|
HonorableTB posted:Hey anyone heard from ben Carson lately? Did anyone wake him up during the inauguration or is he asleep somewhere in HUD https://wset.com/lifestyle/living-in-the-heart-of-virginia/dr-ben-carson-visits-valor-farm quote:Dr. Ben Carson and his wife Candy visited Valor Farm on #VeteransDay to join hands with fellow #Americans paying tribute to the great men and women who #defend our #freedoms
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:why did they decide to go this circuitous route through the states? it's basically because they didn't want to shell out for it right? It's because there's ages of precedent limiting direct federal or even state involvement with parents' raising of children, which has been applied in a bunch of settings, including education and childcare. Funding incentive programs is how the feds try to get around these issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Biden rules out military action if Russia invades Ukraine, but is working with E.U. partners to coordinate possible sanctions. Where does the article say the administration has ruled out military action? Recent FTC activity of interest: They're suing to block the Nvidia/Arm merger.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
There will be a Senate confirmation hearing on Robert Califf, the planned and much delayed new FDA head, at 10 AM on the 14th. CSPAN will almost certainly be carrying it; there may well be fireworks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2021 06:39
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I highly, highly doubt that Biden would ever sign a legal weed bill Again, and it's come up before, Biden's in favor of legalization. It's being negotiated in Congress and among the regulatory agencies, with several candidate bills- it's an extremely messy process. The dismissed staffers were part of the security clearance process. They waived and reduced a lot of the requirements, but didn't completely remove them, apparently dismissing five people during the top secret clearance process for ongoing use. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Dec 11, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
selec posted:Oh, bills? The thing that will not get passed for the next four years unless they are funding Palestinian apartheid or selling arms for the Saudi war in Yemen? It is in fact complicated to establish a legal and regulatory structure for a historically illegal botanical substance and agricultural crop with several different commodity elements, that's got a bunch of derivatives already being marketed in dietary supplements, with existing divergent industrial practices that at a minimum vary by state, with backing from multiple competing industrial interests representing billions of dollars fighting over regulatory advantages at every step. At a minimum, FDA, USDA, EPA, DEA, DOJ and NIH are doing technical guidance work on several bills at once right now. This is not a fast or clear process, and would not be so under any competent congress or administration.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:What are these candidate bills? Link? Link to the info on technical guidance work would be appreciated too. Technical guidance isn't public; it's transferred between individual agencies and congressional authors as part of the consultation process. Here's the CAOA summary. selec posted:It’s good we got an incompetent Congress and admin then. Smooooth sailing ahead for this widely popular policy. It is not in fact bullshit. The applicability of EPA pesticide residue tolerance standards alone is a colossal clusterfuck, let alone the yawning nightmare of FDA regulatory status. You personally not knowing how any part of the government works, or trying to shoot flak about the already existing defense program does not somehow mean that it works according to your deliberately calculated ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1...ingawful.com%2F This is entirely based on a press conference from two days ago and includes no new information. I strongly encourage reevaluating random forbes columnists as sources.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Does this mean you think he is going to extend student loan deferments? No, and this is a deliberate misrepresentation of my post. The problem is it's misrepresenting the source subject as if it's breaking news. mawarannahr posted:Is there anything wrong with it that merits harshing on Bestselling Author, The Lemonade Life, who writes and speaks about leadership and greatness? Let people do their jobs. "Their job" in this case is misleading clickbait, which is an ongoing issue with Forbes, as has come up in this thread many times before.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:Why would you blame the columnist for that and not the completely different person running the Twitter account? The author links to this tweet, dated December 11, about said press conference in citation, even, making it clear when and from where they got their information. No, my complaint is with ex post facho, who originally posted the tweet with zero context and a reaction, and the twitter account, which presented the content as breaking, and the columnist, who published the column which has no value unless it can be remediated as if it were new for outrage, which is, hey presto, what happened. This is not a new issue with Forbes. We don't have to pretend it is.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:You’re right and earlier something similar happened with the oil leases article in the guardian. It’s being done intentionally ( not the posters here but in the news) We should not have to internalize or tolerate a misleading framing of something that's been known for months as if it were new. I's being done intentionally by forbes, and it's being defended intentionally by posters. Neither should be conflated with a meaningful interest in discussing the subject matter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:We shouldn’t and you’re right... The thread had rules about posting tweets with no context for this exact reason; it opens the thread to abuse, directly and mediated. The solution is simple. Moderation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1470438857510465541 It’s a repeat, it’s not news, it’s clickbait repackaging a multiple day old press conference with no new information.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 14:33
