Buckley Blather

I won't attempt a grand summary of the late William F. Buckley's legacy. The man was undeniably one of the great political forces of the 20th century--so too were Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman. But in seeking to capture the scope of his influence, writers on the left have taken to applauding Buckley's "brilliance."

My colleague John Nichols, for example, recently described Buckley as "intellectually bold and ideologically adventurous," and applauded his "political playfulness." John was writing about Buckley in the '60s, when he campaigned for mayor of New York City. But Buckley's so-called boldness and playfulness had an ideological flip-side: cruelty, pettiness and a tendency to embrace fascistic solutions in the guise of pragmatism.

Case in point, and as pointed out on Digby's blog, during the early days of the AIDS epidemic, Buckley suggested that "Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals."

Apparently, Buckley renounced this opinion after he discovered that his friend, McCarthy-ite and closeted homosexual Roy Cohn was dying of AIDS. But in 2005, Buckley relapsed. In a transparently homophobic article about a 26-year old, HIV-positive, drug-addicted sex fiend named "Tony Venenum" (I suppose in Bucklian parlance the pseudonym "Venenum" passes for wit), Buckley wrote:

"Someone, 20 years ago, suggested a discreet tattoo the site of which would alert the prospective partner to the danger of proceeding as had been planned. But the author of the idea was treated as though he had been schooled in Buchenwald, and the idea was not widely considered, but maybe it is up now for reconsideration."

Buckley was writing in the wake of sensationalistic articles in the New York Times about a so-called "superbug" version of HIV. The story, as David France documented in New York magazine, proved more fantasy than science. But it sure did inflame the homophobic imagination. But this time around, Buckley had strange bedfellows: the gay historian Charlie Kaiser, whose suggestion that passing HIV to someone was akin to putting "a bullet through another person's head" Buckley quoted approvingly, and Larry Kramer--whose Cassandra-complex reached full flight in his rant The Tragedy of Today's Gays (see my review in Salon).

In the final analysis, Buckley thought that unprotected sex was the same as "committing murder" and that "murderers need to be stopped." Now, someone tell me how such Neanderthal views on public health pass for brilliance or wit? Is anyone laughing? Maybe Norman Mailer said it best when he called Buckley a "second-rate intellect incapable of entertaining two serious thoughts in a row."

Comments (73)

1. Be sure and tell John Nichols!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 4:14pm

2. Buckley was instrumental in perpetuating elitist classism by maintaining that it didn't exist!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 4:16pm

3. He was a caricature of himself.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 4:17pm

4. Look into anyone's closet and there will be skeletons. And while it is fair game when someone is alive, to defend themselves, it is in bad taste afterwards. I don't agree with WFB, but then again I do agree with his way of logically and thoughtfully laying out a debate. He was not shrill, and this article is nothing but.

   John Nichols was right to celebrate Buckley's public life, if for no other reason than it is decent and it adds credibility to future arguments. Seriously taking the partyline or hardline stance will do nothing but undermine your future arguments.

   Shame.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 02/29/2008 @ 4:22pm

5. Posted by ZERO 02/29/2008 @ 4:18pm

   LOL!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 4:24pm

6. Posted by TZIMISCE 02/29/2008 @ 4:22pm

   That's a good point. Though I think Buckley was pretentious and arrogant, and strongly disagreed with his views, I also respected his sharp mind and mastery of logic.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 4:26pm

7. I think WFB would say he was pretentious and arrogant.

   Posted by Tzimisce at 02/29/2008 @ 4:30pm

8. Look into anyone's closet

   interesting choice of words.

   Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 4:48pm

9. How about "denounce, reject AND repudiate"!

   Posted by Metteyya at 02/29/2008 @ 5:29pm

10. Buckley thought that unprotected sex was the same as "committing murder" and that "murderers need to be stopped."

    Well, since HIV has been known to KILL people, I don't think he's so far out in left field.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 5:43pm

11. Buckley thought that unprotected sex was the same as "committing murder" and that "murderers need to be stopped."

    Well, since HIV has been known to KILL people, I don't think he's so far out in left field.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 5:43pm

    In that case, we had better start distributing condoms and promoting their usage, eh?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 5:46pm

12. Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 5:43pm

    Or encourage gay marriage since homosexual men are the most at risk to spread or acquire HIV/AIDS. Shouldn't we encourage this at-risk group to be monogomous?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 5:48pm

13. Isn't monogomy more reasonable, logical, and attainable than abstinence?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 5:50pm

14. we had better start distributing condoms and promoting their usage, eh?

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 5:46pm

    No, but we can let them get condoms themselves at any local grocery store. I was thinking more like a waiver stating that the partners understand that one or the other has HIV...that s/he could get infected with HIV...that HIV could lead to considerable discomfort, expense, and even death...and s/he still wishes to pursue sexual relations with him/her...there could even be a little box that they can check off stating they have refused the use of condoms. HIV folks carry it around and have potential partners sign it prior to any sex. With willing consent...no murder.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:11pm

15. since AIDS is no longer universally fatal, it is certainly not the same as murder.

    the statement also reveals an absence of pity and of humanity. also homosexual men are by no means the only ones affected by the virus.

    Buckley was a glib smartaleck, he was never a deep thinker.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:12pm

16. Or encourage gay marriage since homosexual men are the most at risk to spread or acquire HIV/AIDS. Shouldn't we encourage this at-risk group to be monogomous?

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 5:48pm

    Since when has marriage been required for monogamy?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:14pm

17. Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person

    this is just absurd. what world do you live in?

    in NYC the city distributes free condoms. smart move. the use of them still remains with the individual.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:16pm

18. since when has marriage meant the same as monogamy?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:16pm

19. "No, but we can let them get condoms themselves at any local grocery store."

    First, why charge for something that could potentially save many lives if an aggressive, proactive public service campaign of distributing them were instead employed?

    Second, who will be the detectives to determine who got AIDS from whom in a hypersexualized world of multi-partnered sex? Tax-paid state or federal employees? Better get ready to pay a lot more to fund a program that would likely prove ineffective in a cost/benefit ratio.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:17pm

20. let's start by giving gays the opportunity to get married. if it's as great as they say, why should they be deprived of it. are they not human? do they not bleed?

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:18pm

21. I don't equate marriage with monogomy, but I would infer that monogomy is probably overwhelmingly more likely in a married relationship than without.

    What's the real risk in allowing gay marriage? Seriously, is there an argument beyond "sanctity of marriag", or "protecting the traditional family", or some other moralistic implication with no logical basis?

    And what is the real risk in dropping the ineffective "abstinence education" programs and fully promote the distribution of condoms instead?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:22pm

22. why charge for something that could potentially save many lives if an aggressive, proactive public service campaign of distributing them were instead employed?

    Why charge people for food? Why charge people for clothes? Why charge people for...well...anything? Why ask people to be responsible for themselves? Oops. I forgot I was talking to a liberal...sorry.

    who will be the detectives to determine who got AIDS from whom in a hypersexualized world of multi-partnered sex?

    That's why they need the waiver. But I imagine all they would have to do is ask who slept with who.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:26pm

23. That's why they need the waiver. But I imagine all they would have to do is ask who slept with who.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:26pm

    And if they don't have the waiver, and a "crime" is committed, who will find the "criminal" infector? And if NO ONE decides to carry and/or use the waivers, who holds them accountable?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:31pm

24. And what is the real risk in dropping the ineffective "abstinence education" programs and fully promote the distribution of condoms instead?

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:22pm

    Umm...well, maybe some people don't want you preaching to their kids about birth control...maybe they disagree with its use. Why do you ignore their concerns? Because they're Christian?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:32pm

25. why charge for something that could potentially save many lives if an aggressive, proactive public service campaign of distributing them were instead employed?

