The modern debate format is pretty much useless. It’s too bad that the TV networks need the debate more than the candidates need it. Otherwise, the TV networks could impose restrictions like real-time fact checking, moderators who could (and would) mute candidates, tough questions that candidates didn’t like, following up and asking a question again if a candidate dodged a question, and so-on.

This headline sounds a lot funnier if you assume “it” means Signal, like I did.

Unfortunately we also have:

• A non-white candidate
• A non-male candidate
• A very sexist and racist electorate, who basically voted Trump in because they were so upset by the election of Barack Hussein Obama

It remains to be seen if the racists and sexists will prevail.

Having said that, this might energize women who are on the fence and want to see the first female president. It might energize black voters. It will almost certainly energize Indian voters, possibly even all South-Asian voters. It will definitely energize voters who were worried about the age of the candidates. And now, suddenly, Trump has to go on the defensive about his age.

As long as all the democrats fall in line and push for Kamala, it might go really well. If Hillary Clinton goes out and works for Kamala, it could energize the people who are still angry about her loss, and can now channel that into the new option for a first female president. If Biden campaigns for her, it could reassure all the people who just wanted some stability.

OTOH, if there is infighting, and people trying to take her down so that they can become the nominee, then that could be trouble too.

On one hand, Assange is a shitty person. One woman woke up to him sticking his dick in her without her consent and without a condom. On the same trip he’d had sex with a different woman who had also insisted on his using a condom, which he reluctantly did… but then the condom mysteriously broke. While a guest of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he was hiding out to duck the Swedish charges, he smeared shit on the walls and refused to bathe. He also helped the Russian GRU interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election, either as a useful idiot or a willing collaborator.

On the other hand, as shitty as he is, he was effectively a journalist. With Wikileaks he released leaked footage of a US helicopter firing on civilians in Iraq. He released reports on corruption by Kenyan leaders. He released internal scientology documents. The world needs journalists who will publish stories about things that powerful people, governments and churches don’t want people to know.

On the other, other hand, at times he hung his sources out to dry, like he did with Bradley / Chelsea Manning.

The plea deal he agreed to is bullshit. The charge of “conspiracy to commit computer intrusion” was basically encouraging a source to leak information to him. That’s journalism. “Conspiracy to obtain and disclose national defence information” was again, journalism. He was encouraging whistleblowers to report on wrongdoing by the government.

Even the plea deal is bullshit. He pled to violating the espionage act for… what? He didn’t break into anything himself. He wasn’t given a security clearance which he then violated. He wasn’t even American, in America, or working for the government. He was acting as a journalist receiving information from a whistleblower.

So, IMO, there’s nothing much to celebrate here. A shitty person pled to a bullshit charge, setting a bad precedent for journalism, and is now free. Lose, lose.

This is such a straw-man argument. I’m highly in favor of renewables, but I’m not blind to what other people think.

Say you’re someone who legitimately doesn’t believe that climate change is happening, or at least that if it’s happening it’s not being caused by humanity. (People who believe those things are definitely out there.) In that case, what’s the worst thing that can happen?

• Having cheaper energy from renewable sources?

Obviously this isn’t something that people who think climate change is a hoax are concerned about. They’re worried that renewable sources will be more expensive and less reliable.

• Never running out of oil?

People who don’t believe in climate change also don’t think we’re anywhere close to running out of oil. In fact, they think it’s the same people pushing the “climate change hoax” that are pushing the idea that the planet is running low on oil. “Peak oil” has been predicted for decades, and they just keep finding more and more oil.

• Being independent from unstable countries with bad human rights records?

The US is the #1 global oil producer. Canada is 4th on the list. Brazil is 8th. Mexico is 11th. Norway is 13th. With Natural Gas it’s similar, US is #1, Canada is #4, Australia is #7, Norway is #9. Aside from the obvious jokes about the US being an unstable country with a bad human rights record, this concern is overblown. If OPEC limits production the prices will go up, but that means more profit will flow to the US. Assuming this is meant for a US audience, that’s obviously a good thing for their economy. If it’s meant for say the UK, there’s going to be more dependence on fossil fuels from Russia, but it isn’t like all fossil fuels come from enemies of the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production

• Having cleaner air?

A lot of the people who are pro-fossil fuels are older. They’ve seen the air quality go up consistently over their lives. They don’t think of the current world as a hellscape with dirty air, they see it as the cleanest air they’ve ever had. The problem is that the pollutant that most people are worried about now is invisible and… unsmellable? Unlike the soot and smog that makes pollution so obvious.

• Investing in local and domestic research, education and fabrication

The US is the country that produces the most oil and the most natural gas, it also makes the most gasoline / petrol by far. Domestic research, education and fabrication is a US thing when it comes to oil and gasoline. By contrast, most solar panel components are produced in China. 96.8% of photovoltaic wafers are made in China. Wind Turbines are also largely made in China.

Sure, theoretically investment could mean that generation is shifted away from China and to manufacturers in the west. But, when was the last time the west ramped up manufacturing to compete with China in anything?

–

The reason that so many people are opposed to change are:

• They’ve been convinced that climate change is a hoax. Nobody realistically knows how to fix people’s beliefs about this. And, it’s unlikely to change unless there’s a radical change in media company ownership and bias, which means it’s probably going to take decades to fix. It’s more likely that the climate change deniers will die off of old age, than they’re going to change their beliefs.
• They believe the current system works, so why change it? This is key. Even if they believed that climate change is real, it’s really hard to convince someone to change a system that works.
• They believe (probably correctly) that the current system is good for their economy. Of course, most of the profits are flowing to the rich, and not being shared with the workers. However, the current system does employ a lot of workers.
• They think that renewable systems only work when it’s sunny or when it’s windy. There’s a bit of truth to that, and for continent-wide purely renewable grid, you’d need to figure out some way of storing energy for when conditions aren’t right for renewables. But, the problem is overblown because those solutions are coming online as fast as the grid is being updated.

This just highlights how well thought out the timing of Biden’s statement was.

I don’t know when he made his decision, but it was probably weeks ago. He pretended he was still going to be running so that the GOP spent their entire convention attacking him. Once the convention was over, he waited until just after the Sunday politics talk shows were done, and then made his announcement.

Now they get weeks to build up excitement for the Democratic convention while the Republican news cycle is over.

(P.S. as further evidence this wasn’t just a spur of the moment decision, look at all the prominent democrats now coming out in support of Harris. I don’t think that just happens. I think that only happens after some back-room negotiations. I think these negotiations were done, their support for Harris was locked in, and then they went quiet until the time of the announcement. The democratic party is famous for having its fights out in the open. But, other than Manchin, I can’t think of any Democrats (or sorta-kinda-democrats in his case) who even whispered about challenging her.)

This is why I think Turkey’s insistence it be called “Türkiye” in English is dumb. English doesn’t use umlauts, most English speakers can’t even pronounce “ü” properly. English doesn’t use “iye” sounds. They should be happy that the country is more-or-less pronounced the way it sounds in Turkish.

I mean, look at some of Turkey’s neighbours. Georgia, pronounced “sakartvelo” by the locals. Armenia, called “Hayastan” by the people who live there. Greece, called “Elláda” by people who speak Greek (sorry, speak “elliniká”).

People aren’t speaking your language when they’re talking about your country, they’re speaking their own language, and “Turkey” is about as close as English gets to “Türkiye”

Almost all VPs are DEI hires.

Trump chose Pence because he had government experience and his religious conservatism helped reassure the GOP’s religious voters.

Biden choosing Harris:

Biden committed to selecting a woman as his running mate … He noted that his selection would likely be younger than he is

Obama choosing Biden:

Obama recalled that he and his advisers Axelrod and Plouffe wondered if voters would accept a ticket of “two relatively young, inexperienced, and liberal civil rights attorneys” and ultimately Obama felt the contrast between him and Biden was a strength, and that Biden being older than Obama would reassure those voters who were concerned that Obama was too young to be president

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

Bush Jr. choosing Cheney

By picking Cheney, Bush had a running mate who had years of experience as well as an extensive foreign policy expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Republican_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

Clinton was an exception:

In making the selection, Clinton emphasized Gore’s experience with foreign policy and environmental issues.[1] Clinton’s choice of a fellow young southern centrist defied conventional wisdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection

This pattern goes through the years. If the presidential candidate is a northerner, they often pick a southerner. If he’s old, he chooses a younger VP candidate. If he’s from a wealthy background, he chooses someone who has a more humble background. If he lacks political experience, he chooses someone who has it. If he lacks international experience, he chooses someone who has it.

