

It is, indeed. But maybe we can save it.
It is, indeed. But maybe we can save it.
I wonder if the complexity could be alleviated by the Zionists ceasing their decades-long genocide of the people of Palestine, ceasing the occupation, pursuing a two-state solution, and supporting a right of return.
Just a thought.
Throw away years of hard work and millions of dollars. Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million.
Shirk commitments to participants, who braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.
Risk participant health. NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety, abruptly stopping medications or leaving participants with unmonitored device implants.
Damage hard-earned public trust, counter to your stated goal to improve trust in NIH.
Goodness, the consequences are horrible.
OP, thank you for posting this.
A crazy idea to be sure, but do you suppose if Israel stops its genocide against the people of Palestine, proceeds to take measures for restoration, complies with the International Criminal Court, and pursues a two-state solution it might help matters for their businesses?
Just a crazy thought about doing the right thing. I know…
Thank you for posting this article, OP.
The sarcastically-packaged wisdom in this post is important. Thank you for sharing this, OP.
You expressed it better than I ever could. I feel the same way!
At first, I thought I would settle for just the AI summary posted by a commenter on this thread. But then I felt intrigued and decided to skim through the blog. I didn’t read it all for lack of time.
And now I feel compelled to enter another comment to say this blog is so beautifully written - and likely conveys ideas that many of us can relate to. I’m very impressed.
Thank you, OP!
Thank you, EU.
I remain grateful for all effort placed in stopping the genocide. Let’s hope momentum continues to build.
Lordy, this is good:
On Monday night, Stewart skewered Leavitt, saying, “By the way, I think that the more she lies, the bigger her cross gets. Is that possible? It’s like some sort of weird Pinocchio cross.”
But this requires a desperate call to the local burn unit:
The host also noted that Leavitt is likely to be “the only one” who will be able to leave the administration “unscathed … Because I don’t think that she has any principles in there left to die.”
I don’t know much about this person, but my attention has been drawn. And I shamefully admit, I’ll be looking to hear of the size of a crucifix she might choose to wear on any given day.
Choose one too small, and one might question her lack of faith. If missing altogether, it could be interpreted as blasphemy.
The article quotes TACO Felon:
“If I think I’m close to getting a deal, I don’t want to screw it up by doing that,” he said on May 28, but added he is prepared to act if Moscow stalls further.
If he thinks he’s close to a deal - the king dealmaker suggests.
As if (1) he knows how to make deals, (2) he has any sway over his master.
I’m a fan of your work, @[email protected] ! Thank you!
And I’ll remember to use the title of your post in the future for Lady G-related matters. Have a super day!
Out-maneuvered Felon TACO: “Who knew …?”
It’s rather odd that they did not consider this consequence.
Do you imagine that the wimpy law firms will eventually need to rebrand? And, if so, I wonder if that thought has dawned on them yet.
Moreover, a similar consequence might await firms that caved-in and dropped support for DEI, I think.
As is appropriate.
I’m trying to recall a disco song from, I believe, the 1970s whose lyrics in the chorus went somewhat like the following - though I might be mistaken:
“That’s the way uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh”
I commend these employees for posting the price increases.
Despite TACO Don’s lies, really, we all knew this was coming. It’s good to have validation, regardless.
Major companies in the U.S. have begun shifting legal work away from prominent law firms that struck deals with the Trump administration, according to The Wall Street Journal.
You and I both called this.
Not only are firms that struck deals losing clients, but those actively challenging the Trump administration in court are attracting new corporate business, per the WSJ.
Based.
Hardly surprising, hardly.