https://www.thejoyformidable.com/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/14.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0OiC893c8k
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
14-06-2016: the joy formidable (detroit/ferndale)
their music:
https://www.thejoyformidable.com/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/14.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0OiC893c8k
https://www.thejoyformidable.com/
review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2016/06/14.html
vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0OiC893c8k
at
22:35
Location:
Ferndale, MI 48220, USA
this is the version that came as a ltd edition with mail orders of musick to play in the dark.
unfortunately, i lost my certificate of provenance. yet, i remain provenant!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coil_Presents_Time_Machines
unfortunately, i lost my certificate of provenance. yet, i remain provenant!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coil_Presents_Time_Machines
at
15:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to california's perpetual electoral irrelevance being perpetual
stop.
california always votes last and never matters. this is, of course, by design. i believe that the general understanding is that the last time california mattered in the democratic primaries was in 1968, when they shot bobby kennedy.
so, it hasn't mattered in decades - and the last time it mattered, the candidate they were going to pick got shot to prevent it from mattering.
that 's america for you: texas matters. california doesn't. by design.
so, this idea that turnout was down because they called it the day before is incoherent. the race was already over in 2008, and she got almost twice as many votes.
it's nonsensical enough for a conspiracy theory, really.
california always votes last and never matters. this is, of course, by design. i believe that the general understanding is that the last time california mattered in the democratic primaries was in 1968, when they shot bobby kennedy.
so, it hasn't mattered in decades - and the last time it mattered, the candidate they were going to pick got shot to prevent it from mattering.
that 's america for you: texas matters. california doesn't. by design.
so, this idea that turnout was down because they called it the day before is incoherent. the race was already over in 2008, and she got almost twice as many votes.
it's nonsensical enough for a conspiracy theory, really.
at
14:27
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the fascism inherent in the reduction of democracy to career advancement
this "qualified" thing that the media is pushing is an attempt to uphold their narrative and gloss over the problems with the process. i mean, he won a series of states afterwards - and he lost the week previously. there is no discernible turning point in the campaign around new york. it was a closed primary, and there was mass deregistration.
but, it bugs me anyways. not because it was actually a set-up: she claimed he was unqualified, and he just responded in turn. i don't even think he said anything really contentious. if this were a job interview, the fuck up over iraq would be pretty catastrophic.
but, it's not a job interview - and the fact that she's being considered at all is evidence of this. government is not the private sector. it should not be run like the private sector. it's not a meritocracy. elections are not a process of gaining experience and working your way up a ladder; the premise is starkly undemocratic. so, the language of glass ceilings doesn't even actually make any sense. democracy is a question of reflecting the popular will, not a question of being "qualified to get promoted".
but, it's the clintons - they distort things. they've been doing this for decades. this is a small irritant. granted. but, it's grating. and these small, grating things add up.
but, it bugs me anyways. not because it was actually a set-up: she claimed he was unqualified, and he just responded in turn. i don't even think he said anything really contentious. if this were a job interview, the fuck up over iraq would be pretty catastrophic.
but, it's not a job interview - and the fact that she's being considered at all is evidence of this. government is not the private sector. it should not be run like the private sector. it's not a meritocracy. elections are not a process of gaining experience and working your way up a ladder; the premise is starkly undemocratic. so, the language of glass ceilings doesn't even actually make any sense. democracy is a question of reflecting the popular will, not a question of being "qualified to get promoted".
but, it's the clintons - they distort things. they've been doing this for decades. this is a small irritant. granted. but, it's grating. and these small, grating things add up.
at
14:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the likely purpose of the clinton/sanders meeting
so, what is this meeting tonight?
my guess is that it's something like this.
look. you said one thing. but, you have a history of doing something else. so, what are your actual positions. do you support the tpp? what will you actually do about health care?
no, i heard what you said. but i want to know what you'll actually do before i decide what to do.
two things.
1) he has to believe what she says. that's hard. so, she can't just tell him what he wants to hear. he'll know if she tries.
2) there has to be some kind of real upside. that's hard, too.
don't assume the outcome of this is predetermined. she doesn't see him as an insider. she's not likely to really open up - she's more like to see him, and everything about him, as a liability. and, if he can't get a straight answer, he won't endorse her.
my guess is that it's something like this.
look. you said one thing. but, you have a history of doing something else. so, what are your actual positions. do you support the tpp? what will you actually do about health care?
no, i heard what you said. but i want to know what you'll actually do before i decide what to do.
two things.
1) he has to believe what she says. that's hard. so, she can't just tell him what he wants to hear. he'll know if she tries.
2) there has to be some kind of real upside. that's hard, too.
don't assume the outcome of this is predetermined. she doesn't see him as an insider. she's not likely to really open up - she's more like to see him, and everything about him, as a liability. and, if he can't get a straight answer, he won't endorse her.
at
13:35
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to the proper comparison to 2016 being 2000, not 2008
history is not destiny, but right now what it seems like we're re-living is gore v. bush. the similarities are actually really startling.
- while bush had the party behind him, he was widely seen as unfit to run. his intelligence was widely mocked.
- gore's opinion of bush was so clearly abysmal that he could barely be bothered to debate with him. he didn't see him as a serious opponent.
- the incumbent is popular in the center, but loathed by both the left and the right.
- the left signaled clearly that it was not going to elect gore unless he swung left. he didn't.
a lot of people will argue that the lesson is that you don't run a third party candidate. but, gore has given us no reason to think he would have been any different than bush. remember: gore was instrumental in the sanctions against iraq that killed millions of children. and, he is on the record - repeatedly - as not just supporting the invasion, but supporting the surge before the invasion even happened.
the real lesson here is not for voters but for democrats. hillary is hurtling down exactly the same path that gore was. and, if that's not corrected, you're going to see the same outcome - if not a worse one, as sanders is much stronger than nader ever was.
- while bush had the party behind him, he was widely seen as unfit to run. his intelligence was widely mocked.
- gore's opinion of bush was so clearly abysmal that he could barely be bothered to debate with him. he didn't see him as a serious opponent.
- the incumbent is popular in the center, but loathed by both the left and the right.
- the left signaled clearly that it was not going to elect gore unless he swung left. he didn't.
a lot of people will argue that the lesson is that you don't run a third party candidate. but, gore has given us no reason to think he would have been any different than bush. remember: gore was instrumental in the sanctions against iraq that killed millions of children. and, he is on the record - repeatedly - as not just supporting the invasion, but supporting the surge before the invasion even happened.
the real lesson here is not for voters but for democrats. hillary is hurtling down exactly the same path that gore was. and, if that's not corrected, you're going to see the same outcome - if not a worse one, as sanders is much stronger than nader ever was.
at
05:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)