WTF is wrong with Rev. Wright?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I would have thought mixing Masrxist ideaology with his theology would have been evidence of that.

He would hardly be alone in preaching the social gospel and the commie side of Jesus.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rah
I understand that he has the rare opportunity to use this for a national platform for his issues, but when you listen to Obama's initial comments he metioned the the good rev was more to him than just a rev but a friend.

If the rev considered Obama his friend, then taking advantage of the situation at his friends expense is a pretty crappy thing for a friend to do.

With friends like the rev and Resco, Obama doesn't need any enemies.

Resco was seriously a non issue. Who of us hasn't had a friend that was up to no good?

As for Wright turning on Obama, if you really thought you could do greater good for the world by turning on a friend, what would you do?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Given that I'm not a Christian, I'm in any position to answer that question.

Then what was the point of wasting bandwidth with the cartoon?

[snoopy369]

Rezko was a bit more than a 'friend'... I'm honestly surprised that wasn't a bigger issue than it has been (so far). I would be surprised if it doesn't become a bigger issue in November, particularly if McCain can dredge up something a bit more detailed about it.

[Darius871]

Incidentally I was closing out some files today and found out my 8-man department had the pleasure of repossessing Rezko's $40K Mercedes last week after his wife called in and said he would be "going away for a while." Naturally nobody processing it even knew the guy was famous (infamous that is). Not relevant or anything but it was just cool to see.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Hillary claims to represent the middle class. Should she really do that?

Probably not, but there's no big group that can incontrovertibly stand up, introduce itself as the true representative of the American middle class, and denounce her. The "black church" which Wright claims to speak for is hardly a monolithic entity, but if, say, the head of the African Methodist Episcopal church were to release a statement saying Wright does not represent them, he'd have no wiggle room unless he could somehow claim the whole church was a bunch of Oreos. His claim to legitimacy would be made utterly ridiculous. Perhaps this has already happened, or will happen soon; I don't pay much attention to what Protestants of any stripe do.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Elok


Probably not, but there's no big group that can incontrovertibly stand up, introduce itself as the true representative of the American middle class, and denounce her. The "black church" which Wright claims to speak for is hardly a monolithic entity, but if, say, the head of the African Methodist Episcopal church were to release a statement saying Wright does not represent them, he'd have no wiggle room unless he could somehow claim the whole church was a bunch of Oreos. His claim to legitimacy would be made utterly ridiculous. Perhaps this has already happened, or will happen soon; I don't pay much attention to what Protestants of any stripe do.

/me wonders what would happen if a Henry VIII figure were to emerge and split the church, selling off the land etc...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by MrFun


During the early AIDS crisis, there were a whole range of institutions and numerous individuals in positions of responsibility and power to immediately take vigorous action against the emerging AIDS threat.

Here's the difference between my perspective on the AIDS crisis from Wright's perspective: Wright says that the federal government DELIBERATELY INTRODUCED AIDS into United States as program of extermination of blacks.

I have never believed that the Reagan administration INTRODUCED the AIDS virus into United States with intent of exterminating gay people. What I believe, is that the Reagan administration, along with a myriad of other powerful individuals and institutions (some within the gay community at the time) shares blame for willful negligence in taking vigorous action against the early AIDS crisis and that homophobic bigotry was one of the motivations for such willful negligence among some of these people and institutions.

Yet, I do NOT argue that the Reagain administration took it upon itself to actually introduce the AIDS virus into United States, in the first place, with conscious intent of exterminating gay people.

"willful negligence" is a big claim, and one that wont really hold water.

Could more have been done? Maybe, but I recall presenting a Journal club article on an important paper that came out in 87 or 88 (Immunology Today I think). It was the first epidemiological study to show that mosquitos didnt spread HIV and that heterosexual spread of HIV was gonna "be big". Before that point, most ideas about HIV spread were guesswork. Good science (as opposed to media quackery) takes time.

Did the "gay plague" rubbish contribute to complacency? Maybe from a political perspective, but I didnt see it from the scientific one. Lets not forget that the amazing actions taken by the gay community to slow the spread of HIV amongst gays and heteros have unfortunately "worn off". That would have happened anyway IMO even if everyone had immediately understood the threat (which was impossible).

[Krill]

[q=Spencer]Could more have been done? Maybe, but I recall presenting a Journal club article on an important paper that came out in 87 or 88 (Immunology Today I think). It was the first epidemiological study to show that mosquitos didnt spread HIV and that heterosexual spread of HIV was gonna "be big". Before that point, most ideas about HIV spread were guesswork. Good science (as opposed to media quackery) takes time. [/q]

An unfortunate fact, that when we really need science it takes too long to do good science...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Berzerker
you mean small pox, Bubonic and AIDS all attack cells in a similar manner? And that the theory now is that small pox spread the immunity? I thought there was a geographic connection to the immunity - that where the Plague went it left behind a resistant population.

The plague was suggested as a possible mechanism to explain the timing of the spread of the CCR5 mutation (which is homozygous, ie protective, in about 1% of northern europeans) across the parts of Europe where the Vikings "visited". Smallpox makes much more sense on many levels though as the selective pressure necessary to maintain the mutant CCR5 allele.

[Krill]

The plague was suggested as a possible mechanism to explain the timing of the spread of the CCR5 mutation (which is homozygous, ie protective, in about 1% of northern europeans) across the parts of Europe where the Vikings "visited". Smallpox makes much more sense on many levels though as the selective pressure necessary to maintain the mutant CCR5 allele.

Wouldn;t hte small pox vaccine therefore remove the necessity of this allele and hence make the population "more" at risk to AIDS? Could be an arguement to stopping vaccinations...

[Kuciwalker]

No. That makes no sense. You're arguing to for people to die of smallpox so that fewer die of AIDS (in theory).

Of course, you're just spamming, so...

[Krill]

I never said it was a good argument or that I agree with it. TBH though, We've mapped 1 human genome, it's not like every single allele in existance is known, and vaccines are reducing the amount as the human race no longer requires the immunity. I think that attmepting to find every human allele in existance would be a good idea, though it's never going to happen.

[Kuciwalker]

TBH though, We've mapped 1 human genome

Actually, I believe we've mapped several. But your basic point is sound.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SpencerH


"willful negligence" is a big claim, and one that wont really hold water.

Could more have been done? Maybe, but I recall presenting a Journal club article on an important paper that came out in 87 or 88 (Immunology Today I think). It was the first epidemiological study to show that mosquitos didnt spread HIV and that heterosexual spread of HIV was gonna "be big". Before that point, most ideas about HIV spread were guesswork. Good science (as opposed to media quackery) takes time.

Did the "gay plague" rubbish contribute to complacency? Maybe from a political perspective, but I didnt see it from the scientific one. Lets not forget that the amazing actions taken by the gay community to slow the spread of HIV amongst gays and heteros have unfortunately "worn off". That would have happened anyway IMO even if everyone had immediately understood the threat (which was impossible).

As early as late 1980, a handful of scientists/doctors already recognized the "strange, new disease" as something that was destroying the victims' immune system. We were not as clueless as Reagan-bobble heads would like us to believe at that time.