What else is new? They're lying about research and facts for ideological reasons. Abstinence education? WMDs? Global warming? Social security? Tax cuts?
WTF is Ugh on about. As I read the Prospect, Clinton said (basically) the science is X, but the public says Y, and it's not worth going to war with the public for this issue. That's true for a hell of a lot of things revolving around US drug policy (most of them, near as I can tell).
And as far as science v. death, for a bunch of people who don't like abortion, the Bush crowd's economic policies seem to have caused an upswing to the extent it's measurable. They're doing the same thing overseas: abstinence-only education as a condition for HIV funding.
Dead people don't matter to the Bush crowd, as long as the dead are the wrong sort of people.
Cynically, I'm going to say dead people don't matter to the Bush crowd, period. Except, of course, that their parents make nice symbols at inaguarations.
It sounds to me like the "official who requested anonymity" that the Post has been talking to is the infamous Roland Foster(. If I am not mistaken he pushed the exact same Children's AIDS Fund paper onto me more than a year ago.
I am positive that the way this worked is that Foster sent them a shotgun blast of articles one after the other that he had never actually read, and that had nothing to do with the argument he was putting forth. He did this over a 5-7 day period, taking breaks in between revelations.
I would love to talk to this man in person, it would be enlightening, more in terms of human psychology than anything else. (This reminds me ... I need to blog more.)
It's gotta be him. The more I read it, the more I'm convinced. They even mention Souder's office as being a main source of the pressure in the first graf. I think I'm going to contact the editors of the Post (either email or telephone) and ask them about it.
Actually, I think it is strange that Foster is rarely quoted on the record (well, maybe not so strange, he's not exactly an important character on the Hill). But I've read at least a dozen articles from the Washington (Moonie) Times that were written almost directly out of his mouth, but his name is mentioned only occassionally, and usually not in connection to the important/controversial/outlandish stuff.
If you can do a post with the relevant background and any new info (are you still in touch with Foster?), I think a lot of people would be interested/link to it.
He's just following Clinton's lead, from the American Prospect:
You can fault Bill Clinton for not following the science on needle exchanges and HIV prevention. But at least he was honest about it.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 4:30 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 4:38 PM
What else is new? They're lying about research and facts for ideological reasons. Abstinence education? WMDs? Global warming? Social security? Tax cuts?
Sorry. Feeling cynical and bitter today.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 4:46 PM
Bitch don't apologize. They are a bunch of assholes. Cynicism, away!
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 5:06 PM
WTF is Ugh on about. As I read the Prospect, Clinton said (basically) the science is X, but the public says Y, and it's not worth going to war with the public for this issue. That's true for a hell of a lot of things revolving around US drug policy (most of them, near as I can tell).
And as far as science v. death, for a bunch of people who don't like abortion, the Bush crowd's economic policies seem to have caused an upswing to the extent it's measurable. They're doing the same thing overseas: abstinence-only education as a condition for HIV funding.
Dead people don't matter to the Bush crowd, as long as the dead are the wrong sort of people.
Posted by paperwight | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 6:36 PM
Cynically, I'm going to say dead people don't matter to the Bush crowd, period. Except, of course, that their parents make nice symbols at inaguarations.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 7:08 PM
Nothing ever changes does it?
It sounds to me like the "official who requested anonymity" that the Post has been talking to is the infamous Roland Foster(. If I am not mistaken he pushed the exact same Children's AIDS Fund paper onto me more than a year ago.
He hasn't changed much (permalinks broken).
I am positive that the way this worked is that Foster sent them a shotgun blast of articles one after the other that he had never actually read, and that had nothing to do with the argument he was putting forth. He did this over a 5-7 day period, taking breaks in between revelations.
I would love to talk to this man in person, it would be enlightening, more in terms of human psychology than anything else. (This reminds me ... I need to blog more.)
Posted by Yuri Guri | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 8:03 PM
I wondered about that YG; this sounded so much like the stuff you uncovered. I'll bet you're right that it's Foster.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 8:41 PM
It's gotta be him. The more I read it, the more I'm convinced. They even mention Souder's office as being a main source of the pressure in the first graf. I think I'm going to contact the editors of the Post (either email or telephone) and ask them about it.
Actually, I think it is strange that Foster is rarely quoted on the record (well, maybe not so strange, he's not exactly an important character on the Hill). But I've read at least a dozen articles from the Washington (Moonie) Times that were written almost directly out of his mouth, but his name is mentioned only occassionally, and usually not in connection to the important/controversial/outlandish stuff.
Posted by Yuri Guri | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 9:55 PM
If you can do a post with the relevant background and any new info (are you still in touch with Foster?), I think a lot of people would be interested/link to it.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 9:58 PM
Oy vey ... I knew you'd say that.
I'm kinda busy right now, and no I don't really have any news to report, but I will contact Foster and ask him what role he had in the Post editorial.
Posted by Yuri Guri | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:05 PM
:)
Don't knock yourself out. It would just be interesting.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 7-05 10:07 PM