Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Neomalthusian


    Some make a lot more than $100k playing video games, actually, though it's rare (like making the pros in a sport). Beyond that, while it's not a literal "game," one can figure out complex problems using computers and make really good money finding shortcuts and tricks to getting work done a lot more efficiently and accurately than in the past. Increasingly, jobs are changing and requiring people to learn some basic new tools, mostly computer- and web-based. A lot of older generation workers absolutely suck at this. So they are rapidly becoming the worthless ones. This is typical though. Eventually every generation ages out of the workforce and becomes obsolete and are replaced by the younger generation. I'm a millennial who has supervised Gen-Xers and Boomers since his mid-twenties. In most cases they were ordinary nice people and I hold nothing against them personally. In some cases they were also very diligent, consistent, hard workers without a lazy bone in their bodies, but often times these same workers could not think critically or creatively or learn new skills. And there have been others who were entitled, do-the-bare-minimum, just-punching-my-time-card-til-I-get-my-pension loafs of dead weight. Every generation has its worthless workers, its rockstars, and everything in between.
  2. She's the token millennial activist in Congress. She's practically a prop. Her influence depends on populism, because she's too green and naive and ideological to earn much respect or support from her peers at this point. I give her some credit for getting to where she is. Most 29 year olds would melt down under the pressure of joining Congress that young. She is in several ways rather impressive, and that along with her age is why she's garnering so much attention. The difference in terms of experience and policy intelligence between someone like her and the people in positions of senior leadership in Congress and in general those who have been in Congress for quite a while is vast. You can be the type of person that despises people like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan, but they are very smart and experienced people. Conversely you can be the type of person that bitterly despises people like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, but they are very smart and powerful and experienced people. You don't have to agree with their politics or like them personally to acknowledge that. As much as I can resonate on one hand with attitudes that there should be term limits in Congress and we should figure out a way to eliminate the entire concept of career politicians, the inconvenient reality is that if this were the case, the nation would be largely run by people like Ocasio-Cortez (and right-wing equivalents of her). Would the country necessarily be any better off if this were the case? What if it wouldn't? What if it'd be significantly worse, having perpetually new, clueless people who are all ideology and excitement and no actual policy sense or pragmatism?
  3. I think it technically is populism and you don't realize it or want to admit it. The way you describe Warren makes even the most adored centrist Democrats, like Obama, seem like borderline criminals, the way they take something close to the reasonable middle ground with our major industries and interest groups instead of making enemies with them. I'm not saying your attitude or interpretation is necessarily "wrong," but it does slice a a line in the sand down the middle of the Democratic party and forces everyone to pick a side to stand on. The one that tells the monied interests to go f*** themselves, regardless of how much damage is caused, is the inherently populist side. The one that's going to get AFL-CIO's stamp of approval and appoint yet another Goldman Sachs executive to run the Treasury Dept. is the inherently establishment/globalist side. If you vilify the latter, you're ostracizing a lot of adored, well-connected, moderately-liberal, experienced, powerful Democrats. As painful as it may be to support the establishment globalists, rejecting them may lead to wild swings of political radicalism, destabilization, and economic self-sabotage. Trump is clearly chapter 1, as far as that's concerned. The question is if liberals/Democrats want to write their own chapter 2.
  4. I didn't say she's of no substance, but if she's going to project herself as a firebrand populist, and that successfully gets her elected, then the people elected her to run the country as a firebrand populist. The reputation she has tried to create for herself is as a major critic of wealthy interest groups. She attacks them the way a regulator or investigator would. She can be attack dog like that when she's in Congress. If she's the President, she is going to face a whole different set of pressures to not be so attack-dog. A similar sort of thing would be the case if Sanders somehow became President. It depends on what they actually say. Some are emptier and more rhetoric heavy than others.
  5. You're intentionally and actively ignoring all evidence of her presenting herself as a firebrand, rich-vs.-poor, anti-establishment populist. It's not unfair of me to characterize her in a way that acknowledges her fiery rhetoric just because you're actively choosing to pay no attention to it.
  6. She's not going to run on "specific, detailed, highly accurate criticisms," she's going to run on empty populism, and throngs of supporters of her and the other candidates are going to assess her as a candidate based on how excited she makes them feel when she spouts her fiery empty populism. Watch her exploratory campaign video or whatever it was called, that's exactly what that was. Maybe when she sits on committees and subcommittees and does her job in Congress she sometimes gets "specific, detailed and highly accurate," but that's not campaign-mode. I'm certainly being no less fair to Warren than you are to the likes of Biden. How was it you described him in the previous post? It's not unfair to characterize Warren as an empty populist if she is intentionally putting out speech that epitomizes empty populism. If you can't pick up on any of the fiery populist rhetoric in this video, you've gotta just be blinded by your own adoration for her. Exhibit A below. It's not like she's the only one doing this. She's competing against other Democrats to appear as much this way as possible, because it's how the throngs of Democrat supporters are judging Democrats nowadays. In this sense, Warren and the others are holding up a mirror to their supporters. Supporters want this anti-establishment radicalism. They don't care if damage is done, they want to f*** s*** up. The more aggressive and radically left wing they are, the more the right wing becomes deranged about them and their audacious ideological stances and posturing, the more radical their proposals, the more attention and adulation they get. The boring moderates are ignored at best, despised and chastised at worst.
