President Biden Will Rejoin the World Health Organization on His First Day (futurism.com) 281
"Another of Biden's promises will have particular significance during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic," reports Futurism:
Back in July, he promised to reverse the incumbent Donald Trump's controversial April decision to leave the World Health Organization — the United Nations' agency that oversees and coordinates global public health efforts. "Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health," Biden said at the time.
"On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage."
The move wouldn't just be a rebuke to his predecessor. Experts called Trump's move a "dangerous gamble" and "unequivocally dangerous," and entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates slammed the move as being "as dangerous as it sounds." Leaving the WHO seemed particularly reckless in the United States, where the pandemic had already spiraled out of control, surpassing the toll even in China, where it originated. COVID deaths in the US have now surged past 235,000, and daily infections are now hitting daily record highs — harbingers of what could be a brutal period of weeks or months during the waning days of the Trump administration.
"On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage."
The move wouldn't just be a rebuke to his predecessor. Experts called Trump's move a "dangerous gamble" and "unequivocally dangerous," and entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates slammed the move as being "as dangerous as it sounds." Leaving the WHO seemed particularly reckless in the United States, where the pandemic had already spiraled out of control, surpassing the toll even in China, where it originated. COVID deaths in the US have now surged past 235,000, and daily infections are now hitting daily record highs — harbingers of what could be a brutal period of weeks or months during the waning days of the Trump administration.
A good move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A good move (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, if the U.S. wants to make WHO more effective and not be poodles to the CCP, then there's no way to do it from the outside.
Re: (Score:2)
there's no way to do it from the outside.
Cutting off their major funding isn't effective?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Cutting off their major funding isn't effective?"
Nope. Threatening to cut back their major funding might be effective, but just cutting all off cold turkey is going to produce the reaction, "Well, you don't give us any money, so we're not really interested in anything you have to say."
Re:What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Concession is a nicety. It isn't required. When the Electors convene in each state next month to cast their vote, and then Congress certifies the result, that's when Biden will "officially" become President Elect. The lawsuits will come to naught, this isn't 2000 where mechanical issues with the ballots in Florida were the issue, not some unevidenced claims of fraud in multiple states.
Trump can choose to cooperate, or not. He can certainly cause the new Administration some trouble by refusing to partake in the transition of power, if he so chooses, but nothing will stop Biden's being sworn in on January 27th. If Trump wants to go down in history as ending his presidency with the same shallowness, pettiness and vindictiveness that marred his four years in office, that's his choice. But Biden is President Elect, will be certified as such next month, and will be sworn in.
How the Electoral College works, for dummies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that made sense to you, at least.
Re: (Score:3)
There are stable and prosperous monarchies that have been around for a thousand years. What's democracy's track record?
Re: (Score:2)
What monarchies have been around for a thousand years? I didn't think any were that old.
Re: (Score:2)
Concession is a nicety. It isn't required. When the Electors convene in each state next month to cast their vote, and then Congress certifies the result, that's when Biden will "officially" become President Elect. The lawsuits will come to naught, this isn't 2000 where mechanical issues with the ballots in Florida were the issue, not some unevidenced claims of fraud in multiple states.
I think the panic is really setting in A Poll worker in Georgia has gone into hiding after crumpling up a piece of paper that is being claimed to be throwing a ballot away Problem is, it isn't a ballot, and wasn't even the right size to be a ballot: https://news.yahoo.com/georgia... [yahoo.com] I suspect the last lawsuits will be really weird stuff, like Harris wearing the wrong color for a vice president elect. And hey - watching Biden's speech last night, she was wearing white after labor day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If Trump can prove it, AND the number of faked votes etc are enough to make him win, then well, the white house belongs to him.
If not, then Biden it is.
Re:What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than the single case of allowing election observers to stand a little closer to the counters, so far Trump isn't doing well on the lawsuit front. He isn't going to win these suits. Maybe he doesn't know it, it's hard to tell if Trump really understands much of anything, but his inner circle knows it.
Re: What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Multiple reports say he is more than aware privately that all of this is a waste of time, but publicly he is still going to draw it out as long as he can. Remember, he can't lose. I mean that in, in his mind, it is not possible for him to lose, because only failures lose. So the election had to be stolen from him, or the people involved in the campaign around him are incompetent or conspired against him. Anything to be able to tell himself that he didn't lose.
Re: What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:2)
Were these reports by the same anonymous low-level source now working for the news media?.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If he can't prove it, well, then i guess the cheetoman will be dragged out.
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution makes states responsible for picking their own electors. That's the end of it. There won't be some SCOTUS ruling, you're reaching for straws.
Resign yourself to it. A majority of Electors will cast their vote, as per the Constitution, for Joe Biden, and Congress will certify it. For your own sake, pull your head out of the conspiracy theories. They will make you mentally ill.
Re:What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pure paranoid fantasy. Nobody stopped counting.
You sound like the guy who used to walk into police stations and demand they took the mind control chip out of his head. He wasn't unintelligent, but he was delusional.
Re:What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Moderating should be on the merit of the post not on your personal views or simply to destroy someone's Karma
As much as I'd like to agree, I left for a while because someone was using every chance to go back and mod me down, including pretty old stuff. Some folks get pretty spun up in their game of "fight the computer"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing is going to change. Biden won the election. The Electors will convene in their states next month, the majority will cast them for Biden, and Congress will certify it. The lawsuits Trump's lawyers are launching are doomed to fail, as everyone from Mitch McConnell to Rudy Giuliani knows perfectly well.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are still lawsuits pending."
None of which are likely to come to anything, as they are not putting before the courts any evidence as to why the courts should intervene.
"everal states that have been "called" haven't finished counting and will likely have to do recounts."
True, but it is not likely the recounts are not likely to change anything and Trump would have to get *several* states to change to switch the results, and that just ain't gonna happen.
"This is not over until the electors vote, and I ho
Re:What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not over until the electors vote, and I hope that the electors will remember what the will of the people actually is when they cast their votes.
It is irrelevant what the electors want. Thanks to Republicans, and a few lawsuits, the Supreme Court ruled that electors must vote based on who received the most votes [npr.org]. If an elector does not vote according to who received the most votes, their vote is voided and a replacement elector put in their place.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not over until the electors vote, and I hope that the electors will remember what the will of the people actually is when they cast their votes.
You're either a fucking moron or really bad at trolling.
Trump lost the popular vote both times. By huge margins. The will of the people is pretty fucking clear, and it's not Trump. If the EC had actually done what you're suggesting, we'd have had a President Clinton for the last 4 years.
Re: What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Informative)
You've been lied to, and because it's a lie that fits with your biases, you believe it.
Joe Biden won. He won by the same rules that Trump won in 2016. I'm sorry that is upset you. You are allowed your feelings, what you won't be able to do is convince most people that your conspiracy theory is anything other than sour grapes and confirmation bias. I'm sorry you feel this way, but I'm not under any obligation to take your absurd and clearly fabricated claims seriously. I hope you get over this and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
That is possible. Voter suppression efforts were very "out in the open" this election. I know the USPS is getting a lot of attention, and rightly so, but don't forget the more than 20,000 polling locations that were closed across the country.
Re: What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, except for the 'glitches' in Georgia and Michigan
There were no glitches. That's a lie.
the fact that every single statistical measure indicates massive fraud,
No, they don't because no such measures exist. Or were you referring to the same ones used in 2016 which said based on voting patterns, Hillary should have won the election, but which Republicans fought tooth and nail to prevent recounts by stating there was no evidence of fraud? Please clarify which stance you take.
multiple poll watchers stating they were excluded from polling stations
Another lie. No one was excluded. The Supreme Court ruled they could stand six feet away rather than further as they had been.
the mysterious Georgia water main and handy sandy sealable barrel on hand to save all the votes
Water pipes can't break at weird times? In a Republican state? Under a Republican governor? Also, these were mail-in ballots, not ones cast at the polls.
and a USPS employee going to swear in court that they were backdating ballots in PA
*sigh* Stop repeating the lies of RT and Project Veritas. Neither can be considered anything except propaganda machines.
But no, no evidence of fraud at all.
