What I Learned from Plain English

[n_huffhines]

I think there is definitely some truth to the idea that America first now, is going to create issues for America in the long run. even if we achieved some sort of more isolationist utopia. the issue with the current set up is the pendulum was too far left, now the only way Trump tries to correct is to go too far right. the issue is it doesn't bring balance, it just creates new issues on the other side, instead of fixing anything.

like most things politicians touch it starts out with some short term goal that people can get behind, but then there are long term issues that aren't planned for. Not that anyone could address every issue, but it would be nice to know they are thinking about some of the big/obvious ones.

brain drain from lack of funding will be a big issue.

relying on venture capitalism to fund things, is how we ended up with Big Pharma that only treats issues to begin with. no way they are ever going to actually help CURE people.

the immediate jump is another issue. I have thought Trump needed to phase out/phase in things, instead of relying on immediate cuts, and then going "oh crap" and undoing a chunk of the work.

I would point out that most of the universities getting funding were getting funding for political reasons. it was just never brought to task as an issue, so it seems worse than it actually is, because we are just now seeing it become a partisan issue. but these places were getting funding because they played ball with DC.

On the last part, yes this research all suffers from biases and favoritism...but my Dad was a free market labor economist working at a conservative university, getting research grants from the federal government. He even worked for the National Academy of Sciences. Probably all the free market economists we like (Williams, Friedman, Sowell, etc.) have enjoyed federal funding. The system has worked both ways, it's just that Harvard and Columbia are higher profile and more liberal than the right wants them to be.

 

[LouderVol]

On the last part, yes this research all suffers from biases and favoritism...but my Dad was a free market labor economist working at a conservative university, getting research grants from the federal government. He even worked for the National Academy of Sciences. Probably all the free market economists we like (Williams, Friedman, Sowell, etc.) have enjoyed federal funding. The system has worked both ways, it's just that Harvard and Columbia are higher profile and more liberal than the right wants them to be.

I definitely agree its true that even conservative universities/professors are getting federal funding; I guess what would help my understanding is what percentage of the total funding is Trump revoking.

Is it revoking 100%? that would be fair/unpartisan, but lots of collateral like you point out. I didn't think this was happening.
is it some percentage based on whatever is disagreeable, whether thats 5% or 95% of all federal funding? this is partisan, but also seems fair. this is what I have, maybe incorrectly, assumed was going on.
or is it just a flat cut across the board and the school has to figure it out? doesn't seem fair, but also not partisan. I don't think this is what is happening, but more likely than #1.

 

[n_huffhines]

I definitely agree its true that even conservative universities/professors are getting federal funding; I guess what would help my understanding is what percentage of the total funding is Trump revoking.

Is it revoking 100%? that would be fair/unpartisan, but lots of collateral like you point out. I didn't think this was happening.
is it some percentage based on whatever is disagreeable, whether thats 5% or 95% of all federal funding? this is partisan, but also seems fair. this is what I have, maybe incorrectly, assumed was going on.
or is it just a flat cut across the board and the school has to figure it out? doesn't seem fair, but also not partisan. I don't think this is what is happening, but more likely than #1.

No. The pod said 40% of NIH and 50% of NSF. It also didn't give a breakdown of why projects are getting rejected, but there were a few explanations brought up. Going off memory:

- the Harvard funding cuts are not about the biases of the research. It's about compliance with POTUS's desires in admissions and hiring.
- the Columia thing is not about the biases of the research, it's about not doing enough to oppose anti-Israel sentiment on campus.
- one of the guests mentioned anybody doing any kind of mRNA research is not mentioning that in their proposals because RFKjr's peeps are doing word searches on that to blanketly dismiss all that work.

The podcasters are fearful of a total in $15B in cuts happening. If I'm understanding ChatGPT correctly, Columbia would account for about 10% of that since they get about $1.5B in federal funds via NIH and NSF...I would guess that means Harvard is more than 10% of that $15B.

 

[LouderVol]

No. The pod said 40% of NIH and 50% of NSF. It also didn't give a breakdown of why projects are getting rejected, but there were a few explanations brought up. Going off memory:

- the Harvard funding cuts are not about the biases of the research. It's about compliance with POTUS's desires in admissions and hiring.
- the Columia thing is not about the biases of the research, it's about not doing enough to oppose anti-Israel sentiment on campus.
- one of the guests mentioned anybody doing any kind of mRNA research is not mentioning that in their proposals because RFKjr's peeps are doing word searches on that to blanketly dismiss all that work.

