Not The Onion

Andrew “Buddy” Donohue has been appointed Chief of Staff for the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Before his appointment, Mr. Donohue was a lawyer for Goldman Sachs:

The Securities and Exchange Commission confirmed Thursday that it hired a managing director of Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs Inc. to serve as chief of staff, prompting critics to decry a revolving door that links the corridors of finance and power.

Chairman Mary Jo White has hired Andrew “Buddy” Donohue, the SEC said in a news release, tapping the influential Wall Streeter to become chief of staff of the agency in charge of protecting investors. He’ll serve as a senior adviser to White on policy, management, and regulatory issues.

Most recently, Donohue worked as a managing director and associate general counsel at Goldman Sachs. Previously, he led the SEC's Investment Management Division between May 2006 and November 2010, spanning two administrations and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

“I am thrilled that Buddy will be returning to the SEC to provide his extensive knowledge and expertise to the agency,” said SEC chief White said in a statement. “Buddy is a seasoned professional whose previous SEC and private sector experience will be invaluable in advancing all aspects of the agency’s mission.”

White said Donohue’s background will be “especially useful” as the commission advances new rules for risk management and weighs a uniform fiduciary standard for the investment community.

Yeah, sure.

It is, "Especially Useful,"  for the, "Managing director and associate general counsel at Goldman Sachs," to work on rules for risk management and a fiduciary standard for brokers.

FWIW, holding brokers to a fiduciary standard, which requires them to act in the best interest of their client, is something that the financial industry has been fighting tooth and nail, and the man from Goldman Sachs is Chief of Staff for the organization which is drawing up the regulations for this.

Reform, my flabby white ass.

Cry Me a River

That is not the real Pope

Ok, because Natalie, my daughter, insisted on watching the Grammys, so I saw Niki Minaj's The Exorcist inspired bit.

My reactions was, "WTF?"

But professional victim, pedophilia apologist, and talented amateur bigot, Catholic League president Bill Donohue predictably blew a gasket:

In what should come as zero surprise to anyone who watched Nicki Minaj attempt to reenact “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” during her performance at Sunday’s Grammy Awards, the Catholic League has issued a statement condemning the actions of the “Superbass” star.

As predicted by our own Maura Judkis, the faith-based organization whipped up an angry news release written by Catholic League president Bill Donohue as a response to Minaj’s rendition of her song “Roman Holiday.” Donohue mocked Minaj but primarily blamed the Recording Academy for allowing the number to air, a notable fact given that the executive producer of the Grammys and Minaj have told conflicting stories about how the performance got approved. More on that in a moment. First, the angry press release.

Well, this improves my opinion of Minaj.

There is probably a more contemptible (technically self appointed) spokesman for the Catholic Church, but none immediately come to mind.

The Bigots Are Going After Each Other Now

It appears that Bill Donohue, President of the "Catholic League" and all around bigot is upset because Texas Evangelical leader John Hagee, another bigot, has endorsed John McCain.

It seems that Hagee hates Catholics too, you see.

But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"

"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee," Donohue said.

I appreciate McCain's conundrum. If he disavowed bigotry, he'd lose at least 3/4 of the Republican party.

Pass the popcorn.

It's Fracking Ritual Cannibalism, Not a Cracker!

Well, once again the forces of ignorance and hate, specifically those people who allow their own Satan to dominate their lives, have decided that what ever perverse god that they worship gives them the right to be and do evil.

As frequently happens, this story started with a, one Webster Cook, who decided that he would go to mass, and not eat the Eucharist, the cracker that is supposed to be the body of Christ, but instead, he would remove it from church.

It appears that he wanted to show it to a friend sitting in the back to help explain rituals of the church. A member of the church then assaulted him in an attempt to recover said cracker, or human flesh, or spiritual flesh, or whatever it is under Catholic theology, so Mr. Cook left.

What followed was a series of death threats from around the world, and Mr. Cook, fearing for his life, returned the cracker.

From what I understand of Catholic Dogma, and to be honest, this incident is making me far less interested in knowing or understanding, or respecting these beliefs, because those people who assaulted him and threatened his life are no different from the 19 men who flew planes into buildings on Septermber 11.