Correct, no evidence at all. None. No one has introduced a single piece of evidence to show fraud. No one, and that includes all the Republican-led states and electoral offices. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Now go cry into your pillow. The con artist lost and will face trials for his crimes after January 20th.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump lost a fair vote. You are going to have to come to terms with that even if Trump can't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That whole "fake news" meme was just a way to get people to believe lies. Trump is over, it's time to stop listening to the loser psychopath.
Re: What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:3)
These aren't matters of opinion or belief. It is an objective, documented fact that Fox News viewers are less well-informed than other news audiences.
You and Rupert Murdoch are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, wherever you're getting your news, they're lying to you. [businessinsider.com] Of course, the real problem isn't that they lie to you. The real problem is that you don't care. You just spun the knob until it landed on a channel where they agreed with what you already thought.
Then there's the fact that your vote counts as much as a vote from people who do care. That's not just your problem, it's every sane person's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like Trump himself. Delusional to the end.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, if you enjoy wordsmithiing for something as inconsequential as a Slashdot headline, go ahead. But assuming something weird happens, President Elect Biden will rejoin WHO on the first day he is no longer president e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What's with you propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:3)
If you want to find out how many guns the rest of us have, I suppose finagling a way to keep Trump in office is as good a way as any.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What's with your propaganda, EditorDavid? (Score:3, Insightful)
STFU. All your party had to do was nominate someone else. Only Cheeto Benito could have lost to Joe Biden... and that's exactly what he did.
You people are irrelevant. Go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Russian operative Trump failed to get reelected. Come to terms with it.
Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:4, Insightful)
This is obviously a good idea - better to cooperate on global health in a connected world than stand apart and hurl abuse.
Yet much damage has been done: the rest of the world will not trust the USA so much again, for a long time. It has not escaped our notice, off in the rest of the world, than 40-something% of the US vote, a solid 70+ million people, was for Trump. Those people are still there, and the US politicians who want to isolate the US and cause international conflict are waiting for a chance to make that 50-something% and repeat their previous actions - like leaving the WHO, the Paris Agreement, and so on.
The rest of the world (yes, even China) is ready to welcome the USA back to international engagement, but we won't trust the USA nearly as much as we used to. The US used to be selfish, fractious, occasionally manipulative - and engaged in international diplomacy and multilateral international organisations - much like many other countries. Since 2016, the USA has been selfish, belligerent, aggressive, entirely uncooperative, and attempting to destroy any international organisation in can and leave those it can't. We will not quickly forget this, especially with 70 million American voters and a US Senate led by Mitch McConnell, a man devoted only to retaining power for his small elite.
Sorry USA: you just can't be trusted right now. We welcome you back, cautiously, but we won't rely on you or let you take the leading role in anything for a while yet. We need to know you've recovered your sanity for some years before we do that. You've got a lot to make up for, and we look forward to joining you as you do that.
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:4, Interesting)
The world has seen the US go through these fits before. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in founding the League of Nations after WWI, and yet Congress refused to countenance the US entering this international body. What the world doesn't trust in the Trump Administration, not the US entire, and Biden's Secretary of State will be pretty darned busy rebuilding relations, but so be it.
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You should fight for what YOU think is right.
I did. That's why I voted for Biden.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has pretty significant trade interests involving China, so the US is hardly some staunch defender against the Chinese. And if the US were serious about taking on China, it would be building alliances, like countries like Vietnam wanted when they all signed up for the TPP, only to have the vagaries of US electioneering and conspiracy theories get in the way. Want to ringfence China, which many nations do, then do it the only way that will work. Because right now, I challenge you to walk into Walmart a
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:4, Insightful)
Guess what? We don't care if you don't "trust" us. You don't realize how closely the "rest of the world" is to being taken over by the Chinese. I am always amused by Europrans who think that Americans give a shit if they "trust" or "like" us. We don't. If you were smart you wouldn't worry about what others think of your country either. You should fight for what YOU think is right.
