Donald Sterling's racist comments

I guess you heard Silver's statement today. In a sense, he really had no choice, even if this is "unfair" to Sterling (and Silver more or less works for Sterling and the other owners). I wonder if he will sue or fight this?

If they kept Sterling on, who would want to play/work for him? He would be a distraction and source of tension at every Clippers game (a "black eye" on the league as Magic Johnson said). That's not good anyone, and maybe even Sterling wouldn't want that for himself and family.

But on the other hand, you have guys working in the league now who are known domestic abusers, drug addicts, and had various weapons/drunk driving/criminal charges. Sterling made a statement in private, was kind of entrapped, and broke no laws that we know of. Of course his opinion was outrageous and totally unacceptable (especially since the league has 70% black players, and is an important part of African American culture). The expectations are higher on an authority figure.

Maybe it's similar to the Mozilla CEO who was forced to step down by his board/staff because of his anti-gay-marriage views. People have the right to their opinions, but holding those opinions may bar you from certain professional positions. The difficult part here is Sterling owns the Clippers. So in a sense, the other owners (as part of the monopolistic club that is the NBA) are forcing him to sell his asset (assuming they get the necessary votes to boot him, which Silver is confident of).

The Dodgers fiasco also comes to mind, ironically in the same city, and Magic Johnson may end up having a stake in both franchises now.

-----

This whole thing is a giant circle-jerk.  The dude settled out of court for racial discrimination in his housing projects, no one's opinion should have

changed based on this tape.  And the statement I kept hearing on the news "i hope all the bigots see that if Sterling can fall, so can you".  Who fell?  Dude will wake up tomorrow a billionaire.  Social prestige loss but i don't think the company he keeps gives a hoot.

As for the players/team/whatever.  At the end of the day the NBA players have no real power.  Their skills are simply not worth very much outside the context of the NBA.  So if Sterling says he isn't going to sell will they all boycott?  You are telling me you can't find 10 guys who will play for the clippers at a million a year?  They all quit the team and go free agent, you are telling when no one picks them up they don't have bills?  Kids?  A lifestyle to maintain?  I'll believe it when i see it.

A nice op-ed by kareem also.  http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/

-----

That was a pretty well written article by Kareem.  Shows the importance of getting a college degree before playing pro ball.  The NBA as an enterprise is ultimately powerless in this situation.  At the end of the day, I don't think sexual discrimination, racial discrimination or religious discrimination will be the entity that brings down a business empire.  After all, Chick-Fil-A is still thriving after their religious fiasco.  It'll just create more frivolous lawsuits earning settlement money for the accuser and their lawyer(s).  Businesses will keep booming regardless of the insensitive actions of their leaders, so what will make anyone think this incident will be an exception to the rule?

------

Thanks, guys. I disagree that NBA players don't have power - as their lockouts and relatively high salaries indicate. NBA players would have 90% of the power if sport was a free market instead of a monopoly (or "new slavery" as some people have commented, albeit quite inaccurately). Guys like Sterling think they ARE the league, but that is BS. Like most of stale corporate America, these fossils are only relevant because they engage in anti-competitive activities to make them appear more valuable than they are. At the end of the day, what is Sterling but a guy who signs checks? Not exactly a rare skill set. And remember that he was voted the worst owner in ALL major pro US sports for decades while the Clippers were a laughingstock. The GM, coach, and players determine success, and of course the fans/media provide the revenue. "Owners" are just leeches who take a disproportionate cut of profits, because they wrote the rules to enable that. Imagine if franchises were publicly traded companies - then the Clippers could have 1,000 different small, non-racist owners and still achieve the same level of performance. Heck the GB Packers have been a public nonprofit since 1923.

Sterling is now bad for business, and that is why the owners are getting rid of him. They can't risk their image and perceptions of racism when their talent base is majority black, as are many of their fans/customers (and they need to have a "good image" in the community, always). Yes, of course Sterling could find guys to fill his roster next season, but would they be the best players available? Would they feel motivated to play at a high level, amidst distractions and negativity (you can imagine their friends/peers/family would keep asking, "Why do you play for that guy?")?

It's true that probably old/rich/white America is more racist below the surface than they would reveal, though the Obama presidency is likely bringing some of that to the surface. That is another more complex issue; it's pretty hard to eliminate all bigotry from a society, especially private bigotry. But at least our public policy should not be prejudiced.

Maybe what Kareem failed to comment on is the tremendous injustice (disproportionately) for young blacks in college and pro sport. He is the exception, but many athletes:

(a lot of good sports links below if you have time; obviously I am interested in this stuff :)

- Don't get a degree or semblance of education

- Are obviously underpaid and under-represented during their short time on campus

- Do not make really big money in pro sports unless they are stars who stay healthy

- Have few years of real earning power, and often end up broke and physically hobbled (more of a problem with the NFL of course, who may have criminally misrepresented the concussion risk for decades, and recently settled for chump change)

- And of course consider the 99.9% of aspiring athletes who chase the hoop dream (sold a scam?), never make it, and find themselves fairly unemployable for the rest of their lives

But mainstream society puts up with this wicked system because we want to be entertained, and there is a lot of money at stake.

-------

Just throwing my two cents in here.

I've seen the first amendment and the legality of the recording get tossed around but those two issues are irrelevant. The NBA is a private association and has no obligation to care about those things in this context. Sterling isn't going to jail for his comments (obviously), and even if the recording is illegal having Sterling around as an owner after it's been released would be very bad for business, which is all the NBA cares about. On a side note, he probably knew and agreed to being recorded: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-donald-sterling-tapes-20140429%2C0%2C7072200.story#ixzz30JHOzKXK

M: "This whole thing is a giant circle-jerk.  The dude settled out of court for racial discrimination in his housing projects, no one's opinion should have changed based on this tape.  And the statement I kept hearing on the news "i hope all the bigots see that if Sterling can fall, so can you".  Who fell?  Dude will wake up tomorrow a billionaire.  Social prestige loss but i don't think the company he keeps gives a hoot."

I agree to a certain extent about it being a giant circle-jerk but that's only true for people who are aware of Sterling's history. The racial discrimination lawsuit isn't necessarily widely known. People inside NBA circles certainly knew about him but the average person probably wouldn't know or even be able to name him as the Clipper's owner previously. Making some awful comments are of course, not the worst thing he's done but it's the most public thing he's done, hence circle jerk. If you want to accuse the other NBA owners of jerking themselves off in a circular fashion, I wouldn't disagree. They must have known about his shit for a while. Of course this isn't some grand blow against racism everywhere, although I hadn't heard that sentiment in my online travels today, but it's still a victory in that an obvious asshole gets a little comeuppance.

To your other paragraph/point it turns out the NBA can actually force him to sell. Sterling doesn't have a choice if 3/4 of the other owners vote to force him to sell. Sterling is called the owner but in reality the NBA does have the power to force him to sell, which is apparently a very real possibility. http://deadspin.com/nba-owners-are-lining-up-to-vote-donald-sterling-out-1569445125

The analogy I've seen thrown around is that being an owner of an NBA team is like owning a franchise from McDonald's. You have a lot of control over what happens there, you can call yourself the owner but the powers that be can still take away that franchise from you.

Although maybe Sterling can try to fight it and go to court, dragging it out for a few years the NBA could simply lock the Clippers out and declare all of their players free agents. As long as most of the other owners agree to it, Sterling has no real options. And yeah, he's still going to die a rich man. Hell, selling the Clippers will probably get him a 5000% return on his investment. I still think it's impressive the NBA is doing this to him nonetheless.

In fact I'm even more surprised about the lack of surprise surrounding his punishment. If this was the NFL Goodell would absolutely not force any real punishment on an owner like that. A lifetime ban, 2.5 million fine, and most likely being forced to sell is way beyond what I expected. Commissioners are almost always stooges for the owners, so I was absolutely shocked that the NBA was willing to go this far. I'm glad they were willing though, better late than never.  

