Josh.kaushansky

How would American media cover the news from Ferguson, Missouri, if it were happening in just about any other country? How would the world respond differently? Here, to borrow a great idea from Slate's Joshua Keating, is a satirical take on the story you might be reading if Ferguson were in, say, Iraq or Pakistan.

Reporters surround Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

FERGUSON — Chinese and Russian officials are warning of a potential humanitarian crisis in the restive American province of Missouri, where ancient communal tensions have boiled over into full-blown violence.

"We must use all means at our disposal to end the violence and restore calm to the region," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in comments to an emergency United Nations Security Council session on the America crisis.

The crisis began in August in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis.

In response, ancient American tradition called for the gathering of a community tribal council known as a "grand jury" to weigh the case. On November 24, it announced there would be no charges against the responsible security forces. The stunning decision, which reflects the opaque and mysterious nature of the "grand jury" tradition, further outraged the already despondent local populace.

"we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to America"

America has been roiled by political instability and protests in recent years, which analysts warn can create fertile ground for extremists.

Missouri, far-removed from the glistening capital city of Washington, is ostensibly ruled by a charismatic but troubled official named Jay Nixon, who has appeared unable to successfully intervene and has resisted efforts at mediation from central government officials. Complicating matters, President Obama is himself a member of the minority sect protesting in Ferguson, which is ruled overwhelmingly by members of America's majority "white people" sect.

Analysts who study the opaque American political system, in which all provinces are granted semi-autonomous self-rule, warned that Nixon may seize the opportunity to move against weakened municipal rulers in Ferguson. Missouri's provincial legislature, a traditional "shura council," is dominated by the opposition faction. Though fears of a military coup remain low, it is still unknown how Nixon's allies within the capital will respond should the crisis continue.

Now, international leaders say they fear the crisis could spread.

"The only lasting solution is reconciliation among American communities and stronger Missouri security forces," Chinese President Xi Jinping said in a speech from his vacation home in Hainan. "However, we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to America. So we will continue to pursue a broader strategy that empowers Americans to confront this crisis."

Xi's comments were widely taken as an indication that China would begin arming moderate factions in Missouri, in the hopes of overpowering rogue regime forces and preventing extremism from taking root. An unknown number of Kurdish peshmerga military "advisers" have traveled to the region to help provide security. Gun sales have been spiking in the US since the crisis began.

Analysts warn the violence could spread toward oil-producing regions such as Oklahoma or even disrupt the flow of American beer supplies, some of the largest in the world, and could provide a fertile breeding ground for extremists. Though al-Qaeda is not known to have yet established a foothold in Missouri, its leaders have previously hinted at assets there.

Though Missouri is infamous abroad for its simmering sectarian tensions and brutal regime crackdowns, foreign visitors here are greeted warmly and with hospitality. A lawless expanse of dogwood trees and beer breweries, Missouri is located in a central United States region that Americans refer to, curiously, as the "MidWest" though it is nearer to the country's east.

It is known among Americans as the home of Mark Twain, a provincial writer from the country's small but cherished literary culture, and as the originator of Budweiser, a traditional American alcoholic beverage. Budweiser itself is now owned by a Belgian firm, in a sign of how globalization is transforming even this remote area of the United States. Analysts say some american communities have struggled as globalization has pulled jobs into more developed countries, worsening instability here.

violence could spread to oil-producing regions such as Oklahoma or even disrupt the flow of American beer supplies

Locals here eat a regional delicacy known as barbecue, made from the rib bones of pigs, and subsist on traditional crafts such as agriculture and aerospace engineering. The regional center of commerce is known locally as Saint Louis, named for a 13th century French king, a legacy of Missouri's history as a remote and violent corner of the French Empire.

After Ferguson's streets erupted on Monday, in response the "grand jury" decision, a palpable sense of tension and uncertainty hung in the air. A Chinese Embassy official here declined to comment but urged all parties to exhibit restraint and respect for the rule of law. In Moscow, Kremlin planners were said to be preparing for a possible military intervention should political instability spread to the nearby oil-producing region of Texas.

The roots of unrest in Ferguson, explained in 2 minutes

Sheera Frenkel, BuzzFeed's excellent Middle East correspondent, is in Iraqi Kurdistan, where the United States is launching airstrikes to help Kurdish peshmerga fighters in their life-or-death struggle to expel the Islamic State (ISIS) jihadists who have been pushing into their territory, the latest crisis for Iraqi Kurds in decades of war and genocide.

But the immediacy of that crisis has apparently not prevented Iraq's Kurds from hearing about the mess in Ferguson, Missouri. One of them asked Frenkel about it. His question is so revealing that only someone thousands of miles away could ask it:

Today, an Iraqi Kurd asked me what the people of Furguson had done wrong & why the police were so angry at them. "I feel very bad for them."

— Sheera Frenkel (@sheeraf) August 14, 2014

If you feel a sudden sinking feeling in your chest, that's you realizing this Iraqi Kurd's inevitable disappointment when he or she learns how America really works; that Ferguson's citizens are not being blanketed in tear gas because they erred and are being justly dispersed by the righteous American police force, as they'd assumed, but because there are deep, systemic problems in American criminal justice that have created what is widely seen as a national disgrace.

Out of all the people I have met, no group has seemed more consistently or enthusiastically pro-American than Kurds, so it's not surprising that Frenkel's contact there would assume that American police would only behave this way if the citizens of Ferguson really deserved it. But what we all know, as Americans who are familiar with our country's problems as well as its virtues, is that the truth is a lot uglier in Ferguson. Now this Iraqi Kurd knows it too. He or she, an Iraqi Kurd facing yet another existential threat from a genocidal invasion just miles away, feels sorry for them.

Oxford economist Max Roser has been making an exceptional series of data visualizations illustrating long-term human progress in economic growth, public health, violence prevention, and so forth. Of all of them, I think this one, showing real GDP growth from the year 1 to the present, is my favorite:

(Max Roser)

Now, this is a chart of real GDP rather than GDP per capita, and a lot of what's going on here is a massive increase in the world's population. But that's not all that's happening. Berkeley economist Brad DeLong has estimated that world GDP per capita was essentially flat until about 1750. Renaissance Italy pulled away a little bit, but it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that living standards started to improve exponentially.

Of course, those gains were not evenly shared. Another visualization of Roser's shows that while the entire world had a GDP per capita below $1,000 (measured in 1990 international dollars) until the Renaissance, there are a number of countries that continue to fall below that benchmark, including Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan. That's a travesty. Growth in sub-Saharan Africa, where most of these countries are concentrated, has picked up recently but progress in poverty reduction there has been much slower than in China and India.

The numbers here are more or less extrapolations, and we shouldn't pretend like we have extremely reliable measurements of economic activity going back to the Roman empire. But the overall story — of little to no economic progress followed by a sudden 200-300 year takeoff — is correct, and striking.

For more good news on human progress (including improvements in sub-Saharan Africa), check out Charles Kenny's interview with Ezra Klein:

As with every year, this year's Emmy nominations brought a number of surprise nods and surprise snubs. There are some big Americans fans in the Vox office who can't even speak. And in what world does this past season of The Good Wife not get a nomination?

Here's a brief guide to the unexpected picks and bizarre omissions among the 2014 Emmy Awards nominations:

The Category: Outstanding Drama Series

Courtesy CBS

The snub: No love for The Good Wife. The fifth season of The Good Wife was one of its best and most consistent, and it featured some absolutely riveting story lines. The show also provided the most talked-about moment in television history since Game of Thrones' Red Wedding. Julianna Marguiles (Alicia Florrick), Christine Baranski (Diane Lockhart), and Josh Charles (Will Gardner) were all fantastic and were nominated for their work. It's a shame the show wasn't.

The surprise: There was a mass snubbage. In addition to The Good Wife, favorites like The Americans, and Masters of Sex also did not make the Best Drama cut, but House of Cards and Mad Men did.

The Category: Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series

Courtesy: BBC America

The snub: Tatiana Maslany. Maslany plays 137 characters and a frog (okay, more like five) on Orphan Black, making her one of the hardest-working actresses in the game. And Orphan Black is really, really great. However, as we saw with Emmy voters' refusal to recognize Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, sci-fi and fantasy genres don't get love they deserve.

The Category: Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series

The snubs: Amy Schumer had placed herself as a "supporting actress" in her own show. Explaining that though — under the Emmy's rules, sketch actors cannot submit themselves as lead actresses — is infinitely easier than explaining the reasons why she wasn't nominated in the category.

The surprise: The other big snub in the supporting category was Merritt Wever, last year's winner. The small hype Nurse Jackie had has all but fallen off, but there was still a feeling Wever would snag a nomination.

The Category: Outstanding Actress in a Comedy

The snub: With the departure of Tina Fey and Laura Dern's shows (both were nominated last year), there were two open spots available here. Orange Is the New Black's Taylor Schilling was going to get one, which left one up for grabs. Considering the heavy lifting Mindy Kaling does on her show, The Mindy Project, where she writes and acts, there was a feeling she could grab that last spot. That didn't happen.

What made it worse was that Kaling was reading out the nominations (and her snub) Thursday morning.

The surprise: Melissa McCarthy. McCarthy is a former winner in this category, but there's a lingering feeling that her movie success may be more important to her Emmy success than her actual work on Mike & Molly is.

The Category: Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series

Courtesy: ABC

The snubs: Sandra Oh just finished her last season as Dr. Cristina Yang on Grey's Anatomy but has never won for her excellent work. And Oh's performance in her farewell season rank right up there with her acting on the first three seasons of the show.

And what about Bellamy Young? There is no Scandal without Young's Mellie Grant. Both Young and Oh should both be calling Olivia Pope to handle this.

The surprises: Christina Hendricks. Hendricks is great on Mad Men, but it felt as if she didn't have as much to do this season — especially compared to Young and Oh.

The other surprise was Lena Headey. Headey finally gets a nomination for her consistently great work as the prickly Cersei Lannister on Game of Thrones.

The Category: Outstanding Actor in a Drama Series

The snub and the surprise: Mads Mikkelsen plays the iconic role of Hannibal Lecter on NBC's Hannibal with precision and depth. His acting has been emotional and believable, and for the second year in a row it will go unnoticed and uncelebrated.

The Category: Outstanding Actor in a Comedy Series

The snub: None. Compared to 2012-13 which had Jim Parsons, Alec Baldwin, Jason Bateman, Matt LeBlanc, and Louis C.K battling for the award, the competition in this category isn't as tough: C.K., LeBlanc and Parsons are back along with Don Cheadle (House of Lies), William H. Macy (Shameless) and Ricky Gervais (Derek).

The surprise: Ricky Gervais getting a nomination. Derek has thrived without that much hype, and when it was written and talked about, many people have found Gervais's portrayal of a mentally-challenged man downright offensive.

Much has been made of the vaunted "youth vote" in the Obama era, of the surge in voters younger than 30 who've turned out -- many for the first time, all defying expectations -- in numbers crucial to influencing the last two presidential elections. But even during the 2012 election, younger voters in fact cast significantly fewer ballots than we might expect, given their share of the voting-eligible population.

During the last presidential election, voters aged 18-29 made up 21.2 percent of the population of voting-age citizens in the United States. But they made up just 15.4 percent of all people who actually voted. The gap between these two numbers has varied over the years, but the pattern has remained consistent for at least a generation: Younger voters are invariably underrepresented at the polls even in presidential election years.

This also means that older voters -- particularly those aged 45 and over -- are consistently overrepresented. The graph below, from a new Census analysis of data in the Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplements, captures this pattern over the last five presidential elections:

U.S. Census Bureau

That graph shows, for instance, that in 2012 younger people voted at a rate that was 5.8 percentage points lower than their share of the voting-eligible population. That's a narrower gap than in 1996 and 2000. Voters 45 to 64, meanwhile, accounted in the last election for a share of the voting population that was 3.5 points higher than their share of the potential voting pool.

Why does this persistent pattern matter, beyond the implications in turnout models heading into the next general election? Younger and older Americans have divergent views on a number of public policy questions, from gay marriage to legalized marijuana to immigration. And, particularly on social issues -- where older voters tend to be more conservative -- policy could shift more slowly than public opinion data would suggest if the demographic driving attitude change in America doesn't turn out to vote at rates in line with its full potential influence.

Consider views on an issue in the news this week, affirmative action. This data comes from a 2010 Pew Research Center report on the "pro-government, socially liberal generation" of so-called millennials:

Pew Research Center

Here is a similarly gaping split in response to whether people agree with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage":

More specifically, this is the generational gap on gay marriage:

And on legalizing marijuana:

The gap is narrower but still notable on creating legal status for undocumented immigrants:

To the extent that younger would-be voters have very different views than their parents and grandparents on these questions, they're currently not translating those views in the voting booth as loudly as they could.

Most US airlines follow the same procedure for allowing non-first-class passengers to board a plane. They let people who are sitting in the back board first, then people in the next few rows, gradually working their way toward the front.

This procedure makes absolutely no sense.

The Data shows this is not a good way to board an airplane

If asked to devise a boarding method without any data, you might settle on this as a pretty sensible one. But the airlines do have data — and numerous studies have shown this is not a good way to board an airplane, in terms of time or customer satisfaction.

The fastest ways to board a plane are Southwest's boarding method — where people choose their own seats — or a theoretical boarding method known as the "Steffen method" that's not currently in use.

Both simulations and real-life experiments have proven the standard method to be the slowest out of several different ones. In 2012, the TV show "Mythbusters" recruited 173 people to compare four methods in a replica airplane interior and found that Southwest's boarding method was the fastest. A close second was allowing all windows seats to board first, then all middles, then all aisles (outside-in).

The worst way to board a plane

Here's a video showing the standard boarding process, used by the vast majority of airlines:

You can see the problem with this process pretty clearly in the video: people spend a lot of time waiting in line in the aisle.

That's because when each passenger goes to sit, there's a good chance someone who's already sat down in that row will have to get up to let him or her in, slowing everything down (the only way this can be avoided is if they happen to arrive in window-middle-aisle order). At any given time, most of the people who are boarding are trying to access the same few rows and the same few overhead bins, so everyone has to do a lot of waiting in the aisle.

Having the back board first seems logical, but all it does is move the line onto the plane, instead of the jet bridge.

A slightly better way: the random method

Surprisingly, just letting people get on the plane in an order unrelated to their seats leads to slightly faster boarding times than the standard method.

US Airways began doing this in May 2009: they let frequent fliers and the like board first, then everyone else, by order of check in.

This method is a bit faster because at any given time, most of the people boarding the plane are not trying to get in the same few rows and overhead bins at once. There's still some congestion — because of people needing to get up to let others in — but it's staggered throughout the plane.

An even better way: the outside-in method

This method cuts down on the total amount of congestion because each time a passenger sits down, no one is already sitting in their row, so they don't have to wait for someone to get up to allow them in. Because everyone isn't trying to get in the same few rows at the same time, many different passengers can access the overhead bins and enter their seats simultaneously.

The small downside is that people who are sitting together can't board together, a problem for families with children and couples who inexplicably require continuous physical contact.

The fastest (current) way: the Southwest method

Southwest Airlines uses the unassigned seat method: people get on the plane in their order of check in, but they have no assigned seat, and can just sit down wherever they like. Sadly, there is no video for it, but it is the fastest way to board a plane that any airline currently uses.

The downside of Southwest's method is stress

It works because passengers spend less time waiting in line in the aisle. If there's a line in front of you or someone taking a long time to put their bag in the overhead bin, you have the freedom to just sit down in the row you're standing at currently instead of waiting to get past. In doing so, you're clearing the aisle and making things faster for the people behind you.

The downside of this method is that some people get stressed about the idea of having to choose their own seat and don't like waiting in line (or checking in online) for the chance to pick earlier. People also like to sit with friends and family, and passengers who pick their seat later on in the process might not find any blocks of open seats together.

In the "Mythbusters" experiment, this method led to lower customer satisfaction scores, even though it was fastest. The nearly as fast outside-in method scored much higher.

The very best (theoretical) way: the Steffen method

Jason Steffen, a physicist who got interested in plane boarding while stuck in line at the Seattle airport and subsequently conducted much of the research in this area, came up with an even better boarding system using computer models.

Steffen's method is a close relative of the outside-in method, but instead of allowing all window seat passengers to board first, it creates a choreographed sequence of them to avoid any aisle-waiting at all.

Basically, window seat passengers from one whole side of the plane are sent in, followed by the window seat passengers from the other side. But the rows of passengers allowed in are staggered, so you never have multiple passengers using the same aisle space to sit down or put their bags into the overhead bins. (Example: you send in 36A, 34A, and 32A, then 35A, 33A, and 31A).

This eliminates waiting while someone in your row gets up to let you in (like the outside-in method), but also makes sure that at any given time, the passengers getting on are accessing completely different rows and overhead bins, further cutting down on congestion.

This method wasn't tested in the "Mythbusters" episode, but Steffen tested it himself. His experiments were simpler (they used a 72-seat plane), but they showed the Steffen method was faster than the standard, random, or outside-in methods.

Unfortunately, he didn't test the Southwest method, so we don't know for sure which is faster. But given how it compared to the other methods, it seems like the Steffen method would at least be competitive with Southwest's. And for a passenger, it would feel roughly like the outside-in method, so it'd probably be much less stress-inducing.

So why don't airlines use the best methods?

A great question. These methods are all unquestionably faster than the standard method, so would speed up the turnaround times, theoretically saving airlines money. But almost none of them use it.

The current system might make airlines more money than they'd save by switching

One possible answer is that the current system actually makes them more than they'd save by switching. As Businessweek pointed out, airlines often allow some passengers to pay extra to board early and skip the general unpleasantness. If the entire boarding process was faster to begin with, many people might not pay extra to skip it.

For passengers, though, this makes no sense. Most of us are waiting in line longer than necessary, and those who pay extra are sitting on planes longer than necessary. No one is getting to their destinations any faster, and everyone is paying higher base prices for tickets, because airlines have to pay extra to the crew for their time used during these delayed turnarounds.

David was originally intended for the buttress of the Florence Cathedral. But William E. Wallace figures that Michelangelo knew that at a weight of 8.5 tons, devising a proper support system for the sculpture would be “an impossible task.” The artist “realized the impossibility of the job from the earliest moment, even before he began carving the figure,” insists Wallace. “This realization, in effect, liberated him”:

Given the familiarity of the David, it is difficult for us to appreciate just how novel it is. Despite many highly regarded precedents in Florentine art for the representation of David, Michelangelo carved a unique work: an oversize, illogically nude figure with almost no identifying attributes. One could hardly imagine a more peculiar means of representing the young shepherd boy of the Bible, nor a more inappropriate figure to adorn the cathedral. I believe David looks as it does because Michelangelo, realizing that it would not be placed on the cathedral buttress, was free to carve a completely original work. And that is precisely what he did.

(Photo by John W. Schulze)

Over at Political Calculations, they have updated an excellent graphic showing the various folsk Uncle Sam owes money to:
click for larger graphic

Source: Political Calculations

It’s hard to say:

Dogs have lived with us for as many as 30,000 years—20,000 years longer than cats. More than any other animal on the planet, dogs are tuned in to the “human radio frequency”—the broadcast of our feelings and desires. Indeed, we may be the only station dogs listen to.

Cats, on the other hand, can tune us in if they want to (that’s why they pass the pointing test as well as dogs), but they don’t hang on our every word like dogs do. They’re surfing other channels on the dial. And that’s ultimately what makes them so hard to study. Cats, as any owner knows, are highly intelligent beings. But to science, their minds may forever be a black box.

Still, there may be hope. As scientists begin to experiment with new ways to study animal intelligence—from eye-tracking technology to fMRI machines—they may yet find a way to peek inside the feline mind.

Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex recreates the philosopher’s dialogues for contemporary times. David Auerbach reviews the book:

“Plato at the 92nd Street Y” pits him against the Chua-ish “Warrior Mother” Sophie Zee, discussing Republic’s hypothetical “city of pigs” and testing out in the Myers-Briggs typology as an INTJ (just like yours truly); “Plato on Cable News” has him exchanging blows with a bloviating Bill O’Reilly clone named Roy McCoy. And yes, here is Plato at the Googleplex, debating an engineer over the possibility of crowdsourcing ethics, as well as wryly comparing its communal environment to the training of young philosopher-kings in the Republic. (I used to work for Google, and believe me, we had it way better than Plato’s ascetic Guardians.)

By alternating between these new “Platonic dialogues” and a serious chronicle of Plato’s life and philosophy, Goldstein makes a plea for the continuing importance of philosophy as Plato (427–347 B.C.) conceived it, and for the enduring relevance of Plato’s contributions.

Elizabeth Toohey weighs in:

[T]here’s something moving, if also faintly depressing, about reading Plato inserted into 21st-century Western culture.

It brings to light the gap between what might have been and what is – and what we appear to be moving toward. Consider, for instance, Plato’s musing, “I do not think that rulers should be able to own substantive private property, for substantive property will immediately make them citizens of the city of the rich, with its own special interests to protect.”  It doesn’t take much imagination to deduce what Plato would have to say about PACs.

Nick Romeo interviewed Goldstein:

[Q] How do you think Plato would respond to the cultural dominance of television and cinema?

[A] He’d be very alarmed. You can’t help but think immediately of his allegory of the cave in The Republic: The lowest form of consciousness is that of prisoners in the dark staring at images. He would be quite in despair. He would think that we were enchanted by the lowest form of thinking. To think is to be active; passivity is the death of the mind.

But he wouldn’t oppose all of contemporary culture. Just this past week I started tweeting as Plato; I guess I’m not ready to stop impersonating him. And this kind of thing, the dialogue that happens on blogs and social media, I think he would be into it. I think he’d be intrigued by that aspect of popular culture: the verbal and the written exchanges.

(Carl Court/Bloomberg News )

As humans, we're suckers for relying on the influence of others around us. This is why we're more likely to don our running shoes if everyone else in our neighborhood seems to be out exercising. It's why environmental psychologists believe we're more likely to recycle if we see our neighbors recycle, too. It's why public health researchers talk about "social contagion."

And this is also why concerned parents and policymakers have long been worried about cigarettes on the street. If kids see people smoking everywhere, the thinking goes, they'll grow up believing the behavior is entirely normal and acceptable. And that social influence might as well be just as bad as the second-hand smoke.

Social influence is particularly difficult to measure. But researchers in New Zealand have come up with one potential method on the cigarette front: mapping smoking visibility on local city streets. The result is a fascinating cross-pollination of geospatial data and public health.

Their technique could easily be replicated on American streets, or extended to study the visual effects of just about any naughty or beneficial public behavior (drinking 16-ounce sodas, chewing tobacco, biking). This study is the kind of thing that Michael Bloomberg would love.

The researchers -- Amber Pearson and George Thomson of the University of Otago and Daniel Nutsford of the University of Canterbury -- collected 28 hours of observational data on 411 smokers outside bars and restaurants in downtown Wellington. They then used the data to create three-dimensional "viewsheds" of smoking on a map of the city's central business district, taking into account the actual height and footprints of local buildings and the plausible sight lines around them.

Here is one result from their findings published in the journal BMC Public Health. It's a map illustrating how much visual exposure to smoking we're likely to experience on a Friday night in downtown Wellington from any given viewpoint:

"Measuring visual exposure to smoking behaviours: a viewshed analysis of smoking at outdoor bars and cafés across a capital city’s downtown area" by A. Pearson et al. in BMC Public Health

This map doesn't capture smokers strolling down the street, leaning out of passing cars or simply congregating outside other buildings (it also ignores the ability to see smokers from a nearby balcony or window). But the smoking outside of bars and restaurants alone was pretty pervasive. At one venue, the study counted 44 lit cigarettes in one 15-minute window. At night, bars showed on average 10 lit cigarettes per 15-minute time frame.

The map above also shows that streets with a lot of retail and restaurants were (visual) smoking hotspots, particularly at night. Here are two contrasting views during the day:

Pearson et al.

As for what this might look like in the United States, smoking rates are higher here than in New Zealand. Laws on where you can smoke in public also vary dramatically depending on the city (in new Zealand, public smoking is legal outside parks and playgrounds).

The authors suggest that places with "strong pedestrian cultures" like Europe probably have to worry more about visible smoking. That is arguably less of a problem in the United States.

The six — six! — big warning signs that Russia may be planning to try to annex eastern Ukraine along with Crimea.

Ever since Russian troops annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea in mid-March, people have been worried that Russia could try to push into eastern Ukraine as well. Like Crimea, parts of eastern Ukraine are majority Russian-speaking and having historical ties to Russia, so it stood to reason they could be next. That didn't immediately happen, but since Sunday it has very rapidly started to look more likely. Here's why.

1) The chain of events looks a lot like what happened in Crimea

On Sunday, pro-Russian protests gathered in the regional capitals of Ukraine's three easternmost regions. The protests are calling for independence from Ukraine and include bands of masked men, some of whom have seized government buildings. In at least one of those three regional capitals, the pro-Russia protesters began waving Russian flags. Some of the men are now carrying assault rifles.

That's roughly how Russia's Crimea annexation started: pro-Russia protests appeared, then bands of masked men appeared and seized government buildings, then the bands of men had guns, then the bands grew until it was obvious they were actually Russian military, then the Russian military formally rolled in and occupied Crimea.

This may be a coincidence. Or the protests may be organic and just trying to copy what happened in Crimea, this time without any encouragement from Moscow. But it's hard to ignore the parallels.

2) The pro-Russia protests are in regions that conveniently border Russia

If pro-Russia protests broke out in a region that did not border Russia, then Russian troops would have no way to get there. And it would be much harder for Russia to annex Ukrainian territory that doesn't border its own. Here's a map:

To be clear, the regions that border Russia also tend to have some of the largest Russian-speaking populations, so it may just be a coincidence. But, again, there an awful lots of coincidences happening right now.

3) There are a bunch of Russian troops along the eastern Ukrainian border

In mid-March, Russia's military deployed a number of troops, fighter jets, transport planes, and infantry vehicles to a few different spots along the border between Russia and eastern Ukraine. In fact, the troops just happen to be right near the regions with pro-Russia protesters — in some cases, mere miles from the border. The troops are still there.

4) Ukrainian leaders are convinced Russia is about to invade

"An anti-Ukrainian plan is being put into operation," Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said in public remarks, "under which foreign troops will cross the border and seize the territory of the country."

Yatseniuk's comments were released as part of a cabinet meeting, which means they represent the Ukrainian government's position. Having already been invaded by Russia once, they probably have some idea of what they're talking about.

5) The protesters are calling for a Russian intervention

In one of the three regional capitals, Donetsk, the protesters declared that Donetsk was now an independent republic. But, according to an official "proclamation" issued by the protesters, "In the event of aggressive action from the illegitimate Kiev authorities, we will appeal to the Russian Federation to bring in a peacekeeping contingent." Kind of like in Crimea.

Pro-Russia protesters in another one of the seized capitals are calling for a referendum like the one that Crimea held to declare independence from Ukraine and join Russia. (Crimea was under Russian military occupation at the time.)

6) Russia is making very difficult demands to Ukraine

Russia's foreign ministry released a statement referencing the pro-Russia protests and saying that Ukraine needed to institute a federal system, which would give the Russian-speaking eastern regions more autonomy and special privileges for the Russian language. If Ukraine didn't do this, the statement warned, "it is hard to expect long-term stabilization of the Ukrainian state."

Like with everything else on this list, there is a straightforward reading of this that says Russia is just plain worried about Ukraine and thinks federalism is the right solution. Then there's the more skeptical reading that wonders if Russia is issuing potentially unworkable demands to Ukraine and warning of the state's instability as a pretense to "solving" the problem themselves by intervening.

In all, any one of these six items would not be too alarming. But, taken in total, it's hard to see all of them as purely innocent.

Source: Bloomberg Visual Data

From Bloomberg Visual Data:

A weakening in price growth over the past two years can largely be blamed on muted costs for health care, cars, clothing and financial services. Core PCE inflation running at 1.09 percent owes much of its small climb to housing-related prices. The rise in those costs, including rent, has begun to slow, keeping a lid on inflation.

The following quote from British comedian Tom Cowell’s pros and cons of Americans is a great complement to this mega-popular Dish post from last year:

Americans are so wonderfully, sincerely down-to-earth, we have trouble believing it. To the cynical British mind, any genuine pleasure in meeting a new person is a sign of potential mental illness. But Americans actually want to make new friends. They want to get along with you, stranger. It makes one’s like infinitely more interesting to have an American around, because you meet EVERYONE. It’s like permanently going through life with a puppy, or the latest iPhone.

Doug Baldwin speaks on player priorities; trolls respond with envy; Jason clears up a few matters.

Our own Doug Baldwin recently did a guest commentary about players' perspectives on free agency, and the need to earn money while they are still able. Most of the comments (link is to ESPN's transcript) were supportive. But a few critics displayed a typical range of cognitive dysfunction, including: logical inconsistency, a failure to consider alternatives, bad math, and raw envy.

Raw Envy

I'm currently channeling the spirit of a 17th-century laborer (really!) who is envious of our running water, abundant food, indoor heat, and 40-hour work week. From his perspective, our basic lifestyle is incredibly lavish.

And yet we scrutinize the price of every item we buy at the store, complain about our rent, ask for raises and overtime, and change jobs to get more money. We do this out of greed and not for survival. The proof is in the fact that we parlay our savings and earnings into such luxuries as private automobiles, cable television, computers, vacations, etc.

From the perspective of our 17th-century laborer, he was cheated out of these basic luxuries by mere happenstance. He hates us for having what he did not, and translates that into an accusation of avarice in our "excessive" desire for consumer goods. If he had a refrigerator and two days off every week, he wouldn't expect a television!

Now look at some of these comments from the transcript:

"However, unlike normal working Joes, he's made $1,400,000 in his first three years on the job ... In the end, this comes off just as more whining from the 1%."

"I could buy an awesome house and retire on the same amount of cash that took you 1,000 days to earn."

"Ya'll are a bunch of overpaid douchbags regardless if you play for my team or not. You get paid stupid amounts of money to do something that is a hobby and recreation for us average Joe's. Hell, if I could make $1.4 million a year for playing and winning racquetball tournaments... I wouldn't be whining... "

The Kübler-Ross model of the five stages of grief includes a step known as bargaining. Bargaining involves an irrational hope of "negotiation for an extended life [usually] made with a higher power." People under the extreme emotional stress of grief deserve our sympathy. People under the extreme emotional stress of spiteful envy deserve our scorn.

Because that is the exact and exclusive sentiment being expressed in the comments above. These people do not want Doug Baldwin to experience some kind of enlightened attitude. They want his money for themselves. They want the money for doing what they're already doing. Subconsciously, they are trying to achieve this impossible windfall by bargaining with a higher power. They are trying to undersell the players with a lower offer. Again and again, when detractors say that a player contract for millions of dollars is "too much", they inevitably add "I'd be willing to take a few million less." By which they mean: "I'd be willing to take a bunch of his money."

There are no objective standards. Contract for $5 million? "What a douche! I'd settle for $1.4 million." Contract for $10 million? "Greedy bastard! I'd be happy with $7 million." Contract for $22 million? "Total ass! $18 million would be plenty for me." Witness the hypocrisy. These people would take $18 million without the slightest hint of shame for it being undeserved, so long as they can point the finger at someone with more money. Then they will turn around and pronounce judgment on someone earning less than a third that amount.

Logical Inconsistency

A more admirable sentiment comes from fans who've cheered for players on their favorite team, and want to see some reciprocal loyalty. Fair enough-- that's part of being a sports fan. But we go too far when we question that individual's character for moving on. It's not as if these players are born and raised to play for their first pro team. Michael Bennett came to Seattle from Tampa Bay-- does it make sense to ask for loyalty to the Seahawks while ignoring the fact that he jumped ship from the Buccaneers? Baldwin himself went to high school in Florida and played college ball at Stanford, but shunned NFL teams in both his home and adopted state when the Seahawks offered him a comparatively huge UDFA signing bonus. The team that woos the player with the biggest contract is displaying admiration and confidence-- shouldn't that be reciprocated?

Then there's the ridiculous assertion that players who consider "other factors" in choosing a free agency destination set some kind of standard for being "less greedy". Does that make them any less selfish? Every player is going to weigh job satisfaction, location, and the chance of winning against financial compensation, then choose the best combination. If an individual values his immediate happiness more, does that make him a better person? Championship glory is fleeting and it won't put the kids through college. The player who takes more money at least has the option of deferring his rewards until later in life, and retains a fungible asset that can be spent a variety of ways. Again, it comes down to envy: Most of us have some control over who we hang out with, where we live, and what kind of work we do. We aren't jealous of athletes for having these things as well. It's the money that they get and we don't which incites criticism.

Alternatives

The NFL has a salary cap, minimum spending rules, and free agency. These ensure not only parity, but a peak level of competitiveness (even when a pair of 2-13 teams meet in the last game of the season, there is no slacking off).

Every fan wants to see his team win the Super Bowl, and if players accept sub-market contracts to make that possible, we're going to be thrilled. But that's ultimately a zero-sum game. The NFL cannot be composed of 32 Miami Heats. So being unhappy that a player wants more money to play for your team is understandable; but complaining that players across the league are wrecking their team's salary caps via greed is just plain stupid. By that logic, the NFL would be flush with cheap talent if we gave every team two first-round draft picks.

Ultimately, it's hard to imagine what these self-righteous whiners could possibly want (other than a free load of money for themselves). Let's say a player can get $7 million per year as a free agent but decides that it would be "greedy" to take that much money. So he talks his suitor down to $5 million a year. That other $2 million isn't going to be handed out to underpaid rookies, minimum-contract veterans, or children's hospitals. It's going to get used to re-sign a Joe Flacco, extend a Mark Sanchez, or acquire an Albert Haynesworth.

Math

Now we get to the fun part. Some folks are astounded that anyone could possibly want more money when he's already getting

But a million dollars doesn't buy what it used to. In another twenty years, it will buy even less.

Normal wage earners not only have their relative income increase as they get closer to retirmenet (from job experience), but their absolute income is also compounded by wage inflation. With peak earnings in their 50's, there aren't many years of inflation left before retirement. When earnings are concentrated in a person's twenties, inflation is a big, big, deal.

And to top it off, concentrated earnings can push you into the highest tax bracket, even if your overall life earnings may be very pedestrian on average.

Calculating the inflation-adjusted lifetime value of a lump sum is a bit tricky, and requires integral calculus. But as long as I'm in communion with 17th-century spirits, I've called on Sir Isaac Newton to help us out (spare me the Gottfried Leibniz apologists, I needed a ghost who could speak English). The formula for per-annum, inflation-adjusted income looks like this:

ln is the natural logarithm, and the inflation rate is given as an annual multiple (e.g., for 3% annual inflation the rate would be 1.03).

The mean inflation rate over the last 10 years is 2.39% (1.0239). Federal income tax on earnings above $450,000 is currently 39.6%.

And, just for comparison, the 2011 median household income in the U.S. was $50,054 per annum. Adjusting for inflation up to 2013 (assuming wage inflation matches the CPI) and deducting federal taxes, the after-tax income would be $46,395.

Also for 2011, households headed by persons between the ages of 45 and 54 had a mean income of $77,634 ($70,414 applying the same inflation and tax adjustments to 2013 dollars). With that in mind, here's a sampling of how much money an NFL player would have available each year with a given initial earnings total, inflation rate, tax rate, and life expectancy:

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:

• The highest tax bracket applies to earnings above $450K, so the total tax rate on a given sum will be slightly lower (the first x dollars at taxed at one rate, the next y dollars at a higher rate, etc.). But if a large sum is taxed all at once, the difference would be very small.
• Tax-deferred retirement accounts can be used to spread out your earnings (you pay taxes when it's withdrawn, not when it's earned) and avoid the highest tax brackets. Hence the lower rates are provided in some examples.
• Agent fees are not included (as high as 3%). Neither are state taxes, which will present the same bracket challenges as Federal taxes if earnings are not deferred.
• If a player underestimates his future earnings and/or if tax rates go up, deferral can be rendered useless or even backfire.
• Even frugal players are likely to have some major expenses right away-- like buying a house. This means that earnings need to be taken immediately and thus the highest tax rates need to be paid.
• Being rich is expensive, part I: It's hard to say 'no' to family and charity when you just got paid millions. At the very least, most players will want to buy their parents an early retirement.
• Being rich is expensive, part II: Having a lot of money available means less (or no) financial aid when your kids go to college. Former players who aren't working (or who are working freelance or any other non-wage activity) won't have medical benefits for themselves or their family, and private insurance is very expensive.
• Both medical costs and, especially, college tuition are outpacing the overall CPI (Consumer Price Index), making the inflation rate likely understated for former player. The CPI itself is a very political tool, and thus may be understated generally (google "Chained Consumer Price Index" for an example).
• Average U.S. life expectancy is 80 years at birth, which means it's slightly higher at age 25, and only likely to go up. One might die sooner, but that's not a fun thing to hope for. (Average life expectancy for a cat is 14 years, and for a dishwasher is 9 years-- courtesy of google's autocomplete. Average life expectancy for a cat in a dishwasher is about 18 minutes, courtesy independent research pure speculation.)

After a hefty tax burden, Doug Baldwin's $1.4 million could buy you a nice house, a sports car, and six months of rich living; followed by three years in a cheap apartment getting fat on ramen noodles while watching basic cable before going back to work. I guess that's "living the dream" for some folks.

Five million is a good nest egg, but not nearly enough to consider retiring on.

Ten million dollars, frugally managed and conservatively invested, is the minimum amount where you can start to consider the money as your primary means of sustenance for the remainder of your life. But even forgoing the most minor luxuries in your twenties (like an upscale residence or a new car), your long-term annual budget of $66K is going to be smaller than your peers by the time you reach your forties. You could move to a rural area, clip coupons, and make it by without working, but former players at this level are most likely going to be seeking another income.

And, finally, note that $10 million in guaranteed money is going to associated with a contract in the range of 4 years at $7 million per year. So when you hear that a player shopped around and landed a "$28 million contract", not only have they not struck it rich, they haven't even secured enough to retire on.

Mara Kozelsky reminds us of Crimea’s significance in the history of the Russian Orthodox church:

Crimea sits at the heart of both the Third Rome idea and Nicholas I’s nationality platform, because it was on the peninsula that Byzantium passed the mantle of Orthodoxy to Russia. In the ancient Greek colonial city of Chersonesos, the Byzantine emperor baptized the Kyivan Rus Prince Vladimir. Prince Vladimir’s conversion has been described by an early Russian nationalist as “the most important event in the history of all Russian lands,” because the conversion “began a new period of our existence in every respect: our enlightenment, customs, judiciary and building of our nation, our religious faith  and our morality.”

Beyond Prince Vladimir’s conversion, Crimea gave Russia a first century Christian pedigree.  Roman Emperor Trajan exiled the first century pope Clement to Crimea, where he founded an early Christian community that hid among neolithic caves. Some biblical scholars also believe St. Andrew the Apostle passed through Crimea en route to his mission field in Scythia.  Until the communists imposed an official policy of atheism, Russian archaeologists, historians and biblical scholars combed over the peninsula looking for the exact location of Prince Vladimir’s conversion and evidence supporting the first century legends. The Russian Orthodox Church, meanwhile, established a network of monasteries on the peninsula and promoted pilgrimages to “Russian or Crimean Athos.” Crimea became Russia’s very own holy place.

Boris Barkanov stresses the symbolic value of Ukraine writ large:

Ukraine (Kiev especially) is at the very heart of the origin myth of the Russian nation and civilization.  An analogous case is the significance of the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock (al-Aqsa Mosque) in Jerusalem to Jews and Muslims respectively.  This means that for Russian and Ukrainian nationalists, Ukraine is what UC Berkeley political scientist Ron Hassner has called a “sacred space.”  It appears indivisible, but has to be shared to avoid conflict and violence.  The same is true for Tatar, Ukrainian, and Russian nationalists regarding Crimea.  Defusing such conflicts requires thoughtful, innovative solutions that empower moderate, rather than radical, political forces on all sides.

Alexander Motyl, responding to an op-ed by Henry Kissinger from last week, pushes back on parts of this narrative:

Pace Kissinger, the Russian religion did not spread from “what was called Kievan-Rus.” What spread was Orthodox Christianity and it spread from Constantinople, thanks in no small measure due to the proselyting efforts of Ss. Cyril and Methodius, both Greeks. True, Ukraine “has been part of Russia for centuries,” but it’s been no less a part of the Mongol empire, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Polish Commonwealth, the Habsburg Empire, and the Ottoman Empire.

(Illustration of Vladimir I of Kiev via Wikimedia Commons)

Quoctrung Bui explains why you should always order the largest pizza:

The math of why bigger pizzas are such a good deal is simple: A pizza is a circle, and the area of a circle increases with the square of the radius. So, for example, a 16-inch pizza is actually four times as big as an 8-inch pizza. And when you look at thousands of pizza prices from around the U.S., you see that you almost always get a much, much better deal when you buy a bigger pizza.

Update from a reader:

As a real New Yorker, I feel it is important to share the information on the other reason to buy the largest pizza you can.

In “real” pizza places (not chains), they pre-make the dough ahead of time and save it out into dough-balls.  When you order your pizza, the pizza maker stretches the dough into the appropriate size for the pan, puts the sauce, cheese and toppings on, and shoves it in the oven.  What he does not do, is say, “hmmm, they have ordered a medium pizza as opposed to the standard large pizza, let me take a portion of this dough off of my dough ball.” What you actually get is a pizza with a tougher, thicker, less-good crust because the dough is the right amount for the standard size pizza.  And the standard sized pizza is a large.

On an unrelated note, I just renewed today.  I upped my renewal from the standard rate ($19.99) to one dollar for every year I have been alive ($42).  I think this will be my go-to going forward.  I was going to just renew, but I found out yesterday I am getting a promotion, so my good fortune is your good fortune.

Damn, now I am hungry for pizza for lunch.

Source: Climateer Investing

Tasneem Raja and Chris Mooney compare state-by-state data on vaccine exemptions:

There’s evidence that tightening exemption laws makes a difference. After reaching an exemption rate of 7.6 percent in 2009, Washington state passed a law requiring parents to get a doctor’s signature if they wanted to opt out of their children’s vaccinations. In just two years, the exemption rate plummeted by more than 40 percent. Pertussis vaccination ratesclimbed to 92.4 percent in the past school year, representing “the highest pertussis vaccine completion rate for kindergartners since the state began to collect this data in the 2006-2007 school year,” according to the Washington’s Department of Health.

Razib Khan examines the data for patterns:

[R]ather than a standard Left-Right axis, I think we’re seeing a “crunchy counter-culture” sentiment.

Alan Jacobs worries that the fast pace of the blogosphere is discouraging writers from doing their homework and really understanding the issues they’re writing about:

[O]ne of the most reliable ways to sharpen your own thinking is to find out what other smart people have thought and said about the things you’re interested in — that is, to take the time to read. But the content-hungry world of online publishing creates strong disincentives for writers to take that time. Almost every entity that has an online presence wants to publish as frequently as possible — as long as the quality of the writing is adequate. And often “adequacy” is determined by purely stylistic criteria: a basic level of clarity and, when possible, some vividness of style. That the writer may be saying something indistinguishable from what a dozen or a hundred writers have said before is rarely a matter of editorial concern. Get the content out there!

Tim Parks observes the same obsession with publishing among fiction writers:

Every year, I teach creative writing to just a couple of students. These are people in their mid-twenties in a British post-graduate course who come to me in Italy as part of an exchange program. The prospect of publication, the urgent need, as they see it, to publish as soon as possible, colors everything they do. Often they will drop an interesting line of exploration, something they have been working on, because they feel compelled to produce something that looks more “publishable,” which is to say, commercial. It will be hard for those who have never suffered this obsession to appreciate how all-conditioning and all-consuming it can be. These ambitious young people set deadlines for themselves. When the deadlines aren’t met their self-esteem plummets; a growing bitterness with the crassness of modern culture and the mercenary nature, as they perceive it, of publishers and editors barely disguises a crushing sense of personal failure.