Many are scared of China long term, and the rise in Chinese influence. However, Trump just said so... but he isn't exactly the brightest star in sky, but instead rather dim. Being impulsive, thin-skinned, vengeful and narcissistic makes for an easy target. To counter China, you need allies and influence. E.g. it was no coincidence that TPP [wikipedia.org] included many countries in the region, but not China. The US wanted to bring the other states that are geographically close to China closer to the US economically - and build a trusted partnership. The Trump doctrine of being "unpredictable" is a losing strategy [northwestern.edu].
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the TPP was America and its pushing its IP shit that no one else wanted but if needed would hold their noses and accept. Once America was out, we got rid of the IP shit. Perhaps now America can join on the same terms as the rest.
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:5, Insightful)
And the alleged president's Big Answer to the Chinese was to pay farmers for the trade war that caused the Chinese not to buy American agricultural products. When Hong Kong was under siege, we heard squat from the alleged administration because the alleged president has a thing for authoritarian government. We heard squat about Xinjiang and the Uyghurs from the alleged administration. The secretary of state is a born again Christian who doesn't give a flying rat's ass about the world because he figures Jesus will be a'comin' 'round the corner any day now.
The alleged president sold out the Kurds to those nice Turks who want to see them all dead. He's in the process of selling out the Afghans. He has no problem cuddling up to that incestuous pile of rat dropping called Saudi Arabia. He thinks the dictator of Egypt has the right idea locking up anyone who disagrees with him. thereby laying the ground work for another Mideast explosion.
And if you don't care about how the Europeans think of America, you are an ignorant git. It matters that Democracies stick together. The alternative is what got the world into WWII.
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:5, Insightful)
What the world doesn't trust in the Trump Administration, not the US entire
No. What the world doesn't trust is that the USA won't elect another "Trump" administration in 2024. What happened in the past week was a display that common sense only narrowly defeated hate and vitriol. *Narrowly*. Not overwhelmingly. Not conclusively. But rather in a way that demonstrated there's a very real risk that a large portion of a democratic voting force would prefer a repeat of what happened in the last 4 years.
The world laughed at the USA for voting in Trump in 2016. Sure have your Trump experiment.
This week that laughter disappeared and was replaced with "WTF is half the country hell bent on self destruction!?"
Re: (Score:2)
"WTF is half the country hell bent on self destruction!?"
Why yes, half the country is hell bent on self destruction. As long as they can claim victory over the "libs", they'll be happy. It's all they've ever wanted.
Re:Good idea, yet much damage is done (Score:4, Informative)
Fuck Europe.
I'm genuinely bemused at American Republican Geography. You think there's three places in the world, America, Europe and China and because I write english and criticise you morons I automatically am speaking on behalf of "Europe".
Common, there's far more countries out there that hate you than just the couple in Europe. Open your eyes.
DO NOT TRUST THE USA (Score:2)
It has to be clear to the world especially anybody 30 or older that the USA is bipolar and can not be trusted to even stick to their own professed ideals.
The mood swings get worse over time like a collapsing government. The only things that you can do is to avoid depending upon the USA AND to greatly weaken the power of the multinational corporations which continue to destabilize and undermine functioning governments around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet much damage has been done: the rest of the world will not trust the USA so much again, for a long time.
That's a good thing. The US will spy on you and take advantage of you. Don't trust the US government, we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, we're bad but those Other Guys, they're the Worst. Go back to watching TV, the real world is confusing you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascist tactic 1: Find a group to blame, Jews, Soviets, Muslims, Chinese, any group will do. Then blame them for everything.
Trump era white supremacist nonsense is at an end. The adults are back.
Re: (Score:2)
But the fact that we're borrowing 20-25% of our annual budget from the future
Then perhaps the taxpayers should stop footing the bill for the hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly welfare to corporations. Keep the revenue the same but cut expenses. All that money now freed up can go toward paying down the debt and deficit. Just like would happen if you cut your own expenses and start paying off your credit card.
I know, that's too simple, so it will never be done.
Made no sense anyway (Score:2)
"There's this organization that goes against our (my) interests... Let's leave them and not keep any influence in there so they can do what they like without caring about out interests."
Uuum, wouldn't the opposite be more effective, Mr. Trump? :D
Democracy (Score:3)
How can one person, be it Trump or Biden, decide something so important?
