The history of Neville Chamberlain and WW II prove appeasement and neglect don't end well. 5% of the massive largesse of the MIC funding is going to Ukraine, that's a tiny amount. If COTUS actually wanted to save money, they would direct SecDef to cancel the F-35 program and other sunk cost fallacy boondoggles, rehabilitate F/A-18E/F and A-10C programs to be the "low" of high (F-22) / low mix. Stealth has limitations and is overhyped. The US lacks hypersonic missiles, yet spends more on defense than all of the other countries in the world combined.

Ukraine needs piles of arms, training, and some cash to achieve an overwhelming victory ASAP. The consequences of prolong the war increase terror bombing of civilians and a deadly, long-term war of attrition at the front that might end much like the war on the Korean peninsula: a stalemate. Some think it could embolden China to invade Taiwan, but that's unlikely due to the American strategic dependence on Foxconn (Hon Hai), Quanta, TSMC, and Pegatron (the most Office Space name ever).

So it doesn't matter what "Americans in a CNN poll" say they want. No one wants Russia flattening Ukraine and rolling into Finland or Poland next. Although 89 senators were reasonable and understand the issue, 11 senators didn't get the memo or were wingnut obstructionists who voted to oppose aid last year:

1. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee — climate change denier
2. John Boozman of Arkansas — big oil shill
3. Mike Braun of Indiana — pseudo-reformer who votes without a clear though process
4. Mike Crapo of Idaho — wanted to cover-up Jan 6th, voted against Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act for veterans and responders
5. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee — climate change denier
6. Josh Hawley of Missouri — climate change denier, theocratic ambitions, Jan 6th hawk
7. Mike Lee of Utah — climate change denier
8. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming — climate change denier
9. Roger Marshall of Kansas — climate change denier
10. Rand Paul of Kentucky — fights with his neighbor in KY over the lawn, thinks we should live on the moon to "solve" climate change, and votes "no" on everything unless it's free and ideologically-aligned with his warped views
11. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama — held up the careers of hundreds of flag officers and generals as a political stunt to ban abortion access for the military

An award-winning Harvard Business School professor and researcher spent years exploring the reasons people lie and cheat. A trio of behavioral scientists examining a handful of her academic papers concluded her own findings were drawn from falsified data.

It was a routine takedown for the three scientists—Joe Simmons, Leif Nelson and Uri Simonsohn—who have gained academic renown for debunking published studies built on faulty or fraudulent data. They use tips, number crunching and gut instincts to uncover deception. Over the past decade, they have come to their own finding: Numbers don’t lie but people do.

“Once you see the pattern across many different papers, it becomes like a one in quadrillion chance that there’s some benign explanation,” said Simmons, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a member of the trio who report their work on a blog called Data Colada.

Simmons and his two colleagues are among a growing number of scientists in various fields around the world who moonlight as data detectives, sifting through studies published in scholarly journals for evidence of fraud.

At least 5,500 faulty papers were retracted in 2022, compared with 119 in 2002, according to Retraction Watch, a website that keeps a tally. The jump largely reflects the investigative work of the Data Colada scientists and many other academic volunteers, said Dr. Ivan Oransky, the site's co-founder. Their discoveries have led to embarrassing retractions, upended careers and retaliatory lawsuits.