Wash. Times' Pruden mocks "hysterics," including those who warned of AIDS epidemic
SUMMARY: In his latest column, The Washington Times' Wes Pruden wrote: "We were all supposed to be dead now, done in by AIDS, the gift of the gays. After that it was SARS, bequeathed to the world by China. Then it was avian flu, which, to be fair to the alarmists, did in fact result in the deaths of millions. The millions were all chickens, true, but chickens have feelings, too." According to the United Nations, at least 1 million people have died from AIDS-related illnesses every year since 1997 and at least 2 million every year since 2003.
In a June 17 Washington Times column in which he downplayed global climate change by comparing it to other perceived "terrors" that "subsided, done in by reality," Times editor emeritus Wesley Pruden wrote of the AIDS virus: "We were all supposed to be dead now, done in by AIDS, the gift of the gays." Pruden continued: "After that it was SARS, bequeathed to the world by China. Then it was avian flu, which, to be fair to the alarmists, did in fact result in the deaths of millions. The millions were all chickens, true, but chickens have feelings, too. You could ask the folks at PETA."
Contrary to Pruden's suggestion, AIDS has in fact killed millions. In its December 2007 "AIDS epidemic update," the United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS estimated that there were 2.1 million AIDS-related deaths worldwide in 2007. According to a chart included in the report, at least 1 million people are estimated to have died from AIDS-related illnesses every year since 1997 and at least 2 million every year since 2003.
Since the late 1980s, Pruden has repeatedly downplayed HIV/AIDS, asserting, even as recently as 2005, that "after all these years AIDS remains a disease almost altogether of homosexuals and drug addicts and the unfortunate women who hang out with them." In a March 16, 1990 (accessed via Nexis), Times column, Pruden wrote: "In fact, 'the AIDS epidemic,' like AIDS for heterosexuals, is a myth. But it's a convenient one. The epidemic, to use the term everyone else does, actually peaked in 1988, and the incidence of new cases has been declining since. By the year 2000, these epidemiologists conclude, the yearly number of new AIDS cases will be 'very low.' " In the same column, Pruden wrote: "In the beginning, AIDS was promoted as an equal-opportunity killer. The facts, readily evident in the statistics available to anyone who troubled to look, rendered such propaganda nonsense. The average heterosexual man, even one indulging in casual partners, is likelier to contract breast cancer."
Pruden has made similar statements in numerous other columns going back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. For instance, in a July 28, 1989, column, Pruden wrote:
Hence the blarney, like that spread around by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, that "the growing number of cases is expected to make AIDS one of the leading causes of premature death in the United States by 1992."
Well, yes. Of course, you could if you wanted to hear yourself sound similarly silly argue -- logically -- that death is the leading cause of death.
AIDS, which is a dreadful disease, has never been a threat to the general population. This does not make it any less dreadful, nor does it make it any less urgent to find an effective treatment, a cure and a vaccine. But when the media and the activists repeat the big lie that it's a threat to everyone the only vaccine anyone will get is a vaccine against the big lie.
And from a May 16, 1990, column:
The brassy arrogance of the homosexual lobby is enough to test the patience of the most devout of the Judeo-Christians, whoever they may be. That lobby tried for years to sell AIDS as an equal-opportunity killer, insisting it was a disease that would one day soon consume the entire heterosexual community.
This was bunk, as anyone who bothered to read the monthly statistics of mortality, as compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, could tell. The lurid headlines and sound bites warning the common folk that AIDS was on the way to get them, too, have been relegated to the dustbin of phony calamities past. Whatever bad things that might befall a heterosexual satyr, AIDS is not one of them. Teddy Kennedy hasn't lost any weight.
In a June 24, 1991, column, he asserted:
You can understand why "AIDS activists" want to eliminate the widely held public perception, which is correct, that AIDS is mostly a disease of drug addicts and homosexual men who practice anal intercourse. Nobody likes a stigma, though once everyone has AIDS -- the message the media sends relentlessly is that it's just a matter of time -- the same public will very likely start looking for scapegoats. And that won't be nice at all.
[...]
But the point -- which is studiously avoided -- is that AIDS is spread by and among people who, like snake handlers and wing-walkers, have a taste for taking high risks to get their pleasures, and willingly put innocents, like hemophiliacs and surgical patients, at risk.
More recently, in an April 29, 2003, column, Pruden again wrote that "heterosexual AIDS" is a "myth":
The SARS panic, if not the "epidemic," is remarkably similar to the panic over AIDS more than a decade ago. From the beginning AIDS was a disease clearly identified with homosexual men's love rituals intravenous drug users became a target group later but we were told that "everyone" was in peril. Tykes, teenagers and 80-year-old grannies were warned that they could be next to die, and we were treated to the spectacle of 6-year-olds being lectured in how to protect themselves against the risks of anal sex, no doubt rendering frightening the doo-doo jokes so popular in the first grade.
When "heterosexual AIDS" was exposed by events as the myth that some of us early on said it was, the fever for catastrophe subsided. The disease itself became controllable, and thus less fearsome. So it was time for another scary story around the campfire.