    Why charge people for food? Why charge people for clothes? Why charge people for...well...anything? Why ask people to be responsible for themselves? Oops. I forgot I was talking to a liberal...sorry.

    Actually USC, there are food and clothes banks for needy people just about everywhere in the US, which sort of suggests that humans must care about each other on some level.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:32pm

26. Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:31pm

    The same way they find all the other murderers...by doing their job. Well, i guess technically it's not murder, since they aren't dead yet. Maybe aggravated assault.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:34pm

27. Umm...well, maybe some people don't want you preaching to their kids about birth control...maybe they disagree with its use. Why do you ignore their concerns? Because they're Christian?

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:32pm

    Religious idiots are free to disagree, and opt to not use them. Why hold the rest of the country to the standards of organized delusion?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:34pm

28. The same way they find all the other murderers...by doing their job. Well, i guess technically it's not murder, since they aren't dead yet. Maybe aggravated assault.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:34pm

    Do you see that we'd have to employ probably a whole new agency to enforce sucha ridiculous policy? Where can you guess that the money to pay such employees would come from? (hint: it's NOT private charity!)

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:36pm

29. Just because you hand someone a condom, it doesn't mean that person HAS to use it, but it will increase the likelihood of that person using it (and rightly so).

    Aren't Christians not supposed to have sex until they're married anyway? Why do they even play a factor in this then?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:38pm

30. Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:32pm

    I didn't realize condoms were on the same "basic necessity" level as food and clothing.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:42pm

31. But I imagine all they would have to do is ask who slept with who.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person

    this is completely nuts. what planet are you on? you go and ask strangers who they have sex with. you'll get a lot of honest answers. you are meshuggene.

    just an an individual can give charity, a society can give charity. I know it hasn't reached you yet, but the dog eat dog philosophy has been passe for some time.

    incidentally we do give away food, via food stamps, just like an individual

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:44pm

32. just as an individual...

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:45pm

33. I didn't realize condoms were on the same "basic necessity" level as food and clothing.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:42pm | ignore this person

    this is sophistry, a polite word for bullshit.

    condoms and their use cut down on sexually transmitted diseases. the state or city has an interest in that. that's why we vaccinate people, often at gov't expense. it is a sensible policy, it saves taxpayer money in reduced hospital admissions, fewer work hours lost etc.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:51pm

34. Religious idiots are free to disagree, and opt to not use them. Why hold the rest of the country to the standards of organized delusion?

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:34pm

    So it is because they are Christian...did you realize you were a bigot? But the question remains, Christians may not want their kids preached to about condoms...Maybe they want sex discussed based on their beliefs, not on the government's. Stupid, responsible parents!!! Just think, they have the audacity to discuss a serious topic with their kids. Curse you, resonsibility!!!

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:51pm

35. this is also the logic behind needle exchange programs. also a good idea and a worthy use of gov't funds.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 6:52pm

36. I didn't realize condoms were on the same "basic necessity" level as food and clothing.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:42pm

    Hey buddy, you brough food and clothes into the equation, not me! I never made such a suggestion!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:53pm

37. Do you see that we'd have to employ probably a whole new agency to enforce sucha ridiculous policy? Where can you guess that the money to pay such employees would come from? (hint: it's NOT private charity!)

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:36pm

    So you think that all HIV infected people will purposely run around trying to infect others??? And if they do we should just let them? Oh, you're just kidding, you big silly!

    Aren't you?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:54pm

38. Hey buddy, you brough food and clothes into the equation, not me! I never made such a suggestion!

    Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:53pm

    And you were the one that has a problem with people paying for things themselves. You didn't suggest that either.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 6:58pm

39. Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:51pm

    Fair enough, I may have been a bit harsh in expressing my views about religion.

    But when faith attempts to overshadow logic in public policy, I tend to err on the side of logic. Telling kids to "just say no and wait till marriage" has failed as a method of curbing the spread of disease. Condoms are significantly more effective. I know logic has little place in the obfuscated and delusional views of the right, but then I guess I'm a liberal so don't mind me!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 6:59pm

40. And you were the one that has a problem with people paying for things themselves. You didn't suggest that either.

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 6:58pm

    But I never said anything about "basic necessity". All I've been saying is "a better alternative to abstinece education".

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 7:00pm

41. Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 6:59pm

    "...public policy..."

    Where on the left is there room for responsibility? Why do you always take an issue and state unequivocally that we must turn it into public policy?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 7:11pm

42. Going home. WEEKEND!!! WOO-HOO!!!

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 7:12pm

43. "...public policy..."

    Where on the left is there room for responsibility? Why do you always take an issue and state unequivocally that we must turn it into public policy?

    Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 7:11pm

    Hopefully before you go....

    Wouldn't your waiver signing idea involve some level of public policy as well? At least it's enforcement would. Our society wouldn't be what it is, even under your man GWB, without public policy.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 02/29/2008 @ 7:14pm

44. UGH! I was on a roll and I somehow erased the whole thing! Let me see if I can remember my thought.

    As a gay man, I am quite entertained watching this little back-and-forth talking about something like gay intimacy without understanding some of the subtleties. I don't know a single gay man who isn't terrified of HIV. The main issue with what both of you are suggesting is it presumes knowledge. The majority of people who are infected with HIV don't tell their partners because they themselves have no idea they have it. HIV symptoms can take up to ten years to manifest themselves, and I don't know about you but I can do quite a bit in ten years. To say that an HIV-positive person is walking around with a loaded weapon assumes an intent that the individual may not have.

    Buckley's main problem on this issue was his absolute lack of compassion for those who are and were stricken by this disease, something that persists in conservative and Christian communities to this day. That is his main fault here, and we can remember his good debating skills but we can't forget the negatives just because he's left the mortal coil.

    Posted by yutsano at 02/29/2008 @ 7:49pm

45. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=yutsano

    ain't that a bitch. that has happened to me too.the best thing is to try and make it better the second time around.

    two of my best friends and mentors, who are gay, coped with the aids epidemic by celibacy. truly.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 8:31pm

46. The good guys were the better writers: Vidal, Mailer, Ginsburg. Buckley was a clever minor aristocrat, sweeping the ground for the truly dangerous beasts to cross. His magazine was supported by his betters because he was their creature. A disagreeable hack we're well rid of.

    Posted by JFHill at 02/29/2008 @ 9:09pm

47. Posted by MATTMAN 02/29/2008 @ 7:14pm

    This would not be public policy...it would be nothing but a way for an HIV infected person to protect himself from lateer prosecution...totally voluntary...a legal condom, if you will.

    Iwas actually trying to be satirical with this...I guess my literary skills need work.

    And my apologies for being rude with you earlier...rough day today.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 10:14pm

48. Posted by YUTSANO 02/29/2008 @ 7:49pm

    Terrified of HIV? Everything in your post suggests the opposite...if they're so scared, why aren't they anal retentive (pardon the expression) about using condoms every time they have sex? Or at least getting tested every month to find out if they have it? Why would you talk about how much you could do in 10 years? Doesn't sound terrified to me...sounds like people that couldn't care less...or are careless.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 10:22pm

49. Matt:

    To expand on my earlier question, why do liberals when discussing something like sex education go to public schools to preach it? This is obviously a persojal issue to many families who will disagree with what's being taught to their childrfen. Why don't liverals try to find a way to get the child's family more invovlved to teach the subject according to their values instead of government trying to rtake over?

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 10:30pm

50. HAHAHA. Whoo! Sorry for the typos. The (Blanton's) Manhattens are already taking effect...no more talkie for me tonight.

    More Manhattens, on the other hand...