I understand that Mr. Cook did something that many Catholics find offensive. He shouldn't have done it. In fact, he could have gotten one of the crackers before it was blessed, when it was still "just" a cracker, as opposed to some sort of mystical human flesh according to Catholic dogma, and showed it to his friend that way.

People had a right to be offended. They had no right to invoke behavior that reeks of the inquisition, and the behavior of the President of the School, the state school the University of Central Florida, who tacitly endorsed harassing the young man, should never be allowed to work in education again.

In any case, noted science blogger PZ Myers, of Pharyngula, came across this, and understood, as I do, that this behavior is not that of a fully developed human being, and noted that, "IT'S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER!", and rightly condemned the behavior of the Taliban-Catholics.

Of course, now he's being subjected to moronic harassment and likely threats of violence, in addition to demands to his employer that he be fired.

And, of course, racist and anti-Semitic bigot Bill Donohue, of the "Catholic League" (his own private rent-a-crowd) has had to weigh in on a witch hunt for Prof Myers too..

Satan does not exist in Jewish theology. Rather the Satan exists, where Satan is a title, meaning "adversary" or "prosecutor". The Satan is our own evil inclination, and the people who are harassing Cook and Myers are doing their Satan's work, not God's work, because at their core, all they need is someone to hate.

I disagree with Mr. Meyers in only one area. It isn't a cracker, it's ritualized cannibalism.

There is actually a long history of cannibalism, both real and ritualized simulations, in religious observance, from Catholicism to the tribes of Papua New Guinea , and while I find it odd it's not my business...Until you decide that your desire to eat human flesh, real, imagined, or spiritual allows you to justify violence against another.

If God is kind and just, and I believe he is, though it is impossible for a human to percieve the totality of God (Ein Sof in Kabbalistic Judaism), the God hates Bill Donohue and his ilk, because there is no greater sin than profaning his name (chillul Hashem).

Bill Donohue. Professional Bigot at it again.

The Picture in question:

Miller apologizes for street festival poster
Promo drew complaints from Catholic group
By TOM DAYKIN
tdaykin@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Oct. 29, 2007

Miller Brewing Co. Monday apologized for allowing the company's brand logos to appear on a poster promoting a San Francisco street festival that some viewed as offensive to Catholics.

The poster was a parody of Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper," featuring men and women wearing leather. It promoted the Folsom Street Fair, an annual event that features exhibits on sexual practices. This year's fair occurred in September.

...

We know the real reason that Bill Donohue got his nipples in a twist^*, it wasn't the leather. It was the black Jesus. This guy has a long history of deeply bigoted statements.

Besides, this is a hoot. It's almost as funny as the Last Supper Scene in the movie M*A*S*H*.

^*Yeah, I know, cheap pun, but I gotta be me.

Equal Opportunity Bigots: Republican Evangelicals Hate BOTH Catholics and Mormons

As much as I hate to agree with a group of bigots like Donohue's Catholic league, and as much as I would like to feel a little bit of Schadenfreude about this as a Jew who has been routinely slandered by him and his little hate group, I have to agree with him here.

The Catholic bashing letter sent by the incredibly aptly named Huckabee Supporter Reverend Rude saying, "Huckabee is an evangelical. He has not learned how to speak to evangelicals; i.e. Bush 41 & 43. He is one of us. I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor's. I don't if this fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback".

It would appear that Tim Rude got his ordination from a cereal box, and his sense of right and wrong from either Father Coughlin or William Donohue himself.

It would be nice to dismiss him as just a crank supporter, but he is more than that. He is a campaign volunteer.

If Governor Huckabee is serious about disavowing this, he needs to take two steps:

• Kick the person off the campaign immediately.
  
• Get this person to publicly apologize.
  
• State clearly that no speeches or political events will be held at the Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights.

Bill Donohue and His Merry Band of Bigots Call "Golden Compass" Anti-Catholic, American U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops Disagrees

The Catholic League has represented itself as the voice of American Catholics while ignoring statements by the religious hierarchy. This time, it's directly disagreeing with the Bishops, calling for a boycott, while the USCCB, "thought that series helped reinforce faith, and finds value in Golden Compass."

At some point, I'd like to see someone in the Catholic church with legitimate religious authority disavow Donohue and the rest of those anti-Semitic bastards.

