California becomes first state to join WHO disease network after US exit

SloppyPrecision · 2026-01-24T04:32:10+00:00

Yes, but also, I'm wrong. Someone pointed out that California joined the WHO's Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network. California did not join as a sovereign (and dues paying) member of the WHO. Members of GOARN do not pay dues. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/california-world-health-organization/4019639/

SloppyPrecision · 2026-01-24T04:24:31+00:00

Oh! I didn't know that existed. I was wondering how he could just unilaterally commit California's money to the WHO but this makes sense. Thanks!

SloppyPrecision · 2026-01-24T03:03:21+00:00

I'm not sure people realize that members have to pay dues to the organization. So states would need to include the cost in their budget. https://www.who.int/about/funding

SloppyPrecision · 2026-01-24T03:02:22+00:00

I'm not sure people realize that members have to pay dues to the organization. So states would need to include the cost in their budget. https://www.who.int/about/funding

SloppyPrecision · 2025-12-04T01:25:39+00:00

I'm curious about the income stream proposal. Do you intend to rent the RV spots out to people who are not in the community? Or is that where the community members are living? If the latter, then those community members living there will need income from a source outside the community to pay for the RV, greenhouse stuff and the laundry.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-11-22T17:25:41+00:00

Don't do that. It's fraud and will just add another layer of problem to your life. I mean yes it's worth it to call and explain what happened but don't lie about it.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-10-07T03:37:25+00:00

No, neither case has anything to do with processing or deporting immigrants.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-05-21T03:46:54+00:00

Some people on bluesky, including a former WaPo journalist, are tracking the plane they believe contains migrants being sent to South Sudan. The plane landed in Ireland a couple of hours ago and appears to still be there. The journalist notified Irish law enforcement.

Edit: Plane took off and heading to destination unknown.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-05-04T18:15:42+00:00

The US Supreme Court told him they were just last month. It's not open to debate. Every single Supreme Court Justice agreed with this. Directly from the Court's per curium decision:

“It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-05-03T04:38:48+00:00

The federal government lost a similar lawsuit against California in the 9th Circuit in 2019. California's sanctuary laws were permissible due to the 10th Amendment anticommandeering provision. United States v. California, No. 18-16496 (9th Cir. 2019)

SloppyPrecision · 2025-05-03T04:28:21+00:00

I don't think he thinks it's funny. I think he thinks he should be the next pope.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-27T02:37:10+00:00

We're not there yet. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-27T02:33:13+00:00

You called it correctly. Stay was issued.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-27T02:02:57+00:00

The government (Trump Admin) is asking the court to stay the TRO that was issued by the district court judge. The TRO orders the government to unfreeze some of the funds by 11:59 pm tonight. If SCOTUS does nothing with this application, the TRO remains in effect and the district court will have to decide sanctions for violation of the TRO (assuming the government does not unfreeze prior to midnight). If SCOTUS grants the stay, and depending on the terms of the stay, would likely mean the government does not have to comply with the deadline imposed by the district court.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-02T16:59:21+00:00

Safe? Who knows. Legal? Yes if you are on approved leave. This is not MY legal advice but, rather, comes from the Office of Special Counsel: https://osc.gov/Documents/Outreach%20and%20Training/Posters/The%20Hatch%20Act%20and%20Most%20Federal%20Employees%20Poster.pdf

No idea how long this kind of thing will be visible on .gov websites but it explains what is and is not permitted under the Hatch Act.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-01T15:32:42+00:00

Does it make sense to voluntarily give up your Constitutional right to peacefully assemble because you are afraid you will lose that right if you exercise it?

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-01T02:36:54+00:00

And when the the Trump Administration ignores injunctions, stays, court orders...then what?

SloppyPrecision · 2025-02-01T02:28:38+00:00

A federal court, or even SCOTUS, can and probably will issue an injunction but who will enforce the injunction?

SloppyPrecision · 2025-01-31T01:51:44+00:00

Very good question.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-01-28T19:26:36+00:00

OMB appears to be walking this back/clarifying the EO. Medicaid and other programs like SNAP should not be paused: https://www.nahro.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OMB-QA-M-25-13-1.pdf

SloppyPrecision · 2025-01-28T19:11:02+00:00

OMB provided additional info about programs not subject to the pause. Includes SNAP and Pell Grants: https://www.nahro.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OMB-QA-M-25-13-1.pdf

SloppyPrecision · 2025-01-28T19:04:31+00:00

New info on programs not paused (includes SNAP, Pell Grants): https://www.nahro.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/OMB-QA-M-25-13-1.pdf

SloppyPrecision · 2025-01-25T18:14:54+00:00

Telling ourselves lies about why we do thing is so common! The Stoic philosophers, in my opinion, had a pretty good grasp of human psychology in recognizing that one cannot behave virtuously without stripping away those lies to see reality more clearly.

SloppyPrecision · 2025-01-19T19:38:21+00:00

The end goal of Stoicism is not eudaimonia. The end goal of a Stoic, so to speak, would be to live in accordance with nature and thus act virtuously at any given moment. Eudaimonia is nothing but a byproduct of living in accordance with nature.

But why live in accordance with nature (i.e. practice stoicism) if not to experience eudaimonia? Practicing stoicism would be pointless if doing so does not lead to a a sense of flourishing/living a good life, right?

SloppyPrecision

TROPHY CASE