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 10:35pm

51. Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 10:14pm | ignore this person

    satire is a tricky business. you are without a shred of sympathy or understanding of people.

    my friends decided to forego sex for decades, or the rest of their lives. how concerned do you think they were?

    the fear of aids also is pervasive in heterosexual relations.

    why do heteros not use condoms every single time? same reason. also maybe they don't have one, or maybe they don't have any money in their pocket to buy one. I don't know.

    I have been monogamously married for over twenty years.

    and I will not pardon the snide allusion to anal sex. hetero sex includes it and homo sex is not exclusively so.

    these posts show your limitations as a human being. you are not fooling anyone, you are a nasty creep.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 10:38pm

52. Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 10:30pm | ignore this person

    you are drunk, the spelling is hilarious.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/29/2008 @ 11:03pm

53. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/29/2008 @ 10:38pm

    Sheesh! What's up your ass? Never mind.

    you are without a shred of sympathy or understanding of people. You don't know me.

    my friends decided to forego sex for decades, or the rest of their lives Whoa, whoa, whoa. I thought abstinence was a ridiculous idea??? Sounds like it worked for your friends...maybe we should teach it to others?

    why do heteros not use condoms every single time? Not the issue. Yuts wants us to believe that gays are terrified of HIV...his post suggests the opposite.

    you are not fooling anyone, you are a nasty creep. No, I'm just a guy who grew up being taught the insane notion that actions have consequences and if you don't act respnsibly then you will likely suffer consequences...you know, more ridiculous ideas like personal responsibility...silly me.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 11:16pm

54. No more TUI.

    Enter Sandman.

    Posted by usc1 at 02/29/2008 @ 11:22pm

55. It is a common denominator to be in "the right" and be stranged of the qualities of empathy, sensitiveness, and compassion with the human condition. If only they would trade their fear for fullness in life, those who have forged the adjective "Christian".

    Posted by Frank42 at 03/01/2008 @ 04:49am

56. Do not talk ill of the dead. Why not? We talk ill of Hitler, Chengiz Khan, Stalin though they are long dead and gone. Buckley, Reagan, Milton Friedman certainly have been a force in the USA and hence in the world but still they were third rate intellectuals and even human beings. They correctly reflect the US populace. I am not saying that there are other nations that are better than us but we are the most powerful and hence our stupidity has more severe consequences. So Kim is right but only partly, he should blame the American public also for their most racist, homophobic, selfish, unchriatian tendencies. Mailer's comment applies to the most of us.

    Posted by rnagisetty at 03/01/2008 @ 08:26am

57. Posted by USC1 02/29/2008 @ 11:16pm | ignore this person

    I know you through your nasty and inhumane posts. that's all we know of anyone here.

    on exception, Maasch was generous enough to buy me meat and mead, so I know for a fact that he is who he represents himself at, and vice versa.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/01/2008 @ 11:29am

58. As `radical' as Buckley was on tatooing HIV carriers, at a time HIV was far, far more deadly, had it actually been done, one has to wonder how many millions would not be infected today. But then, Liberalism rears its head to `protect' the minority while endangering the majority!

    On the other hand, with less people infected today, perhaps there wouldn't be the money and attention focused on finding a cure to fix a problem still (more) associated w/gays, drug users and multi-sexual-partner types.

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2008 @ 11:36am

59. with less people infected today,

    with FEWER people...

    amazing how easily you are willing to throw away other people's privacy rights.

    you are ignorant on this subject, as you are on any other subject except maybe the market. I work in an industry, the arts, that was devastated by the illness, and I had friends who died and friends who survived.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/01/2008 @ 11:54am

60. I heard a rebroadcast of a 1989(?) interview with Fresh Air's Terri Gross. Two decades after the apex of civil rights movement, William F. Buckley maintained that white Southerners were right to demand literacy tests, because of their "higher civilization", and since blacks were (in his view) backward and less civilized, due to lack of education. He attempted to cover his tail by saying that he gave money to the NAACP out of genuine desire to address the plight of African Americans.

    Quite tellingly, when Terri Gross asked if he believed in universal suffrage, he said "absolutely not!" He insisted that one's education level is a prerequisite to voting rights.

    This underscores not only the rhetorical contortions and verbal gymnastics used to justify and perpetuate institutionalized racism. It also demonstrates Buckley's patrician attitudes toward non-dominant groups, be it on race, ethnicity, gender, or class.

    In other words, the blacks (or white poor) couldn't possibly know what's best for them. They couldn't possibly vote according to their interests, since prep-school/Ivy League-educated white men know what's best for them. And of course everyone knows that wealthy white men would never vote solely according to THEIR interests.

    Posted by downwarddog at 03/01/2008 @ 12:24pm

61. good dog.

    he was an elitist sonofabitch.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/01/2008 @ 12:33pm

62. ....I had friends who died and friends who survived.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/01/2008 @ 11:54am

    Uh, did those who died, have any right to know their partners were HIV-positive? Granting the possibility that some carriers didn't know they were infected. Buckley was talking about those who knew they were infected, so as to warn others....imagine your children's right to know vs. whoever their partners' "right to privacy". Sex is generally defined as with another person, or persons, and that person, or persons, have a superior right to know! But, since unlike you, I don't have friends in the at-risk pool, guess I shouldn't care if you think the infected's "right to privacy" reigns supreme.....more will be infected and some will die....Libeals' way for population control!

    Our society requires child molesters and rapists to be registered and some of them may never commit such crimes again....especially the types of `Summer of 42' mature female w/minor boys...or 19+ somethings with under-18 partners. Anyone thinks that HIV-carriers won't ever have sex again?

    Posted by Happy at 03/01/2008 @ 2:10pm

63. Buckley was a sophist. He was bright, witty, and entirely mercenary. His role was to bamboozle the (PBS-watching) public with clever logical sleight-of-hand in service of the usual suspects: the wealthy elite, who, having nothing more important (to them) to do, tirelessly work to reinforce their advantage over the rest of us.

    A mind is a terible thing to waste.

    Posted by noam4prez at 03/01/2008 @ 2:29pm

64. .or 19+ somethings with under-18 partners.

    under 18 is not a problem. under the age of consent is. age of consent varies from state to state.

    STATE AGE Alabama 16 Alaska 16 Arizona 18 Arkansas 16 California 18 Colorado 15 Connecticut 15 D.C. 16 Delaware 16 Florida 16/18 (bill pending) Georgia 16 Hawaii 14 Idaho 14 Illinois 16/17 Indiana 16 Iowa 18 Kansas 16 Kentucky 16 - [1] Louisiana 17 Maine 16 Maryland 16 Massachusetts 16/18 Michigan 16 Minnesota 16 Mississippi 16 - [2] Missouri 17 Montana 16 Nebraska 16 Nevada 16 New Hampshire 16/18 New Jersey 16/18 New Mexico 17 New York 17 North Carolina 16 North Dakota 18 Ohio 16 Oklahoma 16 Oregon 18 Pennsylvania 16 Rhode Island 16 South Carolina 14/16 South Dakota 16 Tennessee 18 Texas 17 Utah 16/18 Vermont 16 Virginia 15 Washington 16 West Virginia 16 Wisconsin 18 Wyoming 16 Puerto Rico 18 FOOTNOTES: [1]Age 16 if the man is 21 or older. [2]If the female is over 12, the status applies only to virgins.

    some states like them young, and so do I.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/01/2008 @ 3:47pm

65. I always love how people take something you say and choose to make it mean something else. I guess you can't ever be responsible for how someone chooses to take your words. I'm not a journalist or a professional writer so I have really nothing to lose by stating my opinion or my world view. But I can't conceive how you would think I was implying that gay men aren't afraid of HIV when I EXPLICITY say that they are. Either you think I'm being disingenuous or you think I work in the Bush Administration.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/01/2008 @ 5:42pm

66. some states like them young, and so do I.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/01/2008 @ 3:47pm

    CHAWK ALERT!!!