The podcasters are fearful of a total in $15B in cuts happening. If I'm understanding ChatGPT correctly, Columbia would account for about 10% of that since they get about $1.5B in federal funds via NIH and NSF...I would guess that means Harvard is more than 10% of that $15B.

this is mostly what I am talking about.

on harvard admission and hiring process, I am willing to bet to get that funding they had to adjust their admission and hiring process to be more open to get that funding, or similar, from past admins.
similar with Columbia, I am sure past admins have made it clear that various political stances, even if legal, are not welcome on federally funded campuses. and made them weed out various unsavories.

its turn about partisanship, but really its just more partisanship, and not new. the last one is the only one that feels like a straight up new-bad move by Trump.

 

[n_huffhines]

this is mostly what I am talking about.

on harvard admission and hiring process, I am willing to bet to get that funding they had to adjust their admission and hiring process to be more open to get that funding, or similar, from past admins.
similar with Columbia, I am sure past admins have made it clear that various political stances, even if legal, are not welcome on federally funded campuses. and made them weed out various unsavories.

its turn about partisanship, but really its just more partisanship, and not new. the last one is the only one that feels like a straight up new-bad move by Trump.

Pretty sure the only thing from the past remotely close to this is admins leveraging funding so that universities followed the law (like the Civil Rights act). Linking the funds to ideological positions and campus speech policy is a complete expansion.

Can't wait for the left to use these expanded powers on conservative universities. It's gonna be great.

 

[LouderVol]

Pretty sure the only thing from the past remotely close to this is admins leveraging funding so that universities followed the law (like the Civil Rights act). Linking the funds to ideological positions and campus speech policy is a complete expansion.

Can't wait for the left to use these expanded powers on conservative universities. It's gonna be great.

removal of confederate names/statues/references on college campus.
anything pro-right got removed for various isms.
pro Israel was an issue.
even while I was at UT references to any various religious holidays were removed or banned from faculty outside of religious buildings. free speech stopped applying if you were employed a long time before that.

Trump is no different, he just does it openly. the previous admins wouldn't come out and state that they were going to remove 38 million from UTs federal funding for not complying, but the funding has long been the leash the feds have used.

 

[n_huffhines]

removal of confederate names/statues/references on college campus.
anything pro-right got removed for various isms.
pro Israel was an issue.
even while I was at UT references to any various religious holidays were removed or banned from faculty outside of religious buildings. free speech stopped applying if you were employed a long time before that.

Trump is no different, he just does it openly. the previous admins wouldn't come out and state that they were going to remove 38 million from UTs federal funding for not complying, but the funding has long been the leash the feds have used.

That is because congress passed a law, which would make it akin to the civil rights act requirements

I'm just talking about the executive leveraging his power in this way. I need specific examples of presidents unilaterally threatening to cut funding to a university.

 

[n_huffhines]

Had no idea where to post this. Didn’t want to start a thread

 

[just bob]

Had no idea where to post this. Didn’t want to start a thread

View attachment 744891

You couldn't find a spot because it's stupid.

 

[LouderVol]

Had no idea where to post this. Didn’t want to start a thread

View attachment 744891

its because people never hold their elected officials accountable. they can pass whatever they want because they know their base will still vote for them over the other guy just because of the letter next to their name.

How often do Rs complain about Mitch McConell but he kept getting elected?
How often do Ds complain about Nancy and Chuck, but they keep getting elected?

its because the people voting never hold them accountable. they would rather vote for a winner than vote for what they actually want. its why nothing gets fixed in this nation and we hate each other over simple disagreements.

 

[dalton_vol]

This is my favorite podcast. It's not political in nature, but because it covers current events (usually less serious stuff, like tech and medicine), its episodes have political implications. Tons of interesting conversations that need a resting place here on VN.

