so, here are the not-so-final, but final for a long time, updates for august, 2014.

1) https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2014/08/
2) https://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.com/2014/08/
3) https://deathtokoalas.blogspot.com/2014/08/
4) https://jessicamurraytravelblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/

that's done now, for a long time.

i hope that september is a little faster.

susan rice is getting close to screwing it up.

ugh.

who biden picks for vp is going to be substantive, because the ominous reality underlying a second trump presidency is that he, himself, is likely to succumb to some form of mental decline, if he hasn't already. so, it seems likely that a vice president is going to end up president within the next four years or so. all bets are off as soon as pence assumes power - he is not likely to carry through with any of the foreign policy shifts that have been defined by this administration, and that i'm not that critical of, except the ones in israel, which i am critical of. pence is going to line up unfavourably against just about any vp candidate.

that is another possible developing ballot question - which vp is preferable? is the democratic vp substantively preferable, enough to generate a vote over pence for? this is a lower bar, but it does still have to be demonstrated. it is possible that biden could screw that up, but i couldn't imagine how.

again: we'll see how my thinking develops on the topic.

but, even if i decide that i must vote green to stop biden from letting the neo-cons takeover, if the vp looks decisively not neo-con, then i may prioritize voting for the vp to stop pence as being a goal of greater value.

i may, in the end, decide that voting for the greens is the best passive way to try to keep the neo-cons out of the white house. i may decide that this is the most pressing concern at hand, out of all of the pressing concerns. it may be the ballot question for me.

i wish there was a better climate option, but i have to be realistic, and i have absolutely no faith in biden advancing any kind of serious climate legislation. that is going to have to come from congress.

as it is, that is one major upside to trump - he's not listening to the neo-cons.

there's going to be all kinds of other narratives, and i may explain why i don't find them compelling, as they present themselves. i'm going to be more interested in the nature of the commander in chief for the course of this election.

the united states may be at a critical juncture, in it's ability to project it's power. a trump presidency would likely continue to erode that ability, something that is not so terrible, whereas a biden presidency may feel the need to take drastic steps to reassert it, if it is helmed by neo-cons. i'm not convinced i want to see the latter happen, even if the alternative leads to a less policed and more unstable world.

these regions are fracturing around fracture points that were designed to fracture; the maps were all drawn to throw the people into disarray, so they couldn't organize against an empire that's long withdrawn, leaving it's system of control in place over a populace that is now hamstrung by it. so, in order to have stability in the long run, the maps need to be redrawn, and all over asia, to eliminate these designed fracture points. stepping back and letting the people redraw these borders as they see fit on their own is necessary, even if it gets messy. the best we can do is help try to talk them down, and figure out ways to share and shit.

so, yes - the empire is collapsing under trump. do you really want to watch biden try to bring it back? what's that going to require?

if that is the serious choice at hand, i'll gladly advocate voting green to keep the neo-cons out.

we'll see how things unfold.

so, the neo-con intelligentsia behind the bush presidency is endorsing joe biden over donald trump.

that's reassuring.

i will never advocate voting for donald trump. but, i may make a principled point about supporting the greens (have they got their shit worked out yet?) in the face of such a terrible choice. which is truly worse here?

on issues of militarism, trump may be terrible. but, biden seems to actually be even worse. so, do you vote for biden, hoping he'll be better for the climate? well, according to what evidence? i don't see any. his eventually no doubt heavily promoted, but in effect piddling, changes are unlikely to even slow it down, at this point. it's the difference between somebody that does nothing and is honest about it, and somebody that pays lip service to the dangers surrounding the upcoming changes, without doing anything substantive about it.

i want to hear somebody articulate plans for adaptation. we have to face the facts, here. and, industry will be more likely to respond to a request to build shit than to a demand to shut down - there's big contracts involved with adaptation measures, which are inevitable. it's time to get a handle on what needs to be done.

so, if there's no substantive difference on climate change, and biden is the more militaristic of the two, which is the lesser evil?

i know that there are domestic issues surrounding trump, but i need you to cautiously weigh the evidence around biden's past support for various things and do a stark comparison between where the two stand on a host of issues. you may find yourself severely disappointed by the amount of actual change you can expect from a biden presidency.

he's said it himself, to specific wall street audiences.

"if i'm elected president, nothing will change." - joe biden

that is a very close paraphrase; you'll excuse me for not looking it up, exactly.

so, you will tell me that if i advocate voting green then i'm just helping trump win. that may not land as hard with me as you're expecting; i may see the upside to it.

it's a terrible set of options, and i'm just trying to give it a fair analysis. i've still got time to come to a firm decision on my advocacy, this time around. but, expect passivity - expect me to go at this one from afar.

it's absolutely surreal how american political strategy is developing around this nexus of black identity politics.

while the death of george floyd was clearly unnecessary, and outrage about it is justified, it's not hard to see the hand of the democratic party machinery in the unfolding of the narrative around the events. the party has fully embraced a strategy that is heavily reliant on high levels of african-american turnout in key urban areas, to offset an increasingly wandering union vote. so, it wants the election to have a specifically black narrative, to maximize black voter turnout. it's clearly taken advantage of the opportunity to do this, and no doubt intends to ride support for that specifically black narrative to the high levels of turnout it wants to drive in the black community in november.

so, if you want to try to mute or overturn that momentum, you throw a wrench in it by introducing a third candidate to entice those black identity politics voters. in a crazy scenario, that third party candidate could even capture that building momentum, and go on to win a surprise upset.

is kanye west signing up for this type of stalking horse candidacy?

but, seriously.

is this kanye west thing a stalking horse campaign to bleed black support from biden? is that it?

you know that if he wins, they're going to have to run taylor swift against him.

this was supposed to be a joke, dammit.

*sigh*

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/kanye-west-twitter-us-president-trump-1.5638157