3 ms·

I'm not going to dig through every hour of his podcast to find all the times that he said himself that he is on the left and voted for Sanders. If you're that m

by timr 1y ago

I'm not going to dig through every hour of his podcast to find all the times that he said himself that he is on the left and voted for Sanders. If you're that motivated, you can easily go listen to him, and then you might actually know something. > I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite. I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role. Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. He was a civil servant. Nothing about the position has changed since he left. He resigned, and Makary recruited Prasad. By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role. You said you looked it up. Should be an easy cite. > Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER. He was a civil servant. Those aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Some State Department ambassadors are long-term civil servants; others are political appointees. https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma-critic-lead-fda-vaccine-program-2068776 https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma... "Prasad's new role has traditionally been held by an FDA career scientist" > By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss. If you were appointed by Federal agency heads, sure. They're the encyclopedia's standards, not mine.
mrkeen 1y ago
> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. Peter Marks was dismissed by RFK over vaccines. > Nothing about the position has changed since he left. I can't dispute this, so what conclusion is left other than Prasad will keep his job to the extent that he agrees with RFK on vaccines.
- timr 1y ago
  I actually agree with you (I mean, you're just stating facts). But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment, where nobody can fire you, lest it become "political". So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha... Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Simple fact: That's false. Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc. > Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even. > So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha… Marks was fired (well, forced to resign); he had some civil service protection (having been hired as a non-political appointment first), but not for the role he was in. Jha was a political appointment, and thus not subject to civil service protections; his position was done away with entirely after the work was done. You are citing successful removals to claim people can't be removed, which is… a bit interesting.
    - timr 1y ago
      You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political". Marks resigned, Prasad was hired. Same position. Arguing that he can be fired is...true, I suppose (in the same way that Marks was "fired"), but non-responsive.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political" Correct, but "non-responsive", as you say. > You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political". You have spent a lot of words arguing with the definition of "political appointee". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_... Prasad and Marks are/were both political appointees because they were appointed to their roles by the President, Vice President, or a Federal agency head. In such a role, they lack certain protections (including around firing) a civil service role would possess. It's really quite simple.

by timr 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

> I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role. You said you looked it up. Should be an easy cite. > Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER. He was a civil servant. Those aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Some State Department ambassadors are long-term civil servants; others are political appointees. https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma-critic-lead-fda-vaccine-program-2068776 https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma... "Prasad's new role has traditionally been held by an FDA career scientist" > By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss. If you were appointed by Federal agency heads, sure. They're the encyclopedia's standards, not mine.

mrkeen 1y ago

> Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. Peter Marks was dismissed by RFK over vaccines. > Nothing about the position has changed since he left. I can't dispute this, so what conclusion is left other than Prasad will keep his job to the extent that he agrees with RFK on vaccines.

timr 1y ago
I actually agree with you (I mean, you're just stating facts). But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment, where nobody can fire you, lest it become "political". So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha... Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". Simple fact: That's false. Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc. > Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even. > So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha… Marks was fired (well, forced to resign); he had some civil service protection (having been hired as a non-political appointment first), but not for the role he was in. Jha was a political appointment, and thus not subject to civil service protections; his position was done away with entirely after the work was done. You are citing successful removals to claim people can't be removed, which is… a bit interesting.
  - timr 1y ago
    You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political". Marks resigned, Prasad was hired. Same position. Arguing that he can be fired is...true, I suppose (in the same way that Marks was "fired"), but non-responsive.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political" Correct, but "non-responsive", as you say. > You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political". You have spent a lot of words arguing with the definition of "political appointee". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_... Prasad and Marks are/were both political appointees because they were appointed to their roles by the President, Vice President, or a Federal agency head. In such a role, they lack certain protections (including around firing) a civil service role would possess. It's really quite simple.