Two weeks ago, an online referendum on the independence of Veneto has gained the attention of the international media. This is not surprising: Venice is one the marvels of the world, and people rightly care for its future.
The referendum's organizers boast the participation of over 2 million citizens from the region, which has 5 million inhabitants and 3.7 million people of voting age. These results were contested by some Italian newspapers, which argued that voters numbered no more than a few hundred thousands, but no conclusive evidence has been shown against the data claimed by the organizers.
On April 2nd, a number of "secessionists" were arrested, on allegations of preparing some sort of "violent" demonstration against the Italian Republic. The charges aren't clear yet. The bulk of the secessionist movement (which considers these arrests a form of retaliation), however, is unmistakably peaceful and committed to a non-violent path.
A few years ago, two researchers from the Italian Central Bank estimated the fiscal residuum of the Northern Italian Regions. Leaving aside the "special autonomy Regions" (Regions that enjoy wide fiscal autonomy and do not contribute to transfers), the North fiscal residuum was negative, and worth 110 billion USD. This is roughly what the citizens of the same regions pay in income taxes. That is: without transfers, the North of Italy could have the same amount of public spending it enjoys now, and it could do away with income tax.
If something is going to happen in Veneto, it won't be an uprise of micro-nationalism: but rather, a tax revolt. You could describe Italy as a country where the North pays taxes and the South consumes taxes. This picture is painted with a wide brush, but it is not incorrect. The gap between the two parts of the country has been there for ages, and it did not narrow, in spite of the fluxes of transfers. It is only natural that economic stagnation exacerbates the problem.
Now, one fact that has not gained media attention is that though the overwhelming majority of voters expressed themselves for an independent Veneto, they were also asked if they wanted Veneto to stay in the European Union, the Eurozone, and NATO. Those who also voted on these questions were basically in favor. So, secessionists do not want to go back to their own national currency, nor to raise barriers to the free flows of capital, goods, and persons within Europe. They are not aligned with French right-wing leader Marine Le Pen. They are closer to Catalonia's secessionist, that, as Catalonia's Minister of the Economy Andreu Mas Collel explained in a very interesting op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, are "strongly pro-European".
As with Catalonia and Scotland, national governments may argue that allegiance to the European Union requires allegiance to the old nation states. This seems to me a rather bizarre idea. Ideally, if the EU is really a common framework of rules for all its citizens, it should be a proper setting for old national boundaries, that were often the result of conquer, to be discussed and redefined.
Whether the Venetian secessionists can succeed or not, it is hard to say. Most likely they won't, at least in the short run. One of the Italian political parties, the Northern League, has campaigned for secession, federalism, local autonomy in the past. Nowadays the Northern League's core message is anti-immigration and anti-euro. The party has been fading away as its historic leader, Umberto Bossi, has experienced a sharp physical decline after a stroke, and was later involved in a series of minor scandals. Twenty years of experience prove that if the League is sometimes an effective campaigner for secession, it has not been able to accomplish any major results.
My prediction would be that the Venetian secessionists may succeed, if the Northern League becomes irrelevant at the next European elections (that is, if it doesn't reach the 4% threshold that you need to pass to enter the European parliament).
The League has expressed solidarity with the arrested Venetians and may use this alleged crack down on the secessionist movement as a powerful electoral lever. But if Venetian secession becomes the flag of a party which uses it to win votes in national and European elections, it will soon be trivialized into the political debate. You need the idea of independence to go beyond the traditional political cleavages, for it to become more than a rant.
Shared posts
Is Venice going to secede?, by Alberto Mingardi
JackI think being part of the EU is enabling these movements. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
20% of Americans are in the top 2%
For years I’ve been arguing that income distribution data is meaningless for all sorts of reasons. One is that it treats capital income and wage income as being equivalent. A second problem is the life cycle issue—I’ve been in all 5 quintiles at various times in my life, but I’ve never really been anything other than “middle class” in a sociological sense. (I started middle class and am now upper middle class.)
It seems the press is catching on to this problem:
Fully 20 percent of U.S. adults become rich for parts of their lives, wielding outsize influence on America’s economy and politics. This little-known group may pose the biggest barrier to reducing the nation’s income inequality.
The growing numbers of the U.S. poor have been well documented, but survey data provided to The Associated Press detail the flip side of the record income gap — the rise of the “new rich.”
Made up largely of older professionals, working married couples and more educated singles, the new rich are those with household income of $250,000 or more at some point during their working lives. That puts them, if sometimes temporarily, in the top 2 percent of earners.
Even outside periods of unusual wealth, members of this group generally hover in the $100,000-plus income range, keeping them in the top 20 percent of earners.
When I sell my rental unit and move to California I’ll have a huge capital gain, and be “rich” that year. It makes no different whether my real capital gain is zero, the government treats nominal gains as if they are “income,” and economists treat income inequality as if it actually measures “economic inequality.” The economic inequality debate is still pretty much in the Stone Age. GIGO.
Why does this matter? Consider all the progressives who wonder “what’s the matter with Kansas?” (I.e., why are our conservative opponents so stupid?) Have you noticed that they never ask what’s the matter with Washington, or Massachusetts? Maybe they should. Here are a couple examples:
1. Washington state has no income tax at all. And yet we are constantly told by progressives that “polls show” the public agrees with them. “Polls show” the people say “yes” when asked if it would be nice if the government would provide all sorts of free goodies to everyone. “Polls show” that voters like big government, and think the rich get off too lightly. So obviously if you had a referendum on replacing Washington state’s regressive Texas-style tax system with an income tax that only applied to the top 1.2% of residents, the liberal voters of Washington state would pass the referendum overwhelmingly. Or am I missing something? I guess I am, as in 2010 they rejected the proposal by the razor thin margin of 64% to 36%, despite the Bill Gates fortune bankrolling the “tax the rich” initiative.
2. Even more liberal Massachusetts has a flat tax with a top rate that is lower that the horribly regressive top rate recently set by the fanatical Tea Party GOP in North Carolina. Massachusetts is even more liberal than Washington state, with the GOP now almost completely extinct in the State House. So obviously if there were a referendum to make the income tax progressive, a proposal that would hurt only a “tiny number of taxpayers,” it would pass overwhelmingly, wouldn’t it? Nope.
There have been five past efforts to amend the constitution to allow for a graduated income tax, but each time—in 1962, ’68, ’72, ’76, and ’94—ballot referendums to confirm the amendments went down to defeat. All the referendum votes “have failed by wide margins,”
I hesitated to write this post. I’m actually glad that people who support progressive income taxes are so clueless about both income inequality and politics. It makes it much easier to defeat them politically.
PS. Marcus Nunes has a wonderful new post that directed me to a left wing blog that advocates intentionally driving the economy into a recession as a way to reduce inequality. That’s a wonderful idea. I strongly encourage all progressives to read this Angry Bear post, and adopt the “breaking bones to fix bones” model of the economy. Voters will love it and that will finally convince them to adopt all your other socialist ideas.
PPS. I have another post on income inequality over at Econlog.
Next time you hear someone advocate for single-payer healthcare, remember this
Two Florida doctors who received the nation’s highest Medicare reimbursements in 2012 are both major contributors to Democratic Party causes, and they have turned to the political system in recent years to defend themselves against suspicions that they may have submitted fraudulent or excessive charges to the federal government....
Topping the list is Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, 59, an ophthalmologist from North Palm Beach, Fla., who received $21 million in Medicare reimbursements in 2012 alone....
Dr. Melgen’s firm donated more than $700,000 to Majority PAC, a super PAC run by former aides to the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. The super PAC then spent $600,000 to help re-elect Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who is a close friend of Dr. Melgen’s. Last year, Mr. Menendez himself became a target of investigation after the senator intervened on behalf of Dr. Melgen with federal officials and took flights on his private jet.
What makes most restaurant reviews worthless
Not just the general reason why they are bad, but rather a very specific reason. Caitlin Dewey reports about:
…a new paper appropriately titled “Demographics, Weather and Online Reviews.” The study analyzed 1.1 million online reviews of 840,000 restaurants, looking for exogenous — or external — factors in the data. In other words, they wanted to figure out what makes us like or dislike a restaurant, beside the restaurant itself.
The results can be surprising. The diners’ education levels? No effect on actual ratings. Population of the area? Again, not so much.
But reviewers consistently gave worse ratings when it was raining or snowing outside than when it was clear. And reviewers usually liked restaurants better on warm and cool days, rather than very hot or very cold ones.
In researcher Saeideh Bakhshi’s words: “The best reviews are written on sunny days between 70 and 100 degrees … a nice day can lead to a nice review. A rainy day can mean a miserable one.”
Not surprisingly, restaurants in California and Hawaii are popular.
Are computers coming up with answers we cannot understand?
In mathematics at least the answer appears to be yes:
A computer has solved the longstanding Erdős discrepancy problem! Trouble is, we have no idea what it’s talking about — because the solution, which is as long as all of Wikipedia’s pages combined, is far too voluminous for us puny humans to confirm.
A few years ago, the mathematician Steven Strogatz predicted that it wouldn’t be too much longer before computer-assisted solutions to math problems will be beyond human comprehension. Well, we’re pretty much there. In this case, it’s an answer produced by a computer that was hammering away at the Erdős discrepancy problem.
Fortunately,
…it may not be necessary for humans to check it. As Gil Kalai of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, has noted, if another computer program using a different method comes up with the same result, then the proof is probably right.
There is more here, via Gabriel Puliatti on Twitter.
Breaking Bones
It’s sometimes said that conservative economists are heartless bastards who don’t understand the evil of unemployment or what it’s like to live on a low income. Edward Lambert from the left-of-center Angry Bear proves that to get what they want some on the left can be equally heartless.
I would love to support continued aggressive policy to bring the economy back to full employment, but the social cost of inequality is sickening. And if stopping this disease means putting the economy back into a recession, then so be it…It is like re-breaking a bone to set it straight. If the re-breaking of a bone is not done, the bone won’t work correctly in the future. It is proper medicine.
…Current day economists seem squeamish…
Italy fact of the day
The Italian Tourist Board spends an astounding 98 percent of its budget on salaries, with basically nothing left for its actual job of tourism promotion.
The point of the article is that hardly anyone visits southern Italy any more, thus making it one of the world’s best arbitrage opportunities. It is one of my favorite regions.
By the way:
There are trains in the Mezzogiorno that travel at an average speed of 8.7 miles an hour.
And:
Metaponto, in the Basilicata region east of Naples, has a five-track, marble-clad rail station, paid for by $25 million in European Union funds. But the last train out is an 8:21 a.m. express to Rome. If you want to go anywhere else, you have to take a bus.
In the 1970s, Italy was the world’s #1 tourist destination but now it has slipped to number five. There has never been a better time to go.
Utah Woman Allegedly Killed Seven Babies and Left Them in Her Garage
AP Megan Huntsman, 39, was arrested today and accused of killing her own babies and leaving their bodies in her garage. The case is as bizarre as it is grisly.
Seven bodies were discovered in a Pleasant Grove, Utah home yesterday. Huntsman's ex-husband called police after finding one dead baby while cleaning out the garage of the home he once shared with Huntsman, who moved out in 2011. Police then found six more bodies in cardboard boxes.
Huntsman is believed to have given birth to all seven of the children and then killed them over a decade. Yet no one apparently knew she was pregnant -- not her then-husband, who is believed to be the father of the children, nor her longtime neighbors Sharon Chipman and Aaron Hawker. Chipman told the Salt Lake Tribune that she even let Huntsman watch her grandson "for years."
Chipman added that Huntsman has three more daughters, aged approximately 13 to 20, who still live in the house. The babies were believed to have been killed between 1996 and 2006, which means some of her living children were born at the same time as she was allegedly killing the others.
Huntsman's ex-husband, whose name has not been released, is not considered to be a suspect. Police captain Michael Roberts told the AP how he could not have known this was going on under his roof is "the million-dollar question. Amazing." At least one of the babies appeared to be full-term, which means Huntsman was nine months pregnant and her own husband didn't know.
It's not immediately clear why Huntsman was booked for only six counts of murder when seven bodies were found. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the only thing on her criminal record until now was a 2011 traffic citation.
'Only' 97 Members of the Venezuelan Military Are Being Investigated for Cruelty and Torture
AP As the near-daily Venezuelan protests continue, the military's strategic command chief, Vladimir Padrino, admitted today that 97 military and police officers are being investigated for "cruelty and torture."
But he stressed that there are 22,000 officers, so it's "only" 0.4 percent of them that might have done terrible things.
The protests began in February. Demonstrators oppose the rule of President Nicolas Maduro, who assumed control of the country after the death of Hugo Chavez and has done nothing to fix the country's broken economy. Both sides are in the middle of peace talks, but nothing has come of them yet.
Last month, the country's attorney general Luisa Ortega said there were at least 60 investigations into human rights abuses by security forces, and that 15 police officers have been arrested. Like today, Ortega insisted that most of the officers were following the law. But that's small consolation for anyone who has encountered one of the officers who wasn't.
At least 41 people have been killed and 650 more injured, with causalities on both sides. Protestors have accused the Venezuelan security forces of being excessive in their attempts to squash the riots. Padrino insists that no soldier has been ordered to harm or kill anyone and all have been told to use non-lethal force on protestors. Yet at least 26 people have been killed by a firearm.
What Is Bitcoin and What Is It Good For?
Read More ...
The Downsides of a One-Size-Fits-All Minimum Wage
Read More ...
Put Cameras in the Supreme Court
JackOf course Brazil sensationalizes everything lol.
In February, Lord David Neuberger, the president of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, addressed a conference in Northern Ireland on the topic of justice and security. Much of the speech addressed how the British judiciary deals with terrorism cases, but Lord Neuberger also emphasized the importance of broadcasting appeals court proceedings. "Unless justice is carried out publicly," Lord Neuberger said, "there is a real risk that the public will lose confidence in the justice system, and there is a real risk judicial standards will slip."
To that end, the UK Supreme Court streams all of its oral arguments live and online via Sky News. The Court also maintains its own YouTube channel, which contains the justices' explanations of their judgments. As Lord Neuberger explained, "A succession of cases has emphasized the importance of the public, and perhaps particularly the media, seeing what goes on in court, at least to the extent it is compatible with the administration of justice."
The British justices are not alone in their approach to transparency. Since the 1990s, the Supreme Court of Canada has televised all of its oral arguments on the Cable Public Affairs Channel, the northern counterpart of C-SPAN, which also maintains an online archive. Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin said in 2012 her court's "experience with television and webcasting has been positive." Justice McLachlin noted that unlike trials, which are not televised in Canada, "there is no possibility of [cameras] disrupting the decorum of the Court, nor, given the nature of debate before the Court, any real risk of sensationalisation or trivializing the hearings."
Other English-speaking appeals courts have similarly opened their proceedings up to the online world. Starting last October, the High Court of Australia makes video recordings of its hearings available after a few days delay. And while the Supreme Court of New Zealand does not maintain an online archive like its sister courts, it does approve "all applications to televise or otherwise record proceedings" unless a party to the case objects.
But perhaps no supreme court has shown a greater love of the cameras than Brazil's Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). In 2002 the STF established its own broadcast network, TV Justica, which televises not just oral arguments but the justices' actual decision-making process. According to an account from a Brazilian law professor to University of Oregon journalism professor Kyu Ho Youm, in all cases decided on the merits, "the deliberations are held before the public and the decision is forged live on national TV."
And then there is the United States Supreme Court, which infamously bans all televised or online broadcasts of its proceedings. Retired Justice David H. Souter drew a line in the sand before a House of Representatives subcommittee in 1996, arguing “the case is so strong” against televising the Supreme Court's proceedings, "that I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it's going to roll over my dead body."
Other justices have offered a plethora of excuses for keeping the cameras out. Justice Clarence Thomas complained in 2008 that "regular appearances on TV would mean significant changes in the way my colleagues could conduct their lives." Justice Anton Scalia fretted that most viewers would only see 30-second out-of-context soundbites on the news. And in 2007, Justice Anthony Kennedy said televising oral arguments "would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one" among members of the Court.
Yet the experiences of Canada, the United Kingdom, and other nations suggest there's little to fear from opening oral arguments to a worldwide audience. The U.S. Supreme Court already releases audio recordings and written transcripts. So why are the justices so defiant in keeping the doors closed to video broadcasts?
One thing to keep in mind is that in the United States, unlike the United Kingdom or Canada, Supreme Court justices are subject to a highly publicized (and politicized) confirmation process. As Justice Thomas has said, his contentious 1991 hearings destroyed his personal privacy, which is why he has been adamant that his colleagues retain some degree of "anonymity" from the public. Other justices, including John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor, have hinted they'd be open to cameras at their confirmation hearings, only to backtrack once they are confirmed for life.
Indeed, outside of confirmation hearings (and interviews with C-SPAN's Brian Lamb), the question of cameras usually comes up when the justices make their annual appearance before Congress to testify about the Court's budget. Some members, like former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have gone so far as to propose legislation requiring the Court to televise its proceedings. This has led the justices to regard their personal distaste for cameras as some principled stand for the separation of powers.
But the issue should not be the Supreme Court's passive-aggressive relationship with Congress, but its accountability to the public. There is little reason any American should have confidence in the Court's decisions on issues like freedom of the press and government surveillance when the justices themselves continue to hide behind closed doors. This goes beyond transparency. The Court has isolated itself from the public it is supposed to serve. When justices talk about the loss of anonymity or the impact on their "dynamic," what they're really saying is they don't want to surrender their inflated self-image of the Court as a private club.
The British and Canadian experiences have already shattered the myth that cameras compromise the quality of appellate justice. Cameras are simply no big deal. As Lord Jonathan Mance, one of Lord Neuberger's colleagues on the United Kingdom's Supreme Court, told the Guardian in 2011, "I don't notice the cameras, I don't notice that I'm being filmed and I don't think it has any effect on judges' behavior."
California Demands $55 Million from Microprocessor Inventor
SACRAMENTO—Business owners who have fled California often say their decision to leave wasn’t just about tax rates, but about the punitive attitudes sometimes found among tax and regulatory authorities here. A new wrinkle in a high-profile, 22-year-old tax case gives fodder to those who make such claims.
In 1970, a young Southern California electrical engineer and inventor named Gilbert Hyatt filed a patent application for an innovative microprocessor chip. That was a year before Intel patented its chip, which led to the personal-computer revolution.
Twenty years later, after a complex legal battle over the origins of that technology, the U.S. patent office awarded Hyatt the patent for a microprocessor — a shocking and still controversial decision (that was later partially overturned) that would provide Hyatt with a multimillion-dollar windfall. He moved to Las Vegas, where he said he was a full-time resident before he received the earnings.
California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) saw a newspaper article congratulating Hyatt for his patent and decided to seek $7.4 million in back taxes, claiming that he was still a resident of California when the money came in. That sounds like a simple enough dispute that could quickly be resolved, but what followed has been an ordeal that has consumed a good bit of Hyatt’s adult life.
On Friday, Hyatt, now 76, filed a federal lawsuit accusing the state of violating his constitutional rights in pursuit of a sum that now tops $55 million as interest and penalties have accrued. He’s asking for an injunction forbidding the state from pursing its claim any further. After all these years and legal expenses, he just wants California to leave him alone already.
The tax authorities have been pursing him through its administrative process. Tired of the endless investigations, Hyatt filed suit in Nevada court in 1998. California officials said they weren’t subject to an out-of-state tort lawsuit. California lost that argument in the Nevada Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court and the high court decision sent the case back to a Nevada district court, which awarded Hyatt nearly $400 million in damages after finding that the California authorities abused their power and invaded his privacy. That case is on appeal.
Hyatt believes that California officials are purposefully delaying. “Specifically, because of the 20 year delay Hyatt can no longer obtain a fair and full adjudication of whether he owes state taxes to California,” according to his lawsuit. “During this time, material witnesses have passed away, memories of witnesses have faded, and documents relevant and important to Hyatt are no longer available.” The board keeps assessing penalties, so he says it has every reason to keep delaying. He suspects the tax board is waiting for him to die so that it can go after his estate.
Under California law, the Franchise Tax Board has the “presumption of correctness,” meaning that the onus always is on Hyatt to disprove what the tax officials say. And, he argues, they keep changing their stories and their allegations, thus resulting in more years of legal expenses and disputes.
“It’s ruined my life. They keep coming up with these intensive positions, many hundreds of pages of allegations and such that we have to try and disprove decades later and it’s just very consuming,” Hyatt told me in an interview last week. “The FTB is out to get taxpayers’ money and it will go to extreme ends to get money whether it is entitled to it or not....”
The state controller’s office has yet to review the newly filed lawsuit. But former Board of Equalization member Bill Leonard, a former Republican Assemblyman, believes the state government is abusing rules designed to give taxpayers every opportunity to appeal a judgment to drag out a case against a taxpayer. The Legislature could fix the problem with a law granting a right to speedy trial on tax matters, he added.
It’s hard not to conclude that California’s tax agency is out of line as it continues to run up administrative and legal fees — not to mention risking potential multimillion-dollar liabilities — to pursue a decades-old dispute over where a taxpayer lived for six months. There’s a troubling lesson here for wannabe entrepreneurs, who might want to think carefully about their residency before they hit the big time.
National School Lunch Program Embarrassment Continues
School lunches still stink. But now unprecedented
numbers of students are refusing to eat them.
Last month I noted that a GAO report had found that last school year's disastrous rollout of the updated USDA National School Lunch Program helped drive 1.6 million paying students from the lunch rolls. The new rules led some schools to abandon the program, as I reported in 2012. What's more, the new rules, championed by First Lady Michelle Obama, have also resulted in unprecedented mountains of food waste.
As I also noted last month, the federal government has decided that these abject failures are evidence of a need to double down on the school lunch program. Why scrap a failing program when you can expand it instead?
The expansion, which will impact more than 20,000 school across the country, reports the Washington Post, "will provide free breakfast and lunch to all students in schools where at least 40 percent of the children are low-income."
That change is intended "to increase participation in the free meals program and to relieve the paperwork burden on schools," reports the Post.
Apparently there's no federal paperwork requirement related to the even greater mountain of food waste caused by the policy change.
Kids are protesting with their mouths. They're opting out of school lunches and throwing away food they don't want to eat. But they're also fighting back with their minds.
Student protests over the school lunches have played out on social media now for more than two school-calendar years. While early 2012 saw students at one high school create the well-known "We are Hungry" video, recent protests have centered around Twitter—and targeted Mrs. Obama by name.
A clever recent Twitchy expose compiled student ire over school lunches. The report shows one student lashing out at Mrs. Obama over the "crusty ass broccoli" their school served. Another student tweeted that they would "never forgive Michelle Obama for this school lunch."
These problems with the National School Lunch Program have been so bad that even the mainstream media has been forced to take note.
The Los Angeles Times blasted the National School Lunch Program earlier this week in a pointed editorial.
"The program, pushed by the Obama administration and passed by Congress, is afflicted by rigid, overreaching regulations that defy common sense," wrote the Times editors.
"[F]ruits and vegetables rank as the least popular items, so requiring schools to offer one of each for each student practically guarantees that an enormous amount of fruits and vegetables will go to waste.
"Even worse are the rules about what kinds of produce must be offered and in what form," writes the Times. "They make it nearly impossible, for example, to hide the vegetables in soups or lasagna, where they might be more palatable to students."
The National School Lunch Program wastes money. It wastes food. Parents, students, advocates, and the government all know this. Solving the problem means—at the least—shrinking the program dramatically. The government's efforts to pad school lunch enrollment numbers by expanding the program should be seen as what it is: a cynical attempt to avoid admitting failure. There's nothing palatable about that.
Three Expensive Milliseconds
We’re giving huge sums to the financial industry while receiving little or nothing in return.
The Moral Power of Curiosity
“Flash Boys” by Michael Lewis is mostly a book about finance and high-frequency traders. But it’s also a morality tale.
MEH. I FEEL FINE. This Is The End Of Facebook As We Know It….
MEH. I FEEL FINE. This Is The End Of Facebook As We Know It.
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: It Doesn’t Matter Where You Go To College. …
HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: It Doesn’t Matter Where You Go To College.
PAY “GAP” REMINDER: Men vastly overrepresented in dangerous jobs, workplace deaths….
PAY “GAP” REMINDER: Men vastly overrepresented in dangerous jobs, workplace deaths.
Oops: OkCupid CEO once donated to a congressman who opposed gay marriage; Update: CEO regrets donation
Double standards.
And not just gay marriage. The congressman, Chris Cannon, also opposed adoptions by gay couples and laws prohibiting discrimination in hiring gays. Sam Yagan’s donation, in other words, was more of a multi-spectrum anti-gay contribution than Brendan Eich’s $1,000 gift to support Prop 8 and yet he took it upon himself to be the tip […]
A Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine just got more likely. Here's why.
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.
Study: When whites are told they're becoming a minority, they become more conservative
The study primes white Americans with information about the majority-minority shift, and sees how they react.
White Americans become more conservative when they're told that whites might soon be a minority in the US, according to a new study in Psychological Science.
The authors, Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson of Northwestern, use data from two main experiments. In one, a group of survey respondents was told that California had become a majority-minority state, and the other group was told that the Hispanic population was now equal in size to the black population in the US. Then, all respondents were asked what their political ideology was. The group that was told whites were in the minority in California identified as more conservative than the second group.
In another experiment, one group of respondents read a press release saying that whites would soon become a minority nationally in 2042, while a second group read a release that didn't mention race. The group primed by race then endorsed more conservative policy positions.
You can download the full study here.
Inequality is highest in Democratic districts
JackIt's nice to see Ezra back.
But that's not why Democrats care more about inequality.
Perhaps there's a simple reason why congressional Democrats are more worried about inequality than congressional Republicans: they see more of it when they go home for the weekend.
Over at the Atlantic, Michael Zuckerman ran US Census data on inequality within congressional districts and found that the most unequal districts tend to be a deep blue. New York's Jerrold Nadler represents the country's most unequal district, followed by Pennsylvania's Chaka Fattah, and then New York's Carolyn Maloney.
The most equal district in the nation? That would be Minnesota's 6th — represented by Michele Bachmann. 
Michael Zukerman/The Atlantic
Part of this, Zuckerman writes, is driven by the simple fact of political geography: "cities have become, in general, strongholds of the Democratic Party, and cities have become, in general, hives of the most dramatic income inequality in the country."
The result is that Democratic representatives see a lot more inequality than Republican representatives. But is that really why they're more worried about it?
The way I read this data is as evidence of the overwhelming power of party. The average difference between inequality in Democratic and Republican districts is far less than the difference in inequality between particular districts represented by members of the same party. But members of the same party vote much more like each other than like members of the other party in similar districts.
For instance, Steny Hoyer, the number-two Democrat in the House, also represents the second-most economically equal district in the country. But his views on income inequality are much closer Democrat James Himes, who represents the sixth-most unequal district in the country, than to Bachmann.
The same is true among Republicans. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen represents the fifth-most unequal district in the country. But the word "inequality" doesn't even appear on her "economy" issues page. Her voting record looks much more like Bachmann than like Nadler.
As with almost everything in Washington these days, it's much easier to predict how a member of Congress will vote by knowing their party than by knowing their district.
The Case of Brendan Eich
J.J. Abrams Takes Over Another ‘Star’ Franchise With ‘Stargate’ Reboot
Star Trek, Star Wars, and now… Stargate!
J.J. Abrams, the powerhouse director with a passion for lens flare, has been tapped to take over Roland Emmerich’s planned Stargate reboot. In an announcement that seems to have come out of nowhere, MGM stated in their official press release that, “If there was ever a director worthy of taking on such a vast and loved universe with an exponential amount of worlds to explore, it’s J.J. Abrams. We couldn’t be more thrilled to have him on board.” [...]
The post J.J. Abrams Takes Over Another ‘Star’ Franchise With ‘Stargate’ Reboot appeared first on Geeks of Doom.
Meanwhile, On Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. [Comic]
JackLol. I realized early on my expectations were too high. It's kinda like the X-Files in the Marvel Universe.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has had its share of ups and downs and viewers have been a little frustrated with many of its episodes. Some people may be wondering why there aren’t more huge, grand, large-scale adventures that live up to the kinds of scenes we get to see in the movies. Well, this comic explains it all and it comes down to the almighty dollar.
See the full comic after the break…
(via Dorkly)
State Department Not Totally Sure Where it Spent Six Billion Dollars
The State Department has no paperwork to account for about six billion dollars that it gave out in contracts over the last six years.
Stephen Colbert is Reportedly the Frontrunner to Replace Letterman
JackHmm.
#CancelColbert? More like #PutColbertOnNetworkTVInFrontOfAnEvenLargerAudience, if rumors about CBS's plans to replace Late Night host David Letterman next year are true. Mashable reports Colbert is "the front-and-center candidate" for the job.
    
|
Nightmare Lawsuit Claims Woman Died Trying to Escape Morgue Freezer
JackWow, if true.
The family of 80-year-old Maria de Jesus Arroyo has filed a lawsuit against a hospital in Los Angeles after a pathologist determined that Arroyo was declared dead prematurely and frozen alive. She then "eventually woke up" and injured herself trying (and failing) to escape. Oh!
Swedish Stroke Victim Heard Doctors Talking About Donating His Organs
JackYikes
A Swedish man who became paralyzed after a stroke is now filing an official complaint against a hospital where he overheard doctors talking about donating his organs when he was still conscious.