    Posted by yutsano at 03/01/2008 @ 5:42pm

67. I pretty much agree with Buckley here.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 03/01/2008 @ 6:10pm

68. since when has marriage meant the same as monogamy?

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/29/2008 @ 6:16pm

    since, march 31st, 1998.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2008 @ 9:53pm

69. on exception, Maasch was generous enough to buy me meat and mead, so I know for a fact that he is who he represents himself at, and vice versa.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/01/2008 @ 11:29am

    did you try his home brew?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/01/2008 @ 9:59pm

70. Sorry, Yuts. Your first post simply suggests something else. YOu want us to believe that gayt men are "terrified" but then you say

    The majority of people who are infected with HIV don't tell their partners because they themselves have no idea they have it. Not getting tested for HIV doesn't sound like a group of people that are concerned about it.

    and

    but I can do quite a bit in ten years. I assume you're talking about "doing" quite a bit of men...that's not a statement that suggests terror.

    But if I'm reading into yoour statements a little then check the statistics...they definitely tell a different story from you. According to the CDC, the numbers of new HIV infections in gay men are increasing.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

    Posted by usc1 at 03/02/2008 @ 04:26am

71. Emile

    I'm nasty and inhumane??? And then you say this

    some states like them young, and so do I.

    Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/01/2008 @ 3:47pm

    Maybe I'm a little off-color, but you should be on a sex offender registry...pervert.

    Posted by usc1 at 03/02/2008 @ 04:32am

72. All right...so I think the article itself is worth engaging. I was really puzzled by Kim's argument, because it just didn't seem like the specific claims he made about Buckley actually fit the overarching characterization he wanted to defend.

    He says that Buckley was homophobic and not at all compassionate, but the examples he provide don't even come remotely close to showing that. The first case he cites is, quite literally, "people should have a way of knowing whether their partners have AIDS." How in the World is this homophobic? If there was a bias to this when it was written, it was "anti-death." Maybe AIDS wasn't as bad as people thought it was, but I don't think this matters here; at the point where AIDS would actually kill people and was doing so in meaningful numbers, yes, of course information is justified. Anyone who then wants to defend overriding this with privacy claims has to then explain why that outweighs the much more fundamental right to life that other people have.

    Look, I agree that homosexuals are often regarded in bigoted ways, and I agree very much with those who argue for gay marriage. I just don't understand how efforts to provide information about AIDS to people who may be exposed to it is somehow homophobic or insensitive.

    Posted by Thrawn at 03/02/2008 @ 05:50am

73. DownwardDog wrote:

    I heard a rebroadcast of a 1989(?) interview with Fresh Air's Terri Gross. Two decades after the apex of civil rights movement, William F. Buckley maintained that white Southerners were right to demand literacy tests, because of their "higher civilization", and since blacks were (in his view) backward and less civilized, due to lack of education. He attempted to cover his tail by saying that he gave money to the NAACP out of genuine desire to address the plight of African Americans.

    Quite tellingly, when Terri Gross asked if he believed in universal suffrage, he said "absolutely not!" He insisted that one's education level is a prerequisite to voting rights.

    This underscores not only the rhetorical contortions and verbal gymnastics used to justify and perpetuate institutionalized racism. It also demonstrates Buckley's patrician attitudes toward non-dominant groups, be it on race, ethnicity, gender, or class.

    In other words, the blacks (or white poor) couldn't possibly know what's best for them. They couldn't possibly vote according to their interests, since prep-school/Ivy League-educated white men know what's best for them. And of course everyone knows that wealthy white men would never vote solely according to THEIR interests. ___________________________________________________________________Inter esting. Looks like Buckley's elitist and racist perspective remained unchanged from his early writings. Here is an excerpt from an unsigned 1957 editorial from the National Review attributed to Buckley:

    "The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists.

    "National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. . . . It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority."

    Posted by bobforer at 03/03/2008 @ 03:12am