8 ms·

A more serious political observation is that this administration operates on the theory that possession is 9/10ths of the law. If they control a pot of funding

A more serious political observation is that this administration operates on the theory that possession is 9/10ths of the law. If they control a pot of funding that you need to maintain normal business operations, they’ll block its payment until you’re out of business. What are the courts going to do about it? The law is not something they respect. The flip side is that in other areas their powers are much more limited. Revoke Harvard’s tax exempt status? That’ll filter through the courts and years from now Harvard might actually have to make a tax payment (I expect they won’t.) From a societal perspective, however, we’re in deep shit. There’s an excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered. We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital. A friend who is a breast cancer survivor just had her trial moved from NIH funding to industry funding, but she is one of the lucky ones.

ryandrake 1y ago
> We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but we, as in the USA, don't do anything (besides offering the standard Thoughts And Prayers™) when someone shoots up a school.
- ty6853 1y ago
  Nah we do something. We threaten to break the probation of anyone going in to save their children, beat up parents trying to get in, then scroll on our cell phones and furiously maintain hand hygiene with sanitizer while standing outside the door. The lesson is clear. Fight your way in to get your kids or die trying. No one is coming to help.
  - danans 1y ago
    You are confusing a specific situation (a particular school shooting) for the general problem (the cultural and legal circumstances that give rose to school shootings).
  - ARandomerDude 1y ago
    Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. This is a literal description of the 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, TX. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting
    - daveguy 1y ago
      This example (Uvalde) is probably the worst handled mass shooting in the history of police work. GP is being downvoted because it's a hyperbolic strawman.
      - reverendsteveii 1y ago
        when something actually happens it ceases to be a strawman. it might not be a representative sample (though the SRO running away and then going to court to fight for his right to run away after the parkland shooting does lend some credibility to the idea that we shouldn't expect help from the police, as does the police fighting in court to assert that they have no duty to protect people in the wake of that subway stabbing), but it is within the realm of possibility.
        daveguy 1y ago
        Okay, then whatever the fallacy is of picking the absolute goddamn worst example possible and saying it is somehow representative.
        reverendsteveii 1y ago
        I was able to provide two more examples off the top of my head. Maybe cherrypicking isn't as wrong when you're in a cherry tree.
        daveguy 1y ago
        Except you gave a completely unrelated example and just repeated your first one. Maybe if you were in a cherry tree you wouldn't need the worst examples for propaganda purposes.
flax 1y ago
>We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital. We are: feeling horrible, knowing this is the only country where this happens, and also resigned to the fact that there's nothing we as individuals can do about it.
- prox 1y ago
  As individuals: group up. Start figuring out your local, state and federal political people you need to support. Build community is probably your best bet as individuals. Even if you donate a few hours here and there, or a small donation here and there, it can make the difference. This last election was mostly decided by the people who didn’t vote. The apathetic, the cynics and so on.
  - decremental 1y ago
    [dead]
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    An excellent option is to use federalism as it was intended. If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants. There is nothing that requires it to be the federal government.
    - MiguelX413 1y ago
      Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden. California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden. Isn't this the counterargument? Why should the US disproportionately pay for world-benefiting research instead of Europe or China? The answer, of course, is that other governments do also fund some research, but each government decides how much they want to spend and on what. Which applies as much to each individual state as it does to the federal government. > California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes. It sounds like you're arguing that cutting federal programs would benefit California, because then they would have that money to appropriate as they choose for themselves.
justanotheratom 1y ago
This is a little too much fear mongering: "excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered." Why is this an excellent chance?
- daveguy 1y ago
  Because it was already an excellent chance, and now the most successful biomedical research program in the world is being decimated? Seems like the bare minimum fear to me.
  - justanotheratom 1y ago
    provide more facts and details.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Okay, 50% of men will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. That means if it's not me, it's you. If we defund that research, that means a lot more people will die. We won't know how many, because we never invented the stuff that would have saved them.
      - justanotheratom 1y ago
        you are assuming that all cancer research has been defunded altogether. And that if the government takes away some money, any ongoing research will come to a halt and we are doomed. And why are we so dependent on government dollars to begin with? Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
        const_cast 1y ago
        I'm not assuming that, I'm saying SOME of the research is being slashed. Because it is. We don't need to completely burn it all down to make the situation worse. Well, the situation is worse so... > Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention. If you don't know what you're talking about it's best to keep quite. We already know how to prevent cancer. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat red meat, don't eat processed meats. That covers 99% of the top two categories of carcinogens. And then exercise or something. The biggest hurdle to prevention isn't medicine, it's culture and anthropology.
chasing 1y ago
> A more serious political observation is that this administration operates on the theory that possession is 9/10ths of the law. It's just wild to me that people aren't simply arrested when this kind of thing occurs. It's not Trump's money. It's not Republican money. He has a narrowly defined role and anything outside of that is illegal. It's not exactly surprising, though, given half the government is run by the weakest and most deranged major political party in American history. The simple fact that the GOP has been steamrolled by this guy is the best evidence of the fact that since the 1970s they've been on a steep downward slide to become a party completely devoid of political talent, governing philosophy, or spine. Even if this gang of dipshits were trying to do good, they don't have the capacity to be able to understand complex situations and make accurate and nuanced choices. An example of this situation being RFK Jr. Normal people need to be screaming this from the hills. A healthy country in a competitive world cannot be run by grifters and morons. There's no "both sides" here.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  If Democrsts take the House in 2026, the lives of these people will become living hell. And if a Dem takes the presidency in 2028 while these precedents stand, I really hope they use them to gut funding to moronic right-wing priorities.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    Voters have given republicans a crazy double standard since reconstruction. Believing that any of this will result in a precedent for any future democrats means you haven't been paying attention. Only democrats have to follow the rules. Republicans voters support them even through blatantly unconstitutional acts like "take the guns first, due process second" and forcing schools to display christian symbols. Republican voters do not give a shit that Trump's family has taken billions of American dollars. Trump voters don't even care that they paid Steve Bannon millions to build a wall he never intended to build, and still voted for a Trump admin with Steve Bannon! These people believe anything is acceptable to topple the democrats because the democrats forced desegregation onto the southern states.
boben 1y ago
> There's an excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered. Why do you believe that? They're not defunding research in these areas.
- Retric 1y ago
  It looks like they are seeing exactly that: > A friend who is a breast cancer survivor just had her trial moved from NIH funding
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    They're withholding funding from certain institutions, but that doesn't change the amount of money Congress appropriated, so doesn't that just mean the grants go to some other institution and the research happens there?
    - sterlind 1y ago
      nope. they're not giving the remainder of terminated grants to other institutions. they're also blatantly impounding Congressionally authorized funding, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act (e.g. with all the USAID grants.)
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        You're conflating two different things. The administration's argument is that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, i.e. Congress has the power to prevent the executive from doing something by not funding it, but not the power to force the executive to do something just by appropriating money for it. But the administration objects to USAID, not cancer research, so what's stopping them from issuing the cancer research grants to other institutions? Nothing, right?
        Centigonal 1y ago

