Pearl Jam Makes a Big Mistake

On nearly every occasion, I support anything that the band Pearl Jam says or does.  When other people take shots at them without cause, I intercede.  They're my favorite 'big' band, and that is never going to change.

That being said, no man (nor band is perfect.)  For evidence of that, I offer the statement that Pearl Jam issued on April 18th, 2016 as evidence.  

In it, Pearl Jam stated that as a band, they couldn't in good conscience play a show in a state that had passed HB2.

As a lifelong fan of the band, I understand that they have always been an activist band.  That's their prerogative.  They make music, I give them money, I don't care what they do with it, so long as they are not contributing to terrorist groups.  That's how capitalism works, even if they claim to oppose it with words and deeds.

However, to punish the fans who would pay ridiculous ticket prices, makes plans to travel, and generally get hyped to see their favorite band in the world.  Perhaps Pearl Jam has gotten so big that they forget what it was like to see their favorites, or it's because their favorites have become their contemporaries that they don't understand what it means to have a fan experience.  I'm not sure.

What I am sure of is this: there should have been a show in Raleigh, NC tonight (04/20), where thousands of adoring fans would have gladly listened to Eddie and the guys rip in to HB2 to their heart's content, whether they cared about the issue or not.  Pearl Jam fans are a tolerant lot when it comes to their favorite bands' pontificating on various political issues.  In fact, it's nearly a show standby.

To have the same band give them the virtual middle finger, and (in the most hypocritical manner possible) skip their tour date accomplishes nothing at all, except costing the band fans.  A message that was posted in reply to what I had written them on their Facebook page encapsulated the feeling perfectly:

It is 48 hours before the fucking show, Eddie. What a dick move.

All of the artists who are canceling shows in NC are turning into something I despise. Bullies. For the record, I live in a different state.

I love PJ. Eddie could have used his voice to do something so much more powerful than any law, which is beyond disappointing. I guess I expected more from him.

I keep thinking of all of the people who were taking their kids, going with friends or family- people who planned this, who are fans and have been since the beginning-people who got them where they are today, those who are traveling by plane and had hotels, who spent their hard earned money on tickets.... Yet some people are still supporting them!

Unfollowed, unliked, will never support PJ again. It's okay for him to discriminate because, WHY?

There's nothing I can write that will top that, so I'll move to the other point made in response that I thought was really powerful:

If they're not willing to perform, they should reimburse all fans for flights, hotels, time requested off work. Furthermore, they should pull all PJ albums, CDs and merch as well. Logic is a MF, isn't it?

 To me, this is even better.  It's one thing to injure fans (and all others that need shows to earn a living to feed their families in these down economic times), but the high hypocrisy comes when the band is still willing to make money off the people of N.C., just so long as they don't have to live up to their contractual obligations because of their self-subscribed 'morals'.  It's a joke.

At one point, I had considered buying tickets for all of the shows that PJ were playing this week, as I'm off school for the week.  In hindsight, I'm glad I did not.  If I had driven (or flown) to NC, and the band cancelled the show on me, I too, would be done with them.  As it is, I'll hope that they have the fortitude to show up for the show I had to pay 5x the face value of, because ticketmaster, nor the greatest band in the world seems unable to stop scalpers from buying every single seat within 2 seconds of them going public.

Maybe spend some outrage there, guys.

Will the Republicans Unify Around Ted Cruz?

For weeks on end, the talk in Republican circles has been what can be done to #StopTrump.  The talk of a white knight(1) coming in to a contested convention in Cleveland has gathered some steam, unfortunately, it's little more than talk.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich did an excellent job of explaining why that cannot happen in an article he penned last week.  In it, he listed out several key reasons why the Republican candidate for President will be either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.  The highlights:

• According to Party rules, a candidate must have won a majority of delegates from at least 8 states. (2)

 To this point, only Cruz and Trump have done so, and unless some unforeseen event occurs, they will be the only two candidates to show up in Cleveland having done so.  Kasich missed an opportunity to build momentum when he was absolutely crushed in WI.  The fact that both he and Trump were outmaneuvered and out-thought by the Cruz team has effectively sunk his campaign, at least.  The fact that he is clinging to the hope that he might earn the nomination at a contested convention shows how little he understands about the inner workings of how the Party operates.

•  There will be no new rules allowing for an outside candidate, because it would negatively impact both Cruz and Trump, whose supporters would have to approve the rule changes.

So the only way that a new candidate can be introduced is if Cruz or Trump allows it, essentially?  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to occur.  I may not be a Presidential candidate, but I don't think either organization is dumb enough to allow that to happen.  So the Republicans will be left with the two candidates who brought them to Cleveland:  Cruz and Trump.

The question that the Party must now consider is which candidate will they circle up around and call their own?

Trump has tried to put forth an air of inevitability, that he is the candidate that will ultimately be chosen.  He's also been a whining, spoiled child through the entire process.  I have never believed that his numbers would rise, even as other candidates bailed on the race, because those that are attracted to Trump (for the most part) are wholly separate from those who participate in the voting process on a regular basis.  Those who were looking to a Republican taking back the White House in 2016 have always been looking for a way around his machine.

Enter Ted Cruz, whose candidacy was on life support according to many pundits as recently as a month ago.  Since then, Cruz has racked up resounding victories across the fruited plain.  Over the past few days, he shut Trump out in Colorado, and he has also been winning over delegates in several states who will be free to vote for him once a contested convention goes to a second ballot.  All of this leads to the increased probability that Cruz will be the Republicans' nominee.

This begs the question of whether or not Cruz will be able to motivate enough voters in the general election to defeat whomever the Democrats choose to nominate.  If it is Hillary Clinton, the odds are better for him, given that she is the second most despised public figure in national polls (*trailing* only Donald Trump.)  Bernie Sanders may prove a more difficult task, but if Republicans are genuinely serious about regaining the White House, they will get behind Cruz and support his candidacy.  The one hiccup in that plan would be if Trump ran a 3rd party candidacy, and possibly stole away some potential voters.  It seems unlikely that genuine Republicans would fall for this ploy, however.  This isn't 1992, Cruz isn't Bush, and Sanders is not Bill Clinton.

Of course, I also thought that Obama could ever win a national election, nor did I believe that Trump was actually in the race to stay, so my opinion may not be all that spot on.




(1) Mitt Romney amongst other names have been floated. If he is the best Republican hope, they may as well fold up the party.  Seriously, what has he won lately?

(2) This has not always been the case.  In fact, during the 1880 convention, James Garfield was nominated for President despite the fact that he had not run, and emphatically opposed his own nomination.  He had given the nominating speech for Senator John Sherman of his home state Ohio.  It was this nominating speech that in large part led to his eventual nomination.