Cheney and the GOP criticizing Obama over Crimea

http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-putin-obama-ukraine-171405306.html

I find it ironic (but typical) that Cheney and others in the GOP (except for the Paul family libertarians) would bash Obama for being "weak" in the face of Putin's aggression in Crimea. Politicians have short memories, but I seem to recall that Bush did jack squat against Russia's overt invasion of Georgia in 2008 (and in that war, >700 people died whereas in Crimea one guy got a concussion so far). Diplomacy, not threats or military buildup, eventually led to a Russian withdrawal and UN peacekeeping mission.

Obama said that the US would issue travel restrictions and asset freezes of Russian nationals tied to the Crimea situation (that is already more than Bush did in 2008). We are giving $1B in aid to Ukraine's bankrupt transition gov't. Obama is pulling out of a future G8 summit in Sochi and will likely cut some planned joint military activities. But that's about all he can do for now. If we can't pressure Assad to change course, what do you think we can do against a top energy producer and nuclear arsenal? It remains to be seen if the EU will implement these sanctions too in order to make them more effective, but of course they have more to lose being closer proximity and dependent on Russia for gas and trade.

Previously, I was against Bush's plans to build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe (ostensibly to counter Iran, but we know who it was meant for). I thought it was provocative to Russia, ineffective, and a handout to Lockheed. Our defense budget is tighter now, but I am reconsidering whether the missile shield would be useful as a strategic deterrent (albeit a pricey one). Russia should abandon their plans to reclaim former Soviet republics, as the West is not going to stand for it as long as the peoples of Eastern Europe are choosing Western values over Putinism.

After the Georgia War:

The [2008 EU] Report claimed that Russian citizenship, conferred to the vast part of Abkhaz and Ossetians may not be considered legally binding under international law. As a result, the interests of these people may not be used as a reason for starting military actions, in defense of Russian citizens living abroad.

A humane and intelligent approach to end-of-life medical care

This interview with physician Sherwin Nuland was very thoughtful and IMO is a prudent approach to the uncomfortable subject of managing end-of-life care decisions. I know medicine and death are very personal and emotional subjects, but I think if we dispassionately put the patient's best interests first and keep expectations reasonable, everyone will end up happier (especially the deceased) and society can save a lot of health care resources.

One issue that the doc didn't cover in the interview was assisted suicide, which has few rational arguments against it, and is becoming more accepted nationwide - similar to legal pot and gay marriage.

-----

Also heard something about end-of-life care on NPR the other day.  There was a particular city that had a big promotion of advanced medical directives.  What they found was that, as a result, medical costs went down quite a bit in their city.  Apparently when people make a positive choice about the type of life they consider worth living it is significantly less expensive than the care legally mandated in the absence of a positive choice.

The major roadblock to those advanced directives is human effort and human emotion.  Understandable and probably not an incredibly high hurdle to overcome.

-----

Agreed. More and more people are preferring to die relatively peacefully at home or hospice rather than "keep fighting" to the end with all the tubes and drugs in them at County General. And the irony is that the former group tends to last longer, and with less grief on themselves and the family, than the latter (obviously at much lower cost too as you said).

There are plenty of war stories where the stubborn commander refused to face reality and sentenced himself and his men to preventable death. Even worse, a stupid, egomaniac dictator doesn't understand opportunity cost, ignores his generals' pleas, and keeps throwing finite resources at an unwinnable battle, which ironically contributes to losing the overall war - see Stalingrad or Guadalcanal. We tend to mock those men and use their folly as teachable moments. So why can't we apply the same logic to medicine? Unfortunately there is such a thing as a no-win scenario, so the sooner we come to terms with that, the better it is for everyone. Would you gamble your life savings on 1 play at 1/1000 odds at the casino? Of course not - so why do we do it at the hospital? Is it because of moral hazard, or the finality/unknown nature of death?

On a personal note, what I really hate to see are relatives pressuring the dying person to "keep fighting" and "not let the disease win". It gives the false impression that the outcome is mostly in the patient's control, and it's a matter of effort/will. The patient has enough to worry about without that guilt. No one wants to be reminded that they are the source of the everyone's sadness, like it's their fault. Families may bring up outliers like Lance Armstrong, but forget that 99.99% of folks like Lance didn't make it. I'm not saying to abandon all hope, but at least don't impose ludicrous expectations. Unfortunately, the next of kin can get pretty selfish and they may not be ready to let go. But during these tough times, the best thing they can do is show as much comfort and compassion as possible for the dying.

But if it's the patient insisting on exhausting every medical possibility no matter the odds or costs, I am not sure how a physician or relative can/should dissuade them respectfully. 

Recent perspectives on income and the wealth gap

Bill Maher: the super rich have an oversized egotistical victim complex. Libertarians and conservatives can cut the crap, because most of the founding fathers commented that concentrated wealth is a danger to democracy (and back then the existence of a billionaire capitalist was less plausible than the Fountain of Youth). 

A caller on KQED: debating the minimum wage is a straw man until America implements more humane labor practices and expectations. Otherwise we're not much different than Tsarist Russia.

The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201402141000

We know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson  for success in America. It presents a certain formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused, doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.

First of all - every culture has segments who are flying high and some who are struggling. Anecdotes aren't really useful (John Roberts types thinking that racism is no longer a problem because Obama became president), and I think the authors are more interested in comparing group averages/medians and proportions. They think academic/economic success is America is tied to being an "out-group" with strong ethnic pride and a chip on the shoulder to succeed. Like some Asian immigrants were used to being at the top of their native societies, but have to start from scratch in America. So they push their kids hard to excel in school and return to prominence. But once the immigrants have been here for 3-4 generations (like some Irish, Chinese), then they start to lose that drive, assimilate (for better or worse), and lag behind more recent immigrants. Unfortunately, when you compare lower-income recent Chinese and Latino immigrants, the kids of the Chinese families are doing a lot better in the US - despite both of them coming from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in their homelands and filling similar social niches in the US. So something may be going on there.

Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist, fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds, and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social mobility and economic opportunity?

Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be correlated with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that data.

However, the authors don't really talk about the blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case, wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural background and customs. You give someone with any race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good. Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great things for others, while also profiting personally.

A thesis like theirs can easily be misconstrued to imply that some cultures are simply "better" than others. I really don't think the authors are going there. It's not like we can just decide to "act Jewish," and next generation our family will do as well as the Zuckerbergs. Some cultures are clearly struggling in America, and a greater emphasis on education, discipline, etc. would definitely help. But that may not be enough for many families who are burdened by the physical, emotional, and psychological disadvantages of poverty, geography, racism, macroeconomics, etc. That could partly explain why some recent African immigrants (esp. Nigerians) are on average doing a lot better in the US than many African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves.

And they also raise the question - what is the downside of this approach? As we probably know first-hand, it can be hard to live with parents who have a chip on their shoulder and skewed perspective on success. Like what was depicted in the Tiger Mom book, it's often not a very fun childhood when you're only getting "you're not good enough, no dinner if you mess up your piano recital, you have to be a doctor," etc. And it can be both good and bad for society if we raise kids who are obsessed with individual academic/economic success, yet may not be as concerned with other priorities like being a good person, citizen, neighbor, etc. History has shown us many times that people who feel they are a chosen race end up doing bad things to others. Fortunately US laws and social norms generally prevent that from happening, but I can envision problems associated with groups who think they are superior. Real/perceived discrimination against them is no excuse to embrace exceptionalism. "All men are created equal," remember?

What it all boils down to for me: I would hope that humans try to strike a balance between encouraging academic/economic success (especially for groups with a history of struggles), while not becoming single-minded, arrogant pricks in the process.

Another controversial Stand Your Ground killing in Florida

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/270874416/murder-trial-reminiscent-of-zimmerman-case-to-begin-in-florida
http://news.yahoo.com/murder-trial-opens-florida-shooting-over-loud-music-060201995--sector.html;_ylt=A0SO8yR2u.9SE2gAsPNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--

Yes, again the shooter is a middle-aged, suburban, white man and the victim is an unarmed black teen. It all started when the victim (Davis) and 3 friends were filling up gas next to the shooter (Dunn). Davis' car was playing loud music and Dunn asked them to turn it down. They complied, but later turned it back up and allegedly made some threatening comments to Dunn. Dunn claims to have seen one of them "reach down for something" in the car, so he pulled out his 9mm from his glove box and fired 4 rounds. No warning shot, no "Stop what you're doing I'm armed!"... just shoot first. But here is the worst part - the youths then proceeded to flee (understandable), and Dunn fired 4 more rounds into the departing vehicle (GREAT job Reuters for failing to include that important detail - of course NPR didn't forget).


I am not sure if any of those "gratuitous" shots were the kill shot, and a later search of Davis' vehicle revealed no weapons. That seems to violate SYG to me - there was no more threat, why keep shooting? He is not Dirty Harry. Was he trying to stop them from blasting their music next time? Some people think that violence is the default response to difficult situations, and they don't consider how that perception will make things worse for everyone.

-----

Yeah, and it's not like these guys had no choice. Both Zimmerman and Dunn were not having a crime committed against them. In both cases, they did/could have called the police to resolve it, and not directly confront. And in both cases, their escalating actions made violence more likely to ensue. To be fair, if Zimm or Dunn did those things to you or I, likely no one would be dead at the end of the day. But that's the point - they have no idea who they are dealing with. So maybe they should think about whether loud music or a hoodie is enough of a problem to risk the possibility of a gunfight. But a gun in your belt/car suddenly makes you Mr. Badass, so it changes your risk calculations.

That is one of the biggest problems associated with SYG laws and America's gun culture in general. Like Bill Maher joked, America's foreign policy is "What the F you looking at!?!" Same with domestic - why is violence too often the default response to an unpleasant situation? And in a competitive, free society, unpleasant altercations are inevitable. Do we have to go OK Corral every time someone else does something we don't like? The hubris and egoism associated with the rationale behind SYG is shocking to me. I can't believe higher courts haven't looking into the Constitutional implications too.

Pretty much this is the only situation where vigilantism is justified, when a fanatical drug cult takes over your community, there is no rule of law, and your corrupt government/military is ineffective:


http://latinousa.org/2014/01/31/michoacan-101-inside-civilian-militia-uprising/

We do not and should not live in a comic book.

Sochi: the most corrupt and immoral Games since Hitler

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00005&segmentID=2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/10581829/Sochi-Olympics-Nothing-but-a-monstrous-scam-says-Kremlin-critic.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zmzJ1ndHOQ

After Salt Lake, Athens, and Beijing, we know that we can't count on the Olympics for integrity, fiscal resp., and principles - but they've outdone themselves this year. These games will cost over $50B (what is reported to the public at least)... that is more than the combined value of all NBA teams, or the GDP of Bulgaria. Just for a month of sports that only about 10% of the world cares about (or knows how to play, or can even afford to play). Studies have shown that it's very hard to achieve positive ROI on a major modern sporting event, but that price tag is just ludicrous. It's like Iraq with less murder and torture - fat gov't contracts handed out to political pals to build bridges to nowhere with no durable value to the country. Abused Russian people deserve better - from their homophobic, megalomaniac leader especially, but from us too. 

Maybe the best thing we can do is boycott such travesties, and petition our leaders to protest. That might send a message to the event organizers/int'l orgs that their "customers" won't tolerate their horrible choice of host nations (and the social-environmental implications). Same goes for Brazil this summer for the World Cup.

I would hope the celebrity athletes and coaches would boycott as well, but I understand that their careers are short and they don't have many chances to medal. Even Jesse Owens went to compete in Nazi Germany (but at least by winning, he made a social statement - it's not like Shaun White winning another medal will do anything for gay rights or anti-corruption). I know there is no chance that NBC and other media companies would boycott, because they lust after the ad revenue. Forget moral principles, they would probably love to buy the rights to broadcast the hunger games (hosted by the Donald of course) if the audience was big enough.

Sochi is just Putin pissing on a tree trunk like a junkyard dog, or a spoiled brat on a global reality TV show. We shouldn't indulge him any more. We boycotted Soviet games in the past when that nation had more moral leaders than Putin.

The US will soon be the number one energy producer, but is it worth it?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303492504579111360245276476

This is mostly driven by fracking and the growing global demand for energy keeping fracking economical. I am not insinuating causation here, but it's probably not coincidence that the top energy producing nations are all corrupt, repressive, wealth imbalanced, polluted, and economically dysfunctional outside of the energy sector. Therefore, I am not sure we should want the US to go down the same path. The notable exceptions are Canada and Norway, but they benefit from strong public institutions and more balanced economies. In our post-Citizens United, underfunded-EPA, too-big-to-fail corporate reality, I just hope we don't resemble Nigeria or Russia too much. 

We've already discussed all the potential reasons that fracking is an environmental risk, but what about the economic upside? Some in the industry would claim that the fracking boom vaulted the US out of recession. It's undeniable that more jobs, corporate profits, and taxes were generated, but enough to have a material overall GDP impact? Business Insider and W Post are not sure (see below). The boom has triggered the market price of gas and electricity to go down a lot, but energy is a small fraction of modern industrial costs (compared to labor and raw materials), so it's not like the lower prices led to much higher profits or cheaper products for consumers. Also, the oil & gas industry is fairly automated with low labor participation relative to capital investment. So there weren't that many new jobs created, and even in drill-baby-drill Texas, only 6.5% of jobs are in energy (and 1% nationally). So even if the industry doubles in size (and you believe the API's claim that for every 1 new petro-job created, 2.7 other indirect jobs are too), it's not enough to make up for the 7M-plus jobs lost during the Great R. But what about GDP growth? Well, oil & gas is only 2.5% of our economy (it's a commodity after all), and of the 7.6% GDP growth the US experienced since 2009, only 0.6% can be attributed to the "energy boom" according to Capital Economics. 

Therefore, is all the environmental risk worth these meager benefits? As we've discussed before, just because it is economically justified at present to do something doesn't mean it's the best available course of action long-term. And in many cases, once we commit down a path, we can't undo it later. We can always drill in the future after more testing is done and if national needs dictate. But if we drill now (chasing short-term bucks and jobs, however small), we can never revert to "the way it used to be" if we discover that we made a mistake. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shale-boom-economy-is-overrated-2013-5?op=1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/23/the-oil-and-gas-boom-has-had-a-surprisingly-small-impact-on-the-u-s-economy/

Zappos gets rid of managers!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2014/01/03/zappos-gets-rid-of-all-managers/#!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zappos

I think chances are that this is just a fad/stunt, or if they are serious it will still turn out badly for them. :) I haven't read up on "holocracy" (a company organized around tasks/projects rather than depts/people), but to me it doesn't seem to be a natural fit for a mixed e-commerce firm with strong-willed people like Zappos. They have over 1,500 employees - I think it would be pretty hard to monitor and control such a diverse org without some sort of management chain. How would you resolve disputes, or make a controversial decision with ambiguous data? At some point a single leader has to make a call. I can also see performance evaluation and career development becoming a mess. Though they could theoretically save a lot of time/effort on less bureaucracy - but I thought they were an agile, lean Internet company already?

While I think the US workplace in general would benefit from more employee empowerment and democracy, we all know that such freedoms/privileges can be abused (and do not benefit productivity in all cases). While not really "fair", it probably makes more sense to empower and give more freedom to your top 20% performers (who really keep the company going), rather than everyone. More freedom could be an incentive for the other workers to strive toward too. I do like the Zappos idea of "lead links", or pseudo-managers who just assign tasks and resources, but don't have the authority to tell workers how to get stuff done. That is empowering, as few people like/need a micromanager (probably bad for performance and satisfaction anyway).

We are social animals, and have natural tendencies towards hierarchy. Of course even in a holocracy, there will be unofficial pecking orders, politics, and such. Could it degenerate into Survivor? :) But maybe Zappos could pull it off due to their "family culture." They really want their workforce to be like-minded Zappos fanatics. A lot of firms give lip service about creativity, team-first attitude, and passion, but I think they do a better job than most (especially compared to stuffy old firms like GM or Chase). Maybe it's just superficial propaganda, and deep down the workers are just going through the act and grumbling, but at least it's on their minds - even if they don't walk the talk 24/7 (who does?).  

I only know 1 person who worked at Zappos (a project manager), and she gave the place pretty bad reviews (especially top leadership). Maybe in that case, it's good to minimize their ability to do harm with a flat structure! But for the record, employee reviews on glassdoor seem generally positive. Though in a holocracy, what the heck do the former middle managers do then? Repurpose them to man the phone lines and pack boxes? I imagine they will have more time for business development and strategic analysis, but as we all know, middle managers may not be the most gifted employees in those areas, especially if they are past their prime and no longer strong with innovative thinking.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/The-Zappos-Family-Reviews-E19906.htm

Well, after AMZ bought Zappos, they do not report on division-specific financials, so we do not know how well their strategy and culture are working. But before they were acquired, I believe they were roughly a break-even business. Free shipping and unlimited returns are costly, though I guess their corporate strategy believed that reputation and customer loyalty are worth it in the long run. In general, it's an audacious assumption that enough online customers care more about service rather than low price to keep Zappos going. If that value proposition is inaccurate, then org structure is moot.

Reflecting on George Lucas and Star Wars

Taking a break from politics-business events, but unfortunately no less maddening :)

The top 10 ways Lucas messed up Episodes 4-6 in his special edition ("special" clearly denoting mentally deficient in this case): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0fTuPyfvho

I have the unaltered SW Eps 4-6 in .avi format if anyone wants them (low-res only, sorry), since you can't buy the original films anymore. In this case, I am happy to bootleg and "steal" from Disney and Lucas - it's morally justified like Robin Hood. I can't believe how mad I still am at Lucas for what he did to these films, and it's been over a decade haha. Well, he keeps poking us in the eye with horrible Eps 1-3 and more recently selling out to Disney.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145.html

This ticked me off too... Lucas is trying to "buy his way to the good side," even if the bulk of his "charity" will likely go to the education nonprofit that he runs. Well no matter how many of his superfluous billions he gives away, it doesn't change that fact that he made that loot by raping a cherished piece of Americana, sci-fi history, and cultural identity for millions. As a friend told me, Lucas is the "best and worst thing to happen to Star Wars". I know this is an unfair comparison, but if Vlad Putin uses his own money to build an orphanage, sure that is nice of him, but it doesn't absolve his other sins. I wonder if his cognitive dissonance and Death Star-sized ego permit him to realize how unhappy he has made the fans that he once filled with emotions and wonder. That betrayal will ultimately be his legacy.

We can respect Lucas for being a smart businessman/generous philanthropist, AND acknowledge that he is a total A-hole for ruining cherished Eps 4-6 and epic failing on Eps 1-3. If he was truly generous, he would have given the SW franchise to a nonprofit fan foundation, to make sure future content stays true to the mythos. His decision to sell to the likes of Disney nullified his giving ("blood money"). So it seems clear that Lucas has done nothing good for SW or humanity since 1983. He just helped himself and his investors at the expense of a major part of US film and cultural history.

----------

If you're desperate for a good version of the original, you should torrent this guy's despecialized version of Ep 4-6: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Harmys-STAR-WARS-Despecialized-Edition-HD-V25-MKV-IS-OUT-NOW/topic/12713/

Basically, he started with the Hi-Def versions that were released later, deleted all the dumb George Lucas later additions, and cleaned up some things even George Lucas missed (such as light saber colors being wrong), and remastered the sound. 

For people that have seen it, it's basically the ultimate nerd version of Star Wars; high def but true to the original (Lando shoots first!).

For the disaster of Episodes 1-3, there is always the Phantom Edit (http://starwarsfans.wikia.com/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit) which cuts out much of the crap in Episode 1. (He also made versions for 2 and 3). There's also The Editor Strikes Back, which condenses Ep 1-3 into a very watchable 85 mins: http://www.slashfilm.com/topher-grace-edited-star-wars-prequels-85minute-movie/ (shows just how much fluff and useless shit Lucas included in the Prequels really)

Even the viewing order has been challenged by fans online: http://www.nomachetejuggling.com/2011/11/11/the-star-wars-saga-suggested-viewing-order/ - basically, this guy argues the best viewing order is IV - V - II - III - VI. Now that the Editor Strikes Back has been released, I think you could make a good argument for IV (despecialized) - V (despecialized) - Editor Strikes Back - VI (despecialized) as more or less how Star Wars was meant to be experienced in a perfect world.

I guess in this day and age of Internet collaboration, there's just no way that George Lucas can try to keep sole creative control over something that nerds the world over cherish - fans will route around his ham-handed attempts to "improve" the originals.

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/384046-star-wars-despecialized-edition-remastered/

----------

Thx! I know I can always count on a fellow true fan for empathy and resources. Sadly I don't torrent (ignorance rather than respect for IP, LOL), but I will look into it. I found a guy on eBay who is selling unofficial DVDs of the unaltered trilogy, so I got that as a post-Xmas gift for myself. :) But mostly it's "historical record" for my daughter, so when she gets older, she will be able to experience the real SW the way we did (before Lucas and Mickey destroy all the surviving copies of the original trilogy).

---

More ludicrous changes in the recent Blu-Ray release: http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/08/ewoks-now-blink-in-blu-ray-release-of-return-of-the-jedi.html

Yes, it was eating me up inside that the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi didn't have blinking eyes. That really detracted from the realism of a battle where a galactic imperial army was soundly defeated by talking care bears. Sure, the Ewoks were by far the worst part of Eps 4-6 (an early attempt at commercialization and youth targeting), but changing them now is even dumber.

---

Supposedly Lucas (who is more of a merchandiser and effects wizard than a pure storyteller and filmmaker) was not happy with the state of the art in 1977, but had to keep Ep 4 on schedule, so the film released without all the cool effects that he wanted. The industry just wasn't ready for his vision. Fair enough, but since when has any work we've had to deliver under time pressure satisfied us 100%? I know Hollywood directors are infamous perfectionists, but at some point you just go with the best you have ready, and leave it at that. No "do overs" later (or leave it to the DVD bonus features at least, don't alter the original work!).

Say all that is true, and the special edition is Lucas' "true vision" for how he wanted the trilogy to look and feel. So he really believed that CG mini-Jabba, a rock in front of R2-D2, and Han shooting 2nd made the movie complete? If he "did it right" the first time in 1977, then SW would have become an even bigger hit? I call BS. He just used the special edition as an excuse to invest in more tech, showcase ILM effects, and sell more DVDs. Seriously, the changes are as if Lucas asked his 12-year-old child for advice. First off, you don't need to change what is fine, or in fact nearly perfect. Second, if you do decide to change what is already fine, then your change should at least be an IMPROVEMENT and not a distraction/detraction/joke. Like adding color to later releases of Hitchcock movies is more defensible (but still controversial to many). The feel of Eps 4-6 is of a raw, gritty, lived-in universe (apart from the sterile, polished, but oppressive imperial settings). The sharp and artificial CG fillers add no value and really hurt the mood of some scenes (like the stupid alien band in Return of the Jedi playing a kiddie song while the green slave girl was eaten). The low-IQ response to innovation/improvement is "let's just add more stuff." A shot with so much irrelevant and unimportant noise going on doesn't benefit the film, and is too much for the typical viewer to process/appreciate anyway (example from Ep 2). It's sad that so many artists had to work long hours to deliver such garbage that no one will remember. Whereas Sir Alec Guinness probably just needed a couple takes to deliver a 10-second line that became film immortality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hFWz145aJc.

Much worse are the "continuity changes", where the Eps 1-3 are clearly to blame. Vader has to yell "Nooooo!" the same way in 2 movies (even though it is not authentic and ruins both scenes). Hayden Christiansen has to have a cameo in a film that was made before he was born. Why? To give Eps 1-3 more legitimacy at the expense of the far better Eps 4-6? If Lucas thinks his audience is so dumb that they need to hear the same line or see the same face to make the mental connection across 2 movies, well that shows his respect for the audience.

But overall, I think it is totally OK that a film has certain aesthetic limitations and flaws, as long as the WRITING, ACTING, and PLOT are great (stuff that Lucas totally took for granted in Eps 1-3, or is just inept). You know, film school 101 stuff. But that is the problem when the creative process is dominated by a past-his-prime icon who is mentally lazy, unqualified, and doesn't encourage collaboration. I won't go into all the ways Eps 1-3 were horrible, and as some YT reviewers have said, they aren't even really SW films. Just because they have lightsabers, space ships, and a hero named Skywalker doesn't make them SW if they lack the signature dialogue, captivating characters, and imaginative adventure of the predecessors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJM5Citn3rY

But going back to Eps 4-6... you don't love your partner because they're perfect or in spite of their flaws, you love that their flaws make them who they are. Most fans never lamented about a certain SW mistake, or wished a new effect was included in the films (partly because the existing effects were already so dazzling). It's fine that the stormtrooper hits his head on the door, or that the Death Star has a totally illogical vulnerability. They are barely relevant to the larger story arc, feelings, and themes, which is what stays with you years after you've seen the film. I wish modern Hollywood would stop fixating on getting everything so perfectly stunning visually, and instead invest that much effort on the truly critical parts of a good film (the mental-emotional parts!). Otherwise we will keep getting more Eps 1-3. Lucas was lucky that he leveraged the SW brand to make those crap films into huge financial successes, but not everyone can be so fortunate. Disney of all studios should know this, after John Carter and Lone Ranger. Also, what happened to "know the customer"? Aren't filmmakers in the business of pleasing audiences? It seems that too many egomaniac directors and producers just hijack films/franchises and warp them into their selfish, narrow vision. If they have a good vision, then maybe it's fine. But so many of them don't. Some films are too important to society/history to let one rich and powerful A-hole mess them up for future generations. In that sense, it's ironic that Lucas has really become the dark side emperor of the Star Wars franchise.   

----------

Agreed, it's inspirational. Totally funny that the poor, underground fans acting as the true custodians of the SW material are like the Rebels, and GL and his mighty LucasFilm are the empire. Life imitates art. It's even more impressive that many of them were born after the original trilogy, yet still came to love it (shows how timeless the movies are, and they live on because of the human elements, not the effects which are clearly dated by now). And as you said, their heroic efforts would be totally unnecessary if Lucas and his henchmen acted with a shred of heart. As we all know, if Lucas had full control on Eps 4-6, they would have been pretty terrible (Han with green skin, Luke and Leia as midgets, etc.). I give GL credit for the creative spark and taking chances, but he is terrible at execution (apart from some effects). 

The guy is just an out of touch, egocentric douche, so this is what we get. If you watch behind the scenes clips of him directing Eps 1-3, it's really like a senile person or child at work (or worse, a smug prick who just doesn't give a shit), but all the yes-men around him just go along with it. And can you imagine - the BTS shots that they released are the GOOD moments of his direction - I wonder how bad the bad moments were! Lucas must really hire hacks at ILM as you said. In their defense, maybe those workers are just uber fanboys who are so desperate to work on any new SW material (like a crack addict), so they will go along with any of GL's horrible ideas. In their gut they know it's wrong and bad for the franchise, but I guess they'd rather toil on a shitty project than no project at all. This is the problem when GL finances the movies himself too, there's no one else to hold him to account. At least the suits at Fox probably shot down all of GL's zany ideas during the first trilogy.

I just can't believe anyone at ILM didn't have the sack to speak out about all the superfluous scenes, shit dialogue, Jar-Jar, Noooooo!, etc. I know they must have felt it in their guts, but self-censored. You'd think some cocky kid would have spoken out, and then got canned by a miffed GL. Then he tells all to the media about how bad it is to work at ILM and how stupid GL is. But I haven't heard anything like that, have you? Or at least Portman, Neeson, or MacGregor have the clout to speak out (or are they in denial too, wanting to believe that they worked on something of value?). Maybe ILM has a strict NDA or Lucas will sue the shit out of you?

When I was younger, I longed for more SW movies too. Now with more years under my belt, I appreciate the first 3 movies even more. And I think the franchise deserved to rest in peace. No remastering, no alterations... it's not like degraded Chaplin reels from the old days. It is REALLY hard to make a blockbuster series and sustain quality throughout (look at Star Trek after #4, or Bond after Connery). Eps 4-6 were a phenomenal accomplishment - why can't they just quit while they're ahead? Same with LOTR and Hobbit. The fact that the Hobbit films are clearly worse than LOTR (and just reusing LOTR material), and Jackson chose to deviate from the spirit of the book so much, reflects the same problem as GL. Eps 1-3 did not need to be made, and in fact shouldn't have. I agree with that Sam kid on YT that it really doesn't matter how the Republic became the Empire, and how Anakin became Vader. That is the setup to Eps 4-6, nothing more. The back story is that way for a reason, it's not as interesting as the main story! That's why I think we've never really seen a superior prequel or origin story in Hollywood (maybe Batman Begins, but that was a different approach and team altogether). Actually I think it's better for all to have made Eps 7-9 instead, because then the team has free reign to craft a new storyline. I really hope the original characters don't show up at all. No one wants to see old Han. They accomplished their purpose in the story already - it doesn't matter what they do later. Unless it's like Mask of Zorro where they just pass the torch and train the next gen (minor roles only). What do you think?

Measuring the Return on Investment (ROI) of College

http://www.payscale.com/college-education-value-2013

I think the study's methodology is weak and does not prove causation. For the "return" part of ROI, they look at the median pay of grads for 30 years of working, adjusted to 2013 dollars. They project out pay increases by looking at grads from 1983 to 2012 (i.e. the earlier grads are later in their careers, and forecast what recent grads will earn at the same age). But of course that is fraught with problems, because universities could change a lot in quality and student composition over 30 years. And the economy changes a lot over time, so an older person may see very different wage changes from 1990-2010 vs. a recent grad from 2010-2030 (especially for degrees that saw a lot of industry growth or contraction). Also, I am not sure if they were looking at total earnings or just base pay, because we know that some jobs may have lower base pay but make up for it with better benefits, equity, or pensions. Students who went on to graduate/professional education were excluded, but that could be a problem too since some universities have a high % of students with those career aspirations (and those jobs tend to pay higher).

Also, are we measuring the ROI of the school, or the ROI of the students? University is not the only factor determining a person's future salary. Some Stanford students would still make similar money if they attended higher or lower ranked schools because of their abilities and ambition. But that is what the study should try to answer - if Joe Smith went to Cal vs. Stanford vs. Caltech and studied the same subject and pursued the same career path, how would his pay differ? This would be expensive and maybe unfeasible, but to control for student quality variation, they should have looked at each decile of US high school students (by general aggregated admission criteria), mapped out which college they attended, and then looked at their earnings over the first 5 years after graduation (30 years is overkill, entails too much uncertainty, and recent grad wages are a good predictor of late career wages anyway). But still, variation in regional pay and career choices would still confound the results.

This info would be tough to obtain as well, but possibly a cleaner way to answer the question would be to query employers. Do their compensation departments place a premium on various schools for certain job roles? Same with grad schools - do they give bonus points to students who went to undergrad at certain places (and convert that to a $ value)? Also repaying student loans has an opportunity cost, and there is value in the networking and relationships that one obtains in college. So it would be nice if they could incorporate those factors into their model as well. What do you think?

-----------

In this case, though, it's a little hard to separate out the reputation effects vs. the quality of education vs. network effects.

I.e. do Stanford kids earn more money because we graduate with a good education or because of the Stanford name premium or because we just happened to make friends at a school where there is a lot of smart people.

If it's because of the quality of education, then you could say Stanford is worth it. If it's because of the network effects, then maybe yes maybe no. An expensive networking program for sure, but maybe not replicable by any other experience (and thus worth it). If it's the reputation effect, then Stanford should be concerned, as companies could potentially test for real skills some day, undercutting the reputational aspect of our degree.

------------

I agree that those factors are heavily linked in such a data set and it's pretty hard to draw any meaningful conclusions about ROI.

Another interesting question: are Stanford students successful because they went to Stanford, or is Stanford successful because of its students? I am sure it is symbiotic, but maybe that is why the top US schools have been locked in an "arms race" to recruit star profs, improve the student experience, etc. to woo the top talent. I guess they realize that a key to their success is the general quality of their "customer base" (but the spending is also partly irrational pissing contest). Though I am pretty sure that most students accepted at Stanford would become professionally successful no matter what university they attend (a testament to the merits of the admission process), even dropping out and going Zuck style. But if Stanford and say Ole Miss (sorry for offending any alum) do a "trading places" student body swap, I think that plenty of Ole Miss students would not be able to capitalize on the Stanford experience as effectively, leading to lower outcomes. And if the avg. quality of one's peers decreases, that may have negative effects on one's performance. But on the flipside, the sudden infusion of Stanford-caliber students to Ole Miss would have profound benefits for that institution on many levels.

So I guess college students should have much more bargaining power vis-a-vis university administrators. They could form a union haha and demand lower tuition or face a walk-out. But that threat is not credible, unless all of them can join startups the next year, or the Ivy League is able to take in the thousands of striking Stanford students en masse. Plus Stanford would replace them with eager "scab" students from US public schools and Asia - probably lower quality students, but "passable" to keep the place running. Therefore, it seems that the top schools are engaged in a certain degree of price fixing and cartelization (i.e. why is the tuition at Stanford pretty similar to that of Carnegie Mellon or Columbia, despite massive geographic and programmatic cost differences?). Unlike Wall St. and Si. Valley, they refuse get in a self-destructive price war, or steal away top talent from each other with cash/other incentives. Maybe that is illegal, but if absolute student body quality is the goal (as it pertains to national rankings or other metrics that administrator bonuses are based on), then it's worth it (and their endowments can justify it). But really, just imagine how that would affect recruiting if Stanford decided to slash its tuition by 1/3? 50% of undergrads are on some sort of financial aid anyway, so it wouldn't be such a shock to their finances. Well, no one ever suggested that higher education was an efficient market. :)

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty's comments

Apropos of this discussion, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/duck-dynasty-star-rants-against-homosexual-behavior-islamists-and-shintos-in-magazine-interview

It's just a little sad, in a way. They're some of the last people on the wrong side of history and are the last to realize it. I'd like to think that many similarly minded people are basically good and if they'd been raised in a different time they'd hold more considerate beliefs about others.

--------

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/gop-politicians-defend-duck-dynasty-stars-right-to-anti-gay-comments/

The Robertson stuff is unfortunately not that shocking these days, though the fact that such a guy gets a TV show and GQ exclusive interview is. Some Republicans' "defense of his first amendment rights" really pisses me off. I understand that Duckman was within his rights to say those things, but the blatant politics and hypocrisy is unacceptable. Palin, Jindal, Cruz - as if they have any credibility anymore, but folks like them weren't defending Rev. Wright's first amendment rights at the time. In fact they were convicting Obama as un-American just for sitting in the same room with Wright. Where is their outrage about homophobia, racism, and almost comical ignorance - traits that should be un-American but are unfortunately celebrated/condoned at times for being "traditional values"?

Sure, I get it that any time Christianity seems under attack, they circle the wagons. But another important American value is not ramming your beliefs down everyone else's throats (despite FNC and the Tea Party's revisionist history to the contrary). I'm sorry that the mere existence of gays, Muslims, and ethnic minorities in "your country" makes you upset. Part of a free society is tolerating diversity and even tolerating people you can't stand. Like how thinking people have to tolerate the likes of Robertson, Palin, and Cruz. Otherwise they might as well stop hating Iran and move there, because that is the type of regime that they are promoting. Let's see if these GOP figures similarly come to the defense of Joe Biden the next time he mouths off, or god forbid an urban black celebrity. They are good Christians too, aren't they? They're just as much Americans as Robertson, right?

---------

In typical Palin-esque fashion, the momma grizzly admitted that she didn't even know what Robertson actually said (didn't read his statements from GQ) before opining on his free speech rights and the tyranny of political correctness/liberal intolerance. If only Robertson said something about Mein Kampf... would Palin have stood by her defense of his rights? 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/sarah-palin-admits-not-having-read--duck-dynasty--interview-180236668.html

Of all companies, Cracker Barrel pulled its Duck Dynasty themed merchandise from its restaurants after the Robertson comments, but a day later reinstated them after outcry from customers. Only in Amurrrica. :P

On a related note, here is an interview from a Harvard neuroscientist about why the human brain may be hard-wired for narrow-minded moral judgment and us-vs-them tribalism.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201312240900

Silicon Valley as a preview of America's future, for better or worse

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/FEDERAL-JUDGE-NSA-Program-Exposed-By-Snowden-5069183.php

First of all, is Snowden the runaway favorite for person of the year 2013? I can't think of anyone else who affected US society more (and likely for the better). A Federal judge ruled that the arbitrary, blanket collection of Americans' phone metadata is likely unconstitutional (unreasonable search, violation of reasonable expectations of privacy) and ineffective (no clear evidence it was critical to preventing attacks). Of course the WH and NSA disagree.

----

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/16/251608120/exploring-economic-inequality-from-heart-of-the-tech-boom

NPR is starting a series on Si Valley as a microcosm for the changing US economy and society. We've addressed some of these issues before regarding wealth inequality and the Bay Area housing market. Apparently some protesters recently blocked a Google bus in SF, complaining that the private buses were using MUNI stops without paying the city any fees. It's clearly part of a bigger sentiment of resentment, and part of the general debate regarding who is taking more of their fair share from society. Should those being priced out of SF "get with the program" and develop the skills needed to be able to afford living there? Or should the tech elites come down from their privileged position in society and contribute their fair share to helping the less fortunate? Or both?

As a tech employee (peon status) and longtime CA resident, I am really torn by all of this. I don't want the Bay Area to become "Facebookville" or "Elysium" where droves of poor, bitter service workers support the aloof upper class minority. But then again, we depend on disruption, competition, and innovation to win in the market, or we will suffer the same fate as Detroit. I think we can innovate and win, but also spread the benefits around so that the entire region and populace is better off. Yes, the rich should be taxed more.

Disruption is a double-edged sword. A dedicated team works like hell to address an unmet need or overcome some entrenched inefficiency, so they and their investors can be paid handsomely for it. But the industry that they just rendered obsolete is made up of people with families that depend on them. Through no fault of their own, they were disrupted out of a paycheck. A generation ago, all signs pointed to machinist or travel agent being good, stable careers with great ROI for the required education. But innovation changed the equation faster than most could adapt.

Now car services like Uber are getting rave reviews from customers, media, and generating decent financials. But what if they render thousands of low-skilled immigrant cab drivers out of a job? What if the Google self-driving car renders the Uber drivers out of a job? In some cases it is a zero-sum game, even if the metrics suggest that society overall is "better off". Does one new billionaire created compensate for 1,000 families who just got the American Dream taken from them? Everyone seems to celebrate the "winners" without considering the collateral damage. Yes, we need innovation to succeed and even survive in the world. And those who succeed should be rewarded. But what about the everyday folks who, through no fault of their own, get suddenly shifted from middle class to destitution? Do the disruptors (and the traditional companies being replaced) have a social responsibility to help those workers transition to the new reality? Does the government? If so, then I think they should fund such programs from the disruptors' stock gains.

-----

Sort of related (in that it perpetuates the massive inequalities of the Bay Area) is education. M Night Shyamalan just wrote a major book on education (hopefully he doesn't write more and his natural follow-up suck strikes!), and it makes a lot of good points.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/m-night-shyamalan-steps-education-wars

Basically, he suggests that our education system is actually great - if you're a a white kid. Our white kids do just as well as the Nordic white kids or other European white kids. But if you're a minority (and, typically, poor), the education system sucks and really drags down our averages. There are a number of ways to address this, but:

1) They take money $$

2) And they mean de-emphasizing putting resources into already highly performing white schools

I've come increasingly to the conclusion that American politics is all about race. I'm sure many of you have seen the research that support for redistribution increases if it is perceived by the voter as going to "someone like them" - i.e. someone of the same race. 

Most people in the Bay Area don't consider themselves racist and it's probably true - in fact, the Bay Area is one of the most diverse areas of the country. But poors in the Bay Area are still "the other" - they didn't go to good schools, they struggle to get by on bad salaries, their unemployment rate is x3 higher than well-educated whites. Basically, their experience is completely alien to most of the tech gods in the Bay Area and their presence is invisible. No surprise then that the tech gods (which have actual power) use little of their capacity to help the poors.

You can imagine the national consternation and outrage by the well-educated press and electorate if the unemployment rate was 20% and transportation and housing ate up 60-70% of the budget of native-born, well educated Americans, yet this is exactly the situation facing a plurality of Bay Area residents - the poors and the immigrants. I guess it's only a crisis for those that are rich. If you're poor and face such circumstances, given the media and elite orientation, it's a statistic and at best regrettable. And the rich wonder why resentment is on the increase...

-----

Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.

According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/who-needs-a-raise-when-you-have-tv-.html

------
 

Oh the drama of "bus-gate": http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/09/google-bus-protest-most-entertaining-moment-was-staged/

Thanks, A. Good to see M. Night making a comeback of sorts, with more social value than "The Happening". Yeah it seems the path to inequality starts from grade school, and maybe even in the womb, as lower income (often minorities) generally don't have access to comparable health, nutrition, and child care as affluent whites. This could set back their development, so that even if they were lucky enough to attend America's best schools, maybe they wouldn't be fully able to take advantage of the opportunity.

It is really sad that the inequality phenomenon has such a racial component. But if a liberal dares to make that claim, you can imagine the reaction from the right (race-baiting, it's a war on white men, etc.). Roberts said that racism is over in America after all. It is especially disappointing that minorities have fallen further behind during the Obama presidency. It's not his fault and it could have been worse under a white GOP president, but Obama's heritage almost blinds America to the fact that tens of millions of minorities are not succeeding despite his meteoric, outlier success. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of US affirmative action historically have been middle class white women. The social programs that disproportionately helped the urban poor are being dismantled in the name of "budget compromise."

On a local level, I don't think the tech giants can fully celebrate their CSM and social impact, when East Palo Alto (10 miles away from FB and GOOG HQs) is still held back by the same problems it faced a decade ago. Richmond and the Tenderloin are a stone's throw away from Twitter and Salesforce. Sure the tech companies engage in their annual "day of caring" and donate millions to worthy causes, but those good works barely tip the scales vs. all the negative externalities they unintentially impose on the less privileged. I guess rather than facing the cognitive dissonance of the injustice/inequality all around them vs. their desire to make the world a better place (ostensibly for all), tech people would rather live insular lives and stick with their own kind (luxury, exclusive housing to the luxury, exclusive bus to the luxury, exclusive office to the luxury, exclusive bar, etc.). This of course is not exclusive to tech workers, and the other Bay Area professionals (doctors, lawyers, bankers) are just as susceptible, if not more. But that is the problem when achievement and career take up so much of our attention - there isn't much room left for people, especially those who are different than us.

I am not sure if it is a generational issue either. After the Baby Boomers exit the labor force, and the younger folks take the helm of the big companies, I really hope for a sea change. Douchebags aside, I think that many Bay Area yuppies would prefer a more diverse workforce and society. CA is great because it's not a stuck up East Coast cocktail party where your alma mater and family name come first. It's boring when you only work with clones of yourself who think the same way (also it's bad for business). The Valley has been successful in recruiting and naturalizing so much foreign talent, but many of them were elites from their native lands (and they tend to self-segregate in the US too). I just don't see black and Latino native residents get recruited in sufficient numbers any time soon.

Check out this slideshow from Business Insider about racial-economic segregation in SF-Si Valley: http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-show-racial-divide-in-silicon-valley-2013-9#

This issue kind of reminds me of the military crisis. When only poor people go off to war, society doesn't really notice, so our leaders may be more likely to abuse those soldiers. But in the case of WWII and Vietnam, when even some millionaire's kids and Ivy Leaguers were getting slaughtered in the field, then that changed the equation. As you said about Bay Area housing and transport costs, the privileged won't lift a finger until they feel similar pain as the poor. A more progressive income tax that funnels money to the working poor would be a start, or maybe higher property tax on richer, less diverse neighborhoods? But of course city leaders get elected by those neighborhoods, so it's a nonstarter. In France, they have a saying, "Vive l'impot!" Or a celebration of tax. It's not a dirty word like in the US. Taxes are a mark of honor, a patriotic duty to reinvest in the nation that you love. And those taxes should go to helping strengthen society from the bottom up, not further the social advantages of the elites or become giveaways to already rich special interests.

------

Part of the solutions that M. Night and other education scholars have recommended is longer school days, year round schooling, and early intervention programs like head start, universal Kindergarten, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to get poor/racial minorities with bad home environments and poor nutritional habits into a much healthier system. Of course, doing this takes a lot of money. However, school inequality is still a major issue so there are some resources that could be recaptured from rich white schools.

As you may remember from the George Packer/New Yorker article, even in the Bay Area, public schools such as Woodside and Paly have foundations that parents started to "adequately" fund their school - i.e. they have way more money than they need and marginal dollars there are not doing much good, while schools like East Paly are hurting pretty bad. And of course thanks to restrictive zoning regulations meaning no new housing ever (into which the poors/middle class might move), public schools in Woodside/Los Gatos/Atherton/Paly are only public in name only: effectively they are privatized for the rich white residents. But beyond that, it would take a massive infusion of resources into places like the LAUSD, New York Public Schools, etc. that voters haven't shown the will to spend.

I know you're fairly hopeful about the promise of the younger generation, but I'm more pessimistic. It's true that race will be less of an issue for our generation and some of the issues that the oldsters have with things like gay marriage will dissipate. However, I feel like our generation, while still well-intentioned, is even more clueless about the life and struggles of poor people than any previous generation. While J is right that the gap between the 1%ers and the rest has grown astronomically, I feel like the life experiences of the top 10% is becoming increasingly disconnected from the lives of the rest. Worldly, plugged in, well educated, financially comfortable kids on the Google buses have basically nothing at all in common with day laborers in the Mission. I don't mean that they actively seek to screw them but I think it's easy for many to not even people like that exist. The problems and life experiences of the bottom 90% have basically just don't show up on the radar of your average techie or higher.

And while the top 1% have arrogated for themselves increased power, the top 10% still can drive the political conversation in the media and online. If people don't see the problems of the rest of society or only are dimly aware of them in an abstract way, I'm not optimistic that much progress can be made.

I see where J is coming from on this - I think on matters of economic policy the 1% have the resources to really get whatever they want.

But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. That's how they broke up the robber barons (see Teddy Roosevelt), and that's how the back was broken of European nobility.

What's happened this time is that many of the people that might have been expected to join this populist coalition against the rich and powerful are instead diverted by issues of "other" (i.e. race). How else do you explain the fact that West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the nation, voted overwhelmingly for Romney? Or Kentucky? They're afraid that moochers (of course, moochers from out groups; in group moochers are fine) and immigrants and gays are wrecking America.  These are precisely the people that Democrats ought to find common cause with (and previously did, against the Robber Barons and again during the Depression), yet our politics that are focused on race and religion and culture have them voting against their economic interests.

------

Thanks, A. It's ludicrous that there is any opposition to these youth programs, as the research indisputably shows that the ROI is huge. So the expenditures are actually cost saving measures in the long run. There should be no conservative opposition, but of course there is. Is it just a philosophical/political impasse (block ANY new gov't programs, even helpful ones), or is it the elites lashing out because they don't want poor, colored folks to succeed and compete on a more level playing field with their privileged kids? Sure the rich would rather have tax breaks now than more education spending, but as I said these programs save $ in the long run and make a stronger society, which will reduce the rich people's future tax burden and probably result in more capital gains for them, as these kids grow up on a better trajectory and become valuable consumers/workers.

The data suggests that Millennials are more tech savvy, more socially aware, and more into volunteerism than previous generations. As you said, they are worldly, and with the internet at their fingertips, they are on average much more cognizant of global social issues than their parents and grandparents at that age. So really there is no excuse for them to turn their back on social problems, even if they can't fully "relate" to the needy. But residential and workplace segregation is a terrible problem, because if you don't see diversity and the struggles of others each day, you are less likely to do anything about them. I believe that most young adults (and most of us on this email) would vote for policies and leaders who want to make our society fairer. The problem is no one is putting such debates up for a vote (probably because most of the political system is co-opted by the elites as J said). I think the youth are in the right place morally, but they just need a spark or a dynamic figure to lead them, like a modern day "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "We hold these truths to be self evident..." We don't have that unfortunately. All our brightest young people are going into the private sector, where they can't "do good" because they are beholden to shareholders, and fighting for their lives against cutthroat competition. Only when they're super rich and semi-retired like Gates will they hopefully give back. Look at us; we have money and are well aware of the problems out there, but we don't have the time or courage to advocate for the causes (many self-imposed or social barriers stand in our way). We will vote the "right way" if the occasion arises, and maybe even give some money, but we aren't able to put in the hours (not to mention blood, sweat, and tears) to lead the populist charge as you said. I admire the few folks who do.

But maybe all is not lost and there are some leaders with potential. Here's a Fresh Air interview about Pope Francis, and of course the main theme of his papacy so far is social justice and critique of global wealth inequality (and the institutions that perpetuate it). Europe is a powder keg of discontent regarding gov't corruption, voiding the social contract, and widespread unemployment. I will give Obama credit too that he has raised the issues of race and inequality (maybe not by choice) more than any other president since LBJ. Maybe he hasn't moved the needle on the debate in America, but he isn't letting us sweep it under the rug. So we are seeing some top-down emphasis of the race and wealth issues, but unfortunately that hasn't manifested itself into new laws and reforms (the plutocrats can control lawmaking bodies a lot more than individual executives).

Re: the US history of populism, you are right that conditions were a lot different when labor was stronger and the working white poor were a major Dem constituency. But the party made a decision in the '60s to fight one injustice at the expense of the other. They fought against racial discrimination, which lost them the Southern white vote. And in order to make up for it, they had to go more corporate and turn their back on labor too. So the Dems are more elite than ever, even if the GOP is really struggling with key demos like single women and non-whites. But I don't think that racist whites in the US hate colored folks just because they bought into the economic propaganda of the elites. They had those prejudices already, and the elites just fueled the fire with scare tactics relating to black uprising/crime and immigrants taking jobs/services. We also have to address the non-economic drivers of modern racism (I am not quite sure what they are but I could speculate). I agree that the GOP is using religion as a wedge issue to keep its base from turning populist, which is of course ironic because Christian values are clearly misaligned with the modern GOP.

--------

As A pointed out, "But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. ", I find it interesting that at that time, communication between groups was limited by lack of technology.  Now we have instant communication with anyone in the world.  You would think that it would be easy to put all of the pieces together for the oppressed to rise up.  But, these same lines of instant communication are also used to manipulate us in ways we'd never seen before, essentially keeping us divided, blaming one another for our lot in life instead of seeing the real picture.

-----------

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/riseofinternet.html
http://gnovisjournal.org/2010/04/25/media-fragmentation-and-political-polarization-how-high-choice-media-environment-leads-great/

Thanks, L. Yeah media fragmentation in the US can be a big problem. Families don't tune into the same 3 info sources around the radio or TV set anymore. So of course FNC says that everything MSNBC says are lies, and vice versa (and CNN just talks about the Kardashians) - adding to distrust, misinformation, and most harmful... polarization. Plus we are blitzed with too much info now on our multiple devices (especially entertainment/time-wasting content), which distracts us from thinking, collaborating, and rising up together.

Twitter and Facebook helped the Arab Spring gain momentum, but sadly it can't really do the same for us (even though we invented those services). Well, when commercial crap like Bieber and Coke are the most liked/followed entities on social media, you know we have a problem. It seems US social media is (deliberately or not) functioning to prevent us from mass political debate and assembly, whereas it has the opposite effect in repressive/dysfunctional foreign countries (which is why their state security services try to block/monitor it)?

Black Friday game theory

Cont'd from previous posts...

But like it was said earlier it is the prisoner's dilemma.  If target is open starting 10pm thanksgiving day with deals and no one else is, then that pool of money is going to disproportionately go to target.  So then JCP says "we'll be open too!" and on and on.  So now everyone is open and everyone is luring people in the only way they know how.

But this is also one of those instances where people grumble about traffic while sitting in traffic.  They ARE traffic.  Complaining about black friday as americans rings hollow when more americans go for the sales than vote. 

-----

Thx, M. Re: the pris. dilemma... I think the comparison is not quite valid here for a couple reasons. First, some PD's can be defeated through communication and agreements. Maybe through retail trade groups or whatnot, the major players can promise that they will not open before time X. If certain companies violate, then they could be kicked out of the group and flamed by the rest. Also, not all retailers decided to play this game. Notable exceptions are Nordstrom, Costco, Radio Shack, and I think Kohl's. They know that there are just as many potential costs as there are benefits to opening early (as we have already discussed).

“There’s a PR benefit to holding out, just as there’s a PR benefit to opening early,” said Roger Beahm, a marketing professor at Wake Forest University. “We know that there is a consumer backlash to this.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/costco-thanksgiving_n_4262774.html

Second, the PD assumes a "one turn" game with finality, and the players are "all-in" for the decision at hand (open early or not, collaborate or defect). But in reality, holiday shopping is a sequential game with multiple "turns" where players can react to each other's past actions. Holiday shopping is a relatively long war; even if you "lose" B.F. turn 1, you can win later turns, which may in fact help your overall performance. So that may change the payoffs and strategies away from a pure PD.

Some of us discussed that opening earlier for B.F. just shifts purchases ahead in time, and doesn't necessarily earn you more overall profit for the entire season. Forbes had a related comment about that:

A Black Friday spending analysis from [MasterCard] shows a whopping 70% of consumer spending happens at the first two stores a shopper visits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/11/28/heres-the-real-reason-stores-are-open-for-black-friday-sales-on-thanksgiving-day/

I guess that makes sense, as shoppers get tired after a few hours of lines, crowds, and cold. Also the article says that consumers allocate 50% of their total holiday budget to B.F. (I assume they got this from exit surveys, which can be problematic, and a lot of customers don't even make a formal budget so it's hard to be sure). So if all that is true, it will incentivize retailers to keep one-upping each other on B.F. But again, thinking about this as a sequential game, during B.F. retailers are fighting for a big slice of the pie (maybe 50% of total holiday spending), but there is still another 50% after. So maybe it is more cost-effective to not "blow one's load" on the B.F. arms race, where competition is fierce, ROI could be lower, and there is more risk. Instead wait as the morons duke it out, and then go on a blitz to eat up all the post-B.F. dollars, after you rivals have depleted their resources. You know, all these lame business-is-war analogies. :)

Lastly, I agree with your point that shoppers bitch about the B.F. issues, yet they are contributing to them at the same time. Maybe many of them have unrealistic expectations that they will just stroll into an empty store at a time that suits them, and quickly get all their wish list items on sale. That is called the internet. :) Assuming that sites don't crash due to heightened traffic.

More on Black Friday

A friend just sent this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304281004579217863262940166

So folks are stressing and fighting over what is likely phantom discounts anyway.

After working at a discount e-commerce site, I know that some consumers care more about the "% discount", rather than the final price (or even the actual use of the product!). So they fall into the trap. It's probably better to know what max price you will pay for item X, and just pick the nicest one that qualifies. The MSRP may suggest relative quality, but that's about it. My econ prof said that $, not %, counts in the end; a cheap toy may be 80% off, but if that only means $3 more in your pocket, it's really not that impressive. And of course it depends if the full price is reasonable or artificially marked up as the article said. But the majority of consumers are not that econ-finance savvy, and probably don't consider these factors in the heat of the moment.

I just fear that as long as real wages stagnate, the wealth gap widens, and purchasing power wanes (due to higher housing, medical, education, & energy costs), people will find it harder and harder to maintain or increase their consumption (despite all the marketing messages and social pressure to do so). Robert Reich said that these trends have been around since the 1980s, but the US middle class made up for it with home equity and consumer credit (to the benefit of Wall St.). Now that loans are getting harder to come by, and of course curbing consumption is out of the question, the stakes become even higher to secure "deals". That could change the shopping psychology and make B.F. pandemonium and conflict more likely and serious going forward. It's like NFL stadium violence - is it any surprise that it is likely correlated with soaring ticket prices and overall "cost of fandom"? When you squeeze and raise the stakes on people, of course they are going to react badly when they feel like they are not getting their money's worth.

-----

Happy Thanksgiving dude :)

It's always kind of baffling to me seeing these kind of "is X good for society" emails, because ultimately there is no benevolent overlord responsible for arbitrating this kind of thing. It's just ... game theory, lots of individuals trying to maximize their own whatever (sometimes profit, sometimes happiness, sometimes self-satisfaction).

Black Friday is an interesting concept. My basic mental model is that initially it was just a naturally-big shopping day, and (given retailers' low margins) the first day that retailers showed a profit for the year. Then retailers started competing for shoppers, and because their main method of competition was "sales" ... here we are.

Obviously you know that sales and coupons were the old-school form of price discrimination, before the internet and quants like you figuring out how to get every dime out of the customer ;) But now it's just old-school prisoner's dilemma, with every retailer defecting and offering sales. This year they're especially screwed, because JCP is desperate to sell off the old Ron Johnson-era merch and is undercutting everyone. It's straight-up race to the bottom, where half these guys will be out of business in 3 years and the rest will be lucky to survive 10. 

They're not doing it because it's good for the country or the culture. They're doing it because, like a heroin addict that hasn't gotten a hit in a while, momma needs that holiday shopping boost, and they'll do *whatever* it takes to get it. Some trickery, some desperation, but this is what giant corporations look like when they die. Like those images of a dinosaur trapped in a tar pit, trying to get out, every struggle dragging it deeper into the black ooze.

What we're seeing is the end of retail, and this and the next few Black Fridays are going to be ground zero for that shit. Loot what you can :)

-----

Thx J, same to you.

Even though B.F. is not a top-down, command economy program, I still think it is valid to evaluate the consequences. If we don't do that, then how can we ever know if a change is needed? Yes, game theory can accurately describe and predict players' actions given a set of conditions, but to me that kind of abstracts the situation as if we were just "rats in a maze". B.F. is about more than transactions. I wanted to consider the human side and social costs, because it's easy to take them for granted when all we see are the cool items, big crowds, and blowout prices in the media. As you said, if these dinosaur retailers are caught in a suicide spiral race-to-the-bottom, then the poor decisions that contributed to that situation will eventually hurt millions of shareholders, employees, and society as a whole (less tax collected, more pressure on social services).

Negative industry trends aside, is B.F. the best method for buyers and sellers to achieve their seasonal goals? As recently as the 1990s, B.F. wasn't even the heaviest US shopping day (that was reserved for the Sat before Xmas, for gift procrastinators LOL). Some limits were still respected. But as you said, companies are locked in a fierce rivalry, and some "innovators" thought to exploit B.F. more. I wish customers would push back and say, "I don't care how big your sale is. The holidays are for spending time with loved ones and being good to one another, not fighting for a spot in line at 3AM just to get an Xbox. It's not right to encourage rabid consumerism and make your employees work these crazy hours either." If we collectively protest and boycott, change will come, like apartheid in SA and cigarettes in the US. Unfortunately there haven't been many big success stories of corporate boycotts recently (they defeated the labor movement, and they know how to diffuse grassroots protest too). But it's American tradition: the Boston Tea Party was a boycott of sorts by colonial merchants getting squeezed by the East India Company. So going back to B.F., unfortunately there won't be boycotts because some customers will likely "cross the picket line," lusting after deals.

I am not that familiar with the JCP case, but didn't Johnson try to make the company more upscale and resist coupons/discounts? Obviously that didn't work and they are now making a big reversal, but JCP is not a leading retailer (it's $12B annual US revenue is 16% the size of Target's). So I don't think they are driving B.F. trends, but they probably will be gone in 3 years as you said (Sears too). However, predictions of retail's demise could be exaggerated (or at least premature). In the Bay we are surrounded with innovation, disruption, and e-commerce, so that could bias our perspective, because US e-commerce is still only 6% of total retail sales in 2013 (and the biggest category is travel, because it is expensive and there isn't really a retail equivalent after the death of the travel agency). Goliath Amazon still has less revenue than Target. Shopping is still a communal, visceral experience that e-commerce and social media haven't fully supplanted yet (some fun, scientific reads on the subject if you're interested: link). Even if Amazon develops cost-effective same-day delivery, many people will still go to the big box or the mall because it offers a value proposition that online doesn't exactly match. Yes brick-and-mortar retail is inefficient with its labor, rent, and overhead, but customers still demand it.  

http://ycharts.com/indicators/ecommerce_sales_as_percent_retail_sales
http://www.statista.com/statistics/191145/travel-e-commerce-sales-in-the-united-states-since-2002/
http://trends.e-strategyblog.com/2013/04/25/american-retail-ecommerce-sales-by-product-category/10687

------

I'm sure some of you saw this too, but Black Friday isn't even a good predictor of holiday sales: 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/the-economic-case-for-ignoring-black-friday/281926/

So the whole thing is kind of a waste of time from the perspective of the economy; people are going to spend what they spend over the holiday period, and black friday can only take from that pool, not get consumers to spend more.

------

Thx, A. I agree, B.F. just accelerates and concentrates purchases, but then many folks will run out of cash/energy afterward and not shop much more for the rest of the season (like a hangover). If companies want to keep pouring gasoline on the fire and make B.F. more and more of a ludicrous spectacle where the worst of human nature and American "culture" is on display, then I wish gov'ts would pass laws requiring retailers to fit the bill for the extra police, paramedics, and others who have to work overtime, manage the crowds, and respond to shopping-related incidents. Maybe that would change their P&L calculus.