Elizabeth Dole Says "Fück You" To Americans With AIDS

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Are you kidding me Liddy? You want to rename an AIDS funding bill after the late and unlamented Jesse Helms (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S6655&position=all)?
Originally Posted by Joe. My. God. (http://tinyurl.com/6ycd4e) (language NSFW)
Jesse Helms, the man who in 1987 described (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/conservatives-a.html) AIDS prevention literature as "so obscene, so revolting, I may throw up."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1988 vigorously opposed (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1871) the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS research bill, saying, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 1995 said (http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/1995/AP950702.html) (in opposition to refunding the Ryan White Act) that the government should spend less on people with AIDS because they got sick due to their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct."

Jesse Helms, the man who in 2002 announced (http://www.thebody.com/content/art19610.html) that he'd changed his mind about AIDS funding for Africa, but not for American gays, because homosexuality "is the primary cause of the doubling and redoubling of AIDS cases in the United States."

Liddy, do ya think maybe, just maybe, that you could find a more appropriate bill to remember him by?

[Kevy Baby]

Well, there is a small part of me that would find this funny (if the re-naming went through). It would be like rubbing his nose in his own idiocy by naming something he would have voted against (and spent his whole life rallying against) after him.

But I still say no.

BTW: so far, I can only find one link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/elizabeth-dole-tries-to-n_n_113054.html) to this story (besides the one above) and it is basically a link to the Joe.My.God story. I would really like to see more on this.

[Gemini Cricket]

Half of me says, 'Ugh!' the other half of me finds it funny.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Yeah, me too. I mean, she can't mean this any way but ironically, right?

...right?

[Moonliner]

Seeing as how I live near "Regan National Airport (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-06-10-taylor-vignette_x.htm)" this whole issue sounds like business as usual for our Marie Antoinette'ish government.

[Morrigoon]

Yeah, me too. I mean, she can't mean this any way but ironically, right?

...right?
I would hope so. This is a woman who held a major position in the Red Cross, after all. And in an ironic sense, it's the ultimate f-you to Helms.

[Chernabog]

Yeah, me too. I mean, she can't mean this any way but ironically, right?

...right?

I don't know, maybe her position on "abstinence-only" prevention would be telling (which I honestly don't know).

[innerSpaceman]

But Moonie is right. Regan Airport is not an ironic tribute to the traffic controllers he made a point of screwing over.

This is not irony by Libby. It's the same old fvck you.

[Alex]

A few things, though this is, regardless, a PR blunder of biggy proportions:

1. I've seen it reported that she is trying to remove Henry Hyde's name from the title of the bill and replace it with Jesse Helms. That's not accurate (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2008_record&page=S6655&position=all), the proposed amendment changes "This act may be cited as the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde ..." to "This act may be cited as the Tom Lantos, Henry J. Hyde, and Jesse Helms..."

2. Tom Lantos and Henry Hyde both recently passed away so it is possible that Dole (or which ever staffer put this in front of her for rubber stamping) didn't think it through and just though the bill name was just a tribute to recently deceased congress critters and that Helms should be included.

3. It isn't just an AIDS funding bill but also a bill for funding efforts against malaria and tuberculosis. I have no idea where Helms stood on those issues.

But if done out of spite or some sense that Helms specifically should be mentioned on the issue of AIDS it is pretty skanky. I'm not familiar in detail with her specific policy positions on gay rights, AIDS research, etc., so for a bit I'll give the benefit of the doubt on this just being an ill-considered pro forma amendment.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Well, reading the page from the Congressional Record, it does look as if Libby may indeed have been making a "funny." The bill is regarding the appropriations for fiscal years 2009-2013 to provide assistance to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, etc. The amendment proposed (among other amendments by other people) would have added Helms' name to the bill, and the amendment was tabled.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Just read Alex's post, I'm now going with "(misguided) tribute to dead guys."

[Alex]

Though I am pleased to see that immediately prior (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S6654&dbname=2008_record) to put this amendment proposal into the record the Senate dealt with the pressing issue of naming the week of September 8 to be National Direct Support Professional Recognition Week. (Though immediately before (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S6653&dbname=2008_record) that they did express the sense of the Senate that Russia should be less of a dick.)

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I don't know, maybe her position on "abstinence-only" prevention would be telling (which I honestly don't know).

