HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ProfessorPlum » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »

ProfessorPlum

Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 11,084

Journal Archives

What will we do when there are no more jobs?

I exaggerate (a little). There will always be jobs. But maybe not a lot of them, and certainly not with the same ratio of people to jobs as there has been.

Technology is a rachet, moving towards fewer and fewer jobs. Everything that can be done by a machine instead of a human is (usually) a cost savings, so there is enormous pressure that way.

How will we deal with this? With the "protestant work ethic" that the workers of this country take to heart (thanks to it being enforced by their capital bearing masters), we deal with this situation now by mocking people who don't have jobs, or don't have adequate jobs, and our government seems to be run by people who want to make the situation of the un- or under-employed even worse.

"there but for the grace of god go I" we say under our breath, as we continue to labor away at one of the ever shrinking pool of jobs.

At some point, the only answers are 1) minimum income - a living income no matter what you are doing, which maintains your life and health and makes your healthcare completely untethered to employment OR 2) a feudalistic/fundamentalist/fascist hellscape, with the 1% living better than royalty, and the rest of the population slaving for their comforts while being worked to death and given nothing (or very little) in return

1) is completely politically unthinkable in our current state
2) is completely shitty and horrible, but seems to be what we are hurtling fastest towards.


Could the country take the implications of 1) without having a complete mental breakdown? Cause, it's got to happen. It's the only alternative (in a world with few jobs) to complete dystopia.
Posted by ProfessorPlum | Wed Apr 26, 2017, 09:07 AM (12 replies)

"It's OK if you're a Republican" really means there is no more

Rule of law in this country. Oh sure, there are authorities that can slap you in jail at the drop of a hat. They've made ubiquitous things (e.g. smoking pot) illegal just for that purpose. So most anyone who goes against the crime syndicate or makes noise can be swiftly dealt with.

But the people running the mob, the real owners of the country....well, there is no law for them. They can commit treason (!) and there is no one left to impose consequences on them. It has led to the most blatant hypocrisy.

We are a country with one party rule now, both in spirit and fact. The media hold Democrats to a standard that is never required of Republicans, and Democrats seem to just take it. We are like Iraq under the Baathists.

With no rule of law, there is nothing to stop them.


"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."
-Frank Zappa


Donald Trump, and three branches controled by the GOP, are the brick wall.
Posted by ProfessorPlum | Wed Apr 26, 2017, 07:46 AM (0 replies)

I'm glad that people aren't allowed to continue fighting the last primary on DU

that's an important rule. I'm sure that if people were doing that, those posts would be flagged and removed.
Posted by ProfessorPlum | Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:40 AM (42 replies)

Trump Works For Blackstone Now



The level of corruption just keeps going up and up - the head of the worlds largest private equity firm is telling Trump what to do, with no official governmental capacity.
Posted by ProfessorPlum | Sun Apr 23, 2017, 08:03 AM (2 replies)

I have been an active member of DU since 2001, and I have survived with this board

through some tough times.

There was the heartbreak of the Kerry-Dean primary. The heartbreak of the Obama-Clinton (and briefly Edwards!) primary. The heartbreak of the Clinton-Sanders primary.

I thank the moderators from the bottom of my heart for keeping it up and running, through difficult times like those and through technical difficulties and changes.

They can be tough times. But after each, the rival supporters have come back together to face our greater enemies, and DU continued to be a rich resource of excellent articles, news, essays, and humor to support a vision of the world that governs better and treats people better.

Let's do that again. It's way past time.

To use a more pungent metaphor

I'd rather have Sanders in the tent pissing out on Trump and the Fascists (great band name), than outside the tent pissing in.

If a few corporate friendly Democrats get a little Sanders pee on them, they can soothe their hurt feelings by rubbing piles of their lobbying money on it.
Posted by ProfessorPlum | Thu Apr 20, 2017, 02:19 PM (66 replies)

When a friend is addicted to something that is harmful to them

The people who love that person gently encourage them to wean themselves off of that harmful substance.

Many Democratic politicians are addicted to corporate campaign cash, and corporate influence. And lucrative corporate lobbying jobs that come as their rewards for doing corporate bidding. This is harmful to their ability to represent the interest of non-corporate Americans (we used to call them "people".

As a member of the Democratic party, I have a great love for Democratic politicians, and would gently encourage them to wean themselves off these harmful substances. If that is "criticism" , or "constant criticism", of the Democratic party, then I am guilty as charged.


Or maybe people only get upset when certain influential politicians, who also love the Democratic party, make those kinds of points.

Sernie Banders: A Thought Experiment


Let's think this through, together.

What is the Democratic coalition? Democratic politicians and party members, and other politicians and other voters who will often vote Democratic or support Democratic policies.

What would one do if they wanted to weaken the Democratic coalition?

If I wanted to weaken the Democratic coalition, I would want to drive wedges between the different groups.

What would one do if they wanted to strengthen the Democratic coalition?

If I wanted to strengthen the Democratic coalition, I would want to emphasize what the different groups have in common, and how they can work together towards common goals.

Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, is someone who has an interest in strengthening the Democratic coalition. He seems to be doing this by bringing different members of the Democratic coalition together and working with them, emphasizing their common interests, and using different parts of the Democratic coalition to excite and unite the different members of the Democratic coalition.

Personally, as someone who wants to strengthen the Democratic coalition, I welcome all members of the Democratic coalition, whether they are Democratic party members or not, to work together with us towards common goals. I personally am a Democrat, but I love that there are other people who, even though they are not Democrats, work with the party to further goals that help all Americans.

Now, if one wanted to weaken the Democratic coalition, how might one drive a wedge between the different parts of the Democratic coalition?

Well, for example, let's posit the existence of a really popular politician who isn't a Democrat, but who is part of the Democratic coalition. Let's further assume that this politician is the most popular politician in the country right now.

If I wanted to weaken the Democratic coalition, I would want to drive a wedge between the Democratic party, and this very popular politician. Let's call this politician Sernie Banders, for the sake of this wildly fantastic thought experiment.

How might one do that?

You might, for example, compile lists of every criticism that Sernie Banders ever made about the Democratic party. You might, for example, go on and on and on (and on and on and on and on) about how Sernie Banders is not a member of the Democratic party, and imply he should be hated and not trusted because of that. As if it mattered.

You might, for example, find constructive criticism from that politician, advising the Democratic party not to be harlots for the Wall Street banks, and cast that as criticism (heaven forfend!) of the Democratic party, and emphasize that the Democratic party and this politician should never work together.

You might, for example, keep a nearly constant stream of chatter up with negative stories about Sernie Banders.

If you wanted to weaken the Democratic coalition, you would be afraid of the most popular politician in the country working together with the Democratic party to achieve common goals. You would be pants-peeingly, underwear-poopingly, afraid of that.

Fortunately, this is all just a thought experiment, and nothing like this is happening in the communities of the Democratic coalition. In those communities, we recognize allies and work together toward common goals. And we welcome the allegiance of allies from any and all other parties.

In the world of the thought experiment, though, the stuck pigs squeal the loudest.

A Farewell To Bill O'Reilly From Stephen Colbert And 'Stephen Colbert'

Posted by ProfessorPlum | Thu Apr 20, 2017, 04:16 AM (3 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »