I don't think Vought is concerned with health impacts in the least. Slash and burn without regard for anything other than reducing NIH research.

This is convoluted so I wouldn’t be shocked if the NYT got it wrong. But we also heard rumor early in the chaos that NCEs themselves were a target. So I also wouldn’t be shocked if this is the case.

My understanding, possibly from one of your comments, is that the final year being held for regular Type 5 non-competing award had to do with NCE only being allowed within a year or two of the start of the prior funded interval. Which would have expired if the whole thing funded from Year 1.

Facts and decency are left coded.

The protagonist is a displaced hereditary monarch in waiting of course, the hero of 1,000 faces, so there are no upsides here.

For a home exercise, look up how the media views “double tap” terrorist bombings where a second explosion is timed to get first responders. Hint: not approvingly.

Even if you accept the military cooption of double-tap it is defined everywhere as intentionally hitting rescuers (and wtf, right?) or additional combatants entering the fray. “Finishing off the incapacitated and wounded” doesn’t fit that.

Interestingly, the target demographics who usually foam at the mouth with any perceived misuse of their stupid gunnut terms aren’t jumping all over this false use of “double tap”.

In this particular case the media is being puppeted by those who wish to minimize the obvious murder charge. The phrase is being deployed *intentionally* as propaganda to create the impression of a single assault.

Is “Happy Holidays” evidence of anti-christer bias?

A war horny media is readily puppeted by the military industrial complex and by politicians desperate to dig out of the domestic policy hole they have been digging.

part of the NYT article implies NCEs will no longer be permitted. It also implies 5 year awards are being cut, instead of awarding the final year as a Type 5 to *permit* NCE. @jeremymberg.bsky.social is this correct?

In my last story on staff at the Times, my colleagues and I analyzed over a decade of federal science funding and interviewed many federal employees to identify all of the science that went unfunded this year. Here's a paywall-free link: