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
Right, but US law calls for specific procedures through which such data is to be considered, and it's up to the FDA to consider that data.
Maybe we should change the laws. I'd say the Executive Branch should have acted on that data already so we wouldn't be in this mess at all.
But judges aren't in a position to ignore laws and the FDA's own records due to the results of independent investigations.
This case is about whether legal procedures were followed. That's what judges are looking to rule on.
Yep, but we're not at the merits phase of this court proceeding.
And again, the administration could fix all of this since the mess was caused by executive branch processes.
So, instead we're going to wind through the court proceedings, taking time and accepting the uncertainty.
The US Treasury, which writes checks and spends money on behalf of the United States, is an Executive Branch department.
It is not a part of the Legislative branch, which wouldn't make sense anyway.
It's true that "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law" but power of the purse only extends to giving the president the permission to spend.
If you want more evidence of how this works, note that the Treasury NEVER spends exactly what lawmakers legislate. And that's because Congress does not, and cannot, spend.
You're missing the different functions of the separate branches of government.
No, just as there are rules about taking turns to speak, there are also guidelines on decorum when speaking.
Whether you or I might approve or not, legislative bodies tend to have rules about speakers attacking each other and things like that.
This legislator was found to have broken those rules of decorum, that everyone agreed to.
That's exactly the issue: this case is about the FDA's own questions about whether the drug passed its tests.
To put it another way, the judge isn't judging the drug. Rather, the judge is looking at FDA's own records saying the drug didn't pass tests, but they approved it anyway.
That's simplifying it a little bit, but I'm just trying to emphasize that this case is all about the FDA's own judgement of the drug, based on the FDA's own records.
Go directly to the ruling and you'll see that plenty of press outfits are misreporting what's actually going on.
Here's a link to it:
@gbhnews @sarahutch @damemagazine @TPR @azpm @thexylom @TheConversationUS @wausaupilot @STAT
That's a misleading description of what's happening in Montana.
According to PBS, the rep isn't being allowed to speak after breaking rules of the chamber. That's just how legislative bodies work: they have rules to be obeyed and accountability for people who break the rules they agreed to.
@alastor8472@mastodon.online
I don't discount the possibility that ActivityPub isn't so much in a state of slow development as it's in a state of having hit a dead end :)
But that's a bit snarky.
The Court isn't making decisions about science, though.
This whole mess is about an executive branch agency not following the law, not about science.
The question before the court is about law, as that's what the Court has the expertise to handle.
@alastor8472@mastodon.online
Yes! I beat the drum that #Fediverse is not so much decentralized as it's centralized around instances.
It's federated, not decentralized.
From my understanding of #Bluesky it actually is more decentralized, giving power to users instead of instances.
I'm always critical of the engineering decisions #ActivityPub made, pretty much because it's not what Bluesky seems to have settled on.
In short, and this is uncertain until we learn more about it, Bluesky might be what Fediverse should have been, IMO.
Seems to me "racist" is the new way to refer to *everything*.
Have any funny users in particular to recommend?
That's not what the ruling does, though.
To point out that the FDA broke the law in its processes surrounding the approval of this drug doesn't block access to the medication.
We SHOULD BE calling on the president to fix compliance with the law and Congress to reevaluate the law and probably reform it, but the distraction of focusing squarely on the court doesn't get us anywhere.
There are laws that I believe are too restrictive on medications, including this one. It's not the court's problem that they're having to work with bad laws.
@gbhnews @sarahutch @damemagazine @TPR @azpm @thexylom @TheConversationUS @wausaupilot @STAT
How do you think it works?
This is basic civics. The legislative branch authorizes and the executive branch executes.
The Treasury is part of the executive branch, and as they collect taxes and write checks to spend money, they're under the authority of the president.
If the president directs the Treasury not to pay debts, that's up to him.
What part of that do you disagree with?
@itwasntme223 The income from student loan collections goes into the Treasury and is included in Congressional budgeting, just the same as any tax collections.
The clearest way of illustrating this is that student loans were included in the ACA as lawmakers were working to offset its costs.
You can find it in the legislation itself, but my quick search found this article that states:
> "The profits from student loans are divided as follows: $8.7 billion goes to pay for ObamaCare; $10.3 billion goes to pay down the federal debt; and $36 billion goes to Pell Scholarship grants."
https://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/151801-loans-subsidize-obamacare/
@Nonilex The standing here is in a grey area, and I would tend to agree with you, but that sort of question is answered through a process that will take a little time.
The issue at the moment is what to do while that process is hashed out in courts.
There is, of course, the side issue of whether presidents are able to get away with violating law on the grounds of litigants not having standing.
We shouldn't overlook that part of it, since it's why this mess happened in the first place.
What, specific, subsidies to oil and gas companies?
Yes, POTUS had a lie to tell. And we really need to call this what it is, a lie.
It's not up to the speaker of the house to pay the nation's bills, but rather it's up to the president.
The Treasury has plenty of money, by its own statements, to pay the bills. There is absolutely no reason to default unless the president chooses, on his own, to default.
We really need to be clear about this. Biden is threatening default even though he has enough money to service the debts of the United States. It is ridiculous and, if he follows through on the threat, it is impeachable.
If Biden wants more power to borrow more he needs to be transparent about it and negotiate for that power. It is irresponsible for him to promote this line that it's anything else.
Congress has already said that they were counting on the revenues from the student loan repayments to fund government.
So this is more of a political stunt. Congress has already been clear about the loans being required to be repaid or else government will be out of the revenues It needs to function.
The Republicans here are just using that as a flag to support their bill.
Multiple lower courts disagree with you, but setting that aside, here's a question:
What do you think of the claim that the FDA delayed the proceedings for years? Is it false? Is it a misreading of the law? Specifically, what issue do you take with that core part of the dispute?
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:
