volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
It always occurs to me that that sort of talk glosses over the point that we voters elect government officials.
It really comes down to us. If we elect and reelect officials who don't have our interests at heart, well, we get what we voted for.
We should probably stop electing the people who just might buy into this sort of thing, but that's up to us. We get to choose who we elect.
No, not at all. According to the US Treasury, their own projections, they have plenty of revenues coming in to pay the debts. They don't need anything from Congress to avoid defaulting.
Yes, a lot of people are either lying or misleading about that, but the numbers don't lie. The Treasury makes public its balance statements showing that it has plenty of revenue to service its debts.
The political grandstanding needs to be called out for what it is.
Among other places you can see this, the Treasury itself publishes the data that you can go through yourself, if you'd like.
So even the US Treasury agrees that it has the money to pay the debts.
Here's a good startingpoint:
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/monthly-treasury-statement/summary-of-receipts-outlays-and-the-deficit-surplus-of-the-u-s-government
One issue is, do you simply let the executive branch off the hook for violating the law? Do we just throw accountability out the window so easily?
To simply punt the case based on lack of standing is itself no small matter, since that sort of thing *even if correct* is better handled through the full, but time consuming, Supreme Court argument process.
The lower court cited precedents, and the problem here is that the FDA twisted things such that precedents applied in unpredictable ways. That's how it's worked its ways through layers of reviews by now.
This is one huge reason we should not look to courts to fix issues that the other two branches caused.
@LFpete @rbreich is absolutely incorrect in this, and it's really sad that he'd be promoting such ideas that are ignorant of pretty basic elements of US civics education.
The structure of the US government gives our representatives in Congress say over how much the country borrows, and it's pretty reasonable to say that the government shouldn't be obligating future generations into paying debts without strong buy-in from the population. So representatives have to approve that debt.
The debt ceiling is merely what we call the amount that we've decided, through the democratic process, to allow to be borrowed under our names.
Robert Reich is once again out to lunch on this one. Charitably, I'm imagining he knows better and is putting politics ahead of education.
Except that it's up to the Democratic president to pay his credit card, and he has plenty of money in the Treasury to do it.
Republicans have nothing to do with that, no matter how much the president might be trying to use that as a political talking point.
More importantly, the UST is projected to have PLENTY of revenues incoming to service the US debt.
There is ZERO need to default. If the president is talking about default, that would be a choice he'd be making, and it would be impeachable.
So many people get this wrong.
See the ruling I'll link below.
Courts couldn't act without the FDA's response, and the FDA simply didn't respond regardless of the law.
"After all, Plaintiffs’ petitions challenging the 2000 Approval date back to the year 2002, right?
"Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review — until now. Before Plaintiffs filed this case, FDA ignored their petitions for over sixteen years, even though the law requires an agency response within “180 days of receipt of the petition.”"
This case is a mess, with the FDA's delays throwing the normal legal process into chaos, so the Court is likely looked deeply into the practical results of breaking from the normal rule to make a special exemption for this case.
It's not that weird when you realize just how off the rails this situation is.
The administration should have resolved all of this already, but it didn't. So the Court is trying to figure out how best to pick up the pieces it's been handed.
If you think this is an easy decision, it sounds like you don't understand the controversy here.
The FDA delayed legal proceedings for decades, so what should have been a run of the mill stay until pending questions were settled became something of a time machine to a previous period. The administration sort of broke the legal system here.
So it's not clear what the courts should do when the standard solution is so weird, and they don't want to break their own rules.
@thejapantimes But they're not undercutting the FDA. They're grappling with the FDA running afoul of its own standards.
The courts in this case are trying to figure out how to deal with an FDA that undercut itself, looking at the FDA's own records of dubious approval to sort out what to do now.
No, because mifepristone had specific legal issues with its approval, which is what this whole mess is about.
The FDA broke the law here, and the courts are grappling with what to do about it.
I don't know of any other drugs that are in the same situation, but only drugs approved in violation of the legal process would be similarly situated.
To say the government and tax code is broken thanks to Wall Street and whatever is to excuse voters from their responsibility for literally acting to make sure their representatives were in a position to set that tax code, and then decline to fix it.
WE voted these people into power, and we largely confirmed those choices by reelecting them, over and over again.
Forget Wall Street. WE asked for this.
And we could change it, if we wanted to, but apparently we don't because we keep reelecting the same people.
Well, it's calm, boring, responsible application of procedure that would win the battle here.
Remember, this whole issue came about because the FDA failed to follow its own legally mandated procedures. MAYBE because of politics, but we don't need to speculate.
The courts are struggling with how to deal with this situation, but really the administration just needed and needs to do its job and follow the rules to approve the drug.
Political pressure is great, but only if it's aimed at the right actor. Hopefully Biden sees more political advantage in fixing his errors than letting them linger as a political stunt.
@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr
Have you found My Pillows to be uncomfortable? What are they like?
I don't think I've ever seen one in person.
That's not how the ruling would work, though.
The administration would remain free to respond to its mess as it sees fit, even if the FDA approval had been called out as failing to follow procedure.
IF mifepristone is unavailable, it would be because the executive branch chose, for itself, to crack down on it instead of approving it properly.
@coctaanatis@mstdn.social
We don't rely on institutions to police themselves, though.
That's exactly why the US government was designed with checks and balances, specifically because conflicts of interest mean we can't rely on that.
Santos's constituents elected a liar to represent them in Congress. That's their choice, just as we we respect the choices of all voters, even when we personally disagree with them.
@yuki2501 @lowqualityfacts NASA *DOES* give useful information to Musk because the organization isn't petty and understands that SpaceX working on these technical problems contributes to the knowledgebase of humanity.
Is NASA obligated? Probably not. But they are self-interested in seeing SpaceX help solve the problems they themselves face.
Some of us aren't obsessed with the identities and personal lives and drama of people who contribute to the world.
@lowqualityfacts
We were always at war with Eastasia.
Firstly, a lot more has come out since this article in 2020.
But secondly, this article shows why people have such little respect for organizations like the NYTimes, when they themselves highlight these problematic things but brush them aside.
What is it with this obsession? Well, as the NYTimes puts it:
"The investigation found that Hunter Biden had “cashed in” on his father’s name to close lucrative business deals around the world. It also concluded that his work for Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company then mired in a corruption scandal, while the former vice president was directing American policy toward Kyiv had given the appearance of a conflict of interest and alarmed some State Department officials."
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
