ANS -- Foundational Document -- No, everybody DOESN'T do it.

This is old, but it's still valid.  It is one of the first things I sent out long ago, but read it again anyway.  It's short.  Written in 2006, and some things have changed maybe....

It's about "googoo" or good government.  You might need to make the font larger.  

--Kim

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/249098.html

 

The Infamous Brad - No, everybody DOESN'T do it.

 

Date: 2006-06-21 04:35 Subject: No, everybody DOESN'T do it. Security: Public Mood: good Tags: current events, history, politics In 1920, Prohibition passed, giving the Mafia more money than god. In 1929, the stock market crashed and wiped out the banks with it, leaving virtually everybody but the Mafia grindingly poor. Since people (not unreasonably) blamed the Republicans for the Great Depression, from about 1930 to 1980 the USA went through a period of nearly single-party governance. Which meant that when the Mafia was looking for politicians to bribe and primary elections to corrupt, it naturally made sense for them to concentrate on taking over the Democratic Party -- why invest in a party that couldn't win an election even with Mafia help? For all that the Mafia only achieved anything like total domination in maybe five US cities (greater NY, LA, Chicago, KC, and New Orleans), those were sufficiently large and important cities that they managed to set the expectations for the whole country. For those 50 years, the "fix" was "in;" it was a taken-for-granted perq of being the Mafia-selected candidate that you and your friends could do a certain amount of looting of the public treasury, and were entitled to a certain amount of bribery in the handing out of government largess such as contracts and jobs. But the generation of soldiers who came home from World War II were, increasingly, just not OK with this, and the generation after them even less so. They didn't bother to run as Republicans, because America was still not going to elect enough Republicans to matter. Instead, they formed their own caucus within the Democratic Party, the Reform Democrats, and through a campaign of relentless muck-raking and with assistance from an eager press, they steadily gained in power. By the late 1950s, the Mafia was under siege in every state and city, and by around 1970 the era of Mafia rule, and institutionalized corruption, was pretty much over. The "Good Government" wing of the Reform Democrats (or as they're still derisively nicknamed, the "goo-goos") even managed to institutionalize and legislate an awful lot of controls over previously corrupt practices, especially in awarding of government contracts. They also managed to identify an awful lot of jobs that really had no business being treated as patronage perqs and strengthened civil service protection for those jobs, thereby professionalizing an awful lot of our various levels of government. But here's the thing ... they appear to have done all of those things without the Republican Party noticing. Or perhaps, without the Republican Party believing them, but it amounts to the same thing. This semi-willful blindness is doubtless further enabled by the fact that to an awful lot of the intellectuals of the Republican Party, it's still 1964. Atheism is still seen as a global threat, communism is still thought of as something that must be vigorously contained and fought on every continent, all government regulation is seen not as a way to police fair playing fields for business but as the thin entering wedge of a socialist takeover of America, and the fiction of Ayn Rand is still taken for granted as a viable philosophical construct. So for people that emotionally trapped like flies in amber in the time when their movement first organized, first began its strategy to make the Republican Party a winning party, it's only natural that they would assume that the culture of political corruption that was widespread in 1964 would still be ubiquitous. I'm convinced that's why when you catch guys like Tom Delay, or Jack Abramoff, or various Republican-connected fly-by-night "defense contractors," or most recently Kentucky governor Ernie Fletcher, engaged in blatant corruption, they show no shame. They truly believe what they're saying when they claim that everybody, and they mean everybody, does it. They take it for granted that now that America is as single-party Republican as it was single-party Democrat in 1940, that they're entitled to the same level of graft that the Democrats were getting away with in 1940. Why? Because they hardly ever hear of any Democrat having been caught and punished for it any time in the last 20 or 30 years. Since they can't believe that the "goo-goos" and the crusading journalists actually achieved anything, it is to them self-evident that the only reason that more Democrats aren't facing the kind of corruption charges that they are is that beat reporters and professional civil servants vote Democrat. It would never occur to them that the reason we react to someone like William Jefferson with such disgust is that he's such an anachronism, that we're actually ashamed of our corrupt politicians rather than flocking to protect them, because we got used to more-or-less honest government. Which is why, to a man, they all cry "partisan witch-hunt." Because they haven't actually gotten it into their heads that no, really, it pretty much is only them. P.S. Tuesday afternoon, NetDevil and NCsoft shipped a major upgrade to Auto Assault, making what was already the coolest science-fiction massively multiplayer online roleplaying game even cooler, even more fun to play. Don't be too surprised if I'm unusually distractable for a little while. Sorry! 29 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Track This | Link

ANS -- Why are Democratic party elites so desperate for a 2020 centrist candidate?