  7. As a Senator it's easy to be as much of a bulldog enforcer as she likes, but as President she will face a whole other world of pressure to be more moderate with industries and interest groups she has a proclivity to attack. To ordinary folks it might sound exciting to have someone as President who has basically declared all out war on banks, insurance companies, Big Pharma and other lobbies, the rich in general, etc., but in the grand scheme of things I think being too aggressive and making enemies with several of the country's most major industries becomes very difficult, friends and allies distance themselves from you, Congress remains gridlocked and polarized, and we end up in a dynamic of making wild swings from the far ideological left to the far ideological right. Whether it's Warren or someone else, there is a definite divide between the hard line progressive ideologues who want to declare war on half of the country they don't agree with, versus the moderates who just want a modicum of stability and peace restored. I agree. There's plenty of evidence of that. It's true that a lot of people will resent a "safe old fart" like you describe, but they are often the types of people that would be happy with destruction and instability of our institutions and economy as long as they perceived there was an aggressive radical champion for their cause in office.
  8. I don't think that's the issue. Just because Warren is looking unlikely (Pocahontas controversy), and just because people might not be gung ho for Kamala Harris, doesn't mean people will never vote for a woman or a woman of color. I'm not sure Biden is the guy. He's really old. He's had a lot of gaffes and weird creepy interactions with people. But... politically he's an establishment moderate, and the last few years should have a lot of people longing for an establishment moderate again. We shouldn't be trying to find the left wing equivalent of Trump.
  9. Yeah, I resonate with most if not all of that. I think of higher education a little bit like health care, in that it's probably never going to be a commodity controlled by ordinary people seeking out the lowest-cost alternative, or by their refusal to buy it above a certain price. We pay a huge amount of public dollars toward it, as well as a huge amount of our own private dollars for it. And like in health care I don't think anyone is immune from criticism, but nor is any one particular thing the single scapegoat we can all blame everything on.
  10. I’m not whining that there are liberals here. I might complain that there is such intellectual infancy run amok here. I’m trying to raise the bar a little. You’re doing all you can to lower it.
  11. I comment on topics. You act like a child. I ridicule childish behavior. That's all that can happen when you're around. You bring nothing at all to the table that would enable anything except that.
  12. If your interpretation of my post is "indoctrinated right winger," then the problem is your reading comprehension.
  13. You're not participating. The value of your comments are no more than a dog taking a dump. Zero added benefit. So I think you should leave, if anyone.
  14. Worthless non-response, as is the case 100% of the time from you.
  15. Attempts to make this story about Trump, W. Bush or Republicans is inexcusably and shamefully stupid. Attempts to make this story only about liberals and liberalism is inexcusably and shamefully stupid. Attempts to make this story about black/brown people vs. white people is inexcusably and shamefully stupid. Partisan and race-fixated ideologues deserve only ridicule. With that said, this entire story should call attention to our collective need to be more scrutinizing of higher education's administrative practices, but without devaluing education in general. Higher education is a very political institution run by legions of very well-paid deans and provosts and their millions of staff and assistants. These people are privileged elitists who are very well insulated from the real world and who very often pay lip service to notions of equality and social justice. They invite in their token rags-to-riches underprivileged case studies and prop them up as shiny examples of how progressive and equality-minded they are. Reality is different. Reality is they are self-interested networks of wealthy elitists whose priority is their own financial interests and their relationships with donors and other funding sources. This makes them hypocrites. Their actual behavior and how they conduct themselves is not necessarily so dissimilar from the way corporate leaders are so often accused of conducting themselves. I realize that is a broad brush and so it may seem a bit harsh or unfair, but higher education often gets a complete blind eye from society as it continues its conduct that reeks of elitism, political activism, wealth-based favoritism, and abandonment of concern for the efficient delivery of high-quality education and actual skills. Stories like this remind us that we should be critically thinking and skeptical of institutions that have for a long time gotten away with malfeasance. Rich private universities, the Ivy League schools, and the like do not necessarily deserve the utmost esteem in which a lot of society tends to hold them. Employers should not necessarily favor graduates of these schools. To an extent they absolutely deserve this controversy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedder/2018/05/10/kill-alll-the-administrators-not-really/#5e9b7d4b6210