This one was really interesting:

- In 1984?, 31% of HS grad girls were graduating college and 38% of boys. In 2024, it's 51% and 38% respectively.
- political lines among the young are not dividing by race/gender, so much as college educated vs. not.
- specifically, working class males are falling behind
- both groups (educated vs. not) are rejecting institutions*, but this is negatively impacting working class males because of a lack of neededness
- suicide (up 40% since 2000) and accidental over-doses are on the rise because of this...we've had an extra 400k men this century fall prey to accidental over-dose. They point out that this is like fighting a world war a century ago.
- labor force participation among young males is down. Disability claims are way up. They're living with their parents. Etc.
- the Biden administration passed economic legislation designed specifically to help this group get on their feet. But their messaging basically never includes men. They're afraid to include men for fear of appearing anti-women, or something. And that is a big reason why young men are done with D's.
- cultural ideals determine politics moreso than economic factors

And I remember several times I've heard people claim that the suicide rate among LGBTQ teens explains that there is something wrong with LGBTQ teens. I always countered that this has more to do with how they feel within society rather than anything inherent to being LGBTQ. I would say the realities now faced by young, working class males perfectly illustrate the role this acceptance mechanism plays.

*marriage, children, church, government, scouting, little league...they talked about how there are fewer coaches. 27% of teachers now are male. In so many ways, men feel and demonstrate with their actions that they feel needed less.

America’s Young Men Are Falling Behind—and Shifting Right

Richard Reeves joins Derek to talk about the state of men and what’s really happening with the gender divide in politics

www.theringer.com

If you ask the board's liberals, they would tell you this is a good thing. Because we all know males, especially white males are the patriarch and colonizers so they all need to go away. Am I accurate on that?

That's what every school and political figures that basically saying.

 

[dalton_vol]

Cherry picking for MAGA? The host is slightly left of center trying his best to be down the middle, you goof. They are not Trump guys at all and neither am I.

They're just trying to understand the world. Don't be afraid.

I've managed to upset people on both sides with one post. That's how you know it's good ****

If they aren't flaming socialists, LG thinks they're MAGA

 

[dalton_vol]

LOL. Followed by a ton of political commentary.

How many times have you listened to it? You obviously listen to it a lot to make that well informed assumption

 

[n_huffhines]

This was a pretty interesting interview. Some key points covered:

- Specialization is probably part of the problem. Kids who used to play football, then basketball, then baseball were building their bodies out for a wider variety of activities and movements. Early specialization into one sport can potentially explain why there are more acchilles tears these days.

- It's understood and built into contracts that we are going to throw harder and we're going to miss time because eventually you'll need Tommy Johns. The teams understand this, want the fast arms, and pay guys to do stuff that'll injure them.

- It's only fair to point out that this isn't necessarily the worst place to be. For example, the talent in the NBA has never been better. Yeah, we're seeing a lot of soft tissue injuries, but we're also seeing superstars play great ball well into their 30's. It's hard to say they're on the wrong track by pursuing specialization early, if that is indeed the cause of these injuries.

 

[GroverCleveland]

its because people never hold their elected officials accountable. they can pass whatever they want because they know their base will still vote for them over the other guy just because of the letter next to their name.

How often do Rs complain about Mitch McConell but he kept getting elected?
How often do Ds complain about Nancy and Chuck, but they keep getting elected?

its because the people voting never hold them accountable. they would rather vote for a winner than vote for what they actually want. its why nothing gets fixed in this nation and we hate each other over simple disagreements.

People hate everyone else's congressman or Senator.

Speaking of, hearing mostly negative rumblings about our Screeching Senator Blackburn. She is not all that popular among my friends.

 

[LouderVol]

This was a pretty interesting interview. Some key points covered:

- Specialization is probably part of the problem. Kids who used to play football, then basketball, then baseball were building their bodies out for a wider variety of activities and movements. Early specialization into one sport can potentially explain why there are more acchilles tears these days.

- It's understood and built into contracts that we are going to throw harder and we're going to miss time because eventually you'll need Tommy Johns. The teams understand this, want the fast arms, and pay guys to do stuff that'll injure them.

- It's only fair to point out that this isn't necessarily the worst place to be. For example, the talent in the NBA has never been better. Yeah, we're seeing a lot of soft tissue injuries, but we're also seeing superstars play great ball well into their 30's. It's hard to say they're on the wrong track by pursuing specialization early, if that is indeed the cause of these injuries.

I haven't listened so they may have covered this, but not only would playing multiple sports build up more parts of the body, allowing it to support itself. but it would also give those specialised joints a rest.

most serious athletes now play/practice year round instead of "just" 4-6 months worth.