Hobby Lobby ruling and contraception

Considering the Court's makeup, it was expected. It won't help the GOP win over more young women. I guess corporations continue to enjoy most individual rights but avoid many of the responsibilities/punishments.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

-Ginsburg dissenting opinion

----

I suppose it's not surprising, but it still sucks. Ginsburg wrote a great dissent though, for whatever that's worth. 

What's funny about the ruling is that the prevailing opinion seems to want to restrict the ruling, by applying it only to "closely-held corporations with strong religious beliefs" but that can still apply to a significant number of companies with numerous employees. For example, the Mars corporation would qualify, especially because there is no test to be administered for "strong religious beliefs" so any company can essentially claim they have those. The funny bit (to me anyway) is that I get the impression that they thought there were being restrained in their conservatism with this ruling. As if they were saying "no no it's not all corporations who can deny you birth control coverage, just these certain ones!"

----

I get his once we assume their freedom if religion was infringed RFRA says the gov must attempt to accommodate.

But how is the offer of health insurance that includes birth control legally distinguished from a paycheck that pays for an abortion?  Aren't both compensation which are offered at the discretion of the employer? 

I think I saw it mentioned somewhere that hobby lobby covered birth control etc prior to the aca apparently without issue.

----

I actually had the same thought about their paychecks. Ginsburg had a great line about how if it's against someone's religion then I guess they don't have to follow any laws they don't want to.

In fact, I would recommend this article: http://gawker.com/a-treasury-of-justice-ginsburgs-real-talk-in-her-hobby-1598003837

Which pulls out some of Ginsburg's greatest hits on this ruling.

----

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/30/327071978/how-many-companies-will-be-touched-by-courts-contraception-ruling?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20140701

Thx for the comments and links, guys. Yeah as you said, the majority opinion claimed that they were being really restrictive as to which org's this ruling could apply to, but really the language was anything but. NPR estimates that 90% of businesses are "closely held" (employing >50% of our workforce),  as in 5 or fewer individuals own more than half the firm value (IRS definition). Maybe this is an example why political appointees/Beltway lifers without much experience in the "real world" may not be the best candidates for a lifetime SC appointment where US society is literally at their mercy. And the ACA already exempted religious nonprofits and small businesses from covering contraception, so that is millions more Americans.




http://ocsotc.org/


In school I worked on a business case (similar to the link above) advocating that oral contraception should be available over-the-counter. It's really a no-brainer, and that's how it works in Catholic Mexico and other nations. This has been discussed for years, but the understaffed and political football FDA has yet to act. "Plan B" (the morning-after pill) is available no-questions-asked after a pharmacist consultation, but it's more expensive and doesn't reduce menstrual symptoms (also I believe there is some controversy as to what age range it is available to). Now, women can only get the pill after a yearly or quarterly visit to their OB-GYN, and awkward pelvic exams are often mandated prior to giving out an Rx. This is obviously time consuming and expensive, esp. if the patient doesn't have coverage.




Sure, I can imagine that drug companies may lose $ if the pill goes OTC and is subject to generic competition and market price pressures (like most other products!), and I guess OB-GYNs may stand to lose business too (some legitimately care and it's their medical opinion that regular exams are the best thing for their patients - so they need to link it to the pill Rx in order to get women to comply). But most major health org's worldwide say the OTC pill is an overwhelming improvement with very little downside (except for right wing Christian ire I suppose). And we are just talking about decades-old, well-validated, super-safe, cheap basic hormone pills. The fancy next-gen stuff can still be Rx for consumers who want it. Unintended pregnancies and menstrual symptoms are a huge cost on societies, and disproportionately affect women. So is that the problem - women have most of the responsibility and incur the suffering, but the men are writing the laws and enjoying the pleasure of sex without the consequences? Since there is practically zero medical/sociological/economic evidence to support the restriction of contraceptives, I can only assume that this is another manifestation of the "war on women". Conservatives claim to love freedom and liberty, but have this fixation to try to control female behavior. It's really bizarre. Maybe we can take them at their word and it's all about religious values and "morality". If so, then why don't they pony up and pay more taxes to help all the unintended mothers raise those kids? The US is probably the most hostile developed economy for working mothers - so how about changing those laws and norms first, and then you can restrict contraception coverage as much as you want.  


----

For the 4th, here is a disturbing story that hasn't got much coverage: the US accepts non-citizens into its Armed Forces (often with the "promise" of citizenship at honorable discharge), but if those vets are caught in a crime (even a petty one like DUI or financial fraud) - the laws of the land require automatic deportation. Maybe deportation is justified for some crimes, but there has to be exceptions or at least a review process for non-citizen vets who served faithfully for years and got caught in one mistake. It's like the penal system in general - how can we claim to be civilized people, yet we judge and label criminals by the worst moment of their lives? Someone could be a productive worker and loving parent, son, brother, and neighbor for 99% of his life, but once they are in prison, they are henceforth known as "robber" or "drug user".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rjCvgRkq0

----

And lastly, on the lighter side of things, the Daily Show mocks bourgeois liberals for their stupidity/narrow-mindedness too!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/13/google-glass-daily-show_n_5491565.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_daily_show_anti_vaxxers_are_the_climate_denying_nutjobs_of_the_left/

 

Cheney tries to blame the Iraq chaos on Obama

When FNC calls you out like you were a Democrat involved in Benghazi, you know you're a major tool, Cheney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/megyn-kelly-dick-cheney-iraq_n_5510635.html

Tricky Dick 2.0 wrote a WSJ op-ed recently insinuating that the situation in Iraq now is Obama's fault. While I tend to agree that Obama's cabinet was a bit too eager to put Iraq in the rear view mirror without sufficient monitoring of the screwed up Maliki regime (easy to say in hindsight though), blaming Obama for what has recently transpired is like blaming the plumber for not fixing the toilet you clogged fast enough.

Obama never supported the Iraq invasion, when Dems like Hillary, Pelosi, and Biden caved to the post-9/11 mania. When he took office in 2008, the majority of his voters wanted us out of Iraq, especially because the Surge and Sunni Awakening seemed to put us on better footing to do so. Clearly we could have done more to ensure a better functioning state of Iraq, but I don't think it was feasible to have maintained a Korea-like long-term military presence there as McCain types claim that they advocated all along (even if that would have prevented the ISIS-led Sunni offensive).

For Cheney and other Bushies to tsk tsk Obama, while totally dismissing their past mistakes and role in the current mess, is a level of gall that I cannot possible hope to comprehend. Let's remember that the premise for the neocon War on Terror was basically: states that harbor terrorists are equivalent enemies to the terrorists themselves, and forcibly removing threatening regimes and replacing them with western democracy/freedom will make us safer. Well, Al Qaeda and Shia militias were not able to exist in Saddam's Iraq. Our flawed occupation allowed jihadists to congregate in Iraq, and enabled a state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, to indirectly kill Americans and gain more influence in the region. The regime change in Baghdad that we orchestrated has replaced a brutal, corrupt Sunni Ba'athist dictator with a less brutal but more corrupt and sectarian Shia gang. Well, at least the Kurds got semi-autonomy. So the Bushies' hubris and incompetence pretty much negated their own vision for national security, to the tune of over $1T in costs, tens of thousands of US troops killed/wounded, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

While Cheney types never really acknowledge or apologize for the fact that there were no WMDs, they keep trying to twist the record by claiming that they made "the right call" at the time, given the facts. The whole world wanted Saddam gone and there was virtual consensus that he had weapons. Sure, Saddam had few international friends, but I think most of us would have preferred him in power a little longer vs. breaking int'l laws and condemning Iraq to civil war. And maybe there was near consensus among the ignorant Congress (after sufficient bribery and intimidation), but the UN and international community was far from convinced about Saddam's arsenal and collaborations with Osama. But rather than face up to the truth, it's easier for the Bushies to retreat to their self-righteous dream world and dump their garbage on the black Muslim socialist instead. I suppose I am not surprised with this behavior, but I am surprised that the MSM would continue to give these discredited, disgraceful failures a podium from which to white-wash their transgressions and disseminate more BS.

With all the Iraq stuff still fresh in the headlines in 2004 (but apparently unable to penetrate the Bush bubble), remember how infallible, god-anointed Dubya couldn't even cite a single mistake during his presidency when asked by the media? These are the people who bullied us into Iraq, who are mostly responsible for the current chaos (at least from the western side of the equation), and who have the nerve to criticize others about it now.

Eccentric Chinese rich guy tries to give out money and make headlines in New York City

Maybe you heard about the eccentric Chinese industrialist who pulled a charity stunt in NYC?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDH4C0B956Y
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/world/asia/chen-guangbiao-profile/

While it was a generous action, instead of one posh NYC lunch for 200 needy folks (assuming $30/pers), a scalable, efficient charity like Second Harvest could have delivered 12K meals (60X impact). A businessman should know better, but I guess there are no headlines in that. Chen says his "wealth is limited" and he wants to inspire other rich people to give. For the record, his net worth is above $700M, so if that is limited, I think the rest of us are in deep trouble. Also, I don't think he needs to waste a plane ride over to NYC to preach to the choir - Americans are WAY more charitable on average than Chinese (US #5 in the World Giving Index vs. China #141 on par with Rwanda). Well China considers HK (#19) and Taiwan (#52) its territory too, so in that case their aggregate giving score would be a bit higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index#2012_rankings

In 2009, 27% of China lived on less than $2/day (roughly the population of the US), so I don't think Chen has to go overseas to seek out the needy. And China now has 3/4 as many billionaires as the US (~300 vs. ~400), so their domestic pool of potential philanthropists is large too. No need to bring your antics here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty#Countries
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131764299/Average-Net-Worth-of-Billionaires-by-Country-The-2013-Hurun-Rich-List

What to do about ISIS, Iraq, and Syria?

