27-04-2016: ada - ?? (detroit)

their music:
https://adamaine.bandcamp.com

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/04/27.html

vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPVoDwebhUk

the furnace is leaking again...

while i think it needs to be caulked down here, i do suspect that something is loose upstairs.

i've found myself very sleepy this week due to a variety of things, including going cold turkey on coffee for a bit. i want to get my fluids up before i go back on it. it's working, too. see, i have a problem with not drinking enough water. i think it will resolve itself once i can turn the heat off in here (this has been a slow spring, here).

so, it took me a week to do a day's worth of spring cleaning. but it is now actually done. finally. i'll have to do laundry this afternoon, and then some filing tomorrow.

so, will i have anything up by the end of the month? no. but, i should be back on track by the start of may.

i've managed to just lose a whole year. it sucks. but, it's the way it had to be.

j reacts to the cruz-kasich agreement (it's idiotic, tactically)

also: i think that, in indiana, kasich voters are going to be more likely to back trump than cruz. the reason is that it's a socially conservative state anyways, so cruz has kasich dominated. if you're voting for kasich, it's because you consider yourself a moderate. trump is more moderate than cruz, so you'd think they'd rank him as their second choice.

it's kind of the flip of the northeast overall, but the same logic as it applies to kasich voters. cruz finished in third place in four out of five states tonight. kasich voters clearly didn't see the prospect of rallying behind cruz to be very appealing. and, it's not some collapse in logic - it's simply that they (broadly) ranked cruz behind trump in terms of preference. so, they're not going to vote for cruz to stop trump if they prefer trump to cruz. they're just going to shrug and vote for kasich.

in indiana, cruz should probably want kasich to pull those voters away from trump. so, removing kasich is actually probably going to hurt him. if they were going to vote for cruz (to stop trump or some other reason), they would have voted for him in the first place.

it's just more evidence that cruz and his team are just absolute fucking idiots. it's this ultra-competitive mindset that blinds them to any kind of co-operative strategy. they're utility monsters. it's the consequence of unrestrained egoism, selfishness as a virtue - predictable, really. yes: he should have pulled back in the northeast to give kasich a better chance [and don't say that was unpredictable. it was absolutely obvious, from weeks out.]. but, he doesn't want kasich to drop out of the midwest, as he's splitting the "moderates" and actually helping him.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-28/in-indiana-the-deal-to-stop-trump-may-be-backfiring

ok, so is voting for cruz the smarter choice? see, that's my analysis - trump got the gift of ted cruz. even this late, i still think the major reason that people are holding to trump is that anything at all is better than ted cruz.

j reacts to the illegitimate primaries and sanders' politicking around them

no surprises tonight, although the closed primaries are not somehow more legitimate tonight than they were last week. it's still a flawed process, and the outcome is still not very convincing. and, hillary's reaction, through surrogates, is strongly suggesting the need for an independent run.

yes, sanders knows he won't be the democratic party nominee, and it's hard to believe he ever really thought he would be. but, he's also been clear that his endorsement of hillary clinton is not a sure thing - and it shouldn't be. don't expect the media to be able to understand this, because it can't think outside of binary, two-party politics.

see, hillary is not very good at working with others. she's an effective autocrat, but she's not good at making concessions. and, frankly, i don't think she feels she needs to - i think she thinks she won a mandate. but, she's only won a mandate with democrats, and sanders is not really a democrat.

the way that this process is supposed to work in the mind of the party establishment (and probably in the mind of most liberals) is that they have the primary, the candidate with the best ideas wins and the candidates that lose rally around the winner. that, in their minds, is "democracy".

but, leftists have never believed that democracy is reduced to a voting decision, nor have we ever believed that a majority mandate negates the views of the minority. we believe in tough negotiations through civil disobedience and spoiled ballots, if necessary. and, we're not going to support the hillary that we see in front of us. we're just not.

the reality is that sanders is making demands that he cannot truly believe that clinton will accept - and is, in the process, preparing himself for a re-exit of the party he was never really a member of.

i mean, do you think hillary clinton is going to support tuition-free public colleges and universities? or that she'll ban fracking? really?

and, see, this is the irony of the way the media works - it functions so strongly on branding that it even confuses itself. bernie is supposed to be the honest one. so, he couldn't possibly be engaging in politics, could he?

he is. and, the reason he's giving her conditions she'll never accept is that he has no intentions of supporting her.

shit hillary said vol 42

"Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this--and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do"

shit hillary said vol 41

"And that's why last week I called on our president to decide he would not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics because that is a public and very obvious ratification of our government's approval of the Beijing government's actions.

Unless the Chinese began to take very visible steps to begin to end the suppression of the Tibetans and undermining their culture and religious beliefs, and if we could get more cooperation out of the Chinese government with respect to Sudan.

And, of course, I would welcome even more action on behalf of human rights. But the challenge is, how do we try to influence the Chinese government? And I believe we have missed many opportunities during the Bush administration to do so.

In fact, I think it's fair to say our policy toward China is incoherent and that has not been in the best interest of our values or our strategic interest. So I would urge the president at least to consider and, therefore, publicly say that he will not be attending the opening ceremonies.

And let's see whether the Chinese government begins to respond because that for them would be a great loss of face and perhaps we would get more cooperation."

shit hillary said vol 40

"I am surprised and offended by the decision of the Appeals Court of the 9th Circuit and hope that it will be promptly appealed and overturned. I believe that the Court has misinterpreted the intent of the framers of the Constitution and has sought to undermine one of the bedrock values of our democracy -- that we are indeed "one nation under God," as embodied in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

While our men and women in uniform are battling overseas and defending us here at home to preserve the freedom that we all cherish for our country and its citizens, we should never forget the blessings of Divine Providence that undergird our nation. That includes the freedom to recite the pledge of allegiance in our nation's schools. I can only imagine how they will feel about this decision as they risk their lives for our values.

And the children of America, who share a bond with each other and with our nation by reciting the pledge each day -- what effect will a decision like this have on them? It will cause them to wonder about the ways in which our beliefs can be stretched, our heritage can be assaulted. It is the wrong decision, and it is an unfair decision -- especially unfair to those who defend our nation, and to the young people who will inherit our nation's future.

Ours is a nation founded by people of faith. People of faith have helped lead some of the most significant movements of social justice throughout our history -- to end slavery, to win civil rights for all Americans. No one is required to have faith, and our government does not impose faith on its citizens. But ours is the most faith-filled nation on Earth, and there is no moral or Constitutional argument why our pledge of allegiance cannot acknowledge our commonly held belief that ours is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I am honored to support S. 292, the Pledge of Allegiance resolution, and I hope that the rule of law will be upheld by an ultimate rejection of this wrongheaded decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."