ryandrake 1y ago

> We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital. I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, but we, as in the USA, don't do anything (besides offering the standard Thoughts And Prayers™) when someone shoots up a school.

ty6853 1y ago
Nah we do something. We threaten to break the probation of anyone going in to save their children, beat up parents trying to get in, then scroll on our cell phones and furiously maintain hand hygiene with sanitizer while standing outside the door. The lesson is clear. Fight your way in to get your kids or die trying. No one is coming to help.
- danans 1y ago
  You are confusing a specific situation (a particular school shooting) for the general problem (the cultural and legal circumstances that give rose to school shootings).
- ARandomerDude 1y ago
  Not sure why this comment is being downvoted. This is a literal description of the 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, TX. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting
  - daveguy 1y ago
    This example (Uvalde) is probably the worst handled mass shooting in the history of police work. GP is being downvoted because it's a hyperbolic strawman.
    - reverendsteveii 1y ago
      when something actually happens it ceases to be a strawman. it might not be a representative sample (though the SRO running away and then going to court to fight for his right to run away after the parkland shooting does lend some credibility to the idea that we shouldn't expect help from the police, as does the police fighting in court to assert that they have no duty to protect people in the wake of that subway stabbing), but it is within the realm of possibility.
      - daveguy 1y ago
        Okay, then whatever the fallacy is of picking the absolute goddamn worst example possible and saying it is somehow representative.
        reverendsteveii 1y ago
        I was able to provide two more examples off the top of my head. Maybe cherrypicking isn't as wrong when you're in a cherry tree.
        daveguy 1y ago
        Except you gave a completely unrelated example and just repeated your first one. Maybe if you were in a cherry tree you wouldn't need the worst examples for propaganda purposes.

flax 1y ago

>We should be reacting to this the same way we respond when someone shoots up a school or hospital. We are: feeling horrible, knowing this is the only country where this happens, and also resigned to the fact that there's nothing we as individuals can do about it.

