Disability rights in labor
Could you guys PLEASE, please talk about disability rights in labor? I find it absolutely terrible that there’s all this talk about minimum wage in the world with no mentioning of the fact that it’s still legal to pay disabled people a lower minimum wage. In my opinion, we really need to start to recognize the fact that you can’t have full labor rights without disability rights. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Boat race in Dahlgren for Krystal?
Krystal, you've mentioned multiple times you live in King George County and that your dad used to work in the nearby naval base. I assume you're talking about the Dahlgren naval base. Last time I went there (albeit a very long time ago) some civilians on the base were having a weekly boat race on the Potomac river. I'm just curious: were you ever invited to such boat race?
More discussion on energy politics and nuclear energy
Loved Sagar's monologue today on solar power, China and our energy grid today. I'd love to see some more discussion about our energy future. Lots to talk about there but here is one issue that has been on my mind and I don't see getting much attention: Where are our future energy technologies going to come from? Sagar makes a great point about solar production being almost totally dependant on foreign sources and I worry that the problem extend to our whole energy future. While nuclear has been largely ignored both in terms of infrastructure and in research in much of the west over the last few decades China has shown that it isn't willing to just around ideally. China is pushing ahead with "next generation" nuclear technologies which arguably (and I know many will want to debate this) are our best hope of not only mitigating climate change but also of continuing and extending our western standard of living to the wider world. I use quotations around the term "next generation" in the paragraph above because much of the initial work and research on what is in development was being worked on in the US 40+ years ago but was abandoned at the time in favor of keeping the current status quo of nuclear energy technology. The reason that this technology was shelved is quite a story in itself, including lots of politics, economics and shifting public sentiments; it worth looking into in itself but the main point is that after the research went into public domain China has taken the foundations of that research and is continuing to develop it. So I can see a future in which two of our main energy sources are "next gen" nuclear and solar, both of which we are dependent on China for yet our ourselves responsible for much of the original R&D work that goes into making these technologies what they are today. What does the Breaking Point audience think? While I'm on the topic of nuclear I just wanted to say I'm glad to see that you are not afraid to talk about it at least. I think it is a real shame that there isn't more public support for the technology especially when such a large segment of the population claims to see climate change as an "existential treat". I can understand (however much I disagree) how someone can be both "Green" and "Anti-nuclear" ore often than not Green activists are not even willing to listen to the pro-nuclear argument. If you really feel the threat is existential you should at least be willing to listen. Of course I think the only valid stance if you are both "Green" and "Anti-nuclear" is that you see nuclear as an existential threat of it's own and that it's not even worth considering battling one existential threat with another. However I think that this attitude stems from a (understandable) lack of general knowledge about nuclear physics in general. Nuclear power and weapons often confused and conflated with each other despite how different they really are. This lack of understanding also then further exacerbates fears of a "nuclear disaster" despite how safe these plants really are from a statistical point of view. This public attitude then makes it near impossible for improvements and innovation in the field to occur which is part of the reason why we are still using 30+ year old nuclear technology and why China is about to lap us after we had a massive head start. If people want to come to an informed "Green + Anti-nuclear" position than that is okay with me but personally I see far to much dismissal of the topic and not nearly enough conversation on the topic to believe that is what is happening. Sagar, Krystal, Breaking points audience, thanks for reading this rant. Hope to hear more conversation around this topic in the future. Cheers, Mark
How Do You Decide Your Labeling?
I've been with you since Rising and followed you to "Breaking Points" because I appreciate a wide-audience news show that breaks through Establishment narratives. As independent media, how do you decide when to label particular people, ideas, or movements as "fringe" (or, more colloquially dismissive, "out there" or "crazy" or "outside the pale")? How do you determine which individuals can be called trivializing labels such as "dude" and which individuals are "quality candidates" worthy of basically respectful labels? I think this is an important question because you ask your audiences to accept progressive figures, such as Nina Turner, without having to justify why they are not fringe/extreme. Your language choices seem to treat conservative populists, religious people, and their Northern/Midwestern perspectives you don't naturally empathize with quite differently. I respect you both and always consider the perspectives you bring. I hope you will read my perspective that not every rural Midwestern conservative is an inarticulate hayseed who slavishly adheres to Donald Trump and wants "Stop the Steal" instead of real concerns over constitutional issues of ballot integrity and how our governments treated us and our local businesses during COVID. Ultimately, that is what will decide many parts of Pennsylvania and similar states.