I seriously don't get the disconnect between the complete trust in government to provide a militia to protect citizens against catastrophic invasions, but no trust in government to provide scientists to protect citizens against catastrophic illness.

You clearly have not read the Constitution. In it? A militia. Not in it? Science.

I did read it! I remembered the part about the post office a couple of weeks ago!

Then what is your question??? Clearly guns are American and science is probably Communist or something.

Airport traffic...

::yawn::

In news of the silly -- a friend just posted something on Facebook for "Jen P____, Martin A_____, and all my other geeky friends." I was all happy about being a named geeky friend. Like, "Sure, you're all geeks, but these two? Outstanding." I=ridiculous.

Then what is your question???

The question is about trust. There's trust in the government to do this enormous, dangerous thing (run a militia to protect us), but not to run another things like the USDA or FDA.

Not about whether these things are constitutionally required. It's like, "The world is a dangerous place! Poor MOAR MONEY into the military!" Which is then done. Which the government then controls and oversees and all of that. And it's fine.

The world is a dangerous place, poor more money into the CDC isn't really done. I'm more worried about zombies than a chinese invasion, so take it with the grain of salt.

(I actually do know what you're saying.)

It's the holidays. I couldn't find the compose button on my gmail for about 15 minutes this morning. I assume no one knows what anyone else is talking about.

Incidentally, in all my TLDR, I think I came up with good framing for the alta-lobby. "Big Snake Oil"

Science: In it.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

It's talking about patents and copyright, but it implies that the "Progress of Science" is a good thing. Jefferson got funding for the Lewis & Clark expedition from Congress. He asked for $2,500. Congress may have ended up paying as much as 20 times that, showing that there is ample precedent for both scientific funding and cost overruns. In 1879, Congress made science an official part of government by founding the United States Geological Survey. (I have a small obsession with the founding of the USGS. Try not to judge.)

Anyway, there's plenty of precedent, which those people who carry around cards of the Constitution fail to consider, probably because they wish the Supreme Court wasn't in the Constitution.