This is a short article that you need to read if you are following politics.  It's about why the Democratic establishment wants a centrist candidate. The writing is exceptionally clear.   

To those of you who think you want a centrist candidate -- the only way to get a centrist outcome is to have the two sides equal distance from the center and compromise.  Right now, the right wing is so far right, you need someone just as far to the left to get near the center functionally.  (This paragraph is me, not the article.)

Find it here: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/30/democratic-party-2020-centrist-candidate?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR3lErtwi4jFnN1kGHERURifuCJ9-9PyE2eyWPxertiukaSthJsxQAzMllM 

--Kim

Opinion

US elections 2020

Why are Democratic party elites so desperate for a 2020 centrist candidate?

Hamilton Nolan

Is the core concern of those who consider themselves 'moderate Democrats' that Warren or Sanders might win?

Wed 30 Oct 2019 06.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 30 Oct 2019 06.02 EDT

Shares

554

 'Those who view socialism as an awful fate are searching in every phone booth for a capitalist Superman.' Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

When something has been done one way for many years, and when doing things that way has made a certain group of people fat and happy, it is natural that that group of people will want to continue doing things that way. It is also natural that the much larger group of people who have been hungry and neglected for all those years as a result of the way things have been done will want to do something different. Eventually, the larger group, full of righteous anger, will win. But the fat and happy class will cling tightly to what they have for as long as their swollen fingers can hold on. This is essentially what's happening within the Democratic party right now. The weak grip of the old guard is being broken, one finger at a time.

The election of Donald Trump and the sudden viability of Bernie Sanders as a candidate in 2016 were both enormous flashing billboards reading "THINGS ARE DIFFERENT NOW". To fail to read these signs amounts to active, willful ignorance. Many people were surprised by the way things went in the last presidential election, but there is no excuse for being surprised by the same things again.

Four decades of growing inequality and a class war by the rich that has been too successful for its own good have pushed Americans toward political positions that would have been considered fringe back in the carefree 1990s. The extremities have waded into the mainstream. You don't need to be a genius to understand this basic fact – you just have to watch a little Fox News, look at a few income inequality charts, and have a chat with a couple of uninsured people who are trying to pay the medical bills for their school shooting gunshot wounds via GoFundMe.

From Beverly Hills to Miami Beach: who are America's richest zip codes backing in 2020?

 

Read more

People's patience with the status quo has worn away. Americans themselves understand this instinctively. Political polls confirm it. Donald Trump revels in it. The only ones who don't seem to grasp it are the wizened establishment figures of the Democratic party, who are making calculations based on a picture of the world that no longer exists.

Joe Biden, the establishment, centrist Democratic candidate of choice, is weak. He's old; he is showing clear signs of age-related mental decline; he's an uninspiring speaker, he's out of touch, and he can't raise money from small donors. The candidates who can raise that money are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – unsurprisingly, the two people whose policies are most suited to our current reality. The last thing that the centrist Democratic party establishment, a power structure still rooted in the triangulating ideas of the Clinton era, wants are policies suited to our current reality, because the radicalism of such policies would necessarily place the old guard in the trash, at last. And so the old guard must desperately pine for a savior. And we all must endure months of pathetic casting about for a nonexistent Centrist Jesus to rescue the Clinton wing of the party from its inevitable fate. It is like watching a fish fruitlessly trying to flop out of a bucket before it suffocates.

Advertisement

Oprah reportedly "begged Disney chief executive Bob Iger to jump into the race". Hillary Clinton backers hint darkly that she might still jump in. For those who crave an even more decrepit candidate, Mike Bloomberg and John Kerry's names have been floated. And then there are the also-ran candidates at the back of the current pack, who are eyed like meat by wealthy donors musing over whether they can be effective Trojan horses for Goldman Sachs. Is Mayor Pete clean-cut enough? Can Klobuchar knife Warren while maintaining a sweet midwestern grin? The desire for some alternative to leftism is so powerful that even Michael Bennet, a man with no demonstrated constituency and the charisma of a cardboard box, is still lurching along, serving no purpose except to pipe up in off-hour cable interviews about how impractical Medicare for All is.

To some extent, this is a normal campaign season ritual: chasing the dragon of the imaginary perfect candidate. But this time, it is not hard to see that the motivation is more materialist than usual. The core concern of those who consider themselves "moderate Democrats" is not really that Trump might win – it is that Warren or Sanders might win. This is a political faction that finds itself caught between its aesthetic distaste for Trump's social policies and its distaste for wealth taxes, public healthcare, and other policies contrary to their ambition to afford that lake house.

For decades, the Democratic party has been effectively controlled by the sort of people who work at an investment bank but also support gay marriage (at least when the polls say that it's safe to do so). These people are almost as responsible as Republicans for our current political predicament. Even if they didn't start the war on terror or the war on the poor, they utterly failed to stop them. The time has come to pay up for those mistakes. The price will be a large chunk of the fortunes that have been built over the past two generations. Those who view socialism as an awful fate are searching in every phone booth for a capitalist Superman to renew the tastefulness of the White House while also calming down the unnerving calls for the sort of equality that can cost a lot of money.

Sadly for them, superheroes don't exist. There aren't that many rich people out there. The only way they can maintain their political power is to buy it. They are now experiencing the shocking realization that, in an era of righteous popular rage, big money ain't what it used to be. Let's respect their trauma during this difficult transition. We can tolerate their antics for a little while. And then they can suck it up, make peace with the leftists, and pay more taxes, like responsible humans. Or they can take the mask off and vote for Trump. Either way, their disappointing time atop the Democratic party is over.

• Hamilton Nolan is a writer based in New York City

ANS -- Elizabeth Warren Thwarts Reporters’ Attempts to Smear Medicare for All

this is for those of you who are annoyed that Elizabeth Warren won't come out and say that Medicare for All will be paid for by taxes.  This writer is an economist.  He points out that reporters are not saying what needs to be said (they are taking the right wing view of economics, but he doesn't say it that boldly.) 

the reason, obviously, that Warren won't utter the words "Taxes will go up" is that she knows the Gotcha people will use it as a soundbite against her.  I want her to say"Your overall outgo for healthcare will be smaller than it is now". 

Pretty short article.  quote for you:  " This is a major reason that people hugely overestimate the portion of their taxes that go to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps and other anti-poverty programs. They hear that we spend $20 billion a year on TANF (a really big number), but reporters don't point out that this is 0.4 percent of the federal budget. "

Find it here: https://truthout.org/articles/elizabeth-warren-thwarts-reporters-attempts-to-smear-medicare-for-all/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=177551ee-b430-44b8-afe2-cbe78a6a6b09&fbclid=IwAR2mg_ymz0xoFtgr4zrH3jlh2fx_FHv9a8HXnrPvAPVOtK3b94gGaJ1WOUQ 

--Kim

Elizabeth Warren Thwarts Reporters' Attempts to Smear Medicare for All

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks to students at Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa, on October 21, 2019.MELINA MARA / THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

BY

Dean Baker, 

Truthout

PUBLISHED

October 28, 2019

SHARE

READING LIST

WAR & PEACE

Convicted Anti-Nuclear Activists Speak Out: "Pentagon Has Brainwashed People"

EDUCATION & YOUTH

More Educators Are Fighting to Bring Arts Education Back Into Schools

ECONOMY & LABOR

Elizabeth Warren Thwarts Reporters' Attempts to Smear Medicare for All

ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH

California Governor Declares Statewide Emergency as Nearly 200,000 Evacuate

POLITICS & ELECTIONS

It's a Mistake to Laugh Off Republicans' Dangerous Attacks on Impeachment

ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH

Patients Eligible for Charity Care Instead Get Big Bills

Many reporters express frustration over Sen. Elizabeth Warren's refusal to say that she will raise taxes to pay for her Medicare for All plan. Instead, she insists that total health care costs for middle-income families will go down. While this is not playing the reporters' game, Senator Warren is answering the correct question, even if the reporters refuse to ask it.

The reporters' game is to make taxes the issue, full stop. If they can get Warren to say she will raise people's taxes, then they have the talking point they want.

That might be a fun game for star reporters who get six- and seven-figure salaries, but most people in the world are reasonably rational. They care about what they get for their taxes. If they can get the vast majority of their health care paid for by paying a few thousand dollars more a year in taxes, it is likely that most people will consider this a good deal.

Don't miss a beat

Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.

Your Email

As much as reporters try to distract from the bigger picture, Warren is right to insist upon answering the correct question. If that makes the reporters unhappy, that is their problem.

Unfortunately, bad reporting on taxes and budget issues is pretty much the norm in the media. The budget is usually reported as a scorecard, with the deficit being the bad news in the picture. Somehow, we are all supposed to be happier if we have a smaller budget deficit.

Budget reporting has almost completely ignored the fact that the recovery from the Great Recession has been much slower because budget deficits have been too small. If deficits had been larger, we would have had trillions of dollars of more output and millions of more workers could have been employed.

While the deficits and resulting debt are typically presented as a generational burden, the opposite is often the case. How have we made our children better off if we put their parents out of work? There is also the issue that larger deficits can be used to support investments, such as education and child care, infrastructure, and research and development into clean energy and other areas.

We hand down a whole economy and society, as well as the natural environment, to future generations. If we want to talk about generational equity, we have to look at that full picture, because the national debt tells us basically nothing.

Another amazing failure of budget reporting is that it never talks about the effective debt the government creates by issuing patent and copyright monopolies. These monopolies allow their holders to charge prices that are far above the free market price. In the case of prescription drugs alone, these monopolies cost us close to $400 billion a year (1.8 percent of GDP), nearly twice the size of the annual interest payments on the national debt.

There is zero justification for ignoring the burdens created by these monopolies. Patents and copyright monopolies are an alternative mechanism to direct spending that the government uses to pay for things. Perhaps reporters prefer these monopolies more than direct spending, but that is not an excuse for ignoring them in their reporting.

Budget reporting gets things wrong at even the most basic level of conveying information to readers. (Hint for reporters: that is your job.) News reports typically report budget numbers in billions or trillions of dollars, even though next to no one can assign any meaning to these numbers.

Sometimes this fact is even acknowledged by reporters — although it is apparently too much to ask that the reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Public Radio and other top outlets take the 20 seconds needed to put budget numbers in a context that is meaningful to their audience. This is a major reason that people hugely overestimate the portion of their taxes that go to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps and other anti-poverty programs. They hear that we spend $20 billion a year on TANF (a really big number), but reporters don't point out that this is 0.4 percent of the federal budget.

Elizabeth Warren is 100 percent right not to play this silly game of saying whether her health care plan will mean higher taxes. She has committed herself to developing a plan that will mean lower costs for low- and middle-class families. If the reporters want to yell about how this will mean higher taxes, then they have the option to do so, but Senator Warren is talking about matters to real people.

The stakes have never been higher

As attacks on women's rights, health care, the environment and democracy intensify, we're going to need truth-telling journalists more than ever.

At Truthout, unlike most media, our journalism is free from government and corporate influence and censorship. But this is only sustainable if we have your support. If you like what you're reading or just value what we do, will you take a few seconds to contribute to our work?

     

DONATE NOW

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Dean Baker

Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C., which he co-founded. He previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He is a regular Truthout columnist and a member of Truthout's Board of Advisers.

MORE BY THIS AUTHOR…

ANS -- B.C.'s MRI strategy 'dramatically' exceeding target, minister says

Here's a short article to update the info on the Canadian health system, since people have been all upset about wait times for MRIs in Bristish Columbia,Canada.  This article addresses that.  

