Responding to my eulogy to William F. Buckley, some readers noted that Buckley had written a notorious column during the 1980s calling for AIDS victims to be tattooed on their rear ends. For one responder this was eerily reminiscent of Nazi policies.
Actually Buckley was no Nazi. On one occasion Buckley appeared on a late-night program with the writer Gore Vidal, and Vidal accused Buckley of being a "crypto-Nazi." Incensed, Buckley called Vidal a "goddamn queer." Both men ended up suing the other. Buckley won his case, because he was able to show that his opinions were never sympathetic to the Nazis, "crypto" or otherwise. Vidal lost his case, because, well, truth is an effective defense in a libel case.
So what about that AIDS column? Let's remember that not much was known about AIDS in the early 1980s. In particular, there were competing theories about how AIDS was actually transmitted. Little more was known than the fact that AIDS seemed to be concentrated in the homosexual community.
Buckley noted in his column that in previous epidemics, such as the syphilis epidemic of the early part of the twentieth century, America quarantined people who contracted the disease. Buckley argued against quarantining victims of AIDS. Somewhat light-heartedly, he suggested that a better alternative might be to have some insignia warning off potential partners. He came up with the admittedly strange idea of a small tattoo on the AIDS victim's rear end. Not surprisingly, the column caused immediate controversy.
At National Review, however, the controversy was of a different sort. The big question that arose among the editors was not whether there should be a tattoo but rather what the tattoo should say. Several entries were submitted, and the contest winner was my own English professor Jeffrey Hart, a senior editor of the magazine, who proposed the line emblazoned on the entrance gate to Dante's Inferno: "Abandon all hope ye who enter here."
Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...
Mo's Blog Roll
Resources
That Notorious Buckley AIDS Column
Posted Feb 29th 2008 4:09AM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Gay and Lesbian, Bizarre, AIDS
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Mo's Video
The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...
Most Popular Stories
- Don't Like Goodbyes...
- Pittsburgh Steelers: Is it Time to get some Cheerleaders?
- How NOT to give an Oscar Acceptance Speech
- Could Jim Belushi Win the Nobel Peace Prize?
- Spring Break Sexy T-Shirt Removal Training!
- Quest for the Crown 5: Plastic Wrap to Make you Less Fat!
- Quest for the Crown 4: Work Those Heels!
Most Commented On
-
Coming Soon
Recent Comments
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Ryan Anderson on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Hereafter on Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
- Tony Messinger on Is 9 Too Young To Ride the NYC Subway Alone?
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
- Saint Brian the Godless on Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Mo's Bio
Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
- The Risk of Being the "Deadline President"
- Latest Round-Up Of Obama Poll Ratings by State
- Obama's Copenhagen Climate Deal: Real or Not?
- The New Senate Health Bill Explainer: Changes You Should Know About
- Health Endgame: Time To Embrace Half a Loaf (And Learn to Love It!)
- Former Hill Staffers Made up a Large Army of Lobbyists on the Health Bill
- 'Botox Tax' Out, 'Tan Tax' In New Senate Health Bill
Reader Comments ( Page 52 of 53)
766. Goddess:
I'm actually familiar with the "lost" passage you're referring to. I think we may have seen the same History Channel special. First of all, as a Christian, I believe that everything that's in the Bible or not in the Bible is ordained and in there or not in there for a reason. Otherwise, what's the point? You're perfectly welcome to believe otherwise of course, but I don't personally believe in "lost" texts that should have been in there.
Is what you posted supposed to be the exact text? If so, it's not a very good translation. It has multiple tense shifts among other grammatical problems and the story is pretty haphazard. So the youth that ran away from the soldiers attacking Jesus in verses 51 and 52 somehow died and his sister found Jesus and the guy was rich, which is somehow a good thing in this story despite all of the other passages where Jesus seems to abhor wealth or be indifferent to it...and I'm gonna stop there because I could go on all day. Seems weird to me and doesn't hold a lot of water, but whatever.
Assuming this text is an accurate acount of history, however, I still don't see how it has anything to do with homosexaulity. First of all, it says he covered up his nakedness, not that he was wearing clothes and took them off when he got to Jesus. Secondly, am I supposed to believe that "taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God" was supposed to be some kind of euphamism for gay sex? You're kidding, right? I mean you realize that's what Jesus did. That was his m.o., teaching people the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Am I supposed to believe that the loaves and fishes were really dildos and lubricant or the sermon on the mount was really an orgy? Queer theory always makes me laugh. Are you one of those people that thinks Ishmael and Queequeg were gay because they shared a bed or Huck and Jim were NAMBLA members? Inserting modern social morays into classic texts is completely ridiculous and doesn't prove anything. Again, I don't begrudge you the right to believe that Jesus was gay if you want and I realize you're mostly being facetious, but I don't see how posting over and over that Jesus should have had a tattoo on his ass proves a valid point or really accomplishes anything.
Sam at 4:00PM on Mar 3rd 2008
767. sam (#763) - Do I read your comment to be that consensual sex between people of the same sex, while no as dangerous as binge drinking is still dangerous and destructive to outsiders? Please tell me in what way that is correct, other than the possibility of being killed by people who think it wrong.
alan at 4:11PM on Mar 3rd 2008
768. Hey, let's keep this going. The more comments the higher DD's salary.
Paul, add some more comments NOW or I'll call my attorney! (you obviously have no life)
Gregg at 4:33PM on Mar 3rd 2008
769. "Clements addressed a letter to a Theodore, this letter was discovered at a Monastery near Bethlehem, it mentions circulation of 3 gospels attributed to Mark including a secret gospel of Mark that the Carpocratians had in their possession...Now of course conservative theologians claim it is a hoax and a fraud but Clementine scholars believe otherwise."