Why Welfare?

Because if you take proper care of children growing up, they are far less likely to commit crimes later in life. (More details and numbers at the link)

Economists love to say “there is no such thing as a free lunch”. We often use it to describe the opportunity cost of scarce resources, but it is also literally true, and therefore hunger and poverty are usually positively correlated. This is because without income and work, there can be no trips to the grocer. And without ingredients, there can be no meals. And without regular meals, children eke out a level of consumption so small, they grow up malnourished and live below the biological minimum level needed for child development. Poverty, through malnourishment and stunted child development, can can make life feel hopeless, and hopelessness can make desperate choices appear best.

Andrew Barr and Alexander Smith have produced an exemplar study that plausibly shows that the Food Stamp program, by dramatically improving the development of cohorts through increased nutrition, caused a sizable decline in birth cohort crime at the onset of early adulthood. This paper adds to a growing body of research that shows early childhood interventions can have developmental ramifications so large, they may change a person’s entire life trajectory and in so doing, society itself.

………

But a separate literature explored whether childhood environments might be responsible for changing crime in adulthood. In a famous study by John Donohue and Steven Levitt, abortion legalization was suggested as at least partly responsible for the large, secular declines in crime that began in the early 1990s. But this theory was questioned and has since been more or less dropped by social scientists as an explanation for shifts in American crime rates. More promising explanations have focused on lead exposure and removal. But very little work, save a couple of small RCTs, have suggested that nutrition might be responsible for adult crime.

That has changed recently, though, in the last few years. Jill Carr and Analisa Packham, in a series of papers, present evidence that SNAP benefits can impact adult crime and domestic violence, but their work has tended to emphasize the program’s scheduling characteristics, not in utero and childhood development itself. Barr and Smith are unique in this pantheon of crime papers because of their focus on the Food Stamp Program’s nutritional benefits as opposed to the rational calculation of crime itself by adults. By providing nourishment and alleviating the sharp negative effects of poverty on the body’s development which can increase broadly defined human capital stock, something like a Food Stamp Program might reduce adult crime, not by changing the incentives adults face, but rather by changing the adult altogether.

This along with evidence of the effects of lead exposure, particularly through tetraethyl lead in gasoline, have had long term effects on crime rates. (See here, here, and here)

Spending money on policing, rather than treating making sure that children grow up with proper nutrition, healthcare and education is more than a cruelty, it is a stupidity.

Rachel Maddow To Get Show on MSNBC

She will start after the convention, and follow Olbermann, replacing Dan Abrams.

Good news. Saw it on Olbermann last night, and he said something interesting that I would like confirmed, that the costs of a live audience was what did in Donohue...The audience shows up for free, but I guess that they increase the cost of production.

Are There Republican Moles in the Lay-Staff of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops?

I was listening to NPR this morning, and they were talking about the position of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops regarding healthcare reform and abortion.

Any time that anyone talks about their position, this morning, it was a law professor, the consensus is that the position of the Bishops is coming from somewhere in the Twilight Zone: There is simply no basis in realities of law, precedent, legislation, or the manner in which regulation is derived from statute to suggest the Senate language will allow for federal funding of abortion.

This raises an obvious question: Why does the professional staff of the Conference hold a position at such extreme odds with every lawyer, and almost every other Catholic organization out there, most recently the Catholic Health Association and 59,000 nuns?

The only answer that I can come up with is that the professional staff working in their offices have been captured by partisan Republican operatives.

Either there are Republican operatives working and generating legal and legislative opinions, or the staff has been browbeaten by the loud right wing lay activists, most notably Bill Donohue and his Catholic League, and so the staff is taking its talking points from Republican operatives.

In either case, it is clear that the staff is NOT providing competent or good faith advice.

Perhaps a look at the senior lay staff at the organization, and their backgrounds might be warranted by some news gathering organization. (I sent an earlier version of my theory to Josh Marshall, if you know of any other investigative organizations, please forward this to them.)

Note that I am not suggesting that the Bishops themselves are operating as partisan political operatives, simply that their staff may be operating as such.

Where is Bigot Bill Donohue and the Rest of His Merry Band of Bigots (The Catholic League)

Shouldn't they be protesting at Hooters nationwide?

After all, they are already eating their meal there, so walk outside and picket.

Righteous

Let's add Dylan Ratigan to the list of people who belong in in the Legion of People You Really Do Not Want To F%$# With (LOPYRDNWTFW), which so far includes Rachael Maddow, Roger Ebert, Stephen Colbert, the folks at 4Chan, Alan Grayson, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, Jon Stewart, and (of course) Jon Stewart.

Here he completely owns US Chamber of Commerce head, and right wing hack, Tom Donohue.

Today in Amazon Rat-F%$#ery

A brief rundown of poor Amazon behavior, first despite triple digit temperatures in the Pacific Northwest, and the Kent, Washington warehouse continued operations in brutal heat with no air conditioning. 

Next, and more significantly, Amazon is demanding stock warrants to carry some merchants' products in their store, which in addition to being something that Glass-Steagall USED to ban is a pretty big slam dunk example of anti-competitive behavior:

Suppliers that want to land Amazon.com Inc. as a client for their goods and services can find that its business comes with a catch: the right for Amazon to buy big stakes in their companies at potentially steep discounts to market value.

The technology-and-retail giant has struck at least a dozen deals with publicly traded companies in which it gets rights, called warrants, to buy the vendors’ stock in the future at what could be below-market prices, according to corporate filings and interviews with people involved with the deals.

Amazon over the past decade also has done more than 75 such deals with privately held companies, according to a person familiar with the matter. In all, the tech titan’s stakes and potential stakes amount to billions of dollars across companies that provide everything from call-center services to natural gas, and in some cases position Amazon among the top shareholders in those businesses.

The unusual arrangements offer another window into how Amazon uses its market heft to increase its wealth and clout. The company has been under growing scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers over its competitive practices, including with companies it partners with.

………

Amazon routinely leverages its size and power to force terms that benefit itself, including by getting partners in one business to sign on to its other services; learning about up-and-coming technology companies through its venture-capital fund; or creating top selling Amazon branded goods that compete with small sellers on its site. It has aggressively competed to wrest market share from rivals, which Amazon says results in better deals for shoppers.

In its supplier deals that include warrants, Amazon throws its weight around to exact lucrative terms, knowing many companies won’t refuse, according to former Amazon executives who worked on the deals.

An Amazon spokeswoman said the warrants it obtains in commercial agreements are typically tied to milestones that Amazon has to meet, such as large purchases from the supplier. The company declined to comment on specific deals, or say how many warrants it has exercised or the amount of money it has made from such agreements. The spokeswoman said it has warrant deals in fewer than 1% of the commercial agreements it enters into.

Grocery distributor SpartanNash Co. last year amended a contract with Amazon to deliver groceries to its Amazon Fresh arm. The Grand Rapids, Mich.-based company had been supplying Amazon with food since 2016, but this time Amazon added a condition: if it bought $8 billion worth of groceries over seven years, it could get warrants to purchase around 15% of SpartanNash’s stock at a price potentially lower than the market. Amazon also said it wanted to be notified of any takeover offers for SpartanNash and have a 10-day window to offer a counterbid.

………

Amazon has been doing such deals with vendors for about a decade but has aggressively increased the practice in the past few years, said former Amazon executives and lawyers who worked on structuring the deals. In its latest quarterly report, the company valued its warrants at $2.8 billion, more than five times the level three years ago. Amazon doesn’t disclose the value of stakes it owns as a result of exercising its warrants.

A broader measure of its warrants and the stakes it holds in companies through warrants, direct investment or other ways increased 10 times to $8.4 billion in that period, according to Amazon’s quarterly filings.

………

Like stock options, warrants let the holder buy a company’s shares at a set price during a set period. If the stock surpasses that strike price, the warrant holder can buy shares at a below-market price.

Corporate executives in a range of industries and lawyers said Amazon’s push to get warrants as part of vendor deals is highly unusual. Warrant deals have more commonly been used by investors who back companies in financial trouble, in deals deemed high risk.

Amazon is using its market dominance to steal from the share-holders, but that's OK with the corrupt stooges that Robert Bork unleashed on antitrust law.