Find it here:  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/strategy-dramatically-exceeds-target-for-more-mri-exams-in-bc-says-minister-1.5120631?fbclid=IwAR3WC5Mr62tEN58ok4aTJfSJRymZwDSoxMWWDcDQPKPjxbOV8FV4W77idIE 

--Kim

British Columbia

B.C.'s MRI strategy 'dramatically' exceeding target, minister says

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

44,000 more exams completed across the province in 1st year of new health care strategy

The Canadian Press · Posted: May 02, 2019 1:58 PM PT | Last Updated: May 2

B.C.'s health minister is hailing as an 'extraordinary achievement' an increase of 44,000 specialized diganostic exams, since the NDP introduced the B.C. Surgical and Diagnostic Imaging Strategy a year ago. (CBC)

Almost 44,000 more specialized diagnostic exams have been completed across British Columbia in the first year of a new health care strategy and Health Minister Adrian Dix says that amounts to an "extraordinary achievement."

The B.C. Surgical and Diagnostic Imaging Strategy includes a provision to operate magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, machines around the clock, with more than 233,000 exams done in the first year of the initiative.

When compared with the year before, Dix says their strategy "dramatically exceeded" the initial target of 37,000 scans.

MRI scans are vital to the diagnosis of soft tissue damage such as brain tumours, strokes or dementia and past wait times have extended a year or more.

While the minister didn't have figures on how this has reduced the delays, preliminary data from Northern Health shows certain wait times dropped to 29 days from 57.

B.C. Health Minister Adrian Dix touting the success of the B.C. Surgical and Diagnostic Imaging Strategy in Victoria, May 2, 2019. (Mike McArthur/CBC)

Dix says two private MRI outpatient clinics were purchased by Fraser Health as part of the strategy and the model could be applied to efforts to cut other health-care wait times.

Northern Health MRI scans jump by 86%

At the start of this year, 10 of B.C.'s 33 MRI machines were running around the clock, compared to one in August 2017, while 17 were running more than 19 hours a day, scanning patients at all hours of the day and night.

"I am obviously delighted with that. It is what people expect of us, to deliver care and to use the things that we have already paid for to their maximum in order to provide service for people," Dix told a news conference in Victoria.

• Province pledges $11M to reduce wait times for MRI scans

In 2017, residents in the Northern Health region received roughly 24 MRI scans per thousand, compared with an average of 60 in Ontario, but over the last year the number of scans had jumped by 86 per cent, Dix says.

"Everyone, from Fraser Health to Vancouver Coastal Health, but especially in the north, has received better service as a result of these changes."

• MRI wait times in B.C. double the national average: Fraser Institute survey

Residents of Terrace, Fort St. John, Fort St. James and Vanderhoof can now expect the same service they would receive in Victoria or the west side of Vancouver, Dix says.

The year's target has been set at just over 248,000 MRI scans, an increase of more than 23,000 over last year, a goal the minister says will allow for the continued reduction of wait times across the health-care system.

ANS -- Gas Station Converts To Electric Charging Station And Speeds Ahead Of Curve

Here's something on the energy front -- a gas station converts to an electric car charging station.  the beginning of the future?

Find it here:  https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773446805/gas-station-converts-to-electric-charging-station-and-speeds-ahead-of-curve 

--Kim

ENERGY

Gas Station Converts To Electric Charging Station And Speeds Ahead Of Curve

October 26, 20197:00 AM ET

HANNAH HAGEMANN

Twitter

Depeswar Doley's RS Automotive in Takoma Park, Md., is the first U.S. gas station to be fully converted to an electric vehicle charging center.

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Updated at 8:06 p.m. ET

The electric car industry is expanding, and at least one business owner is capitalizing on that growth. RS Automotive — the first U.S. gas station fully converted to an electric vehicle-charging station — opened a month ago in Takoma Park, Md.

A brand new blue and white sign reads EV charging, replacing where the dollar and cents gas price listings stood. From afar, the station's electric chargers don't look too different from their predecessors. Some drivers still think they can still fill up their gas tanks here.