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/WaitingOnBiden/status/1471827518285967362 a) it's been around from the beginning of November, being recycled now as if it's new specifically to make people rage. b) it's a work product memo that's part of a broader release, of which signficant parts are not redacted, linked in the above. Think about why you are being targeted with misleading representations of information. Think about why you're redistributing them here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Think about why you constantly defend this poo poo What are you claiming I am defending?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:Eliding the administration's actions by quibbling over the presentation and/or timing of tweets that reference them is just really obviously a coward's defense of them and it's kind of absurd to pretend that it isn't So, I'm not, but you want me to so I can be your posting enemy. Leon Trotsky 2012's framing of the subject is much better TheIncredulousHulk posted:Why does a news item having come out earlier taint it for discussion now? Because it misrepresents it as new and inaccurately describes the subject. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Have facts come to light since that have rendered the original story invalid? Or are you just suggesting that anybody who misses a news item when it comes out only to discover it later must be barred from bringing it up, and to do anything other than keeping silent on it is to out oneself as an insidious Derailer? Just how long is the window here, exactly, too, since you pulled this exact poo poo over news that was two days old? No, because both the twitter account and the original citing post don't acknowledge that it's old. Hell, the post acknowledges the source is lovely but still runs with it because it gives them ammo. TheIncredulousHulk posted:If anything, the age of the redacted memo story should make it look even worse now, given the excuses at the time were all about how the administration wasn't trying to obscure anything by redacting it, it was simply an intermediate step, they'd totally announce their findings later when they were ready... and now months down the line the only action the administration's taking on student loans is to end the pandemic moratorium on them I am not. I'm addressing misrepresentations that keep happening because people keep posting tweets without context and misrepresenting them. Epic High Five posted:All I can say is that if you vape colloidal silver, you definitely will not die of COVID FDA actually just put out a press release a few days ago because companies have started selling essential oil and vitamin vapes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:What material difference does it make to the content that it's old? Spell it out for me The mediating tweet is in fact misrepresenting the source, because it presents one memo from a larger, not entirely censored FOIA release as if it were an immediately recent, publicly issued "report" . The point is to treat what was old as new to justify new rage, a new response (and to act as if the administration just issued the censored report, when as Leon Trotsky 2012 noted, was not the case and is of significance for how the situation should be interpreted). This is not about me being a defender of the administration (however much you want me to be an ideologically clear enemy). I want people to stop posting misleading twitter ragebait in USNews (right down to the "how is this real lmao" intensifier, christ). Eviltastic and Leon Trotsky are able to identify and engage with the actual source material on its own terms.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 05:31
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:The constant refrain of "this is old information!!!" is meaningless and you deploy it entirely to insinuate that "old" equates to something that has either been resolved or has been contradicted and in this case it's neither. In what way has the redacted memo become irrelevant since its release? Has the administration's policy on student loans stopped mattering? The contents of this memo have been hidden even longer now than when they first hit the news. It is actually less defensible now than it was a month ago, and knowing that they did this is useful information for understanding why they're doing something as harmful as ending the loan moratorium. If you're going to cry "old news" all the time, you should explain why its age makes it irrelevant for discussion(especially if we're talking about a press conference that was two days old). If you're going to claim something is misleading, you should explain what aspect of the story it's obscuring besides timing, which in these cases hasn't meaningfully distorted the content. Otherwise it's just innuendo You appear to be ignoring the part where I point out the other ways the tweet was dishonest, and you appear to be ignoring the part where I talk about how other people angry about the policy are engaging with the subject honestly, unlike the tweet, all so you can continue to remake me into a posting enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 07:36
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1472292258808582156 Here's the actual press briefing, with the preceding and following material Bragman cuts out: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...h-officials-74/ quote:MR. ZIENTS: Good morning. And thanks for joining us. He links it later in the tweet thread, but elides the parts of the statement (immediately following what he screenshots) to pretend that the statement is only that vaccination matters and that nothing else is being done. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Dec 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/12/20/manchin-biden-child-tax-credit/quote:Manchin’s private offer to Biden included pre-k, climate money, Obamacare — but excluded child benefit Citation to three people and the framing of the breakdown make it likely this is people from the admin revealing the details; not clear this is coordinated from above, as it's the kind of material that WaPo would put a lot of resources into getting to first.