I thought America was a democracy, with rule of law and an effective parliament. Shouldn't congress make such decisions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How can one person, be it Trump or Biden, decide something so important? I thought America was a democracy, with rule of law and an effective parliament. Shouldn't congress make such decisions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Uh, no. We are a Republic with a Congress - not a parliament like advanced countries have.
Our constitution was written by wealthy slave owning land owners who despised the everyday person; hence why we have this retarded Electoral College that gives more power to a small white rural majority. It is why we ended up with Trump to begin with.
Right, because rule by the cities is better (Score:3)
Re:Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
I think that's a little unfair on the Framers. The chief problem for the Framers was that they had only one extant model of a democracy; and that was Great Britain. Britain's parliamentary system, as it stood in the 1770s and 1780s, still gave the King very broad powers. He had far greater powers to name his Ministers and use his prerogatives outside the strict confines of Government. The Framers basically modeled the office of the President on that of the King of Great Britain, and modeled the powers of the bicameral Congress on those of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That's why removal of a president requires impeachment and trial, as that was how impeachment worked in Britain; the House of Commons would impeach a Crown official, and the Lords would try him (it wrapped into the House of Lords essentially being the court of final appeal through the Law Lords).
However, even by the 1780s, Britain's parliamentary system was changing in subtle ways. Impeachment was no longer a necessary remedy, as the notion of Confidence had arisen. In fact, one of the first Prime Ministers to ever get kicked out of office by Parliament was Lord North, precisely because the House of Commons blamed him for losing the Thirteen Colonies. Along with Confidence was a steady evolution of governments formed out of Parliament. The custom was become fully entrenched that Ministers must be members of Parliament, either MPs or Lords, rather than the King picking a Premier or PM (the usage began to change in the late 18th century) from the leading bloc (party) of MPs and then would appoint the Cabinet based on the advice of the PM.
If the US had split even twenty years later, it probably would have had a parliamentary form of government, and the President would be like the President of Ireland or India; a nominal figurehead who christened ships, and pretty much did what the head of government told him. The problem is the President really is a King, with powers pretty darned similar to the powers King George III had at the time the US won the War of Independence. To my mind, for all the Framers' political brilliance, they lacked imagination, and built a governing system based on the British system, even as the British system was taking the final steps to remove most the King's ability to actually govern.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Congress is a type of Parliament, it uses Parliamentary procedures. Think of it as a fork.
Re: (Score:2)
You thought wrong. America is an oligarchy [washingtontimes.com] that plays election-theater to convince its population that it is a democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought America was a democracy
The last 4 years America was governed by someone whom the majority of the voters specifically did not vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
For the next 4 years America will be governed by someone whom the majority of the voters specifically did not vote for.
Biden has 4 million more votes [uselectionatlas.org] than does the con artist. That means he, Biden, has won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote.
Reality sucks when it smacks you in the face, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the next 4 years America will be governed by someone whom the majority of the voters specifically did not vote for.
Trump hasn't won any court cases yet. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
failed state (Score:2)
Democracies all eventually fall into despotism. Cycle of life. They don't die quickly unless conquered, it's a gradual decent which is why they go out with a whimper (sources: Ben Franklin, other historians.)
The USA has some time left and they might partially recover; maybe it takes them 300 years like Rome did... or maybe it happens within 70 years and began with Nixon. Experts will squabble over the exact threshold.
Congress:
1) has been corrupted to the point of dysfunction. Huge majority popular issues o
Re: (Score:2)
Be realistic, the reason the U.S. and other countries have executive branches is there are way too many decisions that must be made, usually too quickly, for every damn issue to be voted upon.
Re: Democracy (Score:2)
UNHCR, UNICEF, multiple peacekeeping missions.
So how much money will it cost (Score:2)
to squeeze-out the chinese?
Not a bad idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether or not it's critical, more cooperation with other countries is better than less. Saying "America First" doesn't make sense in a word where (a) practically all non-food consumer goods are made in other countries, and (b) there's not enough subsidies and tax breaks in the world that will bring domestic manufacturing back. We saw with the pandemic how quickly those just-in-time supply chains the MBAs love fall apart when you have a public health emergency. Even for that reason alone, let alone the humanitarian reasons, it makes sense to cooperate on public health problems.