………

In talks with Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc., Amazon broached a 10-year leasing deal, with similar terms. This time Amazon demanded warrants that would amount to up to 20% of Atlas’s equity over five years—with an option for 10% more later—depending on how much business it gave Atlas. Amazon also wanted the right to elect a director to Atlas’s board, after meeting certain milestones.

People involved on both sides said that warrants were a condition of Amazon partnering with Atlas. “There was definitely a sense that if it wasn’t agreed to there wouldn’t be a deal,” said one of the people. Atlas executives didn’t want to pass up the revenue opportunity from Amazon and viewed giving up the warrants as the price of doing business with Amazon, said the person.

………

Former Amazon executives said they avoided doing anything during supplier negotiations, such as putting its ultimatums in writing, that would give fodder to critics who have said Amazon abuses its power. One of the former executives said that most companies complied with its demands over warrants. Several former Amazon executives who worked on such deals said in interviews that they found them to be unfair and one-sided, saying the companies weren’t in a position to refuse and that most of the upside went to Amazon.

This is extortion and demanding kick-backs, and while it is likely legal, it really shouldn't be.

This sort of behavior is baked into its DNA, as we can see by their dealing with the press as well, with intimidation and lies being the rule rather than the exception:

It was a slow news day at Gizmodo, the tech website where Dell Cameron worked. Without a story of his own to report he decided to aggregate—a journalism term for rewriting and crediting—a day-old Tampa ABC-affiliate’s TV piece on how Amazon’s Ring home surveillance security system was being marketed to dozens of Florida police departments.

A day later, an email from an Amazon spokesperson popped into Cameron’s inbox. The brief email claimed that the Tampa-based reporter, Adam Walser, was “correcting his story” and suggested that Cameron would need to do so as well. In her mail, the spokesperson challenged the accuracy of the station’s entire report. “It is inaccurate that AWS or Amazon is marketing Amazon Rekognition to law enforcement, either individually or in combination with Ring,” she wrote.

Cameron checked, and he didn’t see a correction on the Tampa story. Before making any change to his post, Cameron decided to reach out to Walser and double-check. “I read him the exact email that they sent me,” Cameron says. Walser was puzzled, according to Cameron. “He said ‘That’s just not true, we’re not issuing a correction. I don’t know what they’re talking about.’” Cameron wrote back to the Amazon spokesperson relaying what he’d been told, and mentioning that Gizmodo was planning their own potential follow-up story that was “likely to include that Amazon attempted to obtain a correction from Gizmodo by falsely claiming the ABC station was planning to issue one.”

The Amazon spokesperson doubled down, insisting that a correction had indeed happened. She accused Cameron of being “up in arms” and “threatening” by mentioning the possibility that Gizmodo would publish a piece about being misled by Amazon. “I do not appreciate being called… a liar,” she added in a follow-up email.

………

“I do not believe for a second that this person is naive or didn’t understand what a correction is,” Cameron told me recently, almost two years after the interaction. “They got a job in the PR department at one of the most powerful companies in the world. I think they were trying to trick me into correcting a story and didn’t expect me to go back and contact the reporter.”

It’s not unusual for communications teams for corporations, non-profits, and the government all alike to be withholding in their interactions with the press and to try to spin things in the best possible light. It’s rarer that companies try to mislead and intimidate the press into falling into the lines that they want. But of the dozen journalists I spoke with for this story, most of whom declined to be identified out of concern for professional repercussions, all recalled times Amazon’s press team had engaged in manipulative and sometimes deceitful behavior. According to these writers and editors, and my own experience reporting on the company, Amazon’s comms team readily employs these rarer, bare-knuckle PR tactics. The ultimate result isn’t just that reporters have a harder time writing stories. Some may be deterred from writing on the company at all. And if those that do are deceived and unduly influenced, then by extension the public is as well.

Aside from Cameron, at least two reporters recalled moments when they felt Amazon’s press team had outright lied to them. Almost all of the journalists told me they found that Amazon press relations was either the most or among the most clawing and deceptive corporate communications team that they had dealt with in their work.

“Amazon is the only company I’ve dealt with that has directly lied to me,” said one tech writer, recalling instances when Amazon boasted of warehouse safety guidelines in ways that journalists who had spoken with rank-and-file employees had found not to be true.