And in a February 22, 2005, column, Pruden asserted:
Medical considerations are overwhelmed, as they always are in discussions of AIDS, by hysteria and politics. The lavender lobby worries that the controversy will set up homosexual men as the guilty parties in endowing the community with the disease. That's because after all these years AIDS remains a disease almost altogether of homosexuals and drug addicts and the unfortunate women who hang out with them.
Nevertheless, the campaign continues to make AIDS an equal-opportunity disease. A few researchers now suggest that everyone, even the elderly white-haired Lutheran grannies of rural Minnesota famously harassed by airport security officers as suspected Islamist terrorists, be tested for HIV infection. This would be a criminal waste of resources that could be usefully applied to finding better treatment for the disease. Perhaps we could combine AIDS testing with airport security.
From Pruden's June 17 Washington Times column, "Not dead yet, and cooling":
We were all supposed to be dead now, done in by AIDS, the gift of the gays. After that it was SARS, bequeathed to the world by China. Then it was avian flu, which, to be fair to the alarmists, did in fact result in the deaths of millions.
The millions were all chickens, true, but chickens have feelings, too. You could ask the folks at PETA.
One by one these terrors subsided, done in by reality, which is never as much fun as telling ghost stories around the campfire. (Let's not forget the killer bees.) The hysterics in newsrooms and faculty lounges stumbled on, and finally found something truly hot, hot as in hip, and this one came with a messiah to lead us to heaven on earth. Now those hallelujahs and hosannas are beginning to subside as well. Reality is stripping even Al Gore of his priestly robes (in earth tones).
We're not supposed to call global warming "global warming" any more. That's so very 20th century. Now it's "climate change," just in time for the political high season, and convenient when the climate leaves the natural warming cycle and enters the cooling cycle, as it has done for millions of years. Climate change is the change that Obama, Hillary, John and the rest of us can all believe in, because changing is what the climate does best. Best of all, the hysteria so beloved by Chicken Little and his disciples is preserved, like the pickle we were never in.















Wow, Snoop, you mean there's a loophole? Great, I can continue in my Godless Heathen ways, but if I'm wrong and I wake up one day, and all of the Christians are flying into the sky and Beelzebub or whoever is being inaugurated,I just sign up on the spot?
Why would anybody bother joining before then? It's like insurance you can buy after the accident.
Rocket-propelled Christians flying into space! Cool... The sooner the better... ;>)
"the gift of the gays." ????
Can we take away the "tool" that conservative papers use to scrape the bottom of the barrel for columnists?
Offensive, false, and unabashedly bigoted. No surprise to see that the Washington Times published such a comment.
I sincerely hope some of Wesley Pruden's kids or grandkids are gay and ask dad or grandpa over Thanksgiving Dinner why he used homophobia to score a cheap point in a poorly written column.
If you want to mock global warming, then mock global warming. If you want to mock killer bees, then mock killer bees. These "terrors" or whatever one chooses to call them, have no specific personal face, no identifiable names attached.
However, when you mock AIDS, or SARS, or the avian flu, these do have names attached, and faces, and families, and victims, and lives torn apart, and loss, and sadness, and death.
How incredibly disrespectful this article is, Wes Pruden should be ashamed.
Unfortunately, I doubt that's possible.
I'll never understand conservatives. The Bush administration view of the "War On Terror" is such a perfect example of their inconsistencies. Fear the phony WMD's, fear the non-existent Iranian nukes, keep track of this week's terror alert color, and keep an eye out for anything Muslim - but by all means go on with life as usual in your travel, vacations, consumption of the nation's resources, and personal spending. Capturing the guy most responsible for 9/11 is almost now irrelevant and concern over global crisis are just hysteria. I think I'm wearing a bald spot from scratching my head!:)
Isn't Wesley Pruden that racist still at the Mmonie Times?
Yup, he is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-archibald/time-for-regime-change-at_b_29968.html
What an unimaginable scumbag this bastard is.
For the record, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus was MOST LIKELY introduced into the human population from TAINTED HEPATITIS B VACCINES TRIALS commenced in the late 1970s or 1980 !! There is ample evidence supporting this theory, the early vaccine was "grown" in simian tissue cultures and was very likely contaminated. Whether this was intentional or not remains a mystery. The fact that bastards such as this continue to refer to AIDS as the "gift of gays" shows the very type of mentality necessary for anyone who might have intentionally infected humans with HIV. Hey, Pruden, why are all the infected in Africa STRAIGHT????? To think Dan Rather was booted for so much less!!!
And more info for those who care to consider that gays have been targeted in one of the most horrific cases of genocide in the modern era:
http://notaids.com/en/node/84
Alcohol, pharmaceuticals and just a touch of paranoia.
Sweet dreams.
Where is the government "control" of energy use in any of the global warming proposals? It's all been taxes, subsidies and incentives to come up with alternatives. As the Right is so fond of saying, actions have consequences. Have sex with strangers--or with someone who has sex with strangers? Run the risk of getting AIDS. Drive a Hummer? contribute to glabal warming. There's no banning of Hummers or Energy rationing--just paying for your actions and developing opportunities to do things differently.
