We are a natural disaster on par with the asteroid impact that wiped out all non-avian dinosaurs.

There is nothing natural about the educational segregation that has emerged in the United States.

Really? Because that’s been the norm throughout most the history of the US, and in fact the world. Literal educational segregation based on race was commonplace in the US up until about the 1960s, and there’s always been a strong class correlation between the educational haves and have-nots.

Even a basic education was restricted to the very wealthiest for pretty much the entirety of the history of human civilization. Education is expensive so it’s simply unavailable to the poor. And an advanced education, like post graduate studies, are just way, way too much money for the vast majority of people. And the idea that we can overcome this by saddling people with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student loan debt is nonsense.

If you want more people to be educated, make quality education available to everyone, tuition free. Not willing to do that? Well, then expect a pretty big educational divide.

However, it’s not just elected Republicans standing the way of a transition to universal healthcare in the United States. As a Monday analysis from the investigative outlet Sludge shows, the health insurance industry is pouring money into Third Way, a think tank reportedly preparing to spend $15 million combating the rise of candidates who support progressive policies including Medicare for All.

Ah, Third Way. The political ideology of 90s Liberal wonks. You’re in the wrong century, assholes.

Our de facto two party system isn’t statutory. It’s not written in the constitution that there can only be two parties. It’s just the natural consequence of a winner-take-all, first-past-the-post election system. All a candidate has to do is win 51% of the votes to get 100% of the political power. It makes third party candidates essentially nonviable. That’s what would need to change if we want to ditch the two party system.

deleted by creator

My theory is it’s because of the 9ers roster being very uneven. We have a very top heavy roster, with top ten starters at many positions but not a lot of depth. The talent gap between the blue chip players and everyone else is too high, and it results in the blue chips having to carry an outsized share of the load. They push themselves to compensate for insufficient play from many of their teammates and that increases the number of injuries they suffer.

Fred Warner is a great example, he’s an absolute stud, maybe the best MLB in the league, but he’s being asked to do too much. He can’t rely on his teammates to do their job, he feels like he has to pick up their slack and the result is injury.

Back when I was with DSA, it seemed like most of their organizing was happening in New York, LA, other Pacific Coast cities, and a few big cities in the interior of the country, like Chicago and Denver; but since then it appears they’ve been pushing hard for organizing in key swing states, like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That’s smart. I’m sure it wasn’t easy, either. There are probably a good number of people who are aggressively hostile to socialists in those states, but DSA did it anyway. They did it even though they knew it was going to be hard.

See that, moderate Dems? Doing hard things can pay off. Take note. Turns out being the party of “can’t be done,” “not possible” and “won’t work” doesn’t endear you to voters. People are sick of being told that a better world isn’t possible. People want hope not impotence, resignation and cynicism.

Do we need more of those jobs?

Yes.

People can’t eat financial analysis. People can’t live in computer code. People can’t heat or light their homes with managerial synergy.

I don’t think white collar jobs are going to completely disappear, nor should they, but neither can they be the majority of the jobs. We can’t produce enough of the material things we need if most people are working only administrative, finance, tech or other white collar work. The only reason it’s worked well enough over the last 50 years or so is because we moved many of the blue collar jobs to other, poorer countries and became an importer nation. We didn’t stop needing those blue collar jobs we just let poorer people in/from other countries do them instead of us, for pennies on the dollar. I don’t think that’s moral, or sustainable.

Exactly what is driving the trend is manifold, but increases in healthcare, education and hospitality jobs — industries dominated by women — compared to shrinking jobs in the male-dominated tech, business, and manufacturing worlds appear to be playing a sizable role, Ullrich said.

Fewer jobs in business and tech is probably a good thing, but they need to be replaced with manufacturing, construction and jobs in the trades. We need more healthcare workers and more education workers, but we’re going to need more factory workers, construction workers and trade workers, too, when we inevitability realize that a functioning economy needs to build and make things, and not just endlessly move money around.

I wish moderate libs would understand that the demsocs are helping to move the Overton window further left, which is a good thing because it’s moved way too far to the right due to the ratchet effect. I mean, Jesus, do libs not know how to negotiate? You know compromise will be necessary, so start left of the position you want to end up at. You start at democratic socialism but you end up at a relatively modest, European style social democracy. If that’s too far left for you, well, you might as well just cut the crap and join the Republican party now.

So they made $92 profit? Not bad.

^I’m kidding^

Without the manufacturing build-out, our estimates suggest, Harris would have lost that state by three times as much as she did.

So their conclusion is that without the IRA, the Dems would have lost even worse. Liberals sure do love their moral victories.

Aaron wasn’t so skeptical of medical science when he needed a surgeon to reattach his achilles.

Thank you for that clarification.

Ah, I see. And he’s saying it’s ironic for them to require an ID when they are against people having to show their ID at the polls. Right?

I don’t understand. What’s ironic about a socialist opening some city owned grocery stores?

Birthrates in developed nations have already plummeted with the introduction of the anti baby pill. We don’t need to hit any resource barriers for a population decline.

The global population projections I’ve seen estimate the world’s population continuing to increase to about 10.3 billion by sometime in the 2080s, and then beginning a slow decline from there. I can’t say for sure where the limits to growth are, but I think we will reach them before then. Of course I could be wrong, but that’s what my gut tells me.

And a big reason for that isn’t just the growth in global population that is expected to continue for several more decades, but the imperative for economic growth, even in already very wealthy countries with advanced economies (and declining birthrates). When we do inevitability hit these physical resource barriers (and again I think that will happen before global population is projected to peak and begin declining), I think we will experience a significant global economic crisis that could plunge hundreds of millions, if not billions, back into extreme poverty, and that could cause average life expectancy to decline dramatically and infant mortality to increase. I think that could lead to a pretty significant and probably very sudden drop in global population, especially if it is accompanied by war and agricultural disruptions from climate impacts.

I am so sick of these hyper rich psycho assholes.

“A more modest population – gently easing population to 4 billion by 2200 – would protect Earth’s natural heritage, including its wild habitats, wild species, and its climate. Such a world is within our grasp,” they concluded.

I think we could easily see the global population drop back to 4 billion well before 2200, but it almost certainly won’t be “gentle.” Wars, famine and disease, more likely.

For some context, the global population was about 4 billion in 1974-1975, so a little over 50 years ago. It’s very natural for a population crash to follow such a relatively sudden population explosion.

The Earth is finite. We do not have infinite resources so we can’t grow - in population, production or consumption - forever. We will hit the physical limits to growth eventually, and when we do there will likely be a sudden and dramatic collapse.