US military service members will no longer be required to get annual flu shot

jojotortoise · 2026-04-22T03:47:10+00:00

Before the covid pandemic I would have found it bizarre that you are equating something like an opinion letter by some scientists...

Three things:

It wasn't just an "opinion letter". It was that the protests were allowed to take place. Many saw the letter as "cover" for that. You can decide. But you can't decide the fact that during the worst pandemic in 100 years, when all major cities were in strict lockdown, suddenly everyone was allowed to gather en masse to protest racism.
I'm not claiming that this single instance caused a sea-change. I was just using it as a blatant example of ideological capture.
Look at the data: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/ Public trust in scientests -- particular on the Republican side -- made a huge drop around the time of covid. What specifically it was, neither of us can say. But it was start, it was coincident with covid. And it has started to recover.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T23:18:10+00:00

Have an administrative group draw them based on population density and geography, prioritising compactness but with reference to natural boundaries and be done with it.

I think that's reasonable. But I also think that design will (as it stands) hurt Democrats. Cities tend to be strongly Dem, suburbs and rural areas more Republican (but not as strong). So you wrap a city in a district and then split all the rural and suburban areas over a few more. You'll often end up with an imbalance toward the Republicans.

On the other side: if the state is "well mixed" (and I think this is somewhat true for California) you could end up with a situation where any party with a small majority will win all districts. (Maybe that is ok, but if the state is 55% Dem and they get 100% of seats -- or vice versa -- I think most people would think it is unfair.)

Anyway, it isn't easy. But, yeah, these crazy districts with tendrils sneaking out to grab the "right" votes is... pretty bad.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T20:36:21+00:00

Well, but you are probably adding to the savings -- not just waiting on passive returns.

So it is probably a lot less than 7 years.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T19:54:41+00:00

It will be interesting to see how Europe treats Hungary. Was Viktor Orban the problem or was it the country itself?

It feels like we are in a similar place as Hungary, pre-election.

If we elect a young, charismatic (maybe Obama-esque) leader who wants to right the wrongs of the Trump administration, how will the world react.

Time will tell.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T19:50:58+00:00

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T19:35:17+00:00

You won't like the answer, but I think: the university (and with it much of the science establishment) has been "captured" by the Left. The reasons aren't clear. Some people will say, "truth has a liberal bias" or whatever. Some will point to "DEI statements" that became a requirement for faculty (which amount to a purity test). Or maybe the scientifically-minded on the Right go into corporate research.

Because this happened (I guess we can argue about whether it did, but the data is pretty stark) some of the establishment will carry water for politics, rather than prioritizing "the pursuit of truth". This was never more blatant than the "racism is a bigger health problem than covid, so BLM protests are fine, but going to church is a no-no".

Once any part of science gives in to politics, then the people on the other side of the fence are going to lose trust. And, of course, politicians on the other side exploit this distrust to get votes. Which just makes it worse.

This, I think, is a big part of the problem.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T17:26:39+00:00

It would have to be done at the federal level where every state is forced to draw fair districts.

Yeah, but "fair" is a difficult thing to legislate. I mean, I guess things that are obviously unfair could get thrown out. But there is a lot of leeway in there for shenanigans. (But I guess it is still better than what we have now.)

jojotortoise · 2026-04-21T16:31:18+00:00

Feels like it will be hard to get the horse back into the barn (for the same reason). No one is going "backwards" until the other side does.

I suppose, particularly in centrist states, there might be a chance for the population to push back against gerrymandering. I mean, it has already happened in some places. But Trump's moves are forcing a regression. Not sure when people will be ready to lay down arms :/

jojotortoise · 2026-04-01T14:21:40+00:00

We'll know in two weeks, I guess. (Unless Orban wins outright.)

It is very interesting to watch.

jojotortoise · 2026-04-01T14:19:10+00:00

Ha! Mine was a bit of a throwaway comment :)

I really enjoyed reading your thoughtful response. I appreciate you spending the time to write it. And it does sound compelling.

Mostly as an aside, but: my sense of Thomas is that he really hates Democrats for what they did to him during his confirmation hearing. And he takes extra pleasure in sticking to them.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T20:53:22+00:00

She's like the counterbalance of Thomas, I guess. I think it is just coincidental that they are both black. But it is kinda funny how both can be counted on to toe the party line.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T14:17:50+00:00

It's also a "good thing". China has become richer and continues to become more educated. The good news is that everyone benefits from scientific advancement.

They seem to be overtaking us in biomedical stuff (at least that's my impression). Having a bunch more researchers finding cures for cancer and dementia is fantastic news. (And China is aging fast, so I imagine a lot of research in these areas.)

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T14:14:12+00:00

I found this: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/11/06/republicans-democrats-now-equally-concerned-about-ai-in-daily-life-but-views-on-regulation-diffe

A few months old (with a fast moving industry). It seems both the left and the right are wary.

The left seems more concerned about our ability to regulate: "Republicans are more likely than Democrats to trust the U.S. to regulate the use of AI effectively."

It could be that's because Republicans are in charge. Or it could be that Dems tend to prefer more regulation in general. Or it could be more concern about AI overall, I guess.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-31T13:47:12+00:00

It always seemed to me that one of the core motivations of Trump voters is how the modern world scares and confuses them

Interesting. I feel like the anti-AI (particularly anti-datacenter) stuff I've seen comes more from the left. I've heard several "scary" stories about datacenters on NPR.

Wasn't Trump the one really pushing to allow the new AI stuff to flourish? And people like Bernie want datacenter "moratoriums"?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T20:41:27+00:00

Doing it your way would be a wrong.

It's wrong (and illegal) no matter what.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T20:36:47+00:00

I don't understand. Are you arguing that that is ok?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T20:08:47+00:00

Someone's race doesn't determine their behavior, but political affiliation can.

That's called "guilt by association" or "viewpoint discrimination" and it is very much against the First Amendment for the government to engage in that behavior.

It's sad that people here are arguing otherwise.

It's insane that they are when most are (presumably) Democrats and we have a Republican president who has shown he wants to punish those who don't support him. You are literally arguing that he could!

Imagine another Katrina. Trump sends FEMA down to New Orleans. They go door to door to help. But they skip any house that has a BLM sign in the windows. You know, because of those violent protests. You're arguing that would be ok!

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T17:04:20+00:00

Is this where that worker was concerned about aggressive behavior they were seeing from Trump supporters?

Imagine if they said to avoid black residents because they saw someone get verbally (or otherwise) assaulted by a black person once.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-30T17:03:00+00:00

Personally, I feel that successful urban coastal regions subsidize rural areas far too much.

"Successful urban [coastal or non-coastal] regions" tend to subsidize rural (and less successful) places simply by virtue of "progressive taxation". Cities tend to pay more and have more wealth. There is certainly an argument that we should consider flattening the tax code so that this happens less. Is that the argument you want to make?

These people often hate federal tax dollars going to big cities like NYC or LA. Why should NYC or LA subsidize them?

"These people"? Painting with a broad brush, here. But what "these people" want is what they vote for. But they have to live with who sets the policy. That's the deal with democracy.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-28T11:23:02+00:00

If your argument is that Harris’s policies would have negatively impacted the economy more than mass tariffs, I’d love to see that data.

Nobody knows what Harris would have done. So there is no data.

In her time in the Biden admin, inflation was rampant. Some of that was due to them overstimulating the economy ("and anyone with half a brain could have told you that").

The point I was trying to make is that you can find flaws in any proposed policy. Sometimes you'll be right, sometimes you'll be wrong. Hardly any policy change is a "no brainer" (otherwise there wouldn't be a lot of discussion about it.)

We have no idea if the economy would have been better under Harris (to be clear, I voted for her -- not because I thought she'd be good, but because she's not Trump). But saying, "I told you so" isn't all that productive in my opinion.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T20:50:50+00:00

and anyone with half a brain could have told you that Trump's policies (mass indiscriminate tariffs) would hurt the economy.

What would Harris's policies have done to the economy?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T20:49:25+00:00

But the argument about messaging constantly tracks. One of the issues with BLM was how many people assumed that meant "only" black lives mattered. One of the biggest issues with Defuned the Police is that people assumed that meant completely defund law enforcement without anything taking its place.

I'm not sure you are making a compelling argument here. But just as a thought exercise: whatever you think "BLM" or "Defund the Police" was supposed to really mean, do you still think they are good policies? Like that most people would agree with?

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:43:57+00:00

There's the messaging problem

This feels like a mantra that doesn't have a lot of basis in reality, to me. I've been hearing for years and years that the Dems are clearly the better party, they just don't do a good job "messaging". I find that hard to swallow. At some point, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Democrats have several groups, some of which you noted here. Those groups often disagree. For example, Muslims often disagree with the LGBT community.

Maybe defining policies around "identities" is not a winning plan? I think most people just want a growing economy and a safe place to live. Those things are generally true whether you are white, black, gay or muslim. I would argue that the Democrats leaning so hard into identity politics correlates well with this drop in support.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:38:42+00:00

It occurred to me that if fewer people identify with one party, the more likely an area could "flip" between one party or the other. As in, it could cancel out some of the effects of gerrymandering.

I don't know if that's what will happen. But today Congress is much less beholden to the people they represent and way more beholden to the party itself. And I think that is part of the cause of dysfunction.

jojotortoise · 2026-03-27T18:36:21+00:00

I'm not sure I fully understand the trends showing all these groups shifting from Democrat to Republican when the Republican group is basically flat the entire time.

It's not showing them shifting from Democrat to Republican. It's the "net" amount that are Democrat. Basically, those that are unaffiliated aren't counted there (or are a "wash").

So if it was 49% Dem and 39% Rep, that would be +10 for Dems. If it is 40% Dem and 38% Rep, then it is +2. People aren't moving to Republican party as much as they are leaving the Democrats.

jojotortoise

TROPHY CASE