BLR on 1st debate

A little levity please. 

lifehacks

In this internet age, you can find a video or written information on just about any topic you can imagine. Naturally, there is a slew of sites dedicated to telling you and showing you how to do various things. 

There is also a whole ton of pages telling you things that you've been doing wrong, like here.

And here is one list of them, from Lifehacks. And here is one item from that list which I will certainly be putting to use.

Against Donald Trump

The Atlantic Magazine recently issued an endorsement of Hillary Clinton in an editorial called "Against Donald Trump." I have seen more-enthusiastic endorsements in various places, but I'll take it. If you are planning to vote Hillary, good on you, and you will like this column. If you are planning to vote Trump, what the fuck are you doing reading this? And what the fuck is wrong with you to be backing that greedy, abusive, tiny-fingered charlatan? Turn off FOX News and try to use your BRAIN, before it's too late.

Against Donald Trump

For the third time since The Atlantic’s founding, the editors endorse a candidate for president. The case for Hillary Clinton.

In october of 1860, James Russell Lowell, the founding editor of The Atlantic, warned in these pages about the perishability of the great American democratic experiment if citizens (at the time, white, male citizens) were to cease taking seriously their franchise:

In a society like ours, where every man may transmute his private thought into history and destiny by dropping it into the ballot-box, a peculiar responsibility rests upon the individual … For, though during its term of office the government be practically as independent of the popular will as that of Russia, yet every fourth year the people are called upon to pronounce upon the conduct of their affairs. Theoretically, at least, to give democracy any standing-ground for an argument with despotism or oligarchy, a majority of the men composing it should be statesmen and thinkers.

One of the animating causes of this magazine at its founding, in 1857, was the abolition of slavery, and Lowell argued that the Republican Party, and the man who was its standard-bearer in 1860, represented the only reasonable pathway out of the existential crisis then facing the country. In his endorsement of Abraham Lincoln for president, Lowell wrote, on behalf of the magazine, “It is in a moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong that the chief strength of the Republican party lies.” He went on to declare that Abraham Lincoln “had experience enough in public affairs to make him a statesman, and not enough to make him a politician.”

Perhaps because no subsequent candidate for the presidency was seen as Lincoln’s match, or perhaps because the stakes in ensuing elections were judged to be not quite so high as they were in 1860, it would be 104 years before The Atlantic would again make a presidential endorsement. In October of 1964, Edward Weeks, writing on behalf of the magazine, cited Lowell’s words before making an argument for the election of Lyndon B. Johnson. “We admire the President for the continuity with which he has maintained our foreign policy, a policy which became a worldwide responsibility at the time of the Marshall Plan,” the endorsement read. Johnson, The Atlantic believed, would bring “to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.”

The Atlantic has endorsed only three presidential candidates in 159 years. Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) were the first two. (Alexander Gardner / Getty; ullstein bild / Getty)

But The Atlantic’s endorsement of Johnson was focused less on his positive attributes than on the flaws of his opponent, Barry Goldwater, the junior senator from Arizona. Of Goldwater, Weeks wrote, “His proposal to let field commanders have their choice of the smaller nuclear weapons would rupture a fundamental belief that has existed from Abraham Lincoln to today: the belief that in times of crisis the civilian authority must have control over the military.” And the magazine noted that Goldwater’s “preference to let states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia enforce civil rights within their own borders has attracted the allegiance of Governor George Wallace, the Ku Klux Klan, and the John Birchers.” Goldwater’s limited capacity for prudence and reasonableness was what particularly worried The Atlantic.

We think it unfortunate that Barry Goldwater takes criticism as a personal affront; we think it poisonous when his anger betrays him into denouncing what he calls the “radical” press by bracketing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Izvestia. There speaks not the reason of the Southwest but the voice of Joseph McCarthy. We do not impugn Senator Goldwater’s honesty. We sincerely distrust his factionalism and his capacity for judgment.

Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.

These concerns compel us, for the third time since the magazine’s founding, to endorse a candidate for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton has more than earned, through her service to the country as first lady, as a senator from New York, and as secretary of state, the right to be taken seriously as a White House contender. She has flaws (some legitimately troubling, some exaggerated by her opponents), but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read.

This judgment is not limited to the editors of The Atlantic. A large number—in fact, a number unparalleled since Goldwater’s 1964 campaign—of prominent policy makers and officeholders from the candidate’s own party have publicly renounced him. Trump disqualified himself from public service long before he declared his presidential candidacy. In one of the more sordid episodes in modern American politics, Trump made himself the face of the so-called birther movement, which had as its immediate goal the demonization of the country’s first African American president. Trump’s larger goal, it seemed, was to stoke fear among white Americans of dark-skinned foreigners. He succeeded wildly in this; the fear he has aroused has brought him one step away from the presidency.

