DocWatts

The guy wasn't running as a peace Candidate, so I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that Biden's continuing down the same tired path of military interventionism as literally all of his predecessors for decades. The last President who made a serious effort to break from the National Security State was probably Jimmy Carter back in the seventies, and even he wasn't entirely successful. Sadly I don't see this problem being addressed in a substantive way until we have a much more Democratic form of government, and Nationalist political platforms don't appeal to enough people to win national elections. No way this is getting solved when the Military Industrial Complex is a defacto jobs program for much of the country.

Makes sense. And just because nuclear may not be the lynchpin of an energy policy for combating climate change doesn't mean it can't still be incredibly useful in other areas. The nuclear reactor aboard the Voyager 2 space probe has been providing power to that device for something like five decades now, which should go without saying is an incredible feat of engineering.

A typical nuclear power plant takes something like 15 - 20 years to become profitable, and considering that these facilities cost billions of dollars to construct it's obviously a huge risk. From what I understand the reason that various places are turning away from nuclear has less to do with safety concerns, and more to do with the volatile economics behind nuclear energy. While nuclear power can be made safe, modernizing older facilities is prohibitively expensive, and several operational nuclear plants have chosen to shut down rather than eat the cost of updating thier facilities to meet more stringent safety standards. Considering all that, it'$ not hard to see why nuclear is at a disadvantage compared to other carbon neutral energy sources. While in theory nuclear energy has distinct advantages over both fossil fuels and renewables, that doesn't amount to much if economic realities put it at a severe disadvantage compared to renewables. In addition to economic concerns, the fact that uranium and thorium are nonrenewable (with estimations of available supplies lasting another one to two centuries) means that the best nuclear can hope for is to be a stopgap until the world transitions to renewables. All of which is to say that Nuclear energy something that sounds great in Theory (cheap and reliable carbon neutral energy!), but in practice Nuclear faces obstacles that make it less advantageous compared to other forms of energy production.

Let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of deaths that Trump is directly responsible for due to the criminally negligent way he "handled" the Covid pandemic. That figure is comparable to the number of people who died in Iraq in the escalating violence that was unleashed after the US Invaded. Something like %40 of Covid deaths in the US could have been avoided if the US had a reasonably competent response to the pandemic that was comparable to other industrialized democracies. (Source : https://www.businessinsider.com/analysis-trump-covid-19-response-40-percent-us-deaths-avoidable-2021-2) So let's not give the guy a 'free pass' for supposedly not starting any wars, when his domestic policy killed just as many people.

@Danioover9000 Had increases to the Minimum Wage not been neglected for as long as they have, then companies which rely on low wage economic exploitation could have gradually adjusted to paying a living wage over a much longer period of time. The longer you ignore a problem, the more difficult and expensive it's going to be to fix it. Four years is not an unreasonable amount of time for businesses to adjust, especially when you consider that by 2025 $15 an hour will be worth less than it is now due to inflation. I agree that we shouldn't blindly follow a Call to Action from either the Left or Right. But on its own Merits the proposed Legislation to increase the Minimum Wage is completely justified while being reasonable in its implementation. And for the sake of clarity, the proposed legislation would phase in a $15/hour wage over four years, and then index it to national productivity growth after that. It would not continue to increase to $20 or $25 an hour under this Legislation. What it would do is make the minimum wage Indexed to the cost of living going forward, so that in 2030 and 2035 would be today's equivalent of $15. The reason this is important is so that Inflation doesn't make the Minimum wage a starvation wage again in ten or fifteen years, and is in fact what most other Industrialized Democracies do.

The biggest problem with Nuclear Power isn't safety concerns (provided of course the safer Thorium model reactors are being used, and adequate safety regulations are being followed). The biggest problem with Nuclear Power plants are almost entirely logistical and economical. From my understanding, a single Nuclear power plant takes on average 7 to 10 years to build, and costs between 5 and 10 billion dollars. That's a huge opportunity cost that puts it at a disadvantage compared to renewables which are cheaper and faster to transition to than nuclear. That's also leaving aside the problem of nuclear waste, which while a solvable problem, is an additional hurdle that further puts nuclear at a disadvantage compared to renewables.

@Danioover9000 If you don't support a $15 minimum wage, well then that's a different discussion than the one in this thread. If you do support a $15 minimum wage, I don't see the problem with putting pressure on our Elected Officials to fulfill the promises they've made. I'll concur that Progressives and the Young Turks in particular can sometimes be unreasonable in some of thier expectations and demands (I don't agree with many of thier criticisms of the Biden administration), but raising the minimum wage over four years to $15/hour by 2025 is an incredibly reasonable compromise for something that's been long overdue. The Senate Parliamentarian's decision is a Senatorial Norm rather than a binding agreement, one that's been ignored at several points to pass Tax Cuts and expand Oil Drilling. The fact that Covid relief is being passed by Budget Reconciliation is a good indication that Procedural Norms breakdown when Bad Faith actors consistently use obstructionist tactics, and that breaking with Norms can be necessary at times. While there's an argument for trying again on the Minimum Wage after Covid relief, fact is if we don't keep pressuring our public officials on this issue, it will fade away into the background, and the momentum that a $15 minimum wage will be squandered. And make no mistake this is a life and death issue for tens of millions of people here subsisting on starvation wages, and will likely be a huge factor in any post Covid economic recovery. Additionally, the Democratic Party failing to fulfill this promise is likely to come back and bite them in the arse in 2022, and will make it more probable that they will lose seats to Bad Faith Republicans who will do everything in thier Power to obstruct any legislation from getting passed until 2024.