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Under these circumstances “three people familiar with the call” means there’s an attempt to undo the damage from the blowup, but not much else can be identified.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Here's a link to the actual white house announcement: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...tional-90-days/ Not that I'm aware of other than her much-derided proposal during the 2020 campaign, but such a focus would not necessarily have been public.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Yeah that's what I was thinking of - could be there were signs of VP-ish stuff you'd expect like meetings and calls with the Secretary, stakeholders, etc. buried in humdrum "and this is on her calendar" stuff that's hard to search for amid all the stories focused on debt cancellation (and the pell grant bit). Only thing I came up with was this story about her being part of the administration reaching out to the National Pan-Hellenic Council. Some of this might be identifiable from public documents, but it'd be difficult because a lot of the VP's staff is white house and EO regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I'm aware she's inferring from the announcement, I'm merely remarking on how blatantly obvious it is that the CDC seeks to save number rather than lives So, you're lying and pretending this is an "admission" of whatever you want to assign to it. A big flaming stink posted:So regarding that updated guidance: This is not any kind of representative for the CDC. You're just making things up and assigning them to tweets. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 05:26
|
|
|
ILL Machina posted:Agreed. No idea how you could get mad at that reading, esp with the reuters ref. That lady calling out the CDC is almost certainly 100% right. Just hard to say "they admitted their purpose" from that tapper tweet. A shame then that the user with the rapsheet full of posting things from twitter and misrepresenting them posted a tweet from tapper and said that "they admitted their purpose". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
Holding you accountable for what you say isn't "debate lord bullshit", and misrepresenting tweets to try to score owns isn't a "turn of phrase" except by the most abusive rationale.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
Anthony Fauci is also not a CDC representative. Fauci has also been a problem as a communicator for a very long time because his position is normally functionally a senior grant administrator, not a comms figure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I know you mostly just want to fact check these days, but do you have opinions on agencies like the CDC weighting economic/political factors so much more heavily than health factors? Is this a new development, or is it just more visible with something like COVID? I don't know that they have weighted economic or political factors more heavily- I'd need to actually dig into the evidence base for the guideline change, which as far as I can tell no one has done in the thread in favor of slamming twitter links. Reducing quarantine periods often has to do with backfire effects related to overall compliance and/or capacity factors; if you can get people to actually limit their exposure behavior during the period where there's actual risk, it can be better than a broader requirement that they breach. The CDC isn't going to just ignore economic factors, either, inasmuchas people who can't work under guidelines for an extended period of time wind up, well, not following the guidelines. In this case, the rationale appears to be based on when in the disease period transmission is occurring. The MMWRs may be a good source on this, but I don't see anything in the immediate last couple weeks, and this change is probably the product of a few different sources. CDC has a reputation of being somewhere in the middle as an organization, not as independent of the administration as NIH or NAS, but also not as vulnerable to industry capture as USDA or FDA. I don't have a lot of insight into their culture, but I know that like a lot of US public entities, they're simultaneously a) the best, or close to the best, minds in the world at what they do and b) ridiculously, absurdly hamstrung due to many decades of underfunding and sabotage. IIRC their giant campus in GA was due to go under active renovation when the pandemic hit, which probably hasn't helped. Some context I wrote up on Fauci a couple years back from one of his previous embarrassing statements: Discendo Vox posted:Briefly, on Fauci and NIH:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Who cares. He is involved in public health decision-making. That's good enough and gives one insight into the logic behind this move. You refusing to know things about how the government works, or what Fauci's position is, or what his communications have been, does not give you insight.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Your pedantic nonsense doesn't change the fact he has been a central figure in the public health response for two administrations. Being a media adjunct professor does not give you insight. It's not pedantry, it's basic effort for the forum that's supposed to be for informed discussion. Fauci's been head of NIAID since 1984. I wrote up like 500 words on his actual role and his communications status you're ignoring.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
So, not the CDC, and Fauci doing the same thing he's been doing since the pandemic started. Somehow, whenever you misrepresent something, it's "pedantry" to identify how you're doing it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 18:04
|
|
|