If you want to drive your 4x4 and don't want the Government to confiscate it, I'm on your side. If you're going to WHINE about increasing the PRICE for that activity, STFU.
I love when cons come on this site, aghast that people on the 'left' can experience an emotion as passionate as hate.
I guess the other side of that coin is - can people on the 'right' actually feel love? Is it possible?
"All right wing talk show hosts are racist bigots spewing hate" Come on - they're not and you know it.
K, you got me on that one. I haven't heard one yet that didn't spew some form of hate, (mild or strong) hate is still hate even if you couch it sweetly on the tongue.
Gee, got us there. For instance, look at this hate coming from a liberal saying that electing a progressive congress is tantamount to treason. Oh, snap! That's not a liberal, its Glenn Beck!
Then there's this liberal using his program to call for the murder of an anti war protester. Oops, double snap! That's no liberal, it's Ronnie Reagan's right wing son!
You're gonna have to help us out here, is there a different definition for hate when it comes to liberals?
Snoopy,
You're links are ultra left-wing blog sites.
Look, I could go to Newsbusters or Little Green Footballs and come up with endless examples of liberal bias and left-wing hate speech that would be dismissed here as right-wing blather. So what's the point?
I think Snoop was a bit off target. As I said in my response below, the issue is not so much hate as it is the hypocrisy of what the FCC considers to be obscene. We can't have any four-letter words, but we'll allow right-wingers to make 'conservative jokes' about killing babies and war protesters all day long.
You're links are ultra left-wing blog sites. So what's the point?
Goodfella, you claimed the right wing nuts on radio don't sprew hate. Where the information come from does not change the words that these nuts said.
“We ought to find the people who are doing this,” Reagan said, “take ‘em out, and shoot ‘em. Really. Just find the people who are sending those letters…to demoralize our troops…they are traitors to this country…and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. But anybody who would do that doesn’t deserve to live. You call them traitors–that’s what they are–and you shoot ‘em dead. I’ll pay for the bullet.”
The son of a former President is calling for innocent people to be shot! Their opinion does not mesh with his so shoot them.
In an interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Congressional Progressive Caucus member and the first Muslim elected to Congress, Beck asked, “What I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’”
This man Ellison is an American citizen who has a different religion. He was elected by American citizens who didn't think he was 'the enemy'. Who the h*ll is this nut Beck to request this man prove he's not the enemy?
They sprew hate each and every day and if you don't agree with them, if you speak out against them and if you're different your the enemy or you deserve to be shot.
There's a special place in h*ll for the folks that sprew the right wing propaganda.
You're right, Pearlene. Again, a very good post.
It seems to me that Beck and Reagan are the traitors here. While I don't espouse capital punishment in any form, for any reason, if anyone deserves to be shot as traitors, it would be the current administration, the cronies involved with it, and a$$holes like Beck and Reagan.
So Reagan wants to shoot people who send letters to the troops denouncing the war? Reagan wants to shoot people for exercising the rights guaranteed to them by our constitution? Really?
That sounds more like a traitor to me than any of the other "treasonous" actions mentioned by these two jagoffs.
Pearlene,
Well, I'm not a fan of Michael Reagan - The Beck quote I have heard and he has admitted that it was a "poorly worded question", but I do not consider it 'hate-speech'.
I still maintain that there is far more hatred, venom and just plain cruelty coming the left than the right.
You must be so proud of Al Franken.
"Well, I'm not a fan of Michael Reagan
[...]
You must be so proud of Al Franken."
Quick to disassociate yourself, and even quicker to associate others.
Of course you know, Pete, that when a con pulls out the association trick, it's because s/he is losing the argument...
They cannot argue the facts, because the facts aren't on their side.
Yesterday Randi Rhodes raised an excellent point about obscenity in radio content these days.
She finds it incredibly ironic that she is steadfastly forbidden from using four-letter words on the radio, yet we allow Michael Reagan to freely and happily talk all he wants about inserting grenades into babies' digestive tracts.
It really speaks to the greater issue of what's wrong with American censorship in general. Take motion pictures for example. Even some of the most explicit and horrific violence will merely earn a film an 'R' rating. But as far as nudity and sexual situations, anything beyond a breast or behind shot brings forth an 'NC-17' label.
A few researchers now suggest that everyone, even the elderly white-haired Lutheran grannies of rural Minnesota famously harassed by airport security officers as suspected Islamist terrorists, be tested for HIV infection. This would be a criminal waste of resources that could be usefully applied to finding better treatment for the disease.
I do agree with this statement though.
"We were all supposed to be dead now, done in by AIDS, the gift of the gays"
Obnoxious, even by right wing standards. AIDS didn't succeed in killing everyone on Earth therefore its not a problem. And the right wouldn't have to worry about gifts of the gays if they would narrow their stances in those airport bathrooms.
And the right wouldn't have to worry about gifts of the gays if they would narrow their stances in those airport bathrooms. -- Wookie
I hope you're not agreeing that AIDS is the gift of the gays...
The fact is the heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the US was a complete fabrication.
The epidemic in the developing world is an unrelated story. Epidemiologists are very careful about confusing first world and third world HIV.