JB's All Points Tumblr (beta)

A recent exchange between Linda Chavez and Shermichael Singleton on the June 8, 2018, episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, nicely encapsulated what I believe is a false debate on a central issue in this country about jobs. 

At around the 39 minute mark (on the podcast edition), Linda argued (correctly, in my view), that there is a shortage of workers available for, we’ll call them, less desirable jobs: poultry and meat processing, agricultural labor, janitorial work, etc. Shermichael proclaimed that we should put Americans first for those jobs with Linda retorting that they don’t want them, leading Shermichael to make a literal demand that Americans take them.

This is a familiar back and forth about the question of who should fill the plethora of difficult jobs that are required to keep a country running. Should we welcome immigrants who are all too happy to take them because of their joy at being able to live here? Or is it time we start asking Americans from all walks of life to start considering these jobs?

I believe this general framing misses a much larger and more important question: why are these jobs harder and less desirable? 

It is not just that the work itself can be difficult, even disgusting. It is that the twin forces of profit-at-all-costs capitalism and get-rich/be-a-boss culture squeezed this country into ruling out whole segments of what should have been gainful, respected employment. 

While I’m not exactly sure which came first, I suspect it was the economics. As blue collar, working class jobs started paying less while becoming much more miserable - longer hours, no sick leave, limited or no vacation, no benefits, no job security, asshole bosses who treated workers like serfs instead of employees and human beings - these jobs lost the dignity that should be inherent in any hard day’s work for oneself and one’s family. The cultural mirror that is Hollywood, media, and entertainment would go on to reflect this ugly new reality back on Americans by depicting getting rich, being a boss or all powerful industry titan, or getting famous, as the only way to live, the only worthwhile goals, instead of the much more reasonable and achievable pursuits of finding and building on a stable job, a family, and one or two trips per year. 

Early on, a particular point of contention in the “why don’t Americans take these jobs” debate was about money, that Americans do not take them because they don’t pay enough. But that was both not uniformly true and incomplete as studies show that wages in agriculture were often higher than retail. What then accounts for why Americans won’t take decent paying jobs?

While listening to PTI tonight, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing from Mike Wilbon (although I kind of could). During the session about the most important story since the moon landing, Lochte & Company’s bathroom stop at a gas station, they discussed lesser known swimmer Jimmy Feigen having to pay $11,000 to retrieve his passport from the least corrupt police force since [insert some shitty communist country’s notoriously corrupt police force], just so he could leave Brazil. Frank Isola, a New York Daily News columnist and real person, understood this for it was, flagrant, exorbitant extortion (it was originally $30,000, then over $40,000, then negotiated down to a “reasonable” $11K).

However, Wilbon, who apparently only understands the currency of fame, could not get past the fact that Jimmy Feigen is not Ryan Lochte or Michael Phelps or Lebron James, in other words, someone rich and famous whose picture he could readily identify. He refused to acknowledge that Feigen got hosed, instead he repeatedly asked what he had lost, unable to grasp the glaring fact that he lost $11,000, or get past Feigen’s lack of fame, which, in Wilbon’s corrupt view, seems to be the only thing of value someone can lose. Finally, after his nonsensical, completely out of touch rant, Frank had to repeat that Feigen did, indeed, lose what 99% of Americans would consider a significant sum of money. Incredibly, Wilbon doubled down by dismissively saying he should make Lochte pay it, which would be “easy enough” (because after the week Lochte has had, I’m sure he’s itching to part with eleven grand).

It was a fairly meaningless tweet that finally caused it:

The New York Times ‏@nytimes

Stephen Hawking says Donald Trump is one mystery that he has found impenetrable.

“It” being this 100%-not-a-rant blog post. 

Donald Trump is no mystery, he’s the direct result of an unprecedented run of Republican obstructionism over the past eight years. His predominantly appealing trait is his brute force persona, the one that says “Fuck you, I will get X done and no laws of decorum, or actual laws, will stop me”.

There is a glaring irony in all this. The GOP establishment’s hope was that their strategy of paralyzing government in order to claim “proof” that government doesn’t work would 1) strengthen their case for decreasing its size so, 2) they would get voted back into power to begin reducing taxes on the wealthy, phasing out Medicare and Social Security, and start shuttering federal departments and programs.

Yet their deliberate policy of obstruction redounded not in their electorate’s desire for smaller government, but for an authoritarian/autocratic-styled leader who would blast through any obstacles (like congressional obstruction) and wield governmental authority to do things full tilt. In other words, the complete opposite of a smaller government, with less power, that did less stuff.

This is a classic “obvious end result that no one actually foresaw” scenario. 

As many people have analyzed, the GOP’s base, rather than express a desire for limited government, instead wants an even stronger authority figure to protect them from the economic consequences of globalization (among other perceived and actual maladies), “make deals”, and generally get stuff done - again, the opposite of the interests of the GOP establishment class to weaken federal government.

Meanwhile, democrats and independents, also witnesses to unprovoked and unmatched republican obstruction and hostility to their duly elected president, fearing that there is no end in site to these tactics and vitriol, wonder aloud if someone who breaks the system is better than a product of it who endeavors to work within it (Hilary).

I suppose it started when an acquaintance proudly declared, “I know a realtor! She’s in my networking group!” Considering the source, I gave pause. But common courtesy forced my hand and I acquiesced not to an introduction, but to have her send me the realtor’s contact information, I would get in touch with her when I was good and ready.

The next day an email arrived to both of us, making the introduction. The realtor enthusiastically and immediately replied and my fate was sealed. We met within a week and I found a friendly, professional, ostensibly capable realtor brimming with confidence and positivity. We had a pleasant, reassuring conversation for close to an hour during which time I let pass the puerile sales tactics “How badly do you want to own your own home!?” and signed the entirely unnecessary paperwork, the kind that gives the façade of an official partnership but in reality obviates them of any true responsibility for their job.

Over the ensuing months I saw all that Fishtown and Northern Liberties had to offer. Below ~$300,000. The okay, the bad, the ugly, the trying, the sad. There were brand new condos out of my price and taste range. Beautiful homes abutting the tire repair shops on Front Street. Rehabbed buildings that left you questioning the layout wisdom of the upstanding Philly contractors trying to flip houses with more fervor than Hillary flips policy positions (“Yes! I’m ready for her to do that! Oh wait, okay, I’m ready for her to do that!”). Some of the floorplan decisions politely asked you to expand your imagination, “this 4x4 second room is perfect for a physiologically-beneficial standing-room only office, or Peter Dinklage’s master bedroom!”. Others asked a little too much “I suppose having doors separating rooms is a little Greatest Generation”. Some houses were hundreds of years old (okay, like 80) but I had the vision to see what they could become once I transformed them. I have zero experience working with tools and building stuff and am not particularly good with my hands, much to my engineer Dad’s dismay, but I would have the buoyant energy of a new homeowner and my generation’s secret weapon: the internet. Nothing would be beyond my and an instructional YouTube video’s reach. Obviously I didn’t go with one of those houses. I viewed places with an easy-going bro from the real estate agency who was particularly adept at unlocking and relocking homes. I could not have done it without him. 

Finally I found what I felt was “the right” place, and at the lower end of my price range to boot. Open layout, nice sized outdoor area, modern kitchen and bathroom, all in a fully rehabbed, two-condo building in the still transitioning part of Ftown. The hard part was over*, let the buying process commence.

*Hahaha.

It started innocuously enough, receipt of a lot of the condo docs, a tremendous amount of gibberish for which I paid a lawyer a few hundred bucks to tell me “this all says don’t be putz’s to each other”. Fair enough. Then came the seller’s disclosure. From my review, which was informed by nothing, everything appeared to be in good shape. I did notice that final inspection was “coming”, and not, say, “completed”, but knew they had recently finished construction and I had the utmost faith that my realtor would make final inspection part of the sales agreement. So on to the sales agreement. Here is where you understand that you are agreeing to stuff and they are agreeing to stuff and you are signing it, so you kind of have to go through with it, pending some out clauses. It is the most essential paperwork of the sale. Only I have yet to meet a realtor who actually knows what goes in these things (thank God for copy and paste) nor what to add to protect you. Nor one who looks you in the eyes and says “Jon, hire a lawyer to review this.” After all, that’s what the realtor is for, right? Right?

Then things started becoming… thorny. The listing agent representing the sellers was slightly less than “barely responsive” to requests for further, agreement-stipulated documents, nor were there any explanations proffered for why they were delayed. But no matter, I knew my realtor would shine during this minor communications annoyance. She would rise to the occasion and prove her value to the process. After all, ensuring the transaction progresses smoothly is a pivotal part of her job. In fact, quite literally, it is her only f*cking job. So imagine my irritation as I came to see true impotence personified. As someone recently put it, anyone with a third grade education can pass the multiple choice test and become a licensed and dangerous realtor. Mine was a special kind of hazard in that, “you have no idea what is going on, do you?” kind of way. She kept insisting things would be fine, even as the other agent alternated between outright ignoring her or sending incorrect docs, she continued to stress that we should push forward with inspection, with post-inspection, with post-post-inspection, etc.