Here's a direct link to the final rule in the federal register. On a quick skim, section 23.280 appears to indicate that it starts at 10.50 and phases to $15 an hour Jan 1 2024. The coverage of food workers and contractors is discussed at this section. The below suggests it would not cover delivery of services to an event, depending on whether they're under the Service Contract Act: quote:For example, if a Federal agency contracts with an outside catering company to provide and deliver coffee for a conference, such a contract would not be considered a covered contract under section 8(a)(i)(D), although it would be a covered contract under section 8(a)(i)(B) if it is covered by the SCA. In addition, section 8(a)(i)(D) coverage only extends to contracts “related to offering services for [F]ederal employees, their dependents, or the general public.” Therefore, if a Federal agency contracts with a company to solely supply materials in connection with Federal property or lands (such as napkins or utensils for a concession stand), the Department would not consider the contract to be covered by section 8(a)(i)(D) because it is not a contract related to offering services. Likewise, because a license or permit to conduct a wedding on Federal property or lands generally would not relate to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public, but rather would only relate to offering services to the specific individual applicant(s), the Department would not consider such a contract covered by section 8(a)(i)(D). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Dec 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
skylined! posted:gently caress man Harry Reid died. Article in NV Independent. Appears to include a good biosketch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
Uh, the PPP program was about maintaining existing employment, not creating new jobs. Companies could do things like stock buybacks if they kept the PPP funds separate, and the condition for loan forgiveness was if the money from the loan went into payroll and they maintained present employment levels. It was a broad-spectrum stimulus bailout to keep companies from downsizing during the pandemic, which...is what they did if they wanted to keep the money (or "keep" it, since they had to spend it). A lot of companies that weren't under payroll pressure just took the money, used it for payroll, and pocketed the equivalent amount from their holdings. This happened a lot because the loans weren't means-tested past some pretty broad employee count criteria. There was also some pretty widely reported fraud from companies making up employee count documentation. Companies didn't have to post new job openings; the entire "due diligence" claim has no relation to the PPP program's requirements. The rest of the thread is nonsensical past that point, which is pretty early on. Look, here's the information about the forgiveness requirements.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1476685515315462144?s=20 It does appear that the relevant office within HHS paused allocation to some states and then shifted back, but it appears to have happened as new data became available- and even the first announcement states that quote:The situation varies in different geographic regions and different health care facilities, and there may be circumstances, such as lower frequency of Omicron in a region and limited supply of alternative treatment options, in which the use of existing site supply of these therapeutics is clinically appropriate. We are working to make available the most updated information to health care providers and provide them with appropriate flexibility to provide the best care for their patients. As additional data become available, we will provide updates and further recommendations and consider if additional actions are warranted. The reason for the pause was to keep the paused treatments available for the states where they would be effective. It is, of course, unlikely that "the administration" played any role in the decisionmaking involved; the head of the relevant office is a senate appointee, but everyone who would've actually made that decision would be federal employees. Oh, and for added fun, here's the doctor that is the only quoted source for the article. Everything else is paraphrasing a set of HHS announcements, which to its credit, it links. It appears the guy's furious because his urgent care clinic chain has a contract to distribute the treatments in Maryland (and is the only private entity with such a contract). There's a whole essay to write on how urgent care clinics are a horrible parasitic scam in US healthcare, but that's a separate effortpost. ....I may crosspost this to the media analysis thread, it's a really easy article to beat up and as such it makes a good exercise. Smeef posted:The foreign income threshold is a little over $100k and goes up a tiny bit every year. Income above that also isn’t taxed as additive to the overseas taxes you pay. For example, if you’re making $200k in Denmark you’re not paying 30% US tax on top of Denmark’s 50% (just making these numbers up). You just pay the difference in places with lower rates, like Singapore or Monaco or wherever. The tax prep industry has repeatedly killed efforts at the equivalent setup by the IRS, an organization that is horiffically underfunded and sabtaged in ways few other federal entites can compare to. Back in the 60s-80ss, the IRS spent a huge sum of money to create the IDRS, a ccomputerized, centralized taxpayer database on one of the very first mainframe computers (literally a later ENIAC model). It used tape reels, COBOL and machine code. ...and it's still the central tax database, because the IRS has never gotten the money to replace it, and now all of their systems are hobbled by being designed around communicating with it. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Jan 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:None of the following will be at all shocking to anyone with half a brain cell to rub together that follows a thread like this but it's still a great video that I keep around. I mean it'll raise your blood pressure because GOD loving DAMMIT AMERICA, but, well, that's just the state of things these days. Yeah, that’s the postcard return I was referring to above. The IRS is also in favor of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 07:49 |
|
|
SourKraut posted:I would be interested in this essay/effortpost; I think for-profit urgent care clinics are a scam, but thankfully in a number of regions, not-for-profit healthcare institutions have been opening their own urgent care clinics to compete, and I would argue these are far less parasitic and more beneficial to the communities they serve. Entirely fair; in badly regulated states, “emergent care” exists to extract profits and drop all non-profitable patients at hospitals. The “layer” of urgent care clinics often serves as a rent-seeking substitute that excuses and prevents a more complete care system.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2022 08:18
|
|