04-06-2016: the needed detox/recovery weekend, pt 2 (rant, rant, rant...)

tracks worked on in this vlog:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1

this is actually a humongous pet peeve of mine, this idea that stuttering or speaking slowly is reflective of some kind of lack of intelligence. it's the literal definition of "style over substance"; the absolute reflection of an anti-intellectual culture that places hollywood actors reciting lines at the top of a hierarchy and people that are actually processing things as they speak at the bottom of it. it's about projecting a sense of false confidence over actually knowing what you're talking about. and, trump is very much the poster boy for this kind of backwards thinking.

what the criticism actually says is "i have never been in a university classroom in my life". it consequently speaks for itself. but, you need to get over that instantiation of rage first. i'm pretty tolerant, but there's a specific kind of idiocy that just sets me off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0

it's funny how if you go through a marxist forum post from more than five years ago, every single one of the users on the forum is now banned.

no, really. i've noticed this before. it's not a fleeting thought. i was at revleft, sorting through a post from 2011 - everybody on the thread was banned.

it wasn't a troll, either. really. and, you see this at lots of marxist sites, too.

"i can't get laid 'cause everyone is dead."

(i should explain that last comment.

)

again: this has to be a reflection of internal polling.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/282228-sanders-campaign-accuses-puerto-rico-dem-officials-of-fraud

j reacts to "the hispanic vote"

"Exit polls also show some evidence of Clinton’s strong performance with Hispanics, although with some inconsistencies. They had her winning Hispanics by more than 40 percentage points in Florida and Texas and by nearly 30 points in New York, although narrowly losing them in Nevada and Illinois."

but, this is exactly the kind of boneheaded thinking that has pushed silver into such a corner with his models, this year. texas is texas. if you discard texas, because it's texas, note that florida & new york were closed primaries (and therefore skew towards upper class voters) whereas nevada and illinois were open (and are therefore both a broader representation of latin-speakers and a better predictor in california).

instead of arguing that clinton performs well with latin speakers, silver should be pointing out that closed primaries make it very hard for latin speakers to vote. what he's picking out is consequently not minority strength from clinton, but the efficacy of voter suppression laws in preventing poor minorities from taking part in elections.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hispanic-voters-will-decide-bernie-sanderss-fate-in-california/

i want to be clear about what i think is actually happening.

1) a state elects a republican governor. like in texas. or florida. or arizona.
2) that state passes restrictive voter suppression laws that makes it hard for poor people, who happen to mostly be minorities, to vote. so, this is a class thing. but, poverty is racialized in large swaths of the united states, so it's easy to get confused.
3) the state runs a closed primary, which requires registration. registration is hard in states with voter suppression laws.
4) so, only wealthy minorities (with proper id) are able to vote.
5) exit polls indicate clinton won minorities by large margins, and the media concludes she has a large lead with minorities - when, in fact, this is just the consequence of laws that make it hard for minorities to vote.

i think this explains why sanders wins latin speakers in open primary states and loses them in closed primary states. it also goes a long way to explaining the ridiculous age discrepancy with black voters, but cannot be a total solution - there has to be some level of disenfranchisement or apathy amongst young black voters, as well.

j reacts to clinton's consistency of political answers around gay marriage

you know what? she actually didn't change her position on gay marriage. she says that all the time, right. she claims consistency, and people laugh at her. but, if you look at the situation closely, on this issue, it's true.

she always said it was a court issue. so, she was always consistent in separating her own opinion (which was opposed) to the official position (which she claimed was out of her jurisdiction). the actual truth is that she still doesn't support gay marriage, on a personal level. but, she acknowledges that the court has made a ruling, and that's the correct legal mechanism to work it out through. she sees her role as upholding the rights determined by the court, not contradicting it.

now, you can dissect that all you want. if you want to believe she's a gay advocate, you argue that she supported it all along but held back politically. if you want to believe she's a fundamentalist methodist, you argue that she's just cynically phishing for votes. fwiw, i think the second option is more correct.

but, the truth is that there's really no flip-flopping. there's a consistent message of it being a court issue. as the court has changed, she has shifted to reflect that. but, the underlying position has remained the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIYFUlR-Qy0

j reacts to the question of whether america is a third world country or not

this is a legitimate classic at this point. i first saw it live in ottawa at the babylon club on the slow riot tour in 1999. i was still a few months underage, and had to bring my dad with me to get in.

i'm listening to it now because hillary clinton has been working the accusation that trump thinks the united states is a third world country into her stump speeches. she's saying it every day. a few times a day.

if you're familiar with the track, you know the line:

america is a third world country.
and i think it's pretty sad that people can't recognize that their own country is a third world, third rate, third class slum.

you can agree with him or not. the third world is defined by tremendous wealth inequality, which was the result of enforced market theory from the outside. neither the united states nor europe had ever truly been a market economy until the last thirty years or so, but the colonies have been since the dawn of colonialism. india. china. africa. south america. it's a part of the process of colonialism.

so, it shouldn't be so much of a shock to see north america approximate third world conditions when it adopts third world (market) economics.

but, that's secondary. more to the point is that this guy (who the band also samples on their first record) is a trump voter. clear as day. this was recorded in the 90s, but what you hear in the track is what is fueling things forwards.

maybe listening to the track will clarify why hillary's response of attacking him for a lack of patriotism is something roughly equivalent to "let them eat cake".

it's becoming more and more apparent that if sanders doesn't win, then trump will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8XBJc2p_g

jessica
take the safe with you.

Elliot Poots
Please tell me you're taking the piss.

jessica
it's not that heavy. he'd be better off getting the safe out and finding a way to melt it open using welding tools.