Running Scared: Observations of a Former Republican
[Home] [Former Republican] [About the Authors] [RSS Feed] [Pointless Vanity]

"Losing my faith in humanity ... one neocon at a time."

Friday, January 23, 2004

More Test Buttons

posted by Jazz at 1/23/2004 02:02:00 PM

NOTE: YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED POST AT RUNNING SCARED'S OLD BLOG. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW BLOG HERE.

Pay no attention to this either.


















Thursday, January 22, 2004

You Must Be Kidding

posted by Jazz at 1/22/2004 01:08:00 PM

NOTE: YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED POST AT RUNNING SCARED'S OLD BLOG. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW BLOG HERE.

Please tell me you didnt' really click on that link.

Fixing the Facts to Fit the Fantasy

posted by Jazz at 1/22/2004 10:42:00 AM

NOTE: YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED POST AT RUNNING SCARED'S OLD BLOG. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW BLOG HERE.

Most of this won't come as any surprise to regular readers, but Leonard Pitts' column today provides details on some of the Bush administration's latest fancy dancing in terms of forcing governmental agencies to rewrite the findings of their studies to make him look better. Unless your eyes are totally closed to both sides of any issue regarding this administration, it's worth a look. This article is not edited from the original (linked below) but some points have been highlighted by me for emphasis.
********************************************************
From - This article:

Black people get crappy healthcare.

If this comes as news to you, it's probably because you haven't been paying attention. Numerous studies have documented the fact that, regardless of income levels, African Americans and other minorities have less access to medical treatment, and the treatment they receive is often substandard.

You can read about it in Dr. Allen Gifford's 2002 study of HIV clinical trials, Georgetown University's 1999 report on cardiac care or the 2002 study released by the Institute of Medicine. But the one place you won't read about it is in a new study of racial disparities in healthcare released by the federal government.

According to The Washington Post, top officials in the Bush administration pressured the Department of Health and Human Services to revise an early draft of the study in order to play down questions of inequity. So out went references to racial disparities, out went talk of bias among healthcare providers, out went a passage describing the health gap as a national problem.

The result: a report that offers little criticism of a healthcare establishment that plainly values black and brown lives less than others.

LOOKING ON THE 'BRIGHT' SIDE

Aides to Tommy Thompson, the Health and Human Services secretary, say the report was changed because the secretary wants -- I kid you not -- to accentuate the positive.

And if this sounds like d�j vu all over again, well, there's a reason for that. Consider:

When the Environmental Protection Agency issued a statement on the quality of asbestos-tainted air at ground zero, the White House leaned on the agency to remove cautionary language contributed by EPA scientists. The White House also tried to chop up a 2003 EPA study in order to de-emphasize the dangers of global warming.

There's more. A 2002 report in The New York Times found apparent administration editing of a National Cancer Institute website. A statement that originally said science had found no link between abortion and breast cancer had been changed to say that the evidence was inconclusive. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website once reported that researchers could find no link between education about condom use and increased sexual activity. That line was removed.

None of which would bother me if I thought for a minute the edits were made because new research dictated it. But it's politics that's doing the dictation here.

A MATTER OF TRUST

We all like to embrace those facts that confirm what we believe. But character can often be inferred from how we handle those facts that don't. How does an intellectually honest person incorporate those?

The Bush administration doesn't even try. It just ignores them, cuts them, makes them disappear.

If that doesn't scare you, it should. How can we trust the judgment of a White House so indifferent to any information that doesn't fit its world view?

It used to be snickered by some that George W. was not exactly the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer. But this is not stupidity you see here. Rather, it's the willful ignorance ideological rigidity demands, the readiness to charge full speed ahead with blinders on. And to what end?

THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH

Truth doesn't change its essential character because you tell it to. Facts don't cease being facts because you cut them from a report.

All that is expressed by those actions is a disregard bordering on contempt for the people and their right to know. Indeed, the new Health and Human Services report is just the latest in a series of insults to your intelligence and mine.

We seem to have reached a new watershed in critical thinking. Used to be, you gathered facts and they led to a conclusion.

Nowadays, I guess you start with the conclusion.

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

posted by Jazz at 1/20/2004 11:33:00 AM

NOTE: YOU ARE VIEWING AN ARCHIVED POST AT RUNNING SCARED'S OLD BLOG. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW BLOG HERE.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

Dean falls flat in Iowa, showing a disappointing 3rd place. I can't say I'm upset. He's an interesting candidate, and I find nothing in his credentials that would make him a "bad choice" in my estimation, but there's just something about him. I can't put my finger on it, but a lot of his policy plans just sound like Apple Pie in the Sky, and not very realistic. And then there is his presence. I'm sure it's not the basis for making a sound decision in voting, but for some odd reason, looking at Dean and hearing him speak just gives me the creeps. He just doesn't look very presidential. All the still shots in the media seem to capture him smiling, but his smile comes across all wrong. He looks more like a person who read a government report on smiling and tried to figure it out from there, but had no actual practice in it. I think the way a person carries and portrays themselves is an important part of the package when seeking high office. There's just... something ... about Dean that doesn't sit right with me.

Kerry took the most delegates from Iowa. Kerry isn't my first choice, but I have no serious problems with him if he is the candidate. I need to keep reminding myself that right now, Job Number One is to get that maniac Bush out of the White House, and the name of his replacement isn't as important as it might otherwise be. The cartoon dog Snoopy would be a far better choice. Kerry seems to be a fine man, though his proposed Tax plan doesn't sound very realistic, and I don't see it getting through congress in any form close to what he proposes. He also reminds me of Jay Leno every time I look at him. That's a horrible reason to not pick somebody for your candidate, but hey. I'm only human.

In the aftermath of the Iowa primary, I think I was most pleased with Edwards' strong showing. I really like Edwards, and he seems to have a sound vision, along with a definitely powerful presence. He just looks presidential, and in some ways, reminds me of a young JFK. He also has a sense of humor about himself, as evidenced by the fact that he initially announced his candidacy on The Daily Show with John Stewart on Comedy Central. I think having that sort of grounded mentality, where it's acceptable to poke fun at yourself, is an important attribute in a candidate.

I'm still pinning all of my hopes on Wes Clark, though. He wasn't in the running in Iowa, but now he'll be on the ballot for the remaining primaries. We shall see if he can muster the required following. I'm not sure what I like best about Clark or where my questions for him lie. Is he really a very conservative Democrat? Or is he a very liberal Republican in Democrat's clothing for convenience? I don't think it matters. He has the whole package for me. Not such a liberal that he'll be a horror to my basic Republican nature, but not a blazing war Hawk like Bush, either. I think with the right advisors (and he seems to have some good ones) he could do a fine job as president.

All of this, unfortunately, still begs the question of whether or not any of them can actually beat Bush. I have growing doubts that any of them can pull it off. The only two people that I would envision solidly beating him would be Al Gore or Hillary, and neither are inclined to run at this time.

We shall see.