Our endorsement of Clinton, and rejection of Trump, is not a blanket dismissal of the many Trump supporters who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy. But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.

In its founding statement, The Atlantic promised that it would be “the organ of no party or clique,” and our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.

Original.

A Closer Look

Mike Pence is about as big a liar as Donald Trump is. And he's a social regressive too, praise the Lord.

more solar less coal

It is happening. Slowly. The inevitable shift away from fossil fuels to renewables, and it might be right on time for the health of our planet. 

This story is from The Independent in the UK.

Solar panels surpass coal-fired electricity in previously ‘unthinkable’ feat

For six months until September, more electricity came from sunlight than coal-fired power stations

• Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent 

Solar panels generated more electricity than coal in the past six months in a historic year for getting energy from the sun in the UK, according to a new analysis.

Research by the Carbon Brief website found that solar generated nearly 7,000 gigawatt hours of electricity between April and September, about 10 per cent more than the 6,300GwH produced by coal during the same period.

The figures represent a dramatic turnaround in the UK’s electricity supplies.

The first ever day when solar produced more than coal was only on 9 April – when there was no coal-fired electricity for the first time since 1882. But then May became the first ever month when this happened.

READ MORE

• Chile is producing so much solar power it has to give it away
• The solar-powered sculpture that could desalinate 1.5 billion gallons of drinking water for California
• Why energy may soon be free thanks to solar, wind, storage and big data
• UK Solar power industry loses over 12,000 jobs after Government slashes subsidies

Solar capacity nearly doubled in 2015, but has been hit hard by cuts to Government support, which is currently needed to persuade investors to build any kind of power generation, including fossil fuels.

James Court, head of policy at the Renewable Energy Association, said: “Solar overtaking coal this summer would have been largely unthinkable five years ago. 

“This new data shows its popularity amongst homeowners and businesses and its falling costs. Now that we have a significant global and domestic industry, solar is one of the cheapest forms of power.

“Government policy stability is critical, however. Solar PV deployment in August 2016 was one third of what it was in August 2015 due to the sudden and severe changes to policy in the past year.”

The trend is unlikely to continue. Because there is less sunlight and a rise in demand for heating and lighting during the winter months, coal will once again overtake solar.

However scientists have recently been working on using a novel technology to store energy from the summer sun until it is needed in the winter.

READ MORE

Chernobyl could be turned into the world’s biggest solar power plant

And energy storage systems, which solve potential intermittency problems with some renewable generators, have been increasing.

“The role for solar is significantly expanding as we develop complementary energy storage technologies, but we need government support to continue to achieve its potential,” Mr Court said.

A report by the Renewable Energy Association found there were now 35 grid-scale electricity storage projects and at least 1,500 residential ones, totaling about 3.2GW.

These include hydro schemes, where electricity can be used to pump water uphill so that it can be used to drive turbines when needed.

Gluts of renewable electricity can cause prices to go very low or even negative, which happened in Germany among other countries.

The latter scenario means those with storage capacity can make money twice: once when they are paid to take electricity from the grid and again when the electricity is used at a time when electricity prices turn positive again.

Frank Gordon, a senior policy analyst at the Renewable Energy Association, said: “Energy storage has great potential in the UK, and can unlock billions worth of savings according to the Government’s advisers. 

“Our research indicates that there are multiple gigawatts of capacity that are being proposed or are ready to be developed, but a joined-up and supportive policy structure is critically needed.”

The Government announced last year that it planned to phase out what it called “unabated” coal-fired power stations by 2025.

This suggests emissions would need to be at least partially “abated” or reduced by that date. The Government has not said what level would be allowed.

Juliet Davenport, chief executive of renewable energy supplier Good Energy, said: "Renewable energy has been an unbelievable success story in the UK and around the globe.

"When I started my company 15 years ago, you could fit the whole UK renewable energy industry into a small room, and now nearly 25 per cent of the UK’s power comes from renewables.

"We've also seen a renewable revolution on people's rooftops with more than 750,000 UK homes generating their own energy from the sun.

“As clean technology advances, Britain is bidding farewell to coal. The transition to a 100 per cent renewable future is within Britain's grasp.”

Original.

Wells Fargo

Here we go again. Another bank pulling dastardly shit and no one pays a price, except for the lower-level employees, as if they thought up the scheme to defraud their customers all on their own? As I hear it, not one upper-level manager has been fired for this outrageous behavior. 

Shades of the 2008 financial crisis all over again. The big banks get to do whatever they want, and hardly even get a slap on the wrist!