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Iraq crisis and what to do next: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/getting-rid-of-maliki-wont-solve-iraqs-crisis/

----

I came across this article with a sort of summary of ISIS that i found interesting.  the writer's point is that Iraq was inevitably going to be a 3-state division.  Sunni, Shia, Kurds.  Baghdad has no chance of falling, Kurdish north has little chance of invasion, and ISIS was simply the first group to be able to tap the opportunity.   

----

Yeah I agree - the media and hawks always make any sort of new threat into super-villains (esp. if they're Muslim). Apparently ISIS or affiliates paid key commanders of the Iraqi Forces to defect/desert, and that encouraged the regular troops to flee as well. It's not on YT due to copyright, but Maher had a great monologue from his June 6 show about the 5 Taliban we traded for Bergdahl. Morons like McCain made those 5 out to be like the Legion of Doom or something, when really they are just marginal "terrorists" who have been out of the game for 12 years. Hardly an imminent threat to the US. But as your link said, hype hype hype. Plus, this offensive is not totally driven by ISIS. They are relatively small, but have the tacit or overt support of the Sunni tribes and paramilitaries in the area. Rolling into a vacated city is different than holding it vs. a modern gov't backed military.

I am not sure about our role in diffusing the civil/sectarian conflict in the Levant now. Rand Paul types advocate that we stay out, and just let the sects "have at it" like the Christians did in the 16th Century. It's their land and their problems that we are not qualified to solve for them. Short-sighted cynics would even say that it's great for Sunni and Shia militants to kill each other (but what about the innocents?). Maybe all this is a normal progression of major religions, and eventually they will mature into relatively peaceful coexistence.

Personally, I don't think that is feasible given America's tradition of global leadership and official stance on human rights (plus other nations' expectations of our leadership). Unfortunately there is no better alternative to broker a deal (Iran, Saudi, EU, China, Russia). However, the Syrian civil war is in its 4th year with over 200K dead and not much "concern" by western powers - which has caused us to lose more cred on the Arab Street. If we intervene in the region, it is going to be costly for us. But we should act when the long-term costs of inaction are worse (economic, reputation, safety of our local allies, etc.). The problem is it's really hard to estimate the costs of inaction. Maybe that is for the best, because once we commit, it can't be undone - as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ideally, if we can somehow cut off support from rich Gulf Sunnis, Iran, and the inflow of foreign fighters, the Syria-Iraq conflicts may naturally simmer down without us having to put boots on the ground. If we can use our military resources to keep humanitarian corridors open, aid reaching the needy, and massacre prevention - it could buy some time for reasonable leaders to make a deal. But all of this is pie-in-the-sky and fraught with risks too.

You probably noticed that I said nothing about leadership change and nation building. We can't do that stuff competently so we shouldn't even try.

The psychology and sociology of gun rights

I was reading a short exchange on gun rights on FB (yes, with a kid now that is my only connection to the outside world LOL). I don't remember all the details, and either I or FB (or both) are too stupid to have comment searchability, but my thoughts were:

Gun rights proponents often fail to consider how other parties are impacted by their stance. Yes, I suppose it is important that they feel that their rights to have the option to commit violence (in a patriotic, lawful manner of course) are not infringed, but does that supersede the rights of others to feel safe, or even to live? And what about all the extra costs imposed on society to try to safely manage gun ownership/use? Maybe pro-gun folks would say that any regulation is unnecessary then - so would they be OK with their neighbors owning artillery and doing target practice in the church parking lot? In a society where none of us is king, we make rights tradeoffs all the time. We have the right to be offensive jerks in most situations, but we don't, often because of the self-serving (and totally valid) reason that it is not prudent. Unless you are a guy like Rush who gets rich by being a jerk.

We practice self-restraint and self-censorship when it serves our interests, so why can't we do the same when it serves the greater social good? First of all, we're selfish. And that is the essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if you decide to be good and a team player, you may get taken advantage of and end up worse off than if you continued to be bad, because everyone else is being bad. Of course gov't incentives and regulations could resolve the dilemma fairly easily, but the 2nd Amend., NRA, and such make that nearly impossible.

So who has the right to the option of violence in society? I remember in a previous email thread, J said something like in orderly societies, the state has a monopoly on violence. Otherwise you have Mad Max if citizens are permitted to resolve disputes and settle scores with weapons. We surrender some of our individualism and freedom to be part of society, because society confers some benefits and advantages that we couldn't get on our own. It's a good deal for many of us. Sometime we don't have a choice; if we want to be a recluse in the woods, I think we still have to file tax returns or the Feds may come after us. Maybe that is a violation of our individual freedoms, but as far as I know, no human has ever lived with absolute freedom (especially while having a family!). Even the cave men were restrained by the elements, hunger, and predators. Even Adam and Eve couldn't eat the apple. So this bizarre conservative fixation on absolute liberty as an attainable goal is puzzling to me, especially since many of them have a fairly negative view on human nature. Even the hardcore Marxists set limits on their grand plans to collectivize everything.

I know I am wading into philosophical territory where I am not knowledgeable enough to make much sense, but I hope you get my drift. Looping back on the "monopoly on violence" issue, obviously the risk is: what would happen to the poor citizenry if the gov't decides to abuse its monopoly and subjugate us? Well isn't that the whole point of political engagement and civic responsibility? Our gov't is of/by/for the people, so if we notice that it is descending toward tyranny, we take peaceful, proactive, corrective action. Relying on guns as a check on gov't abuse is like relying on surgery in medicine. Sure it may accomplish the goal, but there are plenty of less extreme, less risky alternatives that you can employ to fix the problem before ever needing to resort to the nuclear option. So gun patriots likely can do more good for their country and their loved ones by educating themselves, voting, and volunteering, instead of stockpiling more AR-15s and open-carrying them to Starbucks. But that is not glamorous enough I guess.

Obviously, the NRA and gun industry have pitched the "guns = freedom and defense of liberty" narrative pretty well, and plenty of politicians are echoing it. Now all of a sudden you are Capt. America if you buy a Glock (an Austrian product by the way). It's pretty intoxicating. Why go through the effort of doing all the boring, thankless work of being a good person/citizen when you can just arm yourself, and voila? It's like the choice between the unending discipline of healthy dieting and exercise vs. the one-off liposuction and surgery to look good. If you have the money, why not take the easier shortcut? It relates to the whole freedom argument - being good all the time is hard work; it cramps your style. I am not sure if this reflects the schizophrenia or genius of our system, but in order to ensure liberty and freedom for all, we have to sacrifice our freedom to diligently maintain it. Guns give us a lazy opt-out.

There is the whole potency and self esteem angle too. Somewhat related to the Rodger UCSB case, many men (and gun culture is overwhelmingly white male) probably feel emasculated and minimized by society at times (try being a woman, or an underprivileged minority then). That is partly due to unrealistic and frankly juvenile expectations. Nearly omnipresent messaging has told us that we are supposed to be "the man" with all the wealth, power, women, etc. We're supposed to be winners who get our way every time. Obviously that can't happen unless everyone's interests are aligned, and then we are back to Marxist territory. And a society of all alpha males is a scary thought to me (that is called frat row at USC).

It's frustrating and hard on the ego to compromise, feel disappointment, and get crapped on by others. So again, instead of doing the hard work of self-improvement, setting reasonable limits/goals, and strategic decision making so that we can feel happier and more successful, we lazily stay the course and blame everyone else instead if we're not living the perfect dream life. We buy a gun because the marketing tells us we'll be more of a man with it. And tragically, some of us may turn to that gun when things don't go our way, or we use it as a shortcut to get what we want unlawfully (or lawfully if you are in a Stand-Your-Ground state). That is one reason why guns are so dangerous - they channel all our internal insecurities, angst, and flaws into physical harm. Men just need Fight Club instead? But maybe that is why guns are so alluring too. They give some people an outlet to release all their baggage and demons to the world, and damn the consequences. Again, juvenile selfish thinking. Guns enable people, in their deepest moments of fearful desperation, to think they can employ violence to take back the power that society has unfairly deprived them.

So what is the remedy? Sadly, enough data suggests that more killings won't change our ways/laws, even if it worked in Australia and parts of Europe. We can't expect lawmakers and bureaucrats will solve the Prisoner's Dilemma for us. Unfortunately it has to start with each of us. We have to visibly commit to the hard work of being a peaceful, well-adjusted, engaged citizen (amidst all the dysfunctional messaging that continually tempts us to do otherwise). Noblesse oblige: we have to be happy and proud to give up some freedoms so that we can all have more freedom and liberty (same thing applies to the climate change and economic inequality issues, among others). That is why I personally do not think mental health is the main driving force behind America's gun violence epidemic. Most murders are fairly rational, which is the problem. We have to change people's values and mental calculus so that guns and violence are not the rational option. Of course changing minds is hard, but it can be done (racism, smoking, gay rights, etc.). Every revolution started with one person.

------

Jon Stewart on the intersection of Open Carry and Stand Your Ground (a.k.a. Perpetual Violence Machine):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/jon-stewart-open-carry_n_5457760.html

"You guys are idiots there are kids in here." - Chili's patron

Amazingly, some gun nuts are scary enough to even bully the NRA into submission! The Texas Open Carry club was first criticized by the NRA for drawing unnecessary, negative, risky attention to themselves and the gun rights issue (all true). But after an angry response from parts of the "gun base", they issued new statements supporting the right to Open Carry.

Some good links

A visit to the Bush Museum: http://www.vice.com/read/the-george-w-bush-museum-is-just-as-infuriating-as-you-think-it-is?utm_source=vicefbus

A pretty impressive study about reparations for blacks, highlighting the pernicious effects of housing inequality on top of the more familiar US racist policies: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

Plenty of GOP lawmakers urged the White House to get Bergdahl back at any cost before recently changing their minds: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html

A former Bush admin. security adviser: "Sometime in the next couple of years, whether it's in the beginning of 2015 or shortly thereafter, this conflict in Afghanistan is winding down, and we would be required, at least under the traditional laws of war, to return people that we've detained in that conflict," he said. "So it seems in this case, we've gotten -- we traded them for reasonable deal here."

"What we left behind" when we pulled out of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307980657/exploring-what-we-left-behind-in-iraq
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we did.

The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power, Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000 civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was 2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.

There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix, the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to offshore personal accounts.

So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead, decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted, and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.

As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable - after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian handlers were against it too.

-----

since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been pretty stable.  They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.  As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but free speech was not tolerated at all.  Now the social freedoms are minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.  Political dissent is not discouraged.  There is a high literacy rate.  I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an american puppet government.

Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for anyone.  How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us?  Do you really think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there?  The only thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and building materials.  They're an educated population.  They can rebuild and choose their own government.  

American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest and nothing else.  We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its people.  I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or uppity. 

------

Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi) currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too. Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (green revolution). And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly 72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.

I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us "in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control. Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us) to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.

Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago, and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a hornet's nest of problems and corruption. 

Rodger and the UCSB murders

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/05/26/amid-multiple-warning-signs-alleged-isla-vista-killer-slipped-through-system/
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2017/05/27/legislation-santa-barbara-shootings/

It seems like we have this conversation every few months. The press and social media are active as usual, with a WP commentator even insinuating that Judd Apatow movies are to blame for Rodger's unrealistic expectations for his sex life (like how video games were behind Adam Lanza, and Marilyn Manson led to Columbine).

Most people are dismissing Rodger as just "crazy". He was diagnosed with mild autism but was not on any drugs. However, if all of us got thorough psych evals, I am sure over half of us would register something. After reading some of his "manifesto", he doesn't strike me as deranged or irrational. He of course carefully planned the rampage and kept his composure enough to convince the sheriff's dept. that he was not a threat. Personally, I think this case is more about Rodger's morals/socialization than mental illness. Unfortunately, perfectly sane people can hurt and kill others, as long as their worldview/values/ideology are compatible.

Most people in society realize that they need to address grievances lawfully, and don't have the right to be judge and executioner over perceived injustices. Teaching kids to have grit is popular these days too. At a basic level, kids may have better life outcomes if they learn to handle adversity without having egotistical victim complex and homicidal vengeance like Rodger. That is obvious. So parenting and communication could have made a difference. And then there is the cultural angle, especially among college-aged people where hormone-driven sexual assaults are outrageously high. Young men are bombarded by ludicrous messages that they are losers if they do not bed hot babes every week, no means yes, it's always someone else's fault, and so on. Fortunately better judgment and morals usually win out in the public space.

But most of us are subject to the misogynist culture, and most of us don't rape or kill. Most mentally ill people or gun owners don't either. So what is the key variable that separates mass killers from the rest of us? A tragic combination of these and bad luck? If we can't isolate the personal/social causes and take preventative measures, then the next best thing is limiting the ability of murderous people to access weapons.

Gun ownership rates are correlated with gun murders. The NRA would say causation is reversed - people need to own guns in those places because they live in dangerous places. But a reader on the KQED blog made a good point - instead of (or in addition to) the sheriff interviewing Rodger, could they check the database to see if he owns guns, and whether he bought them recently? For decades the NRA has blocked access to info like that, which has infuriated the public and law enforcement alike. Felons can't own guns, even if they didn't commit a violent crime. So why can a moody 14 year old, alcoholic, or a bipolar person legally own a gun? Some would argue that half of Rodger's victims died by knife. But that is just an anecdote - guns kill way more people than knives each year.

Did BP and the Feds do more harm than good trying to clean up the Gulf?

BP's Gulf PR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoOfIR4Vk1o

Probably closer to the truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLzacnH3u50

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR5ieufbcAk

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1cXrkw9n-E

The oil's all gone, victims are fairly compensated, and the Gulf is just like how it used to be, right?

We expected this problem wouldn't go away so smoothly, and unfortunately we were proven right. BP seemed to care more about concealing their Gulf spill rather than actually cleaning it properly. Remember how they heavily relied on chemical dispersants, such as Corexit (sounds like maximum strength white-out)? Corexit is banned by many nations, but is manufactured by Ecolab in the US, so it is still open for business (most times, the burden of proof is not on the company but on environmentalists/others to prove that a substance causes harm). Other nations prefer to use oil eating microbes, but Corexit just dissolves oil globs into smaller ones (out of sight, out of mind). The hope was that sea life would digest the smaller droplets and the problem would be solved (but what happens when sea life ingests the Corexit too?). 4 years after the disaster, oil is still washing up on the Gulf Coast. So maybe some of the millions of barrels of oil were digested, but clearly a great deal was not.

So the dispersant strategy was partly ineffective, but what about the side effects? Anything that chemically separates aggregated hydrocarbons is probably not healthy for other organic matter. When Corexit was used in Valdez and the Gulf, hundreds of workers came down with respiratory issues (the chemical is sprayed out of hoses and nozzles like Agent Orange, and can be easily inhaled). Coastal residents also documented many cases of skin rashes and boils. BP and the Coast Guard did not have its cleaning crews wear any protective clothing or respirators. According to VICE, they even barred people from wearing respirators because of the negative impression.

Under the water, many studies have shown that Corexit+oil is much more toxic on some marine life than oil or Corexit alone. So the shrimping industry was heavily affected too. One business reported ~50% of shrimp exhibiting illnesses and deformities, often in the gills. They are obviously unsellable and possibly unsafe for consumption (despite the FDA quickly pronouncing Gulf seafood to be safe just 4 months after the blowout... but it takes them 10 years to declare a medicine to be safe?).

Clearly, this cautionary tale demonstrates the dangers of (1) our dependence on fossil fuels, (2) our hubris that the latest technologies will never fail and we can safely tap more challenging resource deposits in more environmentally sensitive areas, (3) the political influences of the petrochemical industry, and (4) lax/incompetent regulation. Also, a destroyed city can be rebuilt, but a decimated ecosystem may be irreversible (at least on human schedules).

BP should not only compensate victims of the blowout, but also of the "cleanup". Whoever authorized the use of Corexit at this scale (without sufficient impact study a priori and public oversight) should be fired and possibly jailed. If this isn't grounds for prohibiting a foreign company from doing business in the US (and hopefully nationalizing their assets), I don't know what is. "Corporations are people, too", but if we can drone-execute a US citizen overseas without trial, then we should be able to give companies a lifetime ban if the body of evidence is so compelling. We lock up poor minorities and throw away the key, and AFAIK they did much less harm to the US than BP so far.

Fascinating origin story of HIV

http://www.radiolab.org/story/169879-patient-zero/

Ffwd past the Typhoid Mary story if you are short on time (to about 15:00).

Refugee to native ratios

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

I thought this was interesting and disappointing. We've already discussed America's betrayal of Iraqi translators and their promised immigration, but this is an overall view. It's not a stretch to say that America is a nation of immigrants and became a superpower in no small part from recent immigrants' contributions. Not to mention that we were taught in school that the US upholds certain principles such as protecting the vulnerable and helping the needy (per capita we are still a very generous nation).

The wiki page above suggests that we are less welcoming of refugees than Armenia. And overall, Ethiopia and civil rights champion China have more foreign refugees than we do. What gives? Considering our defense budget (even with austerity, our share is 65% of global) and how much foreign military aid we give to allies, you'd think we could at least finance some refugee camps or relocation programs, if our DHS/State refuse to allow refugees within our borders for security reasons and red tape.

The shift from federal poverty programs to the states and private NGOs/churches in the US is fairly well documented, and I wonder if foreign aid is following a similar trend. Oxfam, MSF, and others have to pick up the slack for less generous G20 governments (and of course those orgs are funded by donations). In the Mideast and Central Africa (where many conflicts are occurring), neighboring nations are on the front lines of the refugee crisis and bursting at the seams. Over a million Iraqis fled the war and are living elsewhere, but Iraq now has to host some 200K refugees from Syria.

If you can believe, the native:refugee ratios for Jordan and Lebanon is under 10:1. You can imagine the social strains and risks (the US would probably collapse under those conditions, so I don't know how poorer states do it). The refugees may not speak the language, don't have work or school authorization, and if they can find low-wage work - that may cause resentment among the locals (who often are in precarious economic situations too). They are literally living in tents for years, waiting and hoping to return home some day when it's safer. Many fall prey to scamsters offering fake visas or promises to get to the west. A whole generation of youth are at risk of having little to no future. Sure, I understand that tax dollars flow from the rich nations to the UN and other orgs, who distribute it to the camps and local authorities. But it is not nearly enough. This is yet another facet of our broken immigration system. We can't even get enough skilled foreign workers from Asia, so I suppose there is no hope for refugees from insecure parts of the world. Distance can't be in issue, since SWE/NOR's ratio is about 100:1, while the US is 1,200:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Historically, the US has greatly benefited from harboring refugees from European states undergoing war/revolution, as well as from our allies in Asia. Persian-Americans and Jewish-Americans have flourished here after the 1979 revolution and WWII, respectively. Those who are given a chance here often become some of our most patriotic and productive citizens. They are highly motivated to make the most of this precious opportunity, succeed, and give back. They also bridge the diplomatic gap between the US and other states who may be on rocky terms with us. Humanitarian arguments aside, even from a selfish economic/strategic standpoint, it makes sense for us to take in more refugees.

-----

How is admittance of refugees different than other immigrants?  Are camps really the norm?  Are they expected to return at some point?

-----

I am not sure about the answers but here is some brief digging:

It seems that the majority of refugees do live in camps, maybe due to the host nation's infrastructure limitations and uncertainty over their immigration/assimilation policies. The conditions in the camps are pretty bad, like a prison, or like the first scene in Scarface (I guess the US loved to take in Cuban refugees in the '80s because that showed how much better the US was vs. Castro's Cuba). But still, it's better than facing shelling and starvation every day in Homs, or risking rape and murder in the Central Af. Republic. 

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/consider-this/Consider-This-blog/2014/2/4/photos-of-the-unknownrefugeecrisis.html

Re: the US law - I think refugees can apply for temporary protected status or full asylum here, but I imagine the process is slow and with a high rejection rate. Also, if many of the refugees have little education and access to US diplomatic personnel, how can they apply? I doubt they could afford their airfare to the US either. But in the Syria case, I don't think we have an embassy there, so maybe we could reach out to the refugees who already made it to Turkey, Jordan, etc. Interview them in the camps, grant some of them visas, and set them up with host families or relatives here?

http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum

For the few who get refugee status for themselves and their families, I think they go through the regular green card process if they want to stay here permanently. Though I am not sure what happens if their app is rejected - maybe they get deported to another nation that will take them (but not their home country where they could still be at risk)? I guess we have deported 3,000 Cubans in the last 30 years, but not sure to where.

http://www.usimmigration.com/new-rule-cubans.html

And during the Bush years, it seems that refugee Cambodians convicted of a crime (not just violent acts, but in some cases merely driving drunk or possessing an unlicensed weapon) in the US faced deportation to Cambodia, even if they grew up here and know little about Cambodian culture. It is possible that jail and torture (and poverty at the very least) awaited them in Cambodia.

http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Refugees-with-a-record-face-shock-deportation-1089366.php

Lastly, this is somewhat related - but there is growing furor at the US Border Patrol for their record of using deadly force against Mexican nationals who weren't really a threat to anyone. In most cases, there was little to no investigation, disclosure, and punishment for the agents involved. Like most law enforcement agencies, there seems to be a circle-the-wagons and silent-treatment mentality regarding public oversight and accountability.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308220322/u-s-border-patrol-scrutinized-for-increasing-fatalities

Climate change defeatism

I know we've talked about climate change for years, and of course it's only getting worse. It has been more in my consciousness recently because I had some class projects on it, and it seems to be in my News Feed a lot.

From the little I know, unfortunately I think it's too fucking late. Many of the underlying mechanisms are positive feedback loops, so it makes it even harder to reverse them - even if we had the social consensus and investments. Deforestation, reduced food production, and more and more resources wasted on extreme weather/fire/sea level responses - it will likely be more crippling on humanity than the aging Baby Boomers. 

People in our situations will likely have decent lives in spite of climate change. We have the mobility and resources to avoid a lot of the pains. But billions of others are not so lucky, and many species will die out or be decimated in our lifetimes too. Species that never meant humans any harm. They just want to live and we took that from them.

So even though we may not suffer much directly, we will have to live with the shame that we presided over the biggest environmental calamity since the meteor that wiped out the dinos. Clearly, industrialized humans have been the worse thing for the planet. All because of the pursuit of wealth (or pursuit of happiness/survival). So future humans will look back at us the way we look at the Nazis or Crusaders. That is just pitiful to me.

Of course most of this is on the Boomers instead of the younger generations, but we weren't strong enough to overthrow those fucks and course correct. We want to be like them, that is the problem.

Do you have any thoughts on this stuff? Sorry for being so negative, but it's hard to feel upbeat about anything when you look at the various data. Sure, I do believe humans will find cost-effective ways to get renewable energy, protect coastal cities, grow food with a smaller environmental footprint, and conserve way better. But those things just make our lives more comfortable - they don't do much for the poor or the various species/ecosystems under threat.

PS - maybe you saw this how Gates is telling China's mega rich to help the poor. What do you think about wealth inequality in China vs. the west? Can China's social structure survive more decades of inflation, environmental degradation, construction bubble, and a growing wealth gap?

------

From what I understand, major changes to the global climate are now more or less inevitable. Maybe I'm behind on the science, but I also thought that we can still mitigate the damage somewhat? 

Of course a lot of the damage due to climate change is senseless and was avoidable, but to the extent that it wasn't avoidable, I don't think we can be too hard on ourselves. The best we can do is mitigate it and teach our children to do better. Maybe I've gotten too cynical, but I never really expected humanity to do much about it. If you follow politics closely, it's basically just a series of leaders kicking the can down the road on hard decisions. 

The EU did that with the financial crisis, it's estimated that as a result of the German's need to "teach the Greeks a lesson," (in reality the problems had nothing to do with the average Greek citizen) millions of people have been out of work, had their soul crushed, and been made to feel worthless in Europe  and tens of thousands have committed suicide that otherwise wouldn't have: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/europe/increasingly-in-europe-suicides-by-economic-crisis.html?pagewanted=all

In the US, national single payer health care, if instituted any of the earlier junctures in which it was attempted to pass, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the years, and even with Obamacare, lack of a truly comprehensive health care system will kill untold thousands more (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us).

Poverty in the US was once thought to be possible to eradicate, and in fact we once came pretty close with the Great Society program. But thanks to Reagan, we do too little to actually fix the problem, and as a result hundreds of thousands go hungry, homeless, and lack adequate health care and social services on a daily basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States The estimated cost to fix this is a trivial percent of the cost of what we spent on Iraq and only a smallish sliver of our annual defense budget.

I don't bring these up to be overly pessimistic, but I guess I see these problems as much more directly impactful on society than climate change and we can't even remove vested interests from them (or only with a lot of effort, see Obamacare) to make any headway. I think climate change is one of those things where people in society feel that they can "make a difference" more than these other problems above by buying a more fuel-efficient car, recycling, etc. and of course it gets a lot of messaging on lefty blogs/news sources. And it definitely should - it is an important issue.

But at the same time I feel like there are these issues where people are suffering /now/, where society could do something, but because the people are poor or invisible, we don't do anything. And that's what really breaks my heart. 

As for China, I think the Chinese are getting more altruistic, and that's a good thing. I think that one of the ironic things about Communism was that if you wanted to survive, you, by necessity, had to look out for number one - if you cared about anyone else's survival, you might starve or really go without. That carried over after the reform era began but things are changing. A new generation is growing up that has seen the excesses of development and want to do something about it. Still, they're a ways from Western level of altruism and I think there's a lot less trust of NGOs in China than there are in the US (and rightfully so - even supposedly well run US NGOs waste a lot of their money).

------

Re: China - is there a similar tension between the 1% and 99% like we see in places like the US and Brazil? Or do the poor kind of accept that the connected elites in the Party hoard all the money too? I just don't know if there is much culture of sharing in China, as you said. Especially with the rapid transition from Great Leap to #2 economy, now it's all about "me" and conspicuous consumption, etc. Luxury brands now say that China is their key market, right? Also, Beijing gives way less foreign aid relative to its GDP vs. others in the G20. I guess you could call their projects in the 3rd world "aid" - securing resources rights by giving Congo a shitty dam or railway that is shoddy and won't add much value to the host nation (plus it's all built by immigrant Chinese, so it doesn't produce much vocational training, jobs, and economic activity for the locals - hence the resentment by the locals).

Wow, I didn't know about the Greece suicide data, that is really sad. I agree that the social problems you mentioned are more easily and cheaply fixed than climate change, and could save more lives. I also agree that we really had a chance with LBJ and the Great Society to wipe out poverty and have a more fair, humane nation. All the conditions were right, but he got sidetracked with Vietnam and then stagflation-oil embargo-Iran hit us, and the GOP got to take over and dismantle some of the progress. IMO, we'll never get such an opportunity again. It's not just you; we're all more cynical with harder hearts these days I think.

But re: climate change, I would have hoped for more traction/progress, because unlike poverty/inequality issues, it's not about "why should the rich help the needy?" Climate change is both a threat and opportunity for the rich. Do they want their kids to be subjected to superstorms and droughts for perpetuity? And those extreme events wreak havoc on the stability of global markets and their investments. Lastly, climate change is a huge opportunity too (industries to either mitigate or adapt to it). It's a trillion dollar problem with huge profits to be made for the first movers - so why haven't we seen it (apart from the impressive advances in solar, and energy efficiency for some products)? 

I forget which NYT journalist said it, but his comment was along the lines of "lightbulbs aren't going to solve climate change." There is only so much a conscientious consumer can do. Sure we can get a Prius, improve our home's insulation, and change some of our behaviors, but even if millions of us had the money/time to make those changes, it would barely affect the carbon situation. The main drivers are deforestation, agribusiness, and power generation. Huge, politically connected, int'l industries where only coalitions of governments have enough power and reach to move them (if they wanted to). Sure, consumers en masse could give up beef or boycott Indonesia until their economy stops burning rainforest - but we know it won't happen because we are addicted to carbon-intensive products and services.

Bottom line, climate change could eat up 10% or more of global GDP, and reduce crops/fish yields by 20% or more. That is freaking scary. With a growing population and more consumption in Asia, something's gotta give. All the conflicts that could arise due to climate-related problems could also eat up gov't resources, attention, and lives. So overall it's a major deadweight loss for humanity, and likely irreversible at this point.

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).