VW's diesel scandal and Shkreli's drug price-gouging

More of the same - this week was not exactly ethical capitalism's (if such a thing exists) finest hour:

VW may have to pay fines in the billions for deceiving pollution monitors and violating the Clean Air Act with their TDI "clean diesel" vehicles (stock plunged 20% in response). Apparently it's not so easy for a diesel engine to be both clean burning AND great mileage.

There is a new (and sick) trend in biopharma (link1, link2) where shell companies buy up the rights to "below market price" drugs and then jack up the prices by orders of magnitude to make a ROI. Well, at least those firms aren't deluding themselves that they're trying to help patients - they're explicit in their pure pursuit of profit, and it doesn't matter if needy patients are priced out.

----

Following up on VW and drug prices:

How an academic lab at UWV (an ironically similar acronym) detected VW's diesel cheating: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383663/vw-emissions-scandal-photo. I just wonder why VW's diesel rivals didn't question how VW could get superior mileage/torque while still keeping pollution low (the diesel engine is kind of zero-sum for these performance metrics). Like wouldn't they say, "Wow, in our lab we can only get 25 mpg if we stay under the NOx limit - I wonder how VW gets 40 mpg?" (numbers are fictional) Other auto makers are professing that their vehicles don't cheat, but we'll see. Even though very few light cars in the US are diesel, we of course have plenty of semi-trucks and heavier vehicles spewing particulates and carcinogens every day (but at least in CA, these vehicles now have to adhere to tighter limits). Not sure how big the impact will be in Europe, where ~half their light cars are diesel (but they have fewer cars per capita and drive fewer miles per capita vs. the US).

This article has an interesting viewpoint on the Shkreli drug prices scandal: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/9/23/9383899/martin-shkreli-daraprim-price. He's been such an a-hole and unapologetic capitalist re: his company's actions that he's garnered a ton of negative publicity. That actually helps to shed light on the drug price-gouging issue that Big Pharma has been engaging in for decades (BS loopholes to extend patents, buying the rights to generics or cheaper rival drugs to keep them off the market, etc.). Hopefully the increased attention and outrage will motivate lawmakers to consider new rules for the industry, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'd prefer Trump over Jeb

Because the latter just keeps proving that he is the biggest tool in the world! At least Trump is right about money in politics, taxing the 1%, and women's health.

Some highlights from last night:

Rand calls out Jeb for "getting away with" smoking pot as a kid because he's privileged, but plenty of dark skinned poor people get their lives ruined by a drug conviction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZgYLo-89vg

Bush "faulted" Trump for inviting Hillary to his wedding, and Trump said that everyone on the stage was beholden to their donors but him, who has refused millions. Of course Jeb tried to deny this.

https://youtu.be/ZSsKGBIuFW8?t=137

Trump also alleged that Dubya's failures is the reason why Obama became the next president. Then Jeb totally pivoted and said, "At least my brother kept us safe," to thunderous applause. Kept us safe!?! Didn't 9/11 happen under his watch? How many Americans and our friends died in Iraq and Afghanistan on his watch? How many vets committed suicide and/or got addicted to drugs, and how many military families were impacted by divorces, disabilities, etc.? How much did public health suffer due to panic/hardships from the financial crisis? And of course - Katrina. His terrible grasp of historical context is mind-blowing. Yes, Trump sucks about facts and policy. But he's a CEO and manages his own brand, so at least he gets big picture stuff better than those other bureaucrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT0ZFolQWqY

It's kind of funny how it was everyone-vs-Trump now. He's not used to getting called out and attacked (more than he's dishing out) I'm sure. But it might backfire and make Trump look more sympathetic/righteous. Of course every front-runner has to deal with more scrutiny, but the roles dynamic is interesting here. To his supporters, the DC establishment is trying to sink Trump because he's a legit threat now an would really shake things up if he got power. But that is why Trump is popular, so I doubt his fans would prefer to support guys like Jeb or Rubio just because they seem to know more about policy. I guess his fans would prefer that he not utter so many apish insults, but he fires them up, which is more than the other hopefuls can claim. Can we please have at least 6 of those losers bow out this week!?!

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/16/440718361/the-1-passage-you-need-to-read-to-understand-donald-trump-s-appeal

And sorry I forgot to add Jeb's most pathetic move of the night: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/422637-jeb-bush-pulled-this-hilarious-power-move-when-standing-next-to-trump/

Have some self-respect, man. Dubya is twice the man Jeb is (for better or worse).

J&J: America's "most admired unlawful company"

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/chapter-1.html

Here's a multi-chapter story (2 parts published so far) about J&J, the company we know (and love) for no-tears baby shampoo, Band-Aids, Tylenol, etc. They make us feel better and healthier. But their low-margin consumer products division is only 9% of their profits, and their pharma/devices division is where most of the money (and controversies) are.

I interned at a J&J acquisition last decade, and of the 3 pharma companies I've worked at, I felt that J&J emphasized ethics the most. This is probably due to their "Creedo culture". Remember the 1982 Tylenol crisis where some guy in Chicago was opening up bottles and putting cyanide in them? That led to 7 customer deaths, and the voluntary development of tamper-proof drug containers by J&J that became the industry standard. That tragedy could have sunk the company (Tylenol's market share of analgesics initially fell from 35% to 7%... haha who were those crazy 7%, very loyal employees or people without TVs?), but J&J's leader at the time, James Burke, held the ship together and eventually restored their brand image. It is now a celebrated crisis mgmt. business case, and Burke won the Medal of Freedom in 2000 (I don't know if it was fully merited or not).

Part of their brand recovery plan was the drafting of the Creedo (written in stone like the 10 Commandments, and next to the Stars & Stripes), or guiding principles for what kind of company they should be. On paper is sounds very good and even inspirational (it was for a 23 year old): their order of priorities are customers/users, business partners, employees, communities, and lastly shareholders. Of course that challenged their fiduciary duty as a publicly-owned company, but the Board must have approved it. Maybe the thinking is that these stakeholders are not zero-sum; if you are good to patients and others, the money will also flow to shareholders (Merck says something similar). They drove these points home during new hire orientation, and also recognize employees each year who are especially faithful to the Creedo.

But apparently the "thought leaders" and businessmen (corporate criminals are overwhelmingly male) in the pharma/device divisions didn't really live it out on multiple occasions. I don't know how much "Creedo compliance" actually takes place - like are employees rated and comped for how ethical they are (how Google partly evaluates employees on their "Googleyness")? Doubt it. But maybe all of this lofty Creedo stuff is just a smoke screen to get patients, employees, and gov't to believe that medical companies are somehow more trustworthy and admirable than "regular companies" that just make widgets, because their higher mission is to save lives.

The record indicates that medical companies/providers are no more ethical than the rest of us, and are in fact also responsible for millions of deaths, billions in fraud, and countless injuries over the years (some preventable or willful). Sure, their net impact is probably positive, but the J&J case could be another big example why for-profit medicine does not lead to the best outcomes for society as a whole.

All the Star Wars crap of 2015 is not really Star Wars

To switch gears, since the refugee issue is too heartbreaking and Trump is still dominating the domestic agenda - let's talk art and culture:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/the-coolest-new-39-star-c1249116534652982/photo-catch-phrase-game-1441389503687.html

The recent commercialization of Star Wars in preparation for Episode 7 is going way overboard, but what do you expect from Disney? Part of the SW allure is that it's retro and a bit nerdy. When it's so mainstream and ubiquitous, then it just becomes McStarWars. Maybe I'm just being a grumpy old (middle-aged) man, but Star Wars is the property of MY GENERATION (Gen X). We didn't have the internet back then and we missed the party that was the 1960s, so can we at least hold onto Star Wars?

The companies and kids of today don't get to bastardize, piggyback, and profit from it. Did my generation remake crappier versions of Gone with the Wind and The Godfather? No, those were the classics of previous eras, and they remained preserved and unaltered like the great pieces of art/history/culture they are. To be clear, I'm not a hoarder - obviously I am very open to share the magic of Star Wars with today's audience, but we shouldn't remake what Star Wars is. The prequels were bad enough (IMO they never happened).

It's quite possible that Episode 7 (and the thousand other soul-less "Star Wars universe" spinoffs that the Disney film factory is planning) could be good movies. But it's not Star Wars. And seeing how JJ Abrams totally failed at his modern rendition of Wrath of Khan, I unfortunately am expecting Episode 7 to be a lot of pandering and recycling of old Star Wars content to evoke cheap, nostalgic, Pavlovian affinity. "Let's make it look like old Star Wars, but with modern style!" R2-D2 gives way to soccer ball BB-8. Vader's red lightsaber now has stupid side lasers at the hilt. There's an X-wing that's painted black. Is that the best you can do with a $100MM plus budget? I will give JJ credit that he's using real physical sets and effects at least, rather than lazy and sterile Lucasfilm CG.

Young George Lucas and team didn't try to remake War of the Worlds - they charted their own course at great risk and difficulty. But that's how you make history (i.e. no one will remember Iron Man 3). Why don't Disney/JJ try to make a new franchise that is even better than Star Wars? Do they have the talent and audacity to try, instead of rebooting and copying like corporate hacks? And yes, I realize that original Star Wars also borrowed from (or was inspired by) previous sci-fi adventure material, but the keywords are "borrow/inspire" and not "copy." Shakespeare borrowed from Greece and Rome - that is fair game for artists. Most people agree that Star Wars was also innovative and revolutionary on many levels. I guarantee that Episode 7 will not be. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to succeed with a different, fresh concept (e.g. anyone remember the original Matrix?). If you use the Force, you can do it. :)

---

Yup, not a lot of originality and remaking original classics today in TV and movies (star wars, 21 jump street, Miami vice, a-team) etc, seems like Hollywood is running out of ideas. Or capitalizing on the fact that the generations that are solid into their careers are willing to pay money for things they are nostalgic about as kids. Like how our toys as kids are collectable and classic Nintendo games sell for a lot on ebay. That's probably because our generation grew up (and some raised via TV babysitter ) with Hollywood entertainment. As we look into our parents' and grandparents' generation, there still is a market for nostalgic things they grew up with, but the more you rewind time, the less Hollywood entertainment was involved in their upbringing. They still buy classic toys but also are willing to spend bucks on what makes them feel nostalgic : antiques, classic cars, music memorabilia, WWII memorabilia, etc. 

I was listening to a morning talk show and they were saying how most blockbusters this past summer were not original. Either re-makes, or continuation of a movie series, such as Hunger Games, Avengers, Jurassic Park. Squeezing the extra buck out of a formula that works vs coming out with something original.

We are starting to sound like the old men we rolled our eyes at when they ranted about "back in our day" and the problem with the kids these days!
---

Yeah we might be becoming those "get off my lawn you damn kids!" type soon. :) I don't have as much time to watch films anymore, but I really don't have much interest either. The attractive, quality stories are just not there. And I am so tired of super hero movies that basically have the same characters and same story arcs every time. Disney better consider "customer fatigue" too when they pump out so much Marvel and SW stuff. It's not cool or memorable anymore when it's everywhere (like Michael Kors' recent drop in sales). I can't imagine how horrible Halloween will be when 80% of the boys are either Marvel or SW characters, and all the girls are Elsa. Thanks again, Disney.

And I think the cinema trend will only persist due to the huge commercial success of reboots/sequels like "Jurassic World" and "Avengers." Some series are pretty good start-to-finish, like Harry Potter. Some don't know when to quit when they're ahead and stretch it out way too long, like Hobbit (quality definitely suffers when quantity increases). But as Hollywood becomes more corporate than artistic, of course they will go after the lower-risk, high ROI projects like cheap "found footage" horror movies, pop-culture themed rom-coms, and tentpole franchises like Marvel and Mission Impossible. I suppose the customers are partly to blame again (esp. the dumbass foreign audiences who always eat up our schlock!), since we fork over the money for copycat/formula films, and not for the riskier, original works (there are some exceptions like "Mad Max: Fury Road" which was an excellent reboot, done in a fresh style with a new story that actually moved people).

Maybe Tarantino strikes the best balance; his films obviously pay homage to his youth interests and inspirations like Blaxploitation and Spaghetti Westerns, but all his movies are of exceptional quality, with a new angle, and no pandering/cheap nostalgia. He makes movies with the thinking fan in mind, and with film school discipline in mind - to a point where he may have created his own genre that others can't copy (because no businessman can beat a passionate, skilled artist). That is obviously not Disney's style though. They even copy their own scenes.

Re: Star Wars, I have no problem with sequels if they are superior (which Empire was, though after that Jedi became too kiddie). If the prequels were somehow better films, I don't think people would have complained that they undermined the originals. The plan all along was to have Eps 4-6 in a series, because that closed the loop on the story arc. And it was executed by generally the same team, so there was respect for the original vision. Clearly they weren't remakes or spinoffs. OTOH, Eps 1-3 did not need to get made. The whole point of a "back story" is that it doesn't need to be told in as much detail as the main story. No one cares what happened during the Old Republic and the Clone Wars. It's just a setup for the status quo where there is a mean Galactic Empire and a righteous rebellion trying to defeat them.
It's quite possible that Episode 7 (TFA) will be a good movie. It will certainly be better than the prequels (though that is not a bold statement!). I will try to view it as a standalone sci-fi film. Because of my personal bias, it can't compare to the originals. So I don't "hate" it yet, I just don't consider it real Star Wars (maybe this is not a logical sentiment, but hey, "fan" is short for fanatic :). Like how horrible "Prometheus" wasn't really an "Alien" film, but a pathetic origin story attempt to ride coattails.

It's hard to successfully continue a story (that had a very clean ending) 30+ years later with a different production team, context, audience tastes. The James Bond franchise kind of makes it work because the core formula is simple, they are popcorn movies and don't take themselves too seriously (until recently when the tone got darker), and the films rarely build on each other (again, until recently). Also, Eps 4-6 progressively introduced new elements (a love story, Yoda, better effects, etc.). I don't know what will truly be novel about TFA, since the "new" characters and imagery mostly look like ripoffs of the old ones. While I would prefer TFA not get made, there is some fair rationale and hope for it. However, the spinoff side movies that Disney has planned are too much IMO (they are going to recover their $4B investment no matter what). We are going to get saturated with Star Wars to the point that it's not special anymore. Think Marvel x10. The Starbucks effect. Even if 10% of their films are great, the other mediocre/poor ones (and excessive merchandising) will detract from the overall product. That's why I think Lucas' final "F U" to his critics was selling to Disney of all buyers. They are exploiters, not custodians.
Maybe I'm being melodramatic, but one of my favorite memories of childhood was playing Darth Vader with my dad. I would make the gesture to "Force choke" him, and he would fall to the ground pretending to be in pain. It cracked me up. I am grateful that Star Wars enabled countless moments like that between fans over the years. I really doubt the prequels and new films can do that. Even my dad, just a casual movie goer, immediately noticed that it was wrong for Yoda to be in over-the-top CG lightsaber fight scenes in the prequels. "Yoda is a sage, not an action hero. He is peaceful and uses his mind." It's sad that recent Lucasfilm couldn't understand the essence of the characters they created decades ago.

Refugee crisis

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-03/5-groups-doing-important-work-help-refugees-you-may-not-have-heard
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/03/migration-crisis-germany-presses-europe-into-sharing-refugees

Frankly I've been avoiding this topic because it's just too damn depressing. Being a refugee fleeing war is one of the scariest situations to me - I can't possibly imagine leaving your whole existence behind to flee to a foreign place. Because if you don't, you or your loved ones will starve/be conscripted/get raped-murdered.

The US helped many in my family who were refugees in the 1970s, but we really haven't done that recently, not since Somalia. What are the UN, US, and UK doing about the current crisis? Germany has been forced into a leadership situation and pledged to absorb 800K mostly Syrian refugees (out of a potential 4M). If we won't physically take in people, at least we can send cash and supplies to those who are.

I've already written about how the US turned its back on allies and refugees before (below). Are we complacent to hide behind our geographic isolation? The UK's excuse is that the world should focus on "improving conditions" in Syria so there isn't a need to flee. Well they aren't doing squat about that either, so what gives? I know every nations has very needy people domestically and may not be able to support many new visitors. Greece is on the front lines, and obviously is not in the best position to handle the crisis. If the US was as welcoming as Scandinavians per capita, we would be taking in 5M refugees this year. And we can, for probably the cost it takes to maintain a nuclear carrier. But we won't.

http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/08/children-fleeing-central-america.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2014/05/refugee-to-native-ratios.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-and-responsibility-to-protect.html
http://worldaffairs-manwnoname.blogspot.com/2013/10/with-friends-like-these.html

How about China too? Aren't they the #2 economy and don't they want to be respected as a global leader? Syria is a key partner - what are they doing for their friends? Like climate change, it's someone else's problem, even if the victims are innocent and the definition of deserving help.

"Bubble boy" Bush visits NOLA for the 10th anniv. of Katrina

http://news.yahoo.com/bush-returns-orleans-10th-anniversary-katrina-110219105.html#

I refer to him as "bubble boy" because in the conservative dream world he continues to seek refuge in, he did a heck of a job during Katrina. How tone deaf and offensive; I wish the locals booed and egged him all the way to Louis Armstrong Airport. Of course he didn't visit the Superdome, Lower 9th, or his other "greatest hits". He didn't take press questions either. Maybe he still doesn't have a good answer for, "Did you make any mistakes during your presidency?"

What's next, he visits Baghdad as the conquering hero? I'm sure ISIS commanders would be happy to host him. Total a-hole. For the 5th anniv. of the Deepwater Horizons disaster this year, even BP leaders weren't dumb enough to visit the shrimping villages, not expecting the victims to shower them with appreciation for all their "restoration" work. 

Hillary lecturing Black Lives Matter that they need to help themselves more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/why-hillary-clinton-and-her-rivals-are-struggling-to-grasp-black-lives-matter/2015/07/22/8b5870e8-2f34-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html

Also, I don't like how Hillary kind of "lectured" some Black Lives Matter activists recently that anger won't cut it; they need to put forth concrete policy proposals to make real impact. That is a BS managerial cop-out IMO. It's like when a boss at work got his yearly upward feedback that he micromanaged too much. He asked the team to give him action items on how to improve and what to do differently. No, the team already did their job and did you a service by pointing out a failing that you should have already known about and corrected. Now you are asking them to do your job and give you the step-by-step plan on how to be a better leader? Then why does the team need you, just promote someone in the team?

Same with Hillary and BLM - African Americans have already done their civic duty of living through all the violence and racism every day, and now assembling and drawing national attention to the problem. But out-of-touch (and not really caring) white leaders like Hillary tell them that's not good enough - give America a plan on how to fix it.

Isn't that like a judge telling the rape victim to teach the rapist how to behave properly and not hurt people? No Hillary, the effective policies for police reform and social justice are already out there and have been studied & available for decades. What, does BLM have to do a literature review for you? YOU are the one who wants to be president. So show some goddam leadership and make your own platform, in consultation with BLM of course. Don't tell them what they need to do. That is a cop out and passing the buck. If you care about the issue, you take action yourself and make a difference. Otherwise I'll vote for Deez Nuts.

----

I don't think Hilary was as bad as you say.  I think that is really how Hilary is as a person and leader.  Black lives matter has shown that yup, black people live in a different america than people like Hilary.  But since many people are effectively learning this for the first time, how can they also be expected to know how to fix it?  And ultimately shouldn't the BLM movement know what they require to be successful?  The better analogy than the rape victim teaching the rapist would be the rape victim teaching the bartender how to watch out for people's drinks or something like that.

So from Hilary's view, there is a problem and the people who are affected have a lot of momentum but they aren't putting their desires into terms she can use.  Likely both sides find this frustrating but I don't think it is either one's "fault".

----

I admit that I'm a Hillary hater (IMO her potential is better than most GOPers, but she's an unauthentic, awkward, uninspiring political animal and not a president who will make big impact on inequality, climate change, global stability, etc.). However I do acknowledge that her candidacy since 2007 was handicapped by bad timing and sexism (and incompetence from her team of course).

As a "progressive" (even though she's center-left, emphasis on the center), she should not be finding out about black injustice for the first time now. That is unacceptable for a former lawyer, senator, head of State, and a generally smart/modern person. The aggressive policing and incarceration issues has been around since "broken windows" and mandatory sentencing - when Bill was president!

Bottom line, the Dems have taken the black vote for granted for decades, and the GOP have given up trying to swing the black vote. So blacks are not really represented nationally. It's not just Hillary of course, do any of the candidates really address racial crime and minority justice issues? Maybe Rand Paul at best, but he's not electable.

----

When I say "find out" i mean in the same way I found out about domestic violence in the NFL by watching a dude knock his girl out in the elevator.  Or the way you "find out" a punch to the face hurts in your first actual fight.

I have always intellectually known that black people live a whole different experience.  But all of the black people (and basically all of the people) i know are relatively well off socioecenomically.  I'm sure Hilary even more so.  So yes she "knew" that blacks have it tough.  But what I think BLM has (largely) done well is represent just how bad it is.  It isn't "I can't get a cab" bad, but people die for what appear to be no reason on an alarmingly frequent basis.  

I'll  bet that, at least topically, dems think they have been trying to help the poor and disadvantaged.  So to have a group come to you and say "help us", someone soul-less like Hilary can only resort to her executive abilities and say "give me actionable policies and I can enact them".  I think that is authentic Hilary.  I don't want her to be president necessarily but the way she responded could be read as much as a positive as a negative. 

----

Yeah that makes sense, thx for the good points. Re: Hillary's executive response - it's a tough call and there are pros/cons as you said.

She's not a technocrat or functional area leader anymore though; the president's main value IMO is inspiration/communication, constituency mgmt (both foreign and domestic), and focusing on important priorities (plus kicking butts so it gets done). Part of constituency mgmt and inspiration is empathy (even people you don't get along with or who are just a pain in your side) - something her hubby was excellent at, and she seems quite weak at. 

Virginia shooter and destructive payback psychology

https://gma.yahoo.com/virginia-shooting-suspect-vester-flanagan-did-leading-air-213449674--abc-news-topstories.html#

Like the shooting of NYC cops after Ferguson, if this violence is tied to race and Charleston, it blows my mind. I wonder what these shooters want for their legacy, or what they want the public to take away from their crimes. Maybe Flanagan's manifesto will shed some light, but his atrocious actions pretty much invalidate anything insightful he may have written.

Although racial violence is still vastly disproportionately black victims and white perpetrators, events like this may just perpetuate the stereotype that young black men are all thugs and the black people you work with are unstable and could go off on you any moment. Those perceptions of course do great daily harm to African Americans as a whole - even if it's mostly subtle aggressions that are imperceptible to non-blacks.

I suppose there is a fixation in the American psyche (or human nature in general) about getting payback and taking matters into our own hands. If others have hurt you or those you associate with, how is it is "justice" to commit violence against totally unrelated people who just happen to be of the same broad, arbitrary social category or geography? When Hamas sends some rockets into Israel, why does the IDF bomb and bulldoze homes and hospitals full of women and kids who never touched a rocket? Does that make them feel better, or feel safer? Of the 45M blacks in the US, did Roof think that killing 9 would "set things right" for Obama being president and all the other terrible things blacks have done to whites? And then Flanagan killing 2 whites 300 miles away from SC somehow settles that score too? Obviously this lunacy never ends, so such beliefs should never materialize into action in the first place.

Amazon's workplace culture doesn't bother most customers and investors

We previously talked about the questionable labor practices at AMZN's DCs, and here is the corporate/tech perspective:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?referrer=&_r=0
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/3ce0s8/dear_amazon_interns_some_advice_from_an_old_man/

After 9/11, we empowered sociopaths in the military-industrial complex to keep us safe and didn't want to know the details - so of course abuses like torture and extra-judicial murder/snooping were bound to occur. Similarly with AMZN, I don't think we should be surprised to hear about allegations of their perverse culture/practices. Our society prioritizes ubiquitous, limitless, instant-gratification consumerism, and AMZN delivers that better than anyone else in the US. Wall Street rewards huge growth and exceeding expectations, even if AMZN never turned a profit until 2015. But we customers and investors never bothered to ask the tough questions about the details - how exactly is AMZN able to deliver such "magic" to us? Eh doesn't matter, I can get my Coach handbag with free overnight shipping! It's also not surprising that AMZN is among the best for customer sat. and brand image.

The sick culture (though it's not a horrible company for everyone, too many independent sources have corroborated it, making it highly unlikely that it was just a few "bad apples") is not unique to AMZN though. Apple is almost as rotten if you forgive the pun (you should see how they treat their vendors). The coolness of their products/brand and corporate mythos make a lot of employees/public see them with rose-colored lenses. Their amazing profits and appreciation doesn't hurt either. Like the NFL and military, Apple is now a cultural fixture, and some sins are given a pass because of the prevailing positive sentiment. Other tech companies work you to the bone too, but at least they give a lot of comp and cash-free gourmet food (AMZN's culture is "frugal"). Also, mgmt. consulting, some law/medicine, and Wall St. are just as bad if not worse - but tech is in the spotlight now and "changing the world" faster than ever before. You kind of expect Wall St. and corporate lawyers to be a-holes, but tech is ostensibly benevolent (and almost omnipotent), so shouldn't they hold themselves to a higher standard?

The scammy, cultish nature of AMZN's employee policies (heavily rear-loading equity grants, putting company over health/family) are fairly extreme... I guess like Scientology? Why don't the complainers just quit? Similar to a cult, it can be hard for some Amazonians to leave because SEA doesn't have a lot of tech employers (until recently), and maybe they are able to indoctrinate the psychology that type-A high achievers have to survive and thrive at AMZN, so they don't feel like failures. They've been winners all their lives and they won't let a few workplace challenges stop them now (even if it costs their marriage or health). Everyone else seems to handle it or even love it (survivor bias), so they can't come up short. Yes, employment is at-will, but it's not so simple in many cases. I just wonder what will be the next chapter of this opera.

The peculiar and hilarous Fox, GOP, and Trump dynamic

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9130075/Megyn-Kelly-response-Fox-Trump

I was impressed with the tough and direct questions the FNC moderators asked of the kiddie-table and prime time GOP candidates (addressing and not ignoring their glaring liabilities). That makes sense, as I suppose it's in the GOP's interests to thin the (huge) heard as early as possible so they don't waste resources/political capital for the coming war vs. Hillary.

Personally, I don't think Kelly's sexism question was journalistically or politically out of line. Trump has not held office and has not behaved like he deserved to hold office in the past (esp. vis-a-vis women who are >50% of voters), so why should America elect him now? He of course felt that question was unfair and "impolite" (teapot, kettle anyone?), but Kelly never forced Trump to say/tweet those disparaging things in the past. You make your bed, you lay in it man. Nothing is off limits when you're running for president.

Anyway, I thought that exchange would really hurt Trump and the GOP, who have already suffered from major rejection by many female demos. But strangely the opposite happened. Trump's numbers held steady or maybe even rose, and FNC got blasted with angry viewer feedback defending Trump and criticizing Kelly and her network. Trump did a "genius" thing and flipped the issue from one of his sexism/rudeness/unstatesmanship to one of media bias/political correctness (stuff that is hurting America) - the latter really resonates with his supporters and some conservatives.

He must have prepared for that, and you have to give him credit for delivering it so persuasively. His daughter Ivanka allegedly urged him to tone down the racist/sexist/offensive tone of his campaign, but he dismissed her because every time he did something outrageous (even the McCain comment that I thought was going to sink him - but it turns out a lot of conservatives don't really like establishment McCain anymore - esp. for losing to Obama), his numbers held steady or rose. I guess it's like saying, "Why should I reform and get a legal job when I'm making so much money selling dope, and not getting caught by the cops?"

The FNC base is a little weird. They hate and distrust the (elitist, liberal-leaning) mainstream media, yet still watch FNC (the top TV news property in the US by far). So Fox has to straddle that fine line of being the MSM (being part of the institute of journalism) and hating on the MSM (mocking and rebelling against the institution of journalism). This is problematic at times because from segment to segment, you never quite know what you're going to get. Certainly their opinion shows are more of the latter.

To wrap up, the business-first, politics-second Roger Ailes saw the reaction to the Trump-Kelly spat and was worried that defending Kelly (and her legitimate question) would piss off many viewers and hurt the company. This is probably why most of the other candidates (sans Paul, who is desperate to stay relevant) didn't take the opportunity to go after Trump on national TV. They talked crap at their lightly-covered campaign events, but not on the big stage because (1) more Trump feuding only seems to benefit Trump and (2) they risk a Kelly-esque backlash and don't want to be labeled as establishment cronies (the part of the GOP that Trump has called "stupid" and blamed for losing to the Dems - maybe that is accurate).

So Ailes personally talked to Trump to smooth things over, and probably invited him on the network soon (he has had many interviews in the past). Kelly had to deliver a highly sanitized closure statement and was even subtly congratulating Trump for his recent political success (gotta throw his Jupiter-sized ego a bone). That must have sucked for her. So once again, score one for money/sexism/cynicism at the expense of decency/women/journalism.

PS - it's pretty telling that on Trump's web page, there is ZERO CONTENT regarding his political platform and policy ideas (oh yeah, because they don't exist beyond his sound bites). He makes Rick Perry look like a wonk in comparison.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

Can money buy environmental and social harm?

Rich Californians don't think they should have to cut back on water (their golf courses, lawns, and pools need it): http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rich-californians-youll-have-to-pry-the-hoses-from-our-cold-dead-hands/2015/06/13/fac6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

And of course everyone's favorite dentist to hate allegedly paid locals $55K to get him special access to kill Cecil the lion: http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/walter-palmer-federal-international-zimbabwe-charges-charged-crimes-federal-corrupt-practices-act-laws-zimbabwe-united-states-extradition-treaty-info/

Power is corrupting, and money is a major form of power, so stuff like this has been going on for millennia. But do you think new laws are in order, or we just have to accept money as speech and tolerate that some wealthy folks can afford to commit socially harmful actions? Surely it isn't absolute, as some laws prevent people from buying other human beings, or WMDs, or using their money for coercion (the dentist may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, even if the actual act of killing the lion off the preserve was "legal").

Some laws are already in place, as CA households that don't cut back on water sufficiently may need to pay fines/higher rates on a sliding scale (ostensibly to offset the social harm of their resource usage). But is that enough of a deterrent? Probably not considering some people's net worth - do they need to be cut off instead? They can water their lawns with Evian. That is why market pricing for water won't fully "solve" the issue for price insensitive people (it might affect businesses and farms though, which is the lion's share - no pun intended - of usage). But since water shouldn't be a luxury good like a Vuitton bag, affordability can't solely determine access.

But in the end, stricter punishments for "bad rich people behavior" are unlikely because the politicians who write the laws are rich and disproportionately represent the interests of the rich. America has ~150MM eligible voters, yet so far 400 families have accounted for 50% of the 2016 presidential campaign funding (according to Bill Maher today).

PS - environmental rant: I don't buy the BS from hunting proponents to justify killing animals - it's actually pro-environment as population control (and some species can withstand "culling" more than others). Maybe it's even pro-conservation because the $ that some hunters spend to kill a few big game are used to protect the other specimens (for future kills?). First of all, nature doesn't need us egotistical humans to control a species' population. There are natural limiting factors like food, habitat, etc. Humanity's only impacts on nature are negative, and in a huge way. Yeah we do a good thing now and then by relocating or repopulating a species under stress, but those well-intended moves can backfire too. The best we can do is have as little impact as possible, like some untouched areas of Siberia probably have the healthiest ecosystems because we don't have a footprint (apart from climate change and air pollution diffusing over). And re: the $ argument, I bet for every dollar spent on big game hunting/fishing, maybe at best 20% actually benefits the animals and the rest are just paid to various parties in the supply chain, so that claim is specious. If we love nature then we should leave it alone.

Another heartbreaking example: birds in the extreme north. Because of climate change (and humans' acceleration of it), arctic ice has receded drastically since 1980, and snows have turned to rains. Excessive rain causes fatal hypothermia for some birds, and the weather trends are too rapid/drastic for them to evolve and adapt in time. Ice gives access for birds to fish for food, and chicks are starving to death with less available ice per family (it's as if all our farms permanently lost 80% of their acreage in a generation - could we sustain our population under such conditions?). Species will naturally wax and wane (or disappear) over time, we don't have to "fix" that, but highly successful and evolved creatures like these birds and polar bears, who used to be flourishing, are now rapidly dying out because of us. If our species makes it to the 22nd-23rd Centuries, I am sure they will look back at our (in)actions and think that we were really a bunch of assholes.

All those birds wanted to do is live, and they never did us any harm (they don't even compete for resources with us, as that land is uninhabited and the fish they eat are not commercial). Yet because people want comforts and money (enabled by fossil fuel burning), benign living things have to die. And for those who don't value other species as much as humans, the same can be said of the ~3B folks who by chance were born into poverty and/or environmentally sensitive areas of the planet.

Some interesting links

How the Buffets have quietly advanced female contraception and reproductive rights: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/warren-buffett-foundation-donation-contraception_55bfc47de4b0d4f33a03a567

The EPA fails to properly investigate pollution cases in poor/minority areas: http://www.alternet.org/environment/epa-failed-investigate-environmental-racism-5-states-claims-lawsuit

Black lives matter vs. All lives matter is a false debate

I thought this piece was pretty good: http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/

Maybe this is a microcosm of the overall race impasse in America. Blacks and minorities want equal treatment as guaranteed by our Constitution (not to mention human decency). They are not calling for special treatment. Even the arguments in support of slavery reparations are not excessive and have plenty of precedent.

However, I think some whites dislike the race debate because (1) no one likes feeling blamed as the bad guy, or enjoying an unfair latent advantage (especially in a nation of "self-made" individualistic success), and (2) they get turned off by what they view as blacks/minorities already getting special treatment (welfare, immigration amnesty, affirmative action, political correctness, etc.) and wanting more. Of course the evidence suggests that such an attitude is misguided, and ignores the obvious facts that some minorities have worse outcomes for health/wealth/edu/incarceration/etc. vs. whites even when you control for other variables.

So "black lives matter" can be misinterpreted as "blacks are more important." Which is of course not the point of the moment, and not what the supporters believe. The whole genesis of the moment is the fact that blacks are treated as second-class (or worse) by many measures in the US, are fed up about it, and want to raise awareness. I don't think that is unreasonable. But then you get the white privilege backlash (no, only "we" are allowed to be special!), and they criticize the movement by saying "shouldn't all lives matter?" Yes, they should! But you're not doing it, and the victims are disproportionately the poor and darker skinned. So when those lives get equal respect (validated by actions and data), then the "black lives" folks will gladly disband I think.

I guess it is related to whites' "fear of blacks" again. Fear of them getting more power (even equal power is a threat), uprising, and taking over (hence no traction on slavery reparations). Obama in the WH was bad enough. Why can't they be meek and respectful like the Charleston blacks after the shooting? Well some civil rights folks have criticized the Charleston response as conditioned by decades of southern blacks' fixation with needing to please whites and be accepted by them (even though they never will).

But here is another example of the empathy deficit. Would the critics of "black lives matter" just quietly accept it when their communities get raw deal after raw deal (or unpunished murder after murder)? Of course not. Obama gets elected and you get the Tea Party movement (sure other factors contributed like the Recession, but you know what I mean). You get armed standoffs like with the supporters of Cliven Bundy in NV (but the white cops didn't send in storm troopers and tanks to break them up). So why is it OK for "marginalized" whites to stand up for their rights (even violently), but not OK when blacks do it - and do it mostly peacefully (and they have way more legit grievances to protest about)?

I guess even the ability to assemble and protest in America is not equally guaranteed and free of bias.

----

Maybe you heard that FNC wants BLM classified as a hate group (after a couple recent high-profile attacks on cops that may have been linked to anger over Ferguson/Baltimore/etc.). I know FNC doesn't speak for all of White America, and they are intentionally provocative, but their hostile overreaction to BLM kind of validates American bias and why BLM is actually needed. Good job, Fox.

https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153332388156130/

Let's remember that demographically, it's highly likely that more cop killers are white than minority, and not motivated by politics (I couldn't find data on cop killers' races though). And statistically, being a cop in the US is still safer than the average job. Being a cop in the US is still safer than being a young black man in the US. At least a cop can fight back against attackers, wears Kevlar, and is backed by the law.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/10/the-counted-500-people-killed-by-police-2015

Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Hollow criticism by the right of the Iran nuclear deal

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iran-deal-obama-sees-validation-diplomatic-gamble/

And the FNC version: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-much-worse-than-experts-predicted.html

As Obama said to the conservatives, "What is their alternative?" I'm sure some of them would publicly or privately call for war, or at least stronger sanctions (I'll get to why that won't work in a bit). Maybe others like Trump think that Obama's team are amateur negotiators compared to the Iranians, and only he could outsmart them to a better deal (he did ghost-write "The Art of the Deal" after all!).

The goal is not to turn Iran into a model nation and have them cease all their questionable/negative activities - that's not going to happen for decades (no matter what leverage or violence we apply). The goal and scope were always limited: to stop or ideally reverse Iran's progress towards bomb capability (i.e. right now they could possibly get a working bomb in 3 months if they go all-out; let's make some changes so that time frame gets a lot longer), and enable the int'l community to detect whether they are cheating. To address some criticisms:

• Why take our foot off the gas with sanctions, they are crippling the Iranian economy and keeping them subdued?
• The goal of the int'l sanctions was always to force Iran to the bargaining table, not to stop the bomb or make the country suffer (which is what is happening - as usual the people are hurting more than the regime).
• If the talks fell apart with no deal, faith in the sanctions would dissolve (they did not accomplish their stated goal), and most nations would pull out except the US (because sanctions hurt other nations too besides Iran - especially energy-thirsty China).
• Since the GOP doesn't understand trade and economics, they think unilateral US sanctions are great - but actually they don't do anything but create missed opportunities for us. Iran will get what they need from the hundreds of other nations. Since we have a strong role in the global fin. system - maybe we could cause some havoc there, but again - it's not going to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

• Could Iran use the sanctions relief to invest in better weapons tech and more clandestine development activities?
• Maybe, but they take on a huge risk by doing so, and the chance of success is low. If they can build a new high-tech production facility without inspectors, spies, regulators, and satellites noticing - well that is kind of our fault then.
• It's possible that they will use their increased wealth to boost their unfavorable activities in the region (supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq, propping up Assad, etc.). But frankly those pains are secondary compared to a nuclear Iran and a certain attack by Israel. 

• Did Obama's team just negotiate poorly, and a better deal was possible?
• I'd like to hear how the GOP would have achieved a better outcome:
• Vast majority of centrifuges idled (not sure if destroyed, or idled)
• Vast majority of their fissile material confiscated
• Fairly good access by int'l inspectors
• Hard caps on enrichment far below weapons-grade
• No one died
• Iran's carrot was to greatly set back their bomb production, and the 5+1's carrot was lifting economic sanctions. It was a fair swap, like a prisoner exchange.
• In the GOP dreamworld, I am sure that they would hope to get 99% of what they want, while Iran settles for 1% of what they want. But unless you have hypnotism powers or a gun to their head, how do you get them to just fold and agree to your demands? A deal has to be mutually beneficial, and even if you are worried about benefiting your enemy, you accept a deal where the net gain to you is larger than no deal at all. And as I stated above, no deal was a bad situation.
• What else did critics want, a full regime change, recognition and peace with Israel, and renouncing of terrorism? If they want those things, then they'll have to pay for it (or at least build some relationship/trust first). So far, all they have given Iran is hate.
• They think Obama is weak and America shouldn't concede anything, we should just tell the world what's up and then they obey gratefully. Well the rest of the world isn't in awe of US "authority" like the GOP is, esp. after the War on Terror.  

• The Fox op-ed claims that Iran will exchange its partially enriched uranium for "raw" uranium that they can enrich in the future. There is no evidence that this will happen or the int'l community will accept this. And if you exchange the same mass of partially enriched U with 0% raw U, that will always make you further from a bomb. Fox needs to learn some math.
• Fox brought up more canards. The deal permits Iran to have some research centrifuges which could potentially improve enrichment. But there are so few of them that it can't make up for all the normal centrifuges that they have shuttered. So again, they are reaching for reasons to complain.
• I don't know much about the ballistic missile part of the deal. Maybe Fox is on to something there, but Iran's missiles can already reach Israel, Riyadh, and maybe Berlin. What does it matter if they can reach London too? They can't hit the US in the foreseeable future.
• Critics keep saying that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to get a bomb (a Bibi-ism). I just don't see any facts that support that claim. It's not a perfect deal, but no deal in the history of the world has been. If Iran can do all the sneaky things that critics claim to make a bomb, then they can do that without a deal too (and faster). Again, their argument is as well built as Bush's plan for post-war Iraq.
• And the GOP are some to talk: they haven't brokered a meaningful and legit int'l deal since Nixon went to China. And if Nixon tried something similar today, he would get skewered by the right. 
• But all of this might not matter if Congress has a veto-proof majority to scuttle the deal anyway! 

---

It still seems early for a lot of criticism, NPR interviewee didn't know how they were eliminating currently low enriched uranium as of a couple days ago.  So I imagine new info will keep coming.

The big concern that most have is that this does pave the way to a bomb, it is just a long way.  Over the next decade or so they get increased centrifuge numbers, more low enriched uranium stockpile allowed, etc.  The presumption is at some point between now and then Iran will have money and start to cheat.  And they will cheat for some amount of time before they get caught.  And at that time will the community bring back all the sanctions?  Will Iran have enough cash to not be limited?  So now instead of poor with a bomb they are rich with a bomb and more time and money spent on delivery of the bomb.

Personally I think that isn't right and the real alternative they are arguing is hold the line until they have to be bombed.  

I also think money and access to world markets will bring about a lot of westernization to Iran.  The web, foreign investors, generic trade, all tends to make the regular people richer which leads to a desire for personal freedoms.  Same thing happening in China right now.  Iran is much younger and better educated, on average, compared to China I believe.  

Also, no chance for Congress to block it anyways.  Obama vetoes anything he doesn't like.

---

Yeah I agree that the criticism seems premature - like they're predicting a divorce during the wedding reception. They could be right, but it would be just a lucky guess at this point.

I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.

The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?

Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).

Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).

Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.  

---

Follow-up discussion to Cold War 2.0 post

In reading what you wrote I agree to a certain extent but you lost me in the conclusions that you draw:

(1) NATO is a military organization... but it is a *defense* organization; insofar as one might be talking about military matters or (implicitly?) reserving the right to use force, it is not offensive in the case of NATO.

(2) Expelling the baltic nations that joined NATO would likely only lead to a liability with no recourse (i.e. the need to defend nations that have been, at that point, willfully excluded); isn't the catch-22 with respect to military force (e.g. missile defense that could be withdrawn) that you would you need it when it's no longer there (i.e. not have a motivation to remove it once you've put it in place)?

(3) Withdrawal would remove the semblance of a pretense... but only where the facts of the same are clear; it is openly speculated that, within Russia, what is reported is not consistent with what is reported in America... further, if Russia is acting out of fear then they would just be that much more likely to start WWIII given the opportunity - so how to signal the absence of hostile intent (independent of never attacking Afghanistan & Iraq in the first place) while not rewarding the Russians for flouting international norms under the guise of keeping an unaccountable U.S. in check?

(4) Russia should withdraw from Crimea... though Vladamir Putin has publicly declared, on multiple occasions, that he will not do so (and that economic sanctions can damage the country for the next couple of years without it affecting his opinion).

(5) We cannot "just let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as (uh, where) they may"... Much like the people in those Baltic states that joined NATO post-2000 it is not the fault of the people but rather their leaders (and the fears/uncertainties/dependencies of those leaders) insofar as there is some problem today - statecraft is slow, steady work (kinda like email) but that is all the more reason to not putz up what we already have in the first place (a sentiment I imagine you agree with)...

PS: There are probably a handful of people out there with the game theory experience to see right through the situation to a simple solution; all I know is that compromise requires give and take (as you hinted at) and working together towards a common goal - maybe Obama's efforts at nuclear deterrence (i.e. decommissioning of nuclear weapons) should get some attention before he leaves office.

---

Thx for your reply and hope you're well.

1. I agree with you about NATO's mission, but from the Russian perspective it doesn't matter - they are hostile and potentially offensive if they are observed to keep adding Eastern member states and massing troops near Russia. It is provocative.
2. You can't really win a cold war. Detente and the USSR collapse was exceptionally fortunate for the US and the world, and I'm not sure if we can expect it again. So the alternative is to reduce tension and live with a balance. That means a demilitarized buffer zone between NATO and Russia, to reduce fear on both sides. You presume that Russia intends to invade the Baltics. We don't know that for sure, and they may only be posturing to invade now because they see NATO massing and want to be able to strike first. You see how defense/precaution on both sides can lead to aggression? That is what we need to avoid.
1. I did say that NATO leaving the Baltics is based on a guarantee that they would help if Russia invades. So it is de facto like they are still in NATO (an attack on any member is an attack on all), but without the provocative troops presence that upsets Russia.
3. I think you signal lack of hostile intent and avoid rewarding Russia for bad behavior by: 
1. NATO pulling out of the Baltics, refusing to add any new members that are Russian neighbors, and ceasing military exercises on Russia's flank
2. But also requiring Russia to give back Crimea, stop its arms buildup in the arctic and on the Western border, and cease all military assistance to the Ukrainian rebels - only then will they lift the econ. sanctions
3. And let's remember - the goal is to avoid war, so there has to be some compromise. Sometime that means relaxing principles and "appeasing", as long as you believe it won't enable future worse behavior
4. Putin has to take a hard line with public statements, but I am not sure how critical Crimea is to his defense strategy (they obviously did just fine for decades without it). Again, if NATO pulled back, I think his fixation on Crimea would also naturally wane (esp. with the carrot of lifting sanctions on the table).
5. It's not like I want to abandon Ukraine, but what choice do we have? We can't allow Ukraine to be a proxy cold war and pretext for nuclear war. If either side meddles in Ukraine, it will necessitate a tit-for-tat by the other side, and then you get the escalation spiral. Maybe someone will blink like the CMC, but sadly we can't count on Putin to be as conscientious as Khruschev. And let's remember that the rebels are still at a disadvantage, and have little chance of taking over the country. Maybe the best thing is for Eastern Ukraine to secede if it stops the killing (like in Sudan)? Of course that is not ideal for the gov't in Kiev, but peace has a price.

More black churches targeted after Charleston

Did you guys hear that 5 black churches had fires since the SC massacre? 3 are confirmed arson. So assuming it's not a one-in-a-billion coincidence, we as a nation clearly haven't put this behind us. Black people didn't do anything provocative to upset anyone since Charleston (no riots, revenge, etc.). There's no "reason" to burn churches except that racists were tired of seeing black faces and hearing about racism stuff on the media all the time. Intimidation, suppression, and fear - that is the terrorist's playbook.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/black-churches-fire_n_7681754.html

I read a black commentator write about healing after Charleston (sorry I can't find the link now). It's all well and good that whites and blacks hold hands to cry and sing together after such a tragedy. Then we return to the same society that spawned such a horrific event. America heals and achieves closure after tragedies on the white schedule. When the whites (majority) feel better and want to move on, that is what the nation does.

But what if blacks are still hurting and don't want to pretend that we're done with this? They know that they still have to live with all the same shit when the funerals are over. They know they are more likely to be murdered than whites. They know nothing has really changed after the news vans clear out. So why don't they have the right to say, "No - you don't get to have catharsis and feel normal again, because WE don't. You don't get to act like this tragedy has brought us closer together, when I am still upset with no relief in sight?" I am taking artistic license, but that is what I think he was getting at.

While the victims of SC have been exceedingly Christ-like though this tragedy, I actually wish they weren't. Don't be so nice and let the mainstream society sweep this under the rug. Keep feeling outrage and rub our face in the fact that we have a messed up country and it's unacceptable. Because as good as they are reacting and behaving now, it's not going to stop the next violent bigot (or even cop) from abusing them. Maybe a Malcolm X approach is needed (arm yourselves, or just leave America if they don't feel wanted here).

---

This is a good interview regarding the costs/symptoms of America's refusal to confront its racist heritage: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/06/30/bryan-stevenson-racial-tensions

Cold War 2.0

http://www.hbo.com/vice/episodes/03/36-cold-war-2-0/video/ep-314-debrief.html?autoplay=true

Vice had a special about the Ukraine crisis, and how the US/NATO and Russia are inching closer to the brink (even though we might not realize it in light of the spotty media coverage).

We know that the Russian regime is corrupt and in some cases unlawful. Probably the world would be better off without Putin. But of course they see the US exactly the same, and we have committed war crimes since the fall of the USSR too. Domestic media paint things as good vs. evil in both nations. Maybe with the facts as the impartial judge, Russia has committed more transgressions than the West, but that doesn't really matter when missiles get launched.

So how did we get here?

• After the fall of the USSR, the Russian economy was in shambles, their pride was shaken, and recently freed Warsaw Pact republics were looking towards new partnerships in Europe for prosperity and security
• Russia's aging military was about all it had going for it when Putin took power (embarrassed by the Kursk sub accident, botched hostage rescues, and troubles fighting the Chechens), and his cabinet has been aggressively spending and modernizing since the US campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan
• Surging energy prices due to the War on Terror and rise of Asia helped Russia's defense budget
• Former Soviet territories Czech, Poland, and Hungary joined NATO in 1999, and with US encouragement, 9 more nations followed suit from 2004-2009 (incl. all the Baltics)
• And with the War on Terror bringing US/Coalition forces to several Central Asian republics and Afghanistan, Russia saw itself militarily encircled
• Traditionally, the US feels that it controls the Americas and Pacific, and Russia's sphere of influence is Central Asia, but now where does Eastern Europe stand?
• Russia's influence was challenged in the Balkan wars, where Serbia was an important ally
• While Bosnia was a UN-approved mission, the Kosovo campaign was mostly driven by NATO, due to the Russian UN veto
• NATO decided to defy Russia and bomb Serbia without UN approval, which was seen as disrespectful aggression and a possible portent of future incursions into previously "hands off" nations in the Russian sphere
• The Orange Revolution in Ukraine failed (mostly driven by their terrible economy), and they legitimately returned a pro-Moscow leader (Yanukovich) to power
• Yanukovich was working to scrap a previous deal to bring Ukraine into the EU, which upset much of pro-European western Ukraine
• He eventually stepped down amidst protests, but Russia saw this as a US-backed coup, the Ukrainian civil war broke out, and Russia illegally annexed Crimea
• Putin also declared that Russia should control lands where Russian is spoken, which includes eastern Ukraine (Donetsk region) and some of the Baltics
• I won't go into the Ukraine war details here because it's complex and I don't know much, but it's clear that both powers do not want Ukraine to fall to the other side
• But as a result, NATO has tripled its troops presence in the Baltics/Arctic, and there are even US troops on the ground in western Ukraine
• Russia has amassed forces on the Ukraine border to levels not seen since WWII (and also moved nukes to their far western territory Kalingrad, which is 300 miles from Berlin)
• The US has been working on installing missile defense batteries in Eastern Europe since the Bush years (currently stalled but Obama has revise the plan to start construction in Poland in 2018)
• Both sides are posturing/provoking the other with large military exercises and unusual presence of air/sea forces in previously neutral areas

Who knows what mistakes or calculated risks could result in a scary escalation? So how to we pull back from the brink?

• The problem with military buildups is that the other side can't be sure if they are defensive or not
• We in the West would probably find it ridiculous that Russians think that NATO wants to attack them, but can you really blame them?
• The US/EU sanctions on Russia due to their Ukraine actions is seen as economic warfare (even though the plunging Ruble is mostly due to oil than our sanctions)
• They saw how the US/UK ignored dissenting opinions, brutally invaded and occupied Iraq, and set up new bases all over the world like imperialists
• If the US wants to be the sole superpower, obviously they need to knock down Russia a notch or two (or cage them like we do with Iran)
• But Russia also wants to seize the opportunity of a militarily distracted/weakened US in order to increase its influence and security position - maybe back to the USSR days where they were feared by all
• NATO can't just sit idly by when Crimea falls and Russia is lying about its troops and weapons pouring into Donetsk, so they feel the need to send forces east to show they mean business and deter further Russian aggression
• Barring a risky nuclear ultimatum, both sides will not back down at present course (and will match actions tit-for-tat), so a different strategy is needed
• There are no "madmen" in this situation, and both sides are acting perfectly rationally - just like the Cuban Missile Crisis. But that is the scary part: when escalation to war is the rational move (not to mention what freak accidents or irrational moves could occur), we have to change the rules of the game before it's too late.
• A stalemate and huge buildup of forces on the border is not a sustainable solution either, because a bunch of anxious troops and one false move could make things quickly unravel. We have to demilitarize Eastern Europe, and hopefully permanently.
• Why did NATO accept the Baltics and other former Warsaw Pact nations into their club? Those armies are tiny - what did NATO have to gain defensively at the risk of provoking Russia? That land is very valuable from an offensive standpoint, which is why Russia took it so seriously.
• They should be free to join the EU for prosperity and non-military cooperation, but NATO is a military org with only one purpose - a hedge against Russian invasion of WESTERN Europe (kind of irrelevant since the UK and France have nukes)
• We can kindly "expel" those nations from NATO (compensate them economically), withdraw all forces (incl. any missile defense plans), and declare those nations an unaligned buffer zone - but sign a treaty with Russia that any incursions from either side will be met with force
• That way we remove pretense that Russia uses to justify its actions against a perceived NATO threat, and if Russia does try to muscle into Eastern Europe again, they must do so fully aware that they're ushering in WWIII
• Russia should reciprocate by withdrawing from Crimea
• We just have to let Ukraine duke it out and let the chips fall as they may; the losing power has to respect the rights of the victorious side in the name of world peace
• I'm not saying any of this is easy, and some people will get screwed, but it gives a better chance to avoid nuclear war than the status quo

Taking down the Confederate flag

This was a good discussion about Charleston and race: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/finding-roots-dylann-roofs-radical-violence/

I wish the guests would have hit harder. Yes, white (men) feel under attack these days - but they should have said that those feelings are utterly baseless and not grounded in fact. Or if some whites are having a harder go these days, it is not due to gains by minorities (and there certainly isn't a minority conspiracy for "payback" against whites - even if it's quite deserved). If they don't outright dismiss these lies, then people will continue to believe them (like how the GOP injects doubt into the global warming issue). You can't give Holocaust deniers and Holocaust historians equal respect just to maintain a "fair debate". Bill Maher said that denying the existence of racism (and accusing others of race-baiting) is a form of racism in itself, and I think that's correct. Some on the right would rather attribute Roof's actions to "hatred of Christianity" instead of hatred of blacks. Speaking of that - to those who don't think the SC massacre (and our reaction to it) was racial, what if a synagogue or a meeting of (white) Wall St. execs was attacked by a black power extremist? If America's response would have been different (and it definitely would have), then that shows bias.

IMO, the debate about the Dixie flag is a red herring. I understand that its presence evokes powerful emotions on both sides, but it's a distraction from the core issue. Fighting over symbols is often a fruitless distraction. We can't change the past (nor its icons) and it's better if we accept it and move on. I suppose it's understandable for Southern folks to feel pride about their roots and the "War for Southern Independence." But they also have to acknowledge that some aspects of their society/regime were evil - and the consequences on blacks persist today. They can acknowledge and find a better path forward like Germany, or they can stick their heads in the sand like Japan and Turkey. I would also hope that African-Americans can see past the flag and not let it consume disproportionate attention. They have more important battles to fight.

---

But unlike Germany the can't kick the flag.  Pride in the south is pride in a flag that was raised because they wanted to keep their slaves.  I get having southern pride but it would be unbelievable to have german pride and use the swastika as your symbol.  And the racist roots of the flag have major events that occurred WAY more recently that WW2 so it just strikes me as incredibly odd that anyone is fighting for this flag.

And i don't think the right answer to white men feeling under attack is to say "your problems aren't real" or anything of that nature.  And ultimately the poor white people of this country are cajoled into feeling this way to keep the powers that be in place.  Gun rights, anti poverty measures, anti voting measures, a lot of that stuff relies on poor white people voting against their interests and to do that they bring up the specter of the great "other" who for pretty much all of America's history has been blacks.  Sometimes we use brown people now-a-days but the tactic is the same.  So we should understand that they feel a certain way and be riled up that it wasn't an accident.

---

Re: the flag - I am not well-versed in 1800's US history, but maybe the Union went too easy on the South after the Civil War. I am sure DC just wanted order and unity again, so they permitted the South to cling to their Confederate heroes and imagery. This was before the advent of hate crimes and war crimes, so it's not like any Southern leaders were prosecuted for their atrocities against blacks. And let's remember that most of America was still fairly racist, even if the South was "more racist." So there may not have been much motivation to chastise the South for clinging to racist icons until post-Civil Rights era (plus they were Constitutionally protected).

Let's also remember that many white-power groups display Nazi symbols to this day. It may be outlawed in parts of Europe, but they make slight mods to the swastika and still march in the streets. And lord knows what they say behind closed doors. This is Greece's Golden Dawn (and there are many other examples):

And this is the Klan of course:

As Obama said, fighting racism doesn't end with making the N-word impolite to say in public. You still have to discourage racist thought when no one is looking; it's a matter of values. It might be a moral victory to take down the Dixie flag and Robert E. Lee statues, but we haven't gained much if the proponents of those icons still feel defiant and bigoted in their core.

Re: angry white people - yeah I wasn't suggesting that we should dismiss their problems/hardships, but they need to understand that it is not the fault of minorities. Many bigoted mass shooters like Roof are paranoid narcissists - they think that others are out to get them because they are superior. It's a terrible mindset (incited by some third parties) and should be discouraged/corrected.

If anyone can be justified in feeling under attack and wanting to rise up, it's black/brown people. But for the most part they know they can't, because society may not side with them and law enforcement would not stand for it. Yet we condone anti-gov't (mostly white) militias and questionable Southern pride groups.

---

Honestly, I'm amazed at how responsive Southern state leaders have been re: the flag.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/24/417162233/alabama-governor-orders-removal-of-confederate-flags-from-capitol

You'd think that times like this would make people dig in and stick to their pride/ideals. But maybe the sheer horror of the act (and a smart political calculus) convinced them that it's just not worth it to keep fighting modernity.

I bet a lot of right wing media is pissed, but some folks have changed their minds:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-southern-avenger-repents-i-was-wrong-about-the-confederate-flag.html 

---

The secret is you can still be a bigot without a flag.  And there will be no problem finding the people to vote for who agree with you.  Lots of opportunity to ask for their views with codewords like voter fraud protection, welfware waste, etc etc.

The Confederate flag is easier to get rid of than guns, they probably think if they concede on that they’ll show they can “change.”

---

Thx, guys. Yeah Bill Maher said that guns kill people, but flags don't kill people. Though I think that neglects the fact that symbols can be powerful motivators. A flag can inspire people to hate more, which then leads to the desire to use a gun.

Change is a funny issue - I thought that hardcore conservatives want to show that they are in fact totally resistant to change and proud of it. I bet we will see a lot of that in the GOP primaries - who can be the most proud and inflexible? But then again, this is not 2012 and the GOP is even talking about wealth inequality these days. But I really think they haven't done anything substantial to court minorities. I guess they are clinging to their old (and failed) strategy of mobilizing the base. Good luck with this field of hacks - who of them can energize and inspire John Q. Voter?

If I had to, I probably would pick Graham except for his ultra-aggressive foreign policy approach.  

---

I'm glad you guys raised the Nazi comparison. Has that been discussed in the media? Both flags - among others - are symbols of evil and a mindset that their are superior and inferior races.  Both should be banned from state grounds and memorials. In a free society, we can't ban these symbols outright but we can - and should - call people and institutions out when they use them under the guise of praising people with strong moral convictions and enlightened values of a bygone era. Somehow people are nostalgic about an era where the traditional, native, good, naturally superior, white people owned black people and could savagely beat and kill them without facing any justice because it was their innate right based on their race? 

Yes there is racism is Europe and, sadly, in many other parts of the world. There will always be sympathizers and groups who would like to go back to the "good old days"  where they were treated with the "respect" they deserve. 

What angers and frustrates me is that most Americans seem to fail to recognize the similarity between southern sympathizers and other evil groups. Honestly, I don't see the difference between southern and Nazi sympathizers; but I get the impression that the media and the corporate culture doesn't. 

It wasn't until this heinous incident that Walmart and other businesses "realized" that the confederate flag was offensive and a symbol of hatred? It wasn't until last week that the Governor of South Carolina and other governors and state politicians realized that the flag and other confederate memorials were an inspiration to racists and extremely hurtful and offensive to African Americans? 

---

To take a cynical view, I think Walmart and those others stores decided that the scales finally tipped in favor of PR controversy avoidance/respect for their minority customers vs. sales/pleasing their Dixie customers (like how car companies decide to issue a recall only when the cost of suits/damages > cost of recall). I think some companies decided to stop carrying guns & ammo after mass shooting events.

I suppose it's natural that people don't want to feel like they come from a bad/evil heritage. We are proud creatures. The Germans have been exceedingly contrite after WWII, giving huge reparations to Israel (quietly), enacting anti-hate laws, and setting up a lot of domestic education/memorials. But not so for the US. Didn't Obama get flak from the right for "apologizing for America" too much? Maybe Romney said that. Well, the truth is that we have plenty to apologize and repay for (if we actually care about the values we profess), but we haven't because America is exceptional and awesome. Except for:

• No reparations for slavery, only a tacit declaration that the system was "wrong" (and then there were Tuskegee, Jim Crow, lynchings, war on drugs, etc.)
• Very few reparations and acknowledgement for Native Americans - who suffered war crimes/genocide and we were no better than Cortez/Columbus really (and we can them savages?)
• Promising citizenship and pay for Filipinos who fought for our side vs. Japan in WWII, then totally reneging (and doing the same damn thing with many Iraqis and Afghans who helped us)
• And then there were all the times that we unlawfully and immorally wrecked another people's land
• The list goes on and on...

Empires are not built with kindness and honorable behavior. I think progressive Americans can be open and honest about our "evil" past, for lack of a better word. Growing up in the US edu system, and despite being a crazy leftist, it even gives me pause to call the US evil. But the facts don't change. So I think some in the South haven't reached that point of clarity and reason yet, and likely never will, even if the flag is banned (which we can't do).

I wonder if our leaders/media even ask the South - how do you feel about slavery and the Confederacy? They refused to attribute race/guns to the SC shooting, and I think they would hesitate to speak negatively about Dixie. They prefer to remember those times as if it was "Gone with the Wind," or R.E. Lee charging gallantly into battle against the evil Union oppressors. So actually the guys trying to free your slaves were the evil ones.

Unless we go on an education blitz, this false narrative will persist. We commemorate the ends of the World Wars, why not remember the end of the Civil War (costliest US war in terms of lives and domestic damage) and have a national dialogue about the causes and teachings? We have the Holocaust Museum in DC, why don't we have the US racism and war crimes museums too? I know there are some black history museums here and there, but maybe the public doesn't think it applies to everyone - it's for the blacks to learn about their heritage, right? Well it's a shared heritage, and if we don't confront it, the bad/evil ideas will linger. Like M said, the flag is only part of the problem - we really need to get Americans to stop maintaining the beliefs that the flag represents.