Finally the morning of closing came. At last! My own house! Of course, we still did not have all the requested documents and had not heard anything from the listing agent in some time. But being the go-getter that she is, my realtor insisted we do the final walkthrough as a further display of stuff that she does. We get there and well, we walk through it. Things seem okay, it wasn’t cleaned after the staging was removed, but alright. So my realtor calls the listing agent’s office to ask about that white whale of documentation, the tax abatement application. The secretary answered that they were still “working on it”. It was then and there that my realtor developed something resembling the spine I didn’t know she had under all that fluff and demanded to speak with the listing agent. But she couldn’t. Because he was in Mexico. On the day he was supposed to sell a house.

Now, finally, I was angry. Early on in this process, when they started not delivering on promised documentation and not being very communicative in general, I raised an alarm with my realtor. But again, she insisted everything was okay; after all, it was only a few weeks, not like it had been, you know, years. And look – she’s the professional. I have never purchased a home before. Everything I knew about real estate came from a few choice scenes in American Beauty and watching Million Dollar Listing one time. The truth is, you have absolutely no choice but to fully trust these people to both know what they are doing and do right by you. So you let events take their course, even though you don’t have a sense of control, even though the non-closing meant you had to go hat in hand to the landlord of your current apartment and ask if you can stay an extra month so you don’t become homeless over the course of, ironically, trying to buy a home.

After the only good suggestion from my mom, meeting the seller face to face to clear the air and renew goodwill, things got back on track and the sale was finally made.

Now is when it gets interesting.

But first, I’ve moved in! Hooray! Except for a couch, TV, flatware, furniture, stuff that makes you feel moved in, etc. But I’m here! In my new neighborhood! [Multiple gunshots heard in the background along with what sounds like a plastic knife fight between the long-time neighborhood hobos]. This is exciting! [Why did I do this, I miss renting, can I go back? I can never go back].

Fast forward to present day. I did that most homeowner-y of things and hired an electrician (thanks, Angie). He arrives with his tool belt and 10” strong red beard and I take an instant liking to him. He exudes competence and reasonableness and his pricing is fair. We go to the basement where I need him to swap out the dryer outlet for one that is actually a dryer outlet (in its stead was an oven outlet, surely an innocent mistake on the contractor’s part). The electrician can do this in no time. But he starts looking around in a way that immediately makes you wary. “Huh, that’s interesting”. Give it to me straight Doc. As it turns out, almost nothing is to code. There are 12 amp electric lines running into a breaker wired for 14 amps and neutral line circuit box grounded electricity Thomas Edison lightning the Sun. Things sound bad and incomprehensible. He is convinced they did not get permits. Aha! Nice try, world, I’ve definitely seen the permits! I smugly (actually: desperately, frighteningly, furiously) search Gmail and find them. He sees the electric company and the electrical inspection company listed and promptly gives them a call. “No, no I never did the work on that house and I emailed the electrical inspection company telling them to cancel the permits”. “No I’m pretty certain we didn’t inspect that house”. I shit myself.

This is fraud. The seller presented permits as if they were valid and as if the companies on them did the work. Right then and there, I decide I’m going to lawyer up. I go to Yelp and leave a voicemail for a five star hotshot and promptly get a text saying it will be $500 for a consult. I quickly go to Yelp’s ugly cousin, Craig’s List, as I cunningly think, one lawyer is as good as any, so I call one up. (Here is where I’ll inject a hilarious joke from my Dad: How do you know if a lawyer is lying? Is he talking?).

We speak for an hour. “No, it’s actually not really fraud because it is a valid permit and no, the companies listed didn’t have do the work because it could have been a subcontractor and also, funny thing, in Philly there is sort of a black market for permits, you see it’s kind of like the wild wild wes-“ I can no longer hear him as my vision starts to blur, all noises become dull and distant, I see a beautiful light fading… fading… gone. I’m back. MOTHER F*CKER! F*CK THIS CITY. F*CK BUYING A HOME. F*CK REALTORS. F*CK HOME INSPECTORS. F*CK HOME SELLERS. F*CK. EVERY. THING.

I like my lawyer. And I like, for the first time in my life, legitimately using the term “my lawyer”. It’s kind of like a movie but in real life, with the only difference being that in real life there’s no such thing as happy endings. Except in Chinatown. (Not sorry).I agree over the phone to his pulled-out-of-ass price for him to investigate why the permits are still open and why there did not appear to be final inspections by both the city and the electrical inspection company. He also lifts my spirits by saying the seller’s disclosure listing final inspections as “coming” should have been a major red flag for my realtor. [Slow, deep, breath].

The retainer agreement has been signed. The check is in the mail. My righteous struggle for justice is underway.

Talk about a perfect storm. Talk about a test of values. Talk about an unstoppable force (e.g., Chris Christie’s appetite) hitting an immovable object (e.g., actual Chris Christie). And you get the Syrian Refugee.

Is there a middle ground between “no question, let’s take ALL of them in” and “no question, let NONE of them in”? Of course. Do people on either side want to see that middle ground? Mostly not. 

Everyone’s views are informed by their experiences. That is an obvious statement. But what happens when within the same person, two experiences, two memories, come into conflict with each other?

As a Jew who grew up disheartened and disgusted to learn of the plight of Jewish refugees during WWII, I sympathize with people trying to escape a war-torn country (though that’s not to say the situations are exactly the same as no two situations are ever exactly the same). 

As an ardent and unapologetic supporter of the only true, multicultural, multi-religious, and vibrant democracy in the Middle East, I pause at the idea of letting in tens of thousands of people from a country that has technically been at war with Israel for the past 40+ years with a populace that’s been fed a steady diet of Jew hatred, demonization, and incitement. 

Related to this is the idea of a clash of value systems: modern, secular, tolerant, liberal democracies opening their doors to people from much more religiously strict, traditional, and yes, less tolerant and multi-cultural societies. Anyone who disagrees with this is not to be taken seriously, however people who recognize this yet believe it should not be the primary consideration, are more credible.

And therein lies the rub. What do you do when you’re faced with a populace under extreme duress, openly under attack, yet that you know does not share your value system? And has terrorists embedded among them?

You help. You strive to achieve the ideals you want yourself and your country to stand for, even, and this is crucial, in the face of risk. You acknowledge the risk, you do everything you can to mitigate it, and you accept it. Call it a derivation of “freedom is not free, you have to fight for it”. 

This is a simple test of strength, of overcoming fear. Do you believe your value system is important enough to conquer your fear? Do you believe the strength of your society, the fundamental belief in tolerance, will be absorbed such that newcomers will open their minds to better, yes, better ideals? 

There is a scene in Dangerous Minds where LouAnne Johnson, a teacher played by Michelle Pfeiffer, convinces Emilio Ramirez to go to the principal, the authorities, when his life is threatened, instead of facing a dangerous situation by himself. In the troubled setting in which the movie takes place, where personal honor matters and grudges are handled on the street, this is a huge triumph. When LouAnne asks the principal if Emilio visited him, he says yes but that he sent him away... because he did not knock on the door. LouAnne is incredulous. "Because he didn't knock?!" She cannot believe the pettiness and triviality of the reason that the principal effectively sent Emilio to his death (he is found dead in a subsequent scene).

This comes to mind as I observe the circus over the Prime Minister of Israel's recent speech to a joint session of Congress. The life and death nature of speech - that the world, led by the US, is failing in its aim of subduing Iran's nuclear weapons program, has been completely lost because Netanyahu... did not knock. 

The specific protocols and etiquette of foreign leader visits and addresses are not something the average person knows (or cares) about. The Obama administration perfectly exploited this lack of awareness by acting offended at the invitation and its acceptance. A media obsessed with easy-to-portray personality conflicts over more complex diplomatic issues was all too willing to run with the Obama v Netanyahu narrative and ignore the true substantive difference between them, Iran's expanding nuclear capabilities and the diplomatic channel's impotence at halting and reversing the program.

Thankfully, the Washington Post broke from the mob and shined a light on the glaring weaknesses of the deal in a February 5th editorial. Three days earlier, Michael Doran, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, expertly and exhaustively explained Obama's Iran and Middle East strategy in this must read Mosaic essay. It paints a picture of a strategy that leans heavily on idealism at best, hope and wishful-thinking at worst. One where an Iran welcomed into the community of nations, and acquiesced a leadership role in the Middle East, would moderate its behavior following a nuclear deal and recognition of its important responsibilities in stabilizing the region. In that context, the primary leverage the administration recognizes for realizing