“They’d often lie about things we had proof of,” said another reporter, citing times they had visual evidence contradicting the communications teams’ claims. “There will be videos of these big walkouts and they’ll say only a few workers participated.”

………

“I do think that the broader effort is to disincentivize you from telling the truth. They want you to feel like it’s going to be a world of pain if you do your job,” one veteran tech reporter said. “Even if corrections aren’t needed, it’s still a headache and a waste of time for reporters and editors and lets them know that they’re probably scheduling another headache for themselves the next time that they decide to write about Amazon.”

Another reporter at a smaller outlet with less resources described a similar chilling effect after the company pressured him after a critical story. “It just eats up so much of time, going back and forth with our attorneys,” the reporter said, describing how the trouble had made him hesitant to cover Amazon again. “You think twice about it. Is it really worth it? Maybe you have a good story but it won’t change how they do business. It’s kind of a scary thing.”

Amazon tried a similar tactic this September on Reveal—a non-profit investigative news shop that often releases its stories in partnership with newspapers, broadcasters, and other outlets—after it published an award winning series from a team led by reporter Will Evans about the company’s efforts to mislead the public about warehouse injury rates. “Yesterday we published an investigation into Amazon’s massive misinformation campaign. Naturally, we’re now the *subject* of their misinformation campaign,” wrote Andy Donohue, Reveal’s deputy director of projects.

………

But others noted Amazon is willing to go to bold lengths compared to other companies they’ve reported on. Amazon has a broader reputation for fostering a cutthroat corporate culture, which seems to be reflected in the company’s external communications. Ahead of April’s high profile unionization vote at the company’s Bessemer, Alabama facility, Amazon fallaciously tweeted claims that its hard-pressed drivers and warehouse pickers didn’t actually have to pee in bottles, and chided lawmakers like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who had spoken out about the company’s labor conditions. Recode reported that the tweets were directly driven by Jeff Bezos, the company’s CEO and one of the world’s most wealthy men.

While that suggests the company’s aggressive PR efforts flow from the very top, there are other executives with a role in overseeing public relations and related portfolios. While the most high profile may be vice president of global corporate affairs Jay Carney, the former Time magazine reporter and Obama White House press secretary, two former Amazon communications staffers and another employee with knowledge of Amazon’s communications team told me that Drew Herdener, the vice president of communications, usually calls shots internally.

………

Amazon’s tactics seem to be well known among reporters. Beyond the dozen with personal experience I spoke with for this story, many others who had not themselves faced an Amazon harangue were aware of the company’s aggressive approach. Indeed, hints of Amazon’s press strategies have leaked out over the years. In 2019, a Twitter glitch notified users when they were put on other users’ private lists. Caroline Haskins, a reporter at BuzzFeed who had broken a series of stories on Amazon Ring, noticed that Morgan Culbertson, an Amazon PR person, had added her to a list called “Haters.”

The goal is to have these tactics, "Well known among reporters."  The technical term for this is, "Chilling Effect."

Even reporters who have never written a story about Amazon are leery of writing one.

………

It was not the first time I had been yelled at by a press flack—that’s not uncommon. Nor was it the first time I had been asked for a correction. But it was the first and only time a press flack tried to aggressively antagonize and intimidate me into stripping a quote out of a published story from an established expert.

That expert, Stacy Mitchell—the co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a research group that advocates for small businesses—has seen the impacts of Amazon’s PR wrath firsthand. When I spoke with her for this story, Mitchell said that she’s had editors “tone-down and remove stuff to reduce the blowback from Amazon” or “at least brace themselves,” when preparing to publish op-eds she’s written.

See Effect, Chilling.

………

“I’ve heard about Amazon’s bullying from many journalists,” Mitchell says. “I sometimes ask reporters about it, and sometimes they bring it up off-handedly.”

………

Even accepting that less than ideal reality, Amazon seems to be doing something that goes beyond mere spin. Facebook, Google, or other tech giants’ softer pressure and prodding certainly don’t come with the best of intentions. But employing aggressive, intimidation tactics and playing word games that severely contort the truth clearly goes beyond the line, wherever it is.

I am not surprised.  The company was founded by a contemptible sociopath, and the company (Corporations are people, my friend) is a contemptible sociopath as well.