Wells Fargo, Game of (Very Dumb) Thrones

by Mark Morford

I opened my first Wells Fargo account at the main Hollywood branch in LA, the one on Sunset Boulevard – 6320 W. Sunset, to be exact, which I know because it’s still printed right there on my checks, all these years later, for no reason I can quite discern – sometime in the late ‘80s, just a few blocks from my dingy rock n’ roll apartment on Wilcox and Delongpre and well before the existence of ATMs and Apple Pay and ginormous bank scandals that infuriated a nation and caused Elizabeth Warren to spit awesome, glorious fire.

Far as I can tell – which, admittedly, isn’t all that far – Wells has more or less done right by me over the years, all things considered and who can really say because, well, it’s a massive financial institution. While my experience has been pleasant overall, I also have zero doubt they’ve dinged me for roughly one million tiny fees and hidden costs over the years, likely to the tune of many thousands of accumulated dollars, because that’s just how banks roll. Casually screwing you over is what they do.

Then again, my ATMs nearly always work, and Wells’ customer service has always been friendly and responsive, and the sweet young tellers at the Castro branch I almost never visit for my banking these days simply could not be kinder and more willing to help. I’ve had no reason to worry.

But maybe it’s all been an illusion? Maybe I’ve been screwed over far more brutally than I realize? Hell, the state of California sure thinks so.

The face of sad, bland, 

corporate… not really *evil* per se.

 More like… tepid immorality?

 Rich white male indifference?

It’s hard not to agree, watching the classic archetype of entitled rich whiteman flesh known as Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf blink like a stuck bug in the face of ongoing, harsh congressional investigation, as his company is revealed to have reamed upwards of two million unsuspecting customers just like me over many years, opening thousands of bogus accounts without their permission and charging nonsense fees and raking in millions until they were caught a few years ago, thus engendering a feeling similar to what I experienced when I learned my childhood Boy Scout leader in Spokane turned out, many years later, to be a bit of a closet pedophile. Wait, what? Am I remembering that time correctly? Do I need therapy?

I mean, good God, here is this sloppily wealthy, over-pampered male who graduated in the bottom half of his high school class and attended mediocre business schools (thanks, Wikipedia!) who somehow powered his way into the upper echelons of the financial world, now raking in tens (nay, hundreds) of millions in annual bonuses while casually screwing over thousands of employees and customers alike, all in the numbly patriarchal, screw-the-lower-classes mold, as 5,000 lower-tier employees were fired for the scandal, but not a single member of the executive team.

Stumpf merely followed in the footsteps of Carrie Tolstedt, head of Wells regional banking, who surely helped orchestrate the nefarious fake-account scheme and who skulked away from the company a year ago with a $91 mil exit package ($40 mil which might have to be paid back, poor thing) and a nasty conscience that should be slapped with 10,000 open palms of moral revulsion.

It’s just dumbly exasperating, socially and personally. As in: I have to worry about this crap now? Do I need to change banks after all these years? Upheave all my financial data and switch all my accounts to a new bank and undergo a massive goddamn hassle, all because yet another major American institution I’m supposed to be able to trust implicitly and never worry about – i.e.; banking, food, government, automotive, chemical, water supply, tech – has been screwing me over and/or endangering my life, for years?

Then, the follow-up question: Will it make any difference? Aren’t the distended C-suite drones over at BofA exactly the same as Stumpf’s offensive crew? And Chase? CitiGroup? And all the rest? Are they not more or less interchangeable, all dining at the same extortionate NY/DC steakhouses and swapping trophy wives with their lizard-skinned Wall Street cronies and feasting on the unsuspecting carcasses of regular customers, chortling wildly and sucking all the joy out of life?

Is that too harsh? Maybe. Word has it Stumpf will now return something like $45 million of his massive bonus, which is a lot – but also not really, given that it only amounts to a mere 25 or 30 percent of his annual take, an amount which, for execs like him, merely translates into holding off on having new toilet seats made out of endangered rhino horn for his Lear Jet for a few more months.

It all reveals one thing, above all: national banking is one of the few massive, archaic, cloistered, astonishingly murky industries (like the car biz, and food production, et al) hugely ripe for disruption and radical overhaul.

Which is to say: My eternal devotion – and all my accounts – to the visionary financial/tech whiz who utterly reinvents banking and personal finance, rips it from the claws of rich white inbred bankers and turns it into a free-flowing, self-correcting, corruption-proof system – maybe a non-profit? – free of scam and scandal. Not a credit union. Something… better.

Yeah, I know. Good luck with that. Not when the system is so entrenched, the politicians are all pals with the bankers and all the rich SiliValley frat boy “entrepreneurs” are little different than Wall Street wretches, wasting their days and their pampered Stanford brains inventing gratuitous nonsense like cupcake delivery apps and video-camera “spectacles” that let you post more vacuous pap to SnapChat.

But, as the tables are turned for a few precious moments, as the rich male patriarchy squirms and blinks in (maddeningly modest) pain, it sure is nice to dream.

Original..