"A lot of them pull up and get upset," says owner Depeswar Doley.

BUSINESS

As More Electric Cars Arrive, What's The Future For Gas-Powered Engines?

The honks, screeches and vrooms of morning traffic are going strong during a recent visit to the station, but Doley says business has been slow. Over the past week, there have been about eight to 12 charging sessions per day, according to Matthew Wade, CEO of the Electric Vehicle Institute.

Still, interest is growing.

Every week, Doley fields calls from gas station owners who are considering replacing their pumps with chargers. Others are EV enthusiasts wanting to visit the station, some hailing from as far as Maine.

There are about 40 types of electric cars people can buy right now, Dan Bowermaster, with the Electric Power Research Institute says, but within four years, there will be closer to 120 on the market.

"Not only is that a much bigger number than what's on the road today," says Bowermaster, "but a third of those will be crossovers and SUVs, and that's what we Americans are buying."

Tamara Robinson, begins charging her car. She has used the station multiple times since its opening a month ago.

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Doley is willing to wait. He has owned the independent station and repair shop since 1997. After 20 years of bad contracts, changeable oil prices and convenience store break-ins, Doley says he decided to shut off the gas pumps. He took out a personal loan out to remove the station's underground storage tanks. The plan was to just keep the repair shop open.

Sign Up For The NPR Daily Newsletter

Catch up on the latest headlines and unique NPR stories, sent every weekday.

E-mail address

By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Then, Doley got a call from the city: Would he want to transform the station into a fully outfitted charging center? The offer came with a $786,000 grant to pay for the conversion — a combination of state funding and money from the Baltimore-based Electric Vehicle Institute.

His 17-year-old daughter, Teresa, pushed him to take the leap. She hopes the station eases drivers charging anxieties.

"I think it's kind of encouraging people to get EVs, a lot of people don't want to get electric vehicles, because they're worried that they're not going to be able to charge them," the teenager says. "And I think that if you make it more available, then people are more likely to want to try it."

As more and more affordable EVs roll out in the next few years, there will be more demand for public charging centers, Bowermaster says.

BUSINESS

Tesla Led The Charge, But More Premium Electric Vehicles Are Arriving

"There's definitely a very real need to to have these DC fast-charging centers," says Bowermaster, "whether it's for [low-income], for lower-income customers, or for fleets or for those who live in a townhouse, where they just simply don't have a garage with 120-volt or 240-volt outlets."

Most electric cars on the roads today store up to 50 kilowatt-hours of power, explains Wade of the Electric Vehicle Institute. But EVs coming out of companies such as GM and Volkswagen in the next few years will accept up to 200 kWh, so Doley's station is "future-proof," Wade says.

Montgomery County in Maryland has one of the highest rates of EVs on the road, and in January, state utilities got approval to install a network of more than 5,000 charging stations over the next five years.

For Doley, that might mean more and more charging profits down the line. But for now, it seems electric taxis and police cars are the most frequent customers.

RS Automotive station's electric chargers look similar to their predecessors, creating confusion for some customers.

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Doley also revamped the station's former convenience store and turned it into a charging lounge, with black leather easy chairs and Wi-Fi. He says he doesn't want to sell food in the lounge. That's in part to encourage drivers to wander around the neighborhood while their car charges, which takes around 15 to 30 minutes.

Ramon Dawes who runs Roland's Unisex Barbershop next door to RS Automotive hasn't noticed a difference in his customer base yet.

"But it's a learning curve," Dawes says. "Got to do something. Save the planet, one step at a time."

Doley gets 66% of the revenue from charging sessions, while EVI, gets 33%. The current charging price is a base of $2.50 plus $0.20 per minute. Doley pays to keep the power flowing, and EVI pays to keep the chargers maintained.

A month after the business opened, Doley remains optimistic.

"If I can spread that one word around, that one little drop, if I can contribute for the betterment of the environment and Earth in general, and for us, humanity, that's more than enough," Doley says. "That's a better reward than the money."

CorrectionOct. 26, 2019

A previous version of the story incorrectly described battery energy in kW. It is actually kilowatt-hours.