This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Legislative Updates: Senate Appropriations Committee Mark Up
After all the acrimony over the debt negotiations, Senate Appropriations has actually had a surprisingly productive session: “holding 40 hearings in the Spring, the first markups in years, and passing 8 of the 12 major appropriations bills with significant bipartisan support.” The session today passed the remaining four bills, also all with significant cross party support; the first time since 2018 that all 12 bills have been marked up. Speeches about bipartisanship were inserted in between every single amendment. The Senate normally has better manners than the House but everyone was genuinely excruciatingly polite to each other. Nice to see them getting along though. Not all of these are guaranteed; House versions are being prepared as well with some differences that remain to be seen. Summaries are below:
Defense Appropriations Act, 2024
Vote Result:
Passes with twenty seven Ayes and one Nay (Sen. Jeff Markley (D-OR)
Summary:
$831.8 billion for Defense Spending.
5.2% pay raise for our troops.
$145 million to address recruiting shortfalls.
Supports procurement contracts for nine types of weapon systems.
Doubles the number of children who have access to pre-K in DoD schools.
$508 million to support Indo-Paycom activities across all services.
$294 million for long range radars and sensors to close awareness gaps.
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Vote Result:
(Unanimous) Passes with twenty eight Ayes and zero Nays
Summary:
No additional support for firefighters past September.
$82 million increase in staffing in the Indian Health Service.
$12.5 million for tribal safety such as courts and jails.
$10 million in housing for firefighters and housing for National Park Service.
Reduces EPA superfund program by $282 million. No cuts to clean air or water.
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Vote Result:
Passes with twenty six Ayes and two Nays (Sen. Hagerty (R-TN) and not sure who the second was)
Summary:
$224.4 billions spending.
$943 million for NIH to support lifesaving research.
$100 million increase for mental health research.
$100 million increase for Alzheimer research.
$60 million increase for cancer research.
$300 million for substance use and mental health programs.
$18 million increase for suicide prevention lifeline.
Targeted increase to programs for maternal mortality, ending the HIV epidemic, boosting technical education, pandemic preparedness and biodefense.
No increase for family planning.
$1.5 million for state opioid relief.
$700 million for childcare and development.
$275 million for head start.
$175 million for Tittle I school to support low income students.
$175 million increase for special education services.
$250 increase to maximum Pell grant award.
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024
Vote Result:
Passes with twenty four Ayes and four Nays (Sen. Hagerty (R-TN), Sen. Rubio (R-TX), Sen. Britt (R-Al), Sen. Fischer (R-NE))
Summary:
$61.3 billion in spending.
TSA pay schedule funded moving towards federal pay schedule.
CISA get a small increase to handle cyber security attacks.
FEMA receives funding boost.
Coast Guard gets $579 million for offshore patrol cutter program.
$56 million for two MH-60 Jayhawk helicopters.
$55 million on new Great Lakes ice breakers.
$150 million for new polar ice breaker and funds for a crew.
Hiring 700 additional Customs and Border Patrol Officers to reduce wait times for people and goods, estimate this will increase $1.3 billion in GDP.
Increasing Border Patrol agents up to 20,000.
$263 million increase in technology investments, funds for facilities and nonprofits.
There are also un-extended border barrier funds the Administration has not yet spent and we require them to be obligated.
$824 million in new investments to stop fentanyl from coming over the border. Funding to scanning 40% of passenger vehicles to 65%, should result in 15% more fentanyl seizures.
Expanding AEGIS task forces, increasing outbound inspections for drug money or weapons going out.
This bill does not increase ICE detention beds.
As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’d love to create a tradition of regular Hill tracking / legislative analysis here if people are interested.
Anyone else slightly creeped out by how the Asia-Pacific was suddenly replaced by Indo-Pacific? I've never even heard anyone say Asia-Pacific for ages. This organization used to be called Pacific Command. I suppose it's part of an attempt to draw India in so they care about our issues in South East Asia with China.
And has anyone ever heard Indo-Pacific refer to actual matters in the Indian Ocean as opposed to just China? I can't think of any problems the US has there, assuming Iran is covered by Middle East or the Gulf designators.
Per Wikipedia, USINDOPACOM was USPACOM from 1947 until 2018. I can't find any evidence the actual geographic boundaries were changed, so it's likely a vestige of being part of the greater southern Pacific theater in WWII, where a number of notable skirmishes with (primarily) the Japanese happened in the Eastern region.
As to why they felt they had to rename it, I'd guess it's at least partly because the US has been trying to court India into the broader Western sphere of influence, but there may be other reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank God.
Was much of the acrimony, previously, coming from the committee? I’ve gotten the impression that it was more along the lines of individuals playing their own lines.
I think debt ceiling negotiations are pretty fraught in general, it isn’t necessarily anyone on this committee in particular (other than McConnell ofc and there are a few flamethrowers like Graham). In general my impression is that politicians get along a lot better than they might seem, especially in the area where they collaborate, and appropriations has subcommittees dominated by people from both parties who are pretty invested in their fields.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link