All of the presidential candidates are actively and shamelessly contributing to growing inequality. Hillary maybe does it a bit less, which is one reason I like her.

Inequality grows in proportion to how many people have accepted that the technological revolution is irreversible and how many are still hoping it will somehow magically go away. The former constitute a minority and are figuring out how to inscribe themselves into the present and the future. The latter are hiding from the unpleasant reality behind vapid fantasies that there is some law, some presidential decree, some decision that a benign, all-powerful authority can make to ensure that the world never moves past 1973. The longer they inhabit this fantasy world, the greater is the gap between them and those who have moved on, both metaphorically and literally.

I don’t believe that the presidential candidates are promising to bring back the past out of a consciously evil “let’s dupe the rubes” attitude. Rather, this is a result of inertia and indifference. “I’ll bring back the nation-state and manufacturing jobs” is just what you say for voters to like you. And since none of the candidates is young, their inclination to dwell on the future is limited.

Of course, history is stronger than politics, and the past is dead and gone. Voters will not see any of these promises fulfilled. They will only fall behind as they wait for fantasy to become reality. This will only make them more disaffected, lost, angry, and distrustful.

It’s disappointing that the Obama administration seriously considers issuing decrees about the deeply idiotic toilet issue but never bothered to do anything about the destruction of public education by state governments. We have students who will not be able to continue their education next year because they are not getting their grants. We have workers who can’t get seen by a doctor in spite of paying huge insurance premiums. But these are not the issues that this administration deigns to notice. And that’s quite disgusting.

I’m beginning to suspect that Joe Biden wants Hillary to lose the the election. He said she should choose Elizabeth Warren for her running mate. I know Warren has fans but they like her for her ideas, not her charm. And since a Veep is largely a ceremonial position, Hillary’s running mate should up her charm quotient, not lower it because, frankly, there is not that much space where it could descend.

Trump’s is a TV star, he knows how to work the cameras. Hillary needs somebody charismatic by her side. Somebody with the charm of a lamp post – even a really honest, intelligent, progressive lamp post – won’t cut it.

And I don’t in the least think that it’s wrong to expect politicians to bring charm to the table. All of us who get paid 10 times less than they do are managing to accept this reality.

So no, not Warren, please. And obviously not Bernie because all Trump will have to do is choose somebody in his forties, and the game is over. Hillary needs somebody young and smiley in a non-creepy way by her side.

But at least my Facebook gives me this. Putin must be very hurt to be given a much less shiny hair.

So people actually get news from Facebook? Strangely, my Facebook never even tried offering me any news aside from some gossip articles about starlets I don’t even know. But I haven’t gotten a single election-related suggestion or anything political at all. Is it true, as the NY TIMES says, that Facebook is the world’s most influential news source?

So. Want to guess how my colleagues – aka supposedly hugely Liberal college educators – respond to Rauner’s hijacking of our healthcare?

Yes, of course, their response is that Obamacare is evil and should be repealed. 

What does Obamacare have to do with our health insurance? Nothing what-so-bloody-ever. But it should be repealed because government can never manage anything right. Instead, we should all get tax credits and be able to buy health insurance across state lines, which will foster competition and solve all our problems.

The above-quoted argument is a very short rendering of the rants I’m receiving through campus email from my supposedly hugely Liberal colleagues re: Rauner’s depredations in the state of Illinois. I have not received any rant imbued with a competing ideology.

First, I was at Yale where using words like feminism, ideology and identity made me a target of veritable persecution. Then, I was at Cornell where we had actual conferences on how to despise any introduction of the political into our research. Now I’m at a regional state school where the only answer to everything is “repeal Obamacare” and “government is evil.” I can’t tell you how many times the subject of “evil government” has come up a propos of every subject in existence at our state school.  

In the meanwhile, all I ever hear about is this powerful cabal of Liberal academics who kill every vestige of conservatism on campuses. My only question is: where are those Liberal campuses? I’d like at least to catch a glimpse of one before I retire.  

It turns out that when I’m tired I have fits of hysteria. They consist of bouts of uncontrollable laughter. It’s better than weeping, of course, but it’s not always pleasant, given that it gets to the point where I can’t breathe and can’t stop.

Some colleagues are getting hounded by debt collection services because their health insurance company isn’t paying for their medical expenses. Of course, these colleagues have been faithfully paying their premiums to the insurance company, the company is flush with money and desperate to pay, but the corrupt and lazy Governor Rauner is standing in the way.

So people are persecuted by debt collectors. For no fault of their own. What’s really curious, though, is that I’m the only person I have been able to find who keeps the story of Rauner’s depredations alive by writing about it all the time. It’s very hard to keep it going when nobody among the directly affected by this lunacy is joining me in raising a stink.

It is becoming clear that Klara will probably be an air ventilation specialist when she grows up. She is endlessly fascinated with ceiling fans, and mind you, she’s never seen them move yet because we haven’t been turning them on yet.

Traumatized people buy more. They medicate their psychological wounds with stuff. This is why liquid capital facilitates the creation of individuals who are traumatized from the cradle. Within the consumerist logic of “everyone who can afford a pet poodle deserves to have one”, infants are dragged from one continent to another, deprived of their names and histories, stuck into liquid family arrangements of 3 mommies and an MIA daddy, and so forth. They are guaranteed to buy like their lives depend on it when they grow up, which is all that matters.

No, this is not an anti-adoption post. It’s an anti-consumerist post. Non-consumerist adoptions that preserve a child’s name, history and original family are a wonderful thing.