As for your latest comments, I largely agree and wanted to write more about college athlete issues but I've run out of steam. Maybe next time.

-----

Thanks, D. It's true that the NBA commish works for the owners, and I think that's what Silver was doing by firing Sterling. He was looking after the interests of the other owners. So I am almost sure they will get the 3/4 votes to force the sale of the franchise, otherwise Silver would not risk looking like a fool by proclaiming something without having the votes to back it up (that would be Obama and gun control).

I agree that what Kareem and others said about "shame on us for not knowing Sterling's past" is unfair. As you said, most people can't name an NBA owner besides Mark Cuban. And if Sterling was so notorious prior to this incident, then why didn't Kareem and others in the know do something about it (and tell the world about it)? It's not the common fan's job to investigate everyone's dirty laundry. But I do think that the league mgmt. ignored the problem for too long.

Hypothetically, what do you think the league and society would have done if Sterling acted differently? Say immediately when the tape was released, what if he made a sincere public apology, offered to meet with black leaders, enrolled himself in sensitivity therapy, and pledged to donate a good portion of his wealth to anti-racism programs and initiatives to help black communities? Would they have still taken the Clippers from him? It would be a tough call, IMO.

I think this is a pretty sad over-reaction. UCLA Nephrology is rejecting Sterling's $3M donation. Just because you don't want to be associated with a racist, you are hurting patients and research? Who cares where the money came from - if it can accomplish good, why refuse it? Taking a racist's money doesn't make UCLA racist. And if Al Sharpton vilifies them for it, well you can't please everyone. Heck, right wing radio personalities say almost as nasty stuff on a daily basis, and they get rich for it.

Maybe this is a small "victory" against overt, antiquated racism. But unfortunately, more subtle socioeconomic racism is far from beaten. 

Injustice even at the roof of the world

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/04/everest-sherpas-death-and-anger.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook&mbid=social_facebook

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/18/304574129/disaster-on-everest-marks-deadliest-day-in-mountains-history

Maybe you heard about the deadliest day in Everest history. Most people understand that climbing is very risky no matter what, but a recent trend has been shifting the danger from the high-paying Western customers ($50-90K per person) to the staff of sherpas that climbing org's employ to "set the table" for the customers. These sherpas (lowercase "s" for the profession, uppercase "S" for the ethnic group that represent the vast majority of sherpas) are paid $2-8K per expedition, with a death insurance of $10.5K to their families. So you can see where the majority of the profits go.

It's not just financials, but the climbing experience too. Sherpas have to traverse the more hazardous portions of Everest dozens of times (maybe even 30) for every one pass from a paying customer. They haul gear back and forth, set up acclimation camps, and lay down ropes and ladders. The most dangerous stuff that is usually core to climbing. Now the paying customers just pack water and a camera, literally. Not surprisingly, western death rates on the mountain have plummeted in the last 20 years, but guess who is picking up the slack? Some of this is due to better use of canned oxygen and dexamethasone (a drug that makes edema less likely). But O2 is heavy - guess who hauls the cans up and down for the customers? And most sherpas do not have modern medical care, so they don't get dex in their villages and their employers don't seem to want to buy it for them.

Understandably, the sherpas have threatened to strike unless climbing org's and the Nepalese gov't give them better safety protection and family benefits. This is coming from a traditionally stoic people. It would be like if the Hulk tells Capt. America that he is worried about the next mission - you better freaking pay attention.

The "outsourcing" of risk and concentration of profits stink of the negative side of globalization. Of course the top climbing org's are exclusively foreign-owned. Yes the sherpas are paid better than their next best available employment alternative, but it is not worth a job that is many times more dangerous than being a soldier in Iraq, statistically. And remember, Blackwater contractors got six-fig salaries and hazard bonuses at the expense of the US taxpayer, just to cook or drive a truck.

