DocWatts

@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.

All this from giving kids the option to have a Vegan/Vegetarian meal in school (not from forcing Vegetarian meals on anyone). Is there something I'm missing here?

The Conversation. theconversation.com/us High quality, complex news analysis. Relatively non partisan. Not run for profit, so it avoids corporate conflicts of interest.

Thanks for clearing that up, as that seems like an important distinction to keep in mind. Never disliked Jesse Ventura, but his affinity for some forms of Conspiracism always made me a bit hesitant about the guy. Seems like he's on the more benign end of that spectrum from the sound of it.

The guy is giving away almost all of his immense fortune to the poorest people on the planet. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's operating in Good Faith when he makes statements like this.

I think Jesse Ventura, along with Arnold Schwarzenegger, are good indicators of what a Healthy and Functional Conservative political party might look like in America. In the case of Jesse Ventura, credit where credit is due for being able to run for governor as a Third Party Candidate and actually win, considering the obstacles that third parties face. The Reform Party, for its brief existence, could have been a relatively Healthy Alternative for Conservative Voters to turn to, rather than the open kleptocracy that the Republican Party has devolved to; being actually concerned with fiscal responsibility (rather than using it as a smokescreen for kleptocratic policy), and actually concerned with government overreach (ie Civil Liberties violations). That said, I do know that Jesse Ventura was a noted Conspiracy Theorist throughout much of his political career. In his case, I haven't heard him say anything obviously stupid about Pandemic Denial or Election Fraud over the last year, so it's possible he might have eased off on some of that stuff. And while Jesse Ventura doesn't consider himself a Conservative per se, there's enough overlap where I could see him being able to appeal to at least some Conservatives and Libertarians. Hearing him go off on billionaires, it's encouraging to see how his political views have evolved over time; when he was active in Politics in the nineties his political philosophy was probably closer to Centrist (rather than Conservative leaning) Libertarianism. Evolving political views is something we should normalize. As an aside, I've believed for years that CEO/Executive pay should be capped at some Multiple of what thier lowest paid employee earns (say 40 times as much for the sake of argument, the actual number can debated). What we really need is some sort of shared economic incentives between the poorest and richest people in our society, because otherwise we're setting ourselves up for a fragmented society vulnerable to societal collapse.

Whenever I think to myself 'surely this is a new low', Republicans always manage to come back and surprise me with just how dishonest and corrupt they can be while still being able to con enough dummies into Voting for them to stay in Office. Not sure if this is just an illusion on my part, but I seem to recall a time where my disagreements with Right Wingers were over what from my perspective was thier misguided political philosophy. Rather than taking for granted the fact that people who support the modern day Republican Party are openly giving a licence for con artists and grifters to loot the country. Whatever my disagreements with someone like John McCain, he at least wasn't in it only for his narrow self interest; that he seemed to be operating from a position of good faith. Feels much harder to make thay claim about any prominent person in the Republican Party these days.

Imaging posting this on a public forum, after learning that your city's residents are without water and electricity due to a Winter Storm damaging infrastructure across the state. From the Mayor of Colorado City, Texas, who was shamed into resigning shortly after posting this on Facebook.

The reason why we shouldn't be dancing on the grave of someone like Rush Limbaugh (or Osama Bin Laden for that matter) isn't because we owe terrible people any respect, it's because taking pleasure in someone else's death makes you a worse person. How is acting out in this manner any different than a right winger who froths at the mouth at the prospect of someone getting sent to the electric chair? That said I think it's fully acceptable to acknowledge the harms that people like Rush have caused and conclude that the world is a better place without him in it, but that's not the same thing as taking joy in someone else's suffering.

It's incredible how most of the Republican Party can't even be bothered anymore to at least put up a pretense of caring about anyone or anything but their narrow self interest. If you want an great analogue of the modern Republican Party, look no further than the carnivorous short sighted Greed of the Skeksis from Dark Crystal.

Marcus Aurelius was Healthy Blue. Rush Limbaugh is what happens when Cartman from South Park grows up and is given a radio show. Guy was little more than a Bigot with a Megaphone, contributing nothing of value and actively making life worse for people. Not one to engage in schadenfreude, but the world is a better place without him in it. And I'll happily defend that claim to anyone who takes issue with it.

Republican Politicians lecturing the ignorant plebs on the merits of defunding the government while thier state's infrastructure and emergency services are crippled by a snowstorm.

More context for what's going on in Texas right now:

Interesting how residents expecting Utilities that they've paid for to be functional is somehow twisted into asking for a Handout. The amount of Mental Gymnastics to get to that one is beyond my comprehension. Amazing how this guy wasn't even putting up a pretense of at least pretending to care that the people who put him into Office are freezing in thier Homes. Vote for Stupid Politicians, win Stupid Prizes.