prox 1y ago
As individuals: group up. Start figuring out your local, state and federal political people you need to support. Build community is probably your best bet as individuals. Even if you donate a few hours here and there, or a small donation here and there, it can make the difference. This last election was mostly decided by the people who didn’t vote. The apathetic, the cynics and so on.
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  An excellent option is to use federalism as it was intended. If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants. There is nothing that requires it to be the federal government.
  - MiguelX413 1y ago
    Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden. California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > Unfair for some states to have to bear the burden. Isn't this the counterargument? Why should the US disproportionately pay for world-benefiting research instead of Europe or China? The answer, of course, is that other governments do also fund some research, but each government decides how much they want to spend and on what. Which applies as much to each individual state as it does to the federal government. > California already bears a large burden and that's on top of subsidizing other states through federal taxes. It sounds like you're arguing that cutting federal programs would benefit California, because then they would have that money to appropriate as they choose for themselves.

justanotheratom 1y ago

This is a little too much fear mongering: "excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered." Why is this an excellent chance?

daveguy 1y ago
Because it was already an excellent chance, and now the most successful biomedical research program in the world is being decimated? Seems like the bare minimum fear to me.
- justanotheratom 1y ago
  provide more facts and details.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Okay, 50% of men will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. That means if it's not me, it's you. If we defund that research, that means a lot more people will die. We won't know how many, because we never invented the stuff that would have saved them.
    - justanotheratom 1y ago
      you are assuming that all cancer research has been defunded altogether. And that if the government takes away some money, any ongoing research will come to a halt and we are doomed. And why are we so dependent on government dollars to begin with? Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        I'm not assuming that, I'm saying SOME of the research is being slashed. Because it is. We don't need to completely burn it all down to make the situation worse. Well, the situation is worse so... > Also, maybe research dollars should emphasize prevention. If you don't know what you're talking about it's best to keep quite. We already know how to prevent cancer. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat red meat, don't eat processed meats. That covers 99% of the top two categories of carcinogens. And then exercise or something. The biggest hurdle to prevention isn't medicine, it's culture and anthropology.

chasing 1y ago

> A more serious political observation is that this administration operates on the theory that possession is 9/10ths of the law. It's just wild to me that people aren't simply arrested when this kind of thing occurs. It's not Trump's money. It's not Republican money. He has a narrowly defined role and anything outside of that is illegal. It's not exactly surprising, though, given half the government is run by the weakest and most deranged major political party in American history. The simple fact that the GOP has been steamrolled by this guy is the best evidence of the fact that since the 1970s they've been on a steep downward slide to become a party completely devoid of political talent, governing philosophy, or spine. Even if this gang of dipshits were trying to do good, they don't have the capacity to be able to understand complex situations and make accurate and nuanced choices. An example of this situation being RFK Jr. Normal people need to be screaming this from the hills. A healthy country in a competitive world cannot be run by grifters and morons. There's no "both sides" here.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
If Democrsts take the House in 2026, the lives of these people will become living hell. And if a Dem takes the presidency in 2028 while these precedents stand, I really hope they use them to gut funding to moronic right-wing priorities.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Voters have given republicans a crazy double standard since reconstruction. Believing that any of this will result in a precedent for any future democrats means you haven't been paying attention. Only democrats have to follow the rules. Republicans voters support them even through blatantly unconstitutional acts like "take the guns first, due process second" and forcing schools to display christian symbols. Republican voters do not give a shit that Trump's family has taken billions of American dollars. Trump voters don't even care that they paid Steve Bannon millions to build a wall he never intended to build, and still voted for a Trump admin with Steve Bannon! These people believe anything is acceptable to topple the democrats because the democrats forced desegregation onto the southern states.

boben 1y ago

> There's an excellent chance that you or a loved one will die from a potentially curable disease (cancer, dementia) because the research and clinical trials that should be bringing us those drugs are all being murdered. Why do you believe that? They're not defunding research in these areas.

Retric 1y ago
It looks like they are seeing exactly that: > A friend who is a breast cancer survivor just had her trial moved from NIH funding
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  They're withholding funding from certain institutions, but that doesn't change the amount of money Congress appropriated, so doesn't that just mean the grants go to some other institution and the research happens there?
  - sterlind 1y ago
    nope. they're not giving the remainder of terminated grants to other institutions. they're also blatantly impounding Congressionally authorized funding, in violation of the Impoundment Control Act (e.g. with all the USAID grants.)
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      You're conflating two different things. The administration's argument is that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, i.e. Congress has the power to prevent the executive from doing something by not funding it, but not the power to force the executive to do something just by appropriating money for it. But the administration objects to USAID, not cancer research, so what's stopping them from issuing the cancer research grants to other institutions? Nothing, right?
      - Centigonal 1y ago