The competing theory for the high rates is the horribly homo/biphobic narrative of the closeted bisexual black man, who has sex with men on the “down low” and then evilly infects his unsuspecting female partners. I remember the hysteria about evil (white) bisexuals in the 80’s. It was exactly the same theory, but with different racial baggage.

There are many new infections in black women, who are mostly getting it from sex with men. So the question is, are the men getting it more often from shooting up, are they on the down low or are they getting it in prison? Well, the numbers of black men who pass through the prison system are much, much higher than the number of bis or of junkies. Obviously men are also getting HIV from these other means also, I’m not suggesting there’ a single cause. And I support every effort to get people clean needles and to get condoms to men having same sex encounters. However, as far as condoms go, in one case, you need a public awareness campaign and in the other, getting condoms to these men is against the law. It’s not “idle speculation” to say this is an evil situation.

Although it is much more fun to blame the evil queers. You can feel all kinds of good about your own moral superiority and wonder why “those people” are so irresponsible for bringing this down upon themselves. Bad, evil queers! Bad, evil junkies! Bad, evil black people! I don’t need to take any action at all! Hooray!

It’s such a mystery why Wright sounded so angry. . ..

At which point I break in to make a purely technical observation. Say what you will about whether it’s at all likely that the Federal government (or people working for it) would have either the desire or will to create something like the HIV virus in order to wipe out a minority. But the fact is that it was - and in fact, is - technically impossible. The ability to develop custom viruses in general and viruses with the unique properties and lifecycle of the HIV virus simply didn’t exist when the HIV virus first starting infecting people.

So yes, Wright is saying that someone made a deliberate decision to create and release HIV into the human population.

Whether or not Hoopers’ theory is valid, that dynamic around black bodies and medical progress for humanity has a long history with a lot of examples that, in my opinion justifies black suspicion and fear toward medical research.

I don’t disagree, and I suppose that is essentially what Wright was saying (I haven’t actually listened to the press conference, just seen bits and pieces).

Great numbers of black men go to jail. HIV rates in jail are very high. Rape rates are very high. Only 1 US state allows prisoners access to condoms (because they don’t want the prisoners to turn gay. isn’t that special.). So we take a huge percentage of young black men and throw them in a risky environment where there is no way to have safe sex, consensual or not. Most former inmates are straight. Women can contract AIDS pretty easily if they’re not using a latex barrier. Most straight relationships don’t last that long. It’s a perfect storm of disaster. Are public officials trying to devastate the black community with AIDS when they instituted these programs? No, they were trying to devastate that black community with incarceration. They’re certainly aware of the rates of prison rape and don’t care. And they’re aware of the HIV rate and don’t care. And they know about the condom thing and don’t care. “Genocide” isn’t a word that should be thrown around lightly. I wouldn’t argue if somebody wanted to apply it to this case.

Do most HIV infections among black people originate in prisons? I’d appreciate some numbers and citations, please; otherwise, this is just idle speculation.

Did the US government create AIDS to hurt black people? no. Did they create a situation in which black communities are being systematically harmed and infected with HIV in the process? yes. Is there a moral difference between these two questions? barely.

The moral difference between these two questions is as wide as the gap between the Nazis and the French during World War II.

If the U.S. government created AIDS, that would be a crime far surpassing anything the Nazis ever succeeded in doing. The only appropriate response can be that of the Warsaw Ghetto to the Nazis - armed insurrection.

If the U.S. government has an unofficial policy of malign neglect of black communities, then, in principle, this can be changed through the political process. Furthermore, could you give an example of a government that you would consider an exemplar of proper conduct in this regard?

aroundthebend, I have find Wright’s statements on AIDS somewhat confusing. Agreeing with Hooper’s claim that AIDS is iatrogenic is unconnected to thinking that the US government would be willing to create AIDS intentionally. Certainly, if Hooper’s theory is correct (I doubt it, but I don’t think it is a crazy theory) then US physicians created AIDS while conducting (beneficial) medical research on black people (polio vaccine research in West Africa), but that seems to me to be research that is a fairly large distance from the Tuskegee atrocity.

Both the Democrat candidates would probably be on the right of the National party (our right wing).

Yes. We know. It’s a problem.

I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at when you ask which one we agree with more. I also find it hard to answer — I suppose I would agree with Wright more, at least on political issues, but both men have said things that I disagree with.

FWIW, I suspect that Obama’s actual views are somewhat to the Left of his professed views. Any Democrat has to pay homage to the status quo in order to stand a chance of getting elected, so I don’t begrudge him doing so.

Oh, and What Les Said.

When Rev. Wright’s friend and former college buddy, preacher Amos Brown, who talks a similar game, got appointed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, he spent about 90% of his time pandering to anti-homeless sentiments, sponsoring important legislation like taking away the homeless’s shopping carts. Brown was a complete shill for SF business interests. Maybe that’s unfair guilt by association, but i just want to illustrate that these Rev.’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken at face value.

As far as Ayers goes, every self-identified anti-racist, should use this guy as a case study when upper class white “allies” go beserk with their white guilt. The guy along with his weathermen comrades go around setting off bombs and doing robberies for more then a decade, he never spends any serious time in jail, and ends up as an upper middle class professor and on the board of various non-profits. Talk about privilege.

“the MSM’s ability to spin justified anger from black people into a great amount of Oh no!”

Mandolin, it is quite true that the MSM is masterful at spinning negative stereotypes and annratives about black people, but in the case of Wright, it was Youtube and his very own words that exposed him. And what got him was the formulation he used, not the substance. The substance was in no way any different from what Hagee and his ilk have been saying in general - prophetic histrionics for mass consumption in increased donations. Props to Wright for standing pat, and more to the point, props to him for his positions across.

Great numbers of black men go to jail. HIV rates in jail are very high. Rape rates are very high. Only 1 US state allows prisoners access to condoms (because they don’t want the prisoners to turn gay. isn’t that special.). So we take a huge percentage of young black men and throw them in a risky environment where there is no way to have safe sex, consensual or not. Most former inmates are straight. Women can contract AIDS pretty easily if they’re not using a latex barrier. Most straight relationships don’t last that long. It’s a perfect storm of disaster. Are public officials trying to devastate the black community with AIDS when they instituted these programs? No, they were trying to devastate that black community with incarceration. They’re certainly aware of the rates of prison rape and don’t care. And they’re aware of the HIV rate and don’t care. And they know about the condom thing and don’t care. “Genocide” isn’t a word that should be thrown around lightly. I wouldn’t argue if somebody wanted to apply it to this case.

Did the US government create AIDS to hurt black people? no. Did they create a situation in which black communities are being systematically harmed and infected with HIV in the process? yes. Is there a moral difference between these two questions? barely.

As for Ayers, they met with each other because they were both on the board of the same, seemingly decent charity foundation. I wouldn’t have admired either of them for refusing to meet with the other, in that context.