Completely agree. Already shared the video in fact. Other than Covid relief, the $15 minimum wage is probably the most important issue that I would like to see passed over the next two years.

bump

I get the sense that they're too Conservative (not in a Left / Right sense, but Conservative as far as sticking to Senatorial procedures and Norms) to break with the Senate Parliamentarian's ruling. In addition, more Right-leaning Democrats such as Joe Machin would not support such a move, and all 50 Democratic votes are needed for it to pass. Just one dissenting Democratic vote in the Senate is enough to kill the Legislation. This is despite the fact that it will absolutely come back to bite them in the ass when 2022 elections come around, and they lose seats for reneging on this promise. Of course I would love to be proven wrong here.

Correct, but even if that were not the case I have reason to doubt that Biden (or more accurately Kamala) would be willing to break with the Senate Parliamentarian and push it through anyways. I'm sure Bernie will likely do everything in his power to push for a $15 minimum wage, but getting anything through is now going to be much, much more difficult. This is of course despite the fact that $15 a hour Federal minimum wage not effecting the Federal Budget is just incorrect, albeit in more indirect ways (such as its effect on the number of people relying on welfare programs because they're not being paid a living wage by thier employer).

I'd also mention Up in the Air as well, for a more humanizing portrayal of Orange. Not everyone at Orange is a narcissistic monster, plenty of flawed but well meaning people there as well.

@aurum Thanks, i'll definitely look into that. And for what it's worth, my attachment to Effective Altruism and Philanthropy is far more to the philosophical and ethical impulses behind it, rather than any one particular Institution. I do think the way that discussions are framed around this topic matters a great dea, in order to make sure that critique of philanthropic ventures doesn't inculcate societal apathy by arguing that charity "doesn't work".

@aurum It seems to me that the obvious solution then is to work to improve philanthropic organizations, so as to mitigate the downsides that you mention. Which means critiquing philanthropic ventures in a constructive way with the aim of improving them, rather than downplaying thier accomplishments in a way that may turn people away from contributing to altruistic organizations. NGOs are a relatively new development, so it should be no surprise if they're not fully living up to thier ideals in every instance, or working as effectively as we would want to them. After all, it took Representative Democracies centuries to arrive at Universal Suffrage. Just because a system is imperfect doesn't mean that the world would be better off without it, or that it can't be improved over time. The shortcomings of philanthropic ventures seem more like Growing Pains than anything else. In addition, the only realistic path towards a less exploitative global socio-economic system seems to be a Developmental Model, which takes time; certainly more time than a single human life. People waiting for a vaguely defined Revolution to come along and fix everything are deluding themselves. So NGOs will have an important part to play for the foreseeable future.

House Passes Biden’s $1.9T Stimulus Plan—Without a Single GOP Vote in Favor https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-passes-bidens-dollar19t-stimulus-planwithout-a-single-gop-vote-in-favor Looks like the Covid relief package is finally getting sent to the Senate to be passed through Budget Reconciliation. Incredibly unfortunate that a $15 dollar federal minimum wage is unlikely to be included in this legislation, due to the Senate Parliamentarian ruling against it being passed through Budget Reconciliation. Of course the Dems could in theory ignore this ruling (which is non-binding), like the Bush administration did to pass tax cuts, but Biden doesn't appear that he's willing to do so.

If it's more accurate to label the money he's put towards his various philanthropic ventures as pro-social Investments, well I see no reason why that should be used as a pejorative. Especially when pro-social Investment (or aid) is targeted towards people who need it most, which is the ethos of the effective altruism movement that Gates represents. After all the money to fund NGOs ans philanthropic ventures has to come from somewhere. Yeah it would be better if there were a more representative and democratic system in place to help place to help people in developing countries, but the sad fact is that countries like the United States contribute a pitiful amount of thier budgets to International Aid. That's certainly discussion worth having, but at the same time let's not undermine the role that NGOs have played in contributing to improvements in Global Health and Well Being. Also just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm not arguing that philanthropic ventures are a sufficient justification for billionaires to continue to exist. But as long as billionaires do exist, let's at least uphold Social Norms that incentivize using Wealth in Socially Responsible ways that help people. A Purity Mentality seems like fundamentally the wrong Mindset here. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Gates is doing the best someone in his position might be reasonably expected to do while operating within a flawed system, and that Game Change for the entire Global Socio-Economic system is something that will likely take generations.