Goddess, you're trying to make it sound as if some scholars think it's a hoax "just because" they're "conservative." But why not make clear what you omitted: that only one person ever saw this letter, that it was mysteriously lost after he found it, and that all we have are photographs of it (and we all know that the authenticity of a document can't be determined by a photograph). Now just imagine this: a document that buttresses some "conservative" claim about the gospels is found under similar circumstances: would you take it seriously? I highly doubt it.
Tiny Tim at 6:40PM on Mar 3rd 2008
770. Alan, you're right. I worded that incorrectly. While I believe that having any sort of sex outside of marriage is a sin, dangerous isn't really the right word to describe it. It's certainly not dangerous to an outsider and I can't really see how it could be physically dangerous to those engaged in it either, other than, of course, the risk of sexually transmitted disease and I suppose the higher risk of heart attack that comes with any strenuous activity.
Sam at 8:31PM on Mar 3rd 2008
771. Goddess, don't sweat it too much, the vast majority of us see the depravity in brian, observant and kulari's, amongst others, hypocrisy. I personally feel that they are desparately trying to find people who they can feel superior to and unlike some of the christians here, like botts, they NEED to judge others in order to do so.
TimJ at 11:18PM on Mar 3rd 2008
772. Interesting talk here.
To all Christians,let us love the gays and lesbians.Let us not allow what we regard as their sin keep them from loving them,and being their support.
It is what Jesus would do.
And to all pro-gay guys and gals:even though homosexuality is a sin,it does not mean that we Christians all think it is right to kill them,or to malign them.Hey,I don't think our friends and loved ones like certain characteristics,but that don't mean we should kill them.
To all.Love one another.
aniekan thomas at 2:02PM on Mar 4th 2008
773. certain characteristics about us..
Correction.
aniekan thomas at 2:04PM on Mar 4th 2008
774. Paul, haven't you got MRSA yet, Air Farce chump? Maybe you being kicked out of the Greyhound Bus Drivers branch of the military for being a lardass and obnoxious gay lover has affected that peanut of a thing you call a brain...
pohan58 at 4:53PM on Mar 4th 2008
775. And BTW, Mr. "Off you go, into the gay blue yonder", I have enough Honorable Discharges from the Navy and Army to paper my walls with, so eat shi-ite and bark at the moon, Chair Force Commano.
pohan58 at 9:21AM on Mar 5th 2008
776.
Tiny,
3 people saw the letter and verified its existence. Morton Smith found the letter first in 1958 and photographed it in black and white; he also photographed the book it was in, the pages before and after.
Then a priest, Archimandrite Melito, stated that he had taken the letter and the book to the Jerusalem library.
The librarian at the Jesuslaem library, Archimandrite Kallistos Dourvas, confirmed this but stated that it was being repaired and was not available.
Then Kallistos told Professor Nikolaos Olympiou, a Professor of Old testament history that he had removed the letter from the book after receiving it from Melito.
Kallistos later gave color photographs of the letter to Nikoloas.
Both color photographs and black and white prove the letters existence. The Clementine experts, (who are also conservatives by the way, you just assumed I meant that they wee liberals.) studied the style and language of the letter and are in full agreement that they were from Clement of Alexandria.
Also the book the letter was found is authenticated to be the writings of Clement. The book and the letter both had the same discoloration on the pages which prove that the letter was in the book for a very long time.
Sam,
First of all, the letter by Clement clearly states that the young man wanted to be with Jesus. There are no interpretations made by me or anyone else.
Secondly the letter seems weird to you only because you don't know where to place the passage. Mark has obvious discontinuity from chapters 10-14:52. It is easier to understand it in Greek than modern English translations. The English you read does the bible no justice.
goddess1prevail at 10:05PM on Mar 5th 2008
777. Goddess, again you leave something vital out. While the majority of scholars believe the letter is indeed authentic (regardless of the shady circumstances surrounding its discovery), the majority certainly do not believe its passage was original to Mark. Rather, they see it as being part of a later Gnostic work.
Tiny Tim at 11:51PM on Mar 5th 2008
778. Sorry I'm way late with my follow-up. Yes, it says "be with," but it doesn't neccessarily mean "be with" sexually. And I've read the passage in Mark you're referring to and it does seem to end a little abruptly, but several New Testament stories end in a similar way and Clement's verses don't really fit with the original scripture very well at all in my opinion. The writing is just plain sloppy.
Sam at 12:19AM on Mar 6th 2008
779. #523. Tsar. I don't have the time or patience, or I'd sue Paul too. Could you please just make your lawsuit a class-action case and include me?
lizard at 11:34AM on Mar 6th 2008
780. MRSA - coming to a restaurant or airline near you soon! Gays fresh from the bath house or gloryhole the night before handling, sneezing and spitting on your food, yay! A gay flight attendant hands you a Coke and an incurable disease at the same time, hoorah! Yay for the Gay Liberation Front!
jakeholman at 11:47AM on Mar 7th 2008