China's dominance may be an issue -- it is true that they're economically colonizing big chunks of the developing world (Africa, South America, etc.) But turning inward doesn't solve that problem either. Hopefully the next election cycle will see some concrete ideas on how to correct imbalances instead of jus doing knee-jerk things you think the Twitter Army likes to hear.
Basically, what this tells the world is.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump has done enough damage to the USA's reputation with most of the rest of the world to last a good 10 to 20 years, at least. If the USA doesn't start sticking to some principles, through entire administrations, the USA's partners in the future are going to be bleak unless the country can start showing some consistency.
I mean, who wants an unreliable ally?
Re: (Score:3)
Trump has done enough damage to the USA's reputation with most of the rest of the world to last a good 10 to 20 years, at least. If the USA doesn't start sticking to some principles, through entire administrations, the USA's partners in the future are going to be bleak unless the country can start showing some consistency.
I mean, who wants an unreliable ally?
So, you want past democratic polities to bind future ones? How far back should we go?
I mean it was only in 2012 that Obama was saying that marriage should be a man and a woman ...
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have spectacularly missed my point.. As I said, I am looking at the bigger picture. Same sex marriages in the USA are an internal affair that does not really impact anyone outside of the USA.
What Biden does in his time in office is probably irrelevant to the bigger picture anyways The damage has already been done. With the USA withdrawing from international organizations, treaties, or instituting tariffs on allied countries on grounds that have no legally sustainable merit... these are t
Not much reason to (Score:2)
Re:WHO Band-Aid (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress wants to change the law, that's their prerogative. Frankly, I think the Trump Presidency has made some solid arguments for Congress reigning in Executive power, but, of course, both Democrats and Republicans seem to want to continue lending their legislative authority to the Executive, so I don't expect any change. But really, Biden's statements to date have been relatively generalized. What he may request Congress to do after inauguration is something that will only really be known in the months to come. It's likely, since Trump seems to determined to fight on and refuse to concede, is that Biden will directly reach out to Congressional leaders and push through the transition while Trump golfs and rants. Of course, the chief problem there, is that the Senate races in Georgia will probably go to run offs, which means which party controls the Senate is a bit up in the air.
Re:WHO Band-Aid (Score:4, Interesting)
"both Democrats and Republicans seem to want to continue lending their legislative authority to the Executive"
I don't think that is true the way you stated it. I rather think because the Ds and Rs cannot agree on how to keep legislative power, they wind up ceding it to the Executive. The alleged president only made things worse by having his people actively looking for loopholes and then exploiting them. Unless the Ds and Rs can agree to close those loopholes, they'll be there for a future authoritarian nutjob who will be more competent than the alleged president in taking advantage of them.
Re: (Score:2)
, both Democrats and Republicans seem to want to continue lending their legislative authority to the Executive, so I don't expect any change.
They have the expectation that they won't be losing power again. Progress is moving forward.
Re: (Score:2)
You know presidents don't make laws, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Why has everyone talked like he did ever since... well... forever?
Trump?
Obama?
W. Bush?
Clinton?
Iwastoo Young?
Re:WHO Band-Aid (Score:5, Insightful)
Because most people don't have the slightest idea how their government works. And I mean most people, not just Americans.
This particular issue seems to have having a progressively more negative impact on the US though. The separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches is a centrepiece of modern democracy, and the US seems determined to whittle it away until they invest all the power in a single person.
Perhaps they'll eventually even change the name of the executive leader back to what it was in the Roman republic. Will it be in time for the first latino president? Will his name be Caesar?
Re: WHO Band-Aid (Score:2)
Better question, what the fuck does this purely political article have to do with tech?
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, leaving WHO is a great way to make them heel. He's a stable genius.
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's the only international agency that tracks pathogens and other disease outbreaks at the international level, and the only one capable of forging something akin to an international response. The US being outside WHO means the US loses influence, and no longer benefits from the reporting and monitoring structures. If Trump's claim was the WHO was in China's pocket, his pulling the US out of it made that so much more than if the US remained in it and sought reforms. You only get a say when you're at the table.