Still useful for gaining a rough estimation of biases for articles from sources you may be unfamiliar with. I agree that thier methodology could be improved, and the correlation between Right Wing bias and Low Reliability made more explicit. As long as you're going in with some degree of media literacy it's a useful tool, but I can also see less knowledgeable people drawing false equivalencies from it.

You'll hear no argument from me on this point, the fact that individuals can amass more wealth than entire countries is ethically indefensible. Yes billionaires shouldn't exist, but as long as they do let's at least make it a Social Norm that these people should use thier wealth in Socially Responsible ways. I would also argue that generating Wealth for the purpose of funding philanthropic organizations is much more ethically defensible than how most fortunes are used, but i'll concede that the wisdom of allowing someone with hundreds of billions to continue to amass wealth (even if that wealth is used in socially responsible ways) is highly debatable. I don't know if it's fair to blame Bill Gates for structural and ethical failings of an entire global socio-economic system. But the fact is that incredibly wealthy people are going to exist for the foreseeable future, and I would much rather more of them be like Bill Gates than the Koch Brothers or the Walton family. The criticisms of philanthropic ventures funded by billionaires not being democratically accountable is a cognizant point, but at the same time let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Yes philanthropy isn't a substitute for development towards a more just system, but at the same time NGOs have materially helped millions of some of the most disadvantaged people on the planet. Obviously it would be better if this help were to be provided by representative governments, but well functioning Representative Democracy is developmental stage that takes time and resources to reach. The fact that a functioning welfare state is something a person's grandchildren may live to see is little help to a person suffering from easily preventable poverty related maladies right now. I agree with many of the points you bring up, but I think it's easy to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Philanthropy has its share of problems, but so does Representative Democracy. That doesn't mean we should disregard the achievements of either one.

An average person donating fifty or a hundred bucks to an NGO is giving away 'some' money. One of the richest people in the world giving away almost all of his fortune to solve developmental problems faced by some of the poorest people on the planet is qualitatively quite different. If there's an ethical or spiritual cost to be paid for becoming successful under an exploitive economic system, I'm not sure what else he could reasonably be expected to do in order to balance the scales, so to speak.

Unfortunately the National Security State has become incredibly entrenched in the American Governmental System, and it's hard to see a realistic path to reigning it in without a substantial overhaul of our Democratic Institutions. It's hard to overstate how much Corporate Lobbying has corrupted our political system over here, with what amounts to what's essentially legalized bribery by Corporate Interests having an enormous influence on our national policies (both domestic and foreign). Add to this the further difficulty that the Military Industrial Complex is a defacto jobs program for much of the country. Anyone here with more than two brain cells to rub together can see how criminally wasteful it is to spend $750 billion on a bloated Military budget when around half of our citizens are on the edge of poverty, but sad fact is dismantling the current system is beyond any one President (even if they were inclined to do so). We also don't have anything like a viable Peace Party over here. We have what amounts to a Corporatist Nationalist/Authoritarian Party (the Republicans), and a slightly Left of Center Party (the Democrats). Third Parties with platforms advocating for the dismantling of the American Military Empire do exist, but they have virtually no chance of winning National Elections. As to Joe Biden, he's clearly a Centrist Candidate (and advertised himself as such). For reasons I can't fathom some Lefties over here were expecting him to be a Patron Saint of Enlightened Progressive Politics, and have become aggravated that he's not delivering on things he never promised to do while campaigning.

The Catch 22 is that while we need Conscious Politicians in order to successfully deal with the innumerable challenges we're facing as a Society, it's also true that running for Political Office is often the path of most rather than least Resistance for gifted people who want to contribute to Society. There's only so much that a highly conscious person is going to be able to achieve working within the confines of a system that's far less developed than that individual. Rather than a Conscious Individual elevating the political system that they're participating in, it just as likely that a principled individual will be dragged down and accept some level of corruption as the cost of doing business, or end up losing heart and leaving politics. Someone like Bill Gates is doing far more to reduce suffering world running an anti-poverty NGO than he could ever hope to accomplish if he ran for President. Mikhail Gorbachev is quite instructive in this regard as well, as we can look to the difficulties he faced when trying to enact Principled change on a Political Culture that was substantially less developed than he was, resulting in a return to Authoritarianism after has departure.

Apparently some on the Left are disappointed that Biden hasn't solved America's numerous structural and systemic problems during his first six weeks in Office. Let's hope that more productive critiques of Biden are the ones that make it to the forefront, since equating Biden supporters and Maga Cultists isn't a good look for the Left...

Completely Agree. But it's also worth pointing out that in the US this is almost entirely due to Distributive Problem, rather than being due to a lack of Resources or a due to a lack of Economic Infrastructure. Saying that the US has serious Developmental Imbalances might be another good way of putting it.

It would be more accurate to say that the US is a First World nation in wealth and resources, and a developing country in terms of the lived experience for a large plurality (arguably even a majority) of its Citizens.