma'am, but up where I live, I've seen them on the same bus!
:D

Not to call your bluff ma'am, but up where I live, I've seen them on the same bus!
:D


You Northerners are more evolved and progressive.  Where I am the GLBT community barely exist and even that is fragmented.