Watched the documentary "Abacus" on Netflix last night.  I am surprised that I didn't learn about it sooner, given that it was nominated for an Oscar.  It is the real story of a small Chinese owned bank in Chinatown New York being the only bank charged with fraud in connection to the mortgage collapse of 2008.  It was a well made movie and I would recommend it strongly.

Without spoiling the movie for anyone who wishes to see it, I will just make a few points of interest.  First, given all the banks that are much larger and obviously committed fraud during the mortgage crisis, I am amazed that the government chose to prosecute a small bank which was thriving and had one of the lowest loan default rate in the country!  The DA had claimed that Abacus bank had defraud Fannie Mae with false applications,  When it was pointed out that Fannie Mae actually made tons of money from Abacus loans, the DA said that if you took $5 from me and then gave it back later, you still committed larceny.  Well, it you took $5 and gave back $5 plus interest later, that is the definition of a good loan, not larceny in my book!

I was shocked that the government had arrested all the executives of the bank at the same time, even the ones that already turned themselves in earlier.  They were all handcuffed in a chain gang formation to parade through the court house!  I don't remember any Wall Street or large bank executives even got arrested, never mind being chain ganged. Well, first of all none of them, despite causing great harm to the financial system, was ever charged.  But even if they were charged, they would have just turned themselves in without being chain ganged.  Are all these Chinese people a threat to the arresting officers?

There are some lessons to be learned here.  One is that  the way Chinese communities, for that matter any immigrant community, do business may cause trouble for them in dealing with mainstream Americans.  What is considered fraud by mainstream America and the government, is not considered fraud by immigrant communities.  These "frauds" had no detrimental effect on loans.  It is not fraud when compared to the real crimes committed by mainstream banks.  Those are the banks that caused the financial crisis, not Abacus or other immigrant run banks.

So is this a racist prosecution?   I believe it is.  While the DA was not necessary out to get a Chinese bank, I believe that his office believed that a Chinese bank is a way easier target than a mainstream bank.  I believe that the DA probably wanted to make a name for himself for being the first one to get a conviction from a bank during the mortgage crisis.  I think the DA believes that a Chinese bank would be too intimidated by the government and would plea a deal.  An easy victory, he assumed.

Turns out Abacus did not cave.  They spent millions to defend their honor.  I am glad they did.  It took courage and signal to the country that Chinese immigrants may not be the pushovers that are portrayed frequently.

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong just bought the Los Angeles Times.  Soon-Shiong was born in South Africa of Taishanese descent.  To be more precise, his family belongs to the Hakka group.  Hakka literally means "guest family".   They are Han people as is the overwhelming majority of Chinese.  But unlike other Han people, it is not sure what region of the country Hakka people were originally from.  But they have migrated over the centuries to many parts of the country, particularly Guangdong province.  So many of them are recognized as Taishanese even though they are not from there originally.  Confused?  So am I.

In any case, as many Hakka or Taishanese people, Soon Shiong's family left the country and ended up in South Africa.  The good doctor became a surgeon in South Africa and eventually migrated to Canada and then the U.S.  He made his fortunes by developing a cancer drug and founding couple of pharmaceutical companies.  In LA he has been a philanthropist, most notably helping to save an inner city hospital when he, using a phrase from his old country, said that it is time to stop medical apartheid.

So now the doctor is trying to save an industry, or at least one major paper, from life support.  He even talked about ambitious plans of expanding the Times and be in competition with the New York Times and the Washington Post.  He said that great print journalism is a public service in a private sector and is need more than ever.  Given his charity work among the poor, there is hope that he will do what he says.  But he had met with Trump couple of times before the inauguration and we don't know what they talked about.  He says he is politically independent.  He did complain about fake news on the internet.  I hope that is his way for saying great newspaper are more important than ever, not that he is agreeing with Trump!

Paul Ryan announces that he will not seek reelection.  This means there will be a battle for the leadership of the GOP in the House.  It is hard to blame Ryan, who was reluctant to take the Speaker's job in the first place.  Having to deal with the Tea Party and Trump is too much for anyone.  If the GOP loses centrists like Ryan, McCain, Graham and Kasich, it will cease to exit as a major party.  At this rate others will follow Ryan's lead to not run for reelection and signal to the GOP to put their resources to defending the senate.

The Democrats can make sure they win the House by getting rid of Pelosi as leader.  The only strong point for a GOP candidate in a battle district is to ask:  Do you want Pelosi to be Speaker again?  Pelosi has been around too long and it is time to bring fresh blood to the leadership.

I think it is good for Ryan that he gets out now.  He is still young and has chances to run for president later.  But if he stays as speaker, he will be tied to the inability to control the Tea Party and to the toxic presidency of Trump.  Couple more years of that, it would have ended Ryan's political career anyway.  So spend time with the kids and if the tax cut turned out ok, run on that legislative achievement in 7 years.  But he may have to run as a third party candidate then as the GOP as we know it may not exist then.

More tragedy out of Syria as Assad has launched another chemical attack on civilians.  Trump responded by blaming Iran, Russia (Putin by name), and Obama.  I am pleased that he is calling out Putin after having nice things to say about him or nothing at all.  So even if he doesn't blame Putin for meddling in our election, he is at least acknowledging his support of Assad in using chemical weapons.  But did Trump also emboldened Assad by  saying that the U.S. will be pulling out of Syria soon?  Didn't he criticized Obama for letting the enemy know that we will be gone soon?

As I said before, Obama's handling of Assad's chemical weapon usage was a big blunder.  You don't draw a line in the sand if you are not prepared to act once that line is crossed.  My question was:  how far are we willing to go to back up the line.  Trump bombed Syria last year.  Did that do much?  I don't think so.  Even before this chemical attack, Assad had been tough on civilians who are not on his side or just happen to be in the way.  So big time bombing did basically nothing.  What is Trump going to do now? Are we willing to put more troops on the ground, a complete turn around from what Trump just said?  Are we prepared to confront the Russians in the sky if we impose a no fly zone?

Most presidents would age years thinking about all these poor options.  Trump usually just wings it.  Now he has John Bolton starting as national security advisor on Monday.  Bolton is one of the worst hawks in the history of this country.  He called for attacking North Korea and Iran.  He still thinks the Iraq war was a good thing!  By the way, national security advisor does not need Senate confirmation.  Which is too bad because I don't think Bolton would have been confirmed.  Now that he starts work tomorrow, when are we going to see mass attacks on Syria?