Viruses don't care about borders. They are impervious to politicking, ranting and rhetoric. The Universe doesn't alter its behaviors because a guy in the Oval Office makes grand declarations. It's time Americans, indeed all of humanity, recognize we're just organic matter, as vulnerable to viruses and other pathogens as potatoes and squid. King Canute demonstrated that being a ruler doesn't give one the power to stop the tides, so it's time America disabused itself of the notion that petulance and isolationism just magically make global crises disappear. You can run, but you can't hide.
The WHO aer scared of China (Score:3, Insightful)
Taiwan flagged the start of the pandemic in China but the WHO chose to ignore it for blatantly self serving reasons. If this organisation can't be reformed it should be shut down and a new one formed of entirely different people take its place.
Re: (Score:2)
You're drawing some pretty flimsy conclusions, but one way or the other, an international organization capable of tracking international health crises is obviously important to our way of life.
Re: (Score:2)
an international organization capable of tracking international health crises is obviously important to our way of life
Its a shame that no such organization exists [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Influence in the WHO's decisions?
Ah, nevermind. It's not what this is about for you, is it?
Re:Money (Score:5, Informative)
China may not have been as transparent as it might have been, or it may be insuring that itâ(TM)s sovereignty was respected. Knowing the origin of the virus might be useful, or it might not be. I am not of the dogma that if you are not hiding something there is no reason to allow the police to rummage your house, so I am do not have a firm opinion on this one way or the other
The NYT in their exposà did a decent job laying out the facts, but the drew conclusions and placed blame, IMHO, without sufficient basis. We cannot divert blame to China for letting in researchers for a science project that might be useful when we write the history of 2020. We canâ(TM)t blame China for being more focused on the protection of itâ(TM)s health of its own people, and contains the spread of the virus to other countries, rather that its image on the world stage.
And BTW, this isnâ(TM)t a pissing contest. Because we contribute a billion and China contributes a 100 million, is not the issue. We are rich, we are generous, we are modest, and we know that we are not hydrates that go into the street and tell everyone how great we are.
Also you need to keep the billion dollars in context. Our government paid 65 million to a guy who runs his medical company out of his condo, ha;f billion to a company that is not approved to make any medical devices, or even has facilities to do so, and 1.6 to a pharmaceutical firm to make a questionable vaccine it was to make anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
If you aren't prepared to backtrack, you aren't doing science at all. Backtracking is not an insult in science, it's the scientific method in play, the promise to change your theory when the observations invalidate it.
You can argue they aren't doing it well & I agree medicine is barely science - not because it's practitioners are all incompetent but because it's inherently difficult to apply the scientific method to such a messy subject and the restrictions of the ethical maze it has to navigate.
Being s
Re:Money (Score:4, Insightful)
Please logically and fully tell me the benefits of joining The Who without an emotional fluff?
230000 of your fellow countrymen a dead because you continue to ignore WHO recommendations and guidelines.
But I mean if your grandma is one of them and left you a nice cheque in her will I guess there's no downsides to killing your fellow countrymen.
Re: Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, please provide a useful discussion of prod and cons.
Here's your choice. You either have one central location, funded by everyone, which monitors possible pandemics around the world, which then notifies nations of said possible pandemic, or each country has to fund its own group of people and place them in someone else's country to monitor possible outbreaks.
Which do you prefer?
Re: (Score:2)
That is emotional and there is little truth.
Except there's plenty of truth that the USA has systematically ignored the WHO's recommendations. What *you* do is irrelevant. You're not going to ever have the power to influence the R value of a virus. That's why health organisations and governments who listen to them are important.
Again, please provide a useful discussion of prod and cons.
I get it. You don't give a shit about all the dead.
Re: (Score:3)
You want an effective WHO? So be it. They'll get to investigate China just as hard as they'll get to investigate the U.S. Care to have those drug contracts looked into a bit more closely?
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing what they've done in pretty much every election since the telegraph was invented. Nobody pretends they have authority; they're making a conditional statement.
Re: (Score:2)