Well, I know some people who are gay-friendly but teach abstinence to kids. Hell, if I had a kid, although I'd teach them the basics of safe sex, I'd definitely encourage them to try not to have sex for as long as possible. It can make relationships very challenging. (I'm thinking of the Joss Whedon metaphor of partner-becomes-monster thing. It happens to many young people.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Well, I know some people who are gay-friendly but teach abstinence to kids. Hell, if I had a kid, although I'd teach them the basics of safe sex, I'd definitely encourage them to try not to have sex for as long as possible. It can make relationships very challenging. (I'm thinking of the Joss Whedon metaphor of partner-becomes-monster thing. It happens to many young people.)Teaching that abstinence is a better choice is different than the "abstinence-only" crowd. The "abstinence-only" movement wants to ban any education on birth control from education, disallow it from being taught. Dangerous sh*t if you ask me (and the data, in terms of pregnancy and STD rates, from existing abstinence-only education programs combined with the proven falsehoods offered by available abstinence-only curricula rather supports my view).

I'm all for stressing that abstinence is the only 100% guaranteed form of birth control/STD protection, and that it has arguably beneficial psychological benefits. But saying it's the most responsible choice is a far cry from pretending other choices don't exist and, more to the point, not properly preparing kids to deal with the realities, responsibilities, and consequences of those other choices. The only thing worse than an irresponsible young adult is an entirely uninformed irresponsible young adult.

[Strangler Lewis]

Well, I know some people who are gay-friendly but teach abstinence to kids. Hell, if I had a kid, although I'd teach them the basics of safe sex, I'd definitely encourage them to try not to have sex for as long as possible. It can make relationships very challenging. (I'm thinking of the Joss Whedon metaphor of partner-becomes-monster thing. It happens to many young people.)

I basically agree with you because sex can have serious physical consequences. On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid emotional upset, I think more heartache would be avoided if high school kids were taught not to avoid sex but relationships that their minds, libidos, and long term plans can not rationally support.

[Strangler Lewis]

The internet is a powerful thing. I just got an e-mail notification from Classmates.com that the person who inspired the previous post visited my profile last week. Perhaps Euro got a similar notice.

Anyway, I visited her right back. It's only been 24 years. After all, I've recently resumed contact with a childhood friend after 30 years.

But, back on track. I'm with the OP on Elizabeth Dole. Just another example of this childless, aggressive career woman trying to pass herself off as a family values conservative.

[Not Afraid]

I basically agree with you because sex can have serious physical consequences. On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid emotional upset, I think more heartache would be avoided if high school kids were taught not to avoid sex but relationships that their minds, libidos, and long term plans can not rationally support.

Agreed.

I've never understood why people choose abstinence other than for reasons of pregnancy or disease. Sex is good! Enjoy it.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Sex is good! Enjoy it.

Oh, I quite agree. But when is a young person emotionally ready for it? I'm not one to deny that children are inclined towards sex. (I was, after all, caught masturbating at five.) But when do you cross the line from "sex is something wonderful and healthy that you do when you're emotionally ready for it" and "sex is something wonderful and healthy, go for it"? Surely it depends on every child... but I would think that some of them (myself included) think they're ready before they really are. For me, it's not a "sex is dirty/sex is bad" message I would send with encouragement for young abstinence. I just know from my youthful experience that sex can make things really complicated, and if you don't have totally open communication and honesty, when two people have different expectations, different fears, and different tastes, things can get confusing. Particularly when you're just learning the ropes of romantic interpersonal behavior.

As for encouraging them not to have relationships with the people they're drawn to... I have only seen that backfire and put distance between the parents and the children. Heh, look what it did to Romeo and Juliet. But then, encouraging abstinence can backfire just as much.

[Strangler Lewis]

I was, after all, caught masturbating at five.

As was I. So now I get up at four.

As for encouraging them not to have relationships with the people they're drawn to... I have only seen that backfire and put distance between the parents and the children. Heh, look what it did to Romeo and Juliet. But then, encouraging abstinence can backfire just as much.

Would people have relationships in high school if they weren't scorned for doing otherwise? How much should high school relationships be considered "practice" for grown up relationships or marriage.

[katiesue]

Would people have relationships in high school if they weren't scorned for doing otherwise? How much should high school relationships be considered "practice" for grown up relationships or marriage.

I read something about this a while ago but now I can't find it. They did a study and found that people who'd had relationships in high school had more successful relationships as adults than those who didn't. The ones who did had more realistic expectations of their relationships. The ones who didn't had more romantic expectations so ended up frustrated and dissapointed.

[Alex]

I married my high school relationship. It didn't go well.

[NirvanaMan]

But Moonie is right. Regan Airport is not an ironic tribute to the traffic controllers he made a point of screwing over.

One of the best governmental moves ever!

An ultra-rare occurrence of common sense action.

Makes me smile every time I think about it.

[tracilicious]

I married my high school relationship. It didn't go well.


Ditto!