I thought the whole point of climbing a mountain was to prove your mettle? It is you and the rock, not you + an army of support staff because you can afford it. Of course for such a challenge as Everest, it is a team effort, but this is not right IMO. Is this just another way for big shot 1%ers to have a story to tell and show how badass they are? But in reality, they are only doing about 1% of the work needed to climb and survive Everest - at the expense of many local deaths. Hey, no one wants to die - I get that. But then don't climb freaking Everest; play a round at Pebble. They want their cake and eat it too, like most everything else in their amazing lives. And it doesn't matter about the consequences to others. They get what they want because they earned it and deserve it, just like Romney said.

I hope the sherpa strike works out, and they get at least 75% of the available profits from expeditions. Because they are the key resource (like the student athletes vs. the NCAA). Any schmuck can manage the front desk, assuming zero risk. And maybe the sherpas will let Joe Wall St. haul his own damn tent and tanks next time, if he is such a Master of the Universe.

Michael Lewis' new book "Flash Boys" about high-frequency traders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK0aoQ5yVmA

We've discussed some of these issues before, and I think this "60 Minutes" story covers it pretty well. One difference here is it's not the typical Wall St. story of Madoff-like wolves swindling us clueless Muppets. Now the mega fund managers and i-banks are getting fleeced just like the small-time retail investor. But it's a death of a thousand cuts; tiny skims on the margins (adding up to billions in profits) that may have never been detected if it's wasn't for a diligent trader at RBC (Brad Katsuyama).

Maybe the big fish are especially concerned here because of the potential volatility that high-frequency traders could be introducing into the markets. That is why Goldman, Schwab, and others have endorsed and/or started to trade on Katsuyama's new IEX - an alternative equities exchange build with technological safeguards to prevent HFT skimming/front-running.

Also the similar PBS story for those who prefer public media: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/high-frequency-traders-anticipate-wall-street-faster/

For our buy-and-hold retirement savings, probably many of us invest in index funds. It's bad enough that our 401(k) administrators are blasting us with maddening fees, but the HFTs are taking a piece of our earnings too. From Wiki:

Most retirement savings, such as private pension funds or 401(k) and individual retirement accounts in the US, are invested in mutual funds, the most popular of which are index funds which must periodically "rebalance" or adjust their portfolio to match the new prices and market capitalization of the underlying securities in the stock or other index that they track.^[31][32] This allows trading algorithms to anticipate and trade ahead of stock price movements caused by mutual fund rebalancing, making a profit on advance knowledge of the large institutional block orders.^[18][33] This results in profits transferred from investors to algorithmic traders, estimated to be at least 21 to 28 basis points annually for S&P 500 index funds, and at least 38 to 77 basis points per year for Russell 2000 funds.^[19] John Montgomery of Bridgeway Capital Management says that the resulting "poor investor returns" from trading ahead of mutual funds is "the elephant in the room" that "shockingly, people are not talking about."^[20]

Sacre bleu! Stop checking your Blackberry at night!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/10/301418591/mon-dieu-no-more-work-email-at-home-for-some-french-workers?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140410

 

Earlier The Guardian and BBC reported that France passed a law barring tech and consulting workers from using their work devices after hours (and for them, after hours means 6PM-9AM), affecting up to 1M employees. But it turns out the law only applies to hourly contractors (~200K workers) and amends a previous law that workers must have at least 11 hrs of free time per day, which is not exactly super generous.

This story was probably a Brit attempt to mock "the lazy, hedonistic frogs", but really - is it so admirable to be plugged into work almost 24-7 at the expense of your loved ones, personal interests, and health? Even if we love our job and want to work more (or are we just addicted, pressured, or socialized to think that?), you have to stop sometime! Even too much of a "good thing" is unhealthy; what happened to balance? Some managers have to force US workers to take vacation... that is kind of pathological right?