All VPs are DEI hires, at least to some extent. It’s accepted that if the two candidates are too similar that the ticket will fail.

PhD level intelligence? Sounds about right.

Extremely narrow field of expertise ✔️
Misplaced confidence in its abilities outside its area of expertise ✔️
A mind filled with millions of things that have been read, and near zero from interactions with real people✔️
An obsession over how many words can get published over the quality and correctness of those words ✔️
A lack of social skills ✔️
A complete lack of familiarity of how things work in the real world ✔️

In 1884 trade unions were demanding that work days be reduced from the typical 10-12 hours (6 days a week) down to a maximum of 8 hours. They set a deadline of May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn’t met, they held a peaceful protest in Chicago. On May 3rd, angry striking workers pushed toward some gates to confront strikebreakers / scabs. The police fired on the strikers, killing 6. The next day, there was a rally at Haymarket Square. At night, the police came in force to try to disperse the crowd. Someone threw a bomb at the police, killing one of them and severely wounding others. The police fired on the crowd, and some protesters fired back. At least 4 people were killed and at least 70 injured.

The result of all this, including the unfair trials, executions, pardons, etc. was a lot of attention to the 8-hour workday movement.

In 1890, the unions planned for another strike with the goal being the 8-hour work day. This time, with the help of the second Communist International, it went worldwide. The riot in Haymarket Square in Chicago on May 1 became a rallying cry for workers worldwide, and ever since then that has been the International Workers Day. But, in the US, the fact it was associated with communism was too scary, so the US celebration of Labour was moved to Sept 1st. Instead of International Workers Day, on May 1 the US celebrates (I kid you not) “Loyalty Day” and “Law Day” – extremely rich given that the thing that kicked it off was a time when there was a bloody confrontation between cops and labour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair

A couple of decades later in the 1910s, as unions continued to push for an 8-hour work day, Henry Ford went with the 8-hour day in his factories, and that was so influential that it eventually became the norm.

The 5 day work week came after the 8 hour day. It was partially the result of Henry Ford deciding that it was more beneficial to give his workers 2 days off. It was also influenced by a cotton mill employing both Jewish and Christian workers arranging work schedules so each group could have its sabbath off. Once Ford made that rule, unions pushed extremely hard to make it a standard thing, but again, it took decades. It wasn’t until 1940 that the Fair Labor Standards Act in the US made a 40 hour work week mandatory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workweek_and_weekend

The point of all this?

The 40-hour work week was never “designed”. People fought and died to make it a reality.

People, mostly in unions, frequently communists, fought and died to gradually reduce the number of hours that workers were expected to work. In the mid 1800s the expectation was 6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. It took decades of fighting to get that down to 6 days of only 8 hours. It took decades more fighting to get it down to 5 days a week rather than 6 or 5.5. It was never something that was “designed”. It was something that took decades of battle.

White families in the US after WWII were the first to really benefit from a law which had gone into place just before the US entered the war. Those families benefited from decades of work from labour unions and communists to get the work week down to only 40 hours. Then, the economic boom the US received from being the only major country to come out of WWII with its infrastructure essentially untouched meant that for the first time, maybe ever, working-class families were living relatively comfortable lives. The man in the family went to work for the legal maximum 40 hours, and still earned enough to support a whole family without his wife needing to work outside the home.

What has happened since then isn’t that the “designed” system failed. It’s that the post-war economic boom ended as other countries recovered. It’s that the labour unions got weak, and the capitalists started squeezing again. The 40-hour work week is still theoretically the law of the land. It’s just that take-home pay has been stalled for decades as the cost of living has gone up.

Don’t get me wrong, workers today still live better than the workers did in the mid 1800s when a work week was something like 60-80 hours. But, because labour unions got weak, and communism was demonized, there was nobody to oppose the owners of capital as they found new ways to squeeze their employees. So, even with a 40 hour week, things have been getting worse.

The history of the 40 hour week is also important because it shows what’s going to be needed if people want to work less than 40 hours. People are going to need strong unions. They’re going to need to go on strike. They’re going to need to get hurt and maybe killed by the cops who will side with the bosses. And, once enough blood has been spilled, maybe there will be reforms. Complaining about it on social media and thinking that we just need to “design” a new mutually beneficial arrangement is missing the whole point.