Well, despite having a 35-hour work week, at least 6 weeks of yearly vacation, and shall we say, "different" union laws, French worker productivity is similar to that of Germans AND Americans. So they are just a lot more efficient than us? Maybe knowing that you have under 9 hours a day to get your stuff done, it is motivating and clarifying? Instead in the US, it's always "let's see how much more we can pile on." But is that stuff really value-added? I think you would agree, but I have never read a brilliant late-night email and definitely don't do my best work late when I'm tired/distracted. If the late night stuff was so important, you would have worked on it at 10AM. Unless you need to respond to a 4-alarm fire at midnight, but in that case you may be hourly with a pension.

So, F-U GM and your macho, consumerist, Europe-mocking work ethic. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone (don't make deadly ignition switches and don't beg for a gov't bailout). Sorry, but I think truly successful people would be ashamed to have a Caddy in their driveway these days. So you get the posers like that B-list blond actor you hired on the cheap. I'll take a Renault, and use the leftover cash to have a nice vacation... IN FRANCE (well, Tahiti and Martinique are still technically France right?).

The game theory of climate change cooperation

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/100243807/GameTheoryClimateChangepaper2.docx

FYI if you suffer from insomnia :), here's a recent assignment that I did with some classmates on using game theory principles to motivate cooperation on emissions reduction. It's not my best stuff, but we just want to freaking graduate in a month. :)

Maybe you saw that the UN Intergov't Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its updated report, and the situation is graver than the previous worse case scenario. Good times. Part of the problem is that you need to be a meteorologist and statistician to even understand their slimmed down "summary for policymakers". The environmental moment needs to hire the strategic communication consultants that the GOP uses. Hot-button terms like takers, flip-flopper, and death panels seem to resonate better with the public compared to probabilities and scenarios.

And for heaven's sake - tell us how much it's going to COST (5-20% of future global GDP if you can believe - mostly driven by coastal city defense, mega-storm cleanup, and reduced fishing/agriculture), so that it's not just about fluffy polar bears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjUb9Y_bvE4

-----

http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/

Climate Change series on Showtime.

How TV mega "churches" are raking in tax-free profits and DC doesn't seem to care

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/282496855/can-a-television-network-be-a-church-the-irs-says-yes

This is not an old story (remember the Jim and Tammy Baker?), but the scale has grown (money and gov't incompetence). Televangelists now have nearly billion-dollar empires, that are conveniently mostly tax-free as a "religious nonprofit". They also enjoy stronger privacy status (financial and otherwise). Even the huge luxury compounds that these orgs own don't have to pay property tax because they are classified as parsonages (had to wiki this one: a church-owned abode for the clergy to live in).

Since 2009, the IRS can no longer audit churches without the approval of a top official at Treasury (and who can be bothered to sign off for that?). Supposedly an org must meet the IRS' 14-point checklist to be called a church, but few of these "TV ministries" do. Too bad no one is checking but folks like NPR apparently.

And what do these churches do with their huge rakes? Private jets, Bentleys, publishing subsidiaries, and generally Wall St. level compensation for the preachers.  They claim that they route congregation donations to worthy causes, but an investigation of TX-based Daystar Ministries revealed that they only gave 5% of revenue to charity (they claimed it was 30%). In comparison the secular Red Cross is >90% and Catholic Charities USA is 75%. But hey, Daystar sponsored a Christian NASCAR team to the tune of $600K. And remember that the congregation is getting tax breaks as well.

The Senate Finance Cmte. led by C Grassley (R) investigated 6 mega-churches recently. They found evidence of abuse, but didn't take action and more or less dropped the issue (church leaders were threatening to sue over religious persecution). They recommended "self regulation" and Grassley hopes that the problem will "cure itself". I guess there is a lot of gov't paranoia/precedent about interfering in religious matters. Maybe DC has no right to decide what a preacher gets paid, but if the gov't can legally make us fight in a war, spy on us, seize our property, and sentence us to death, I think they can revisit whether they need to at least tax and monitor religious orgs a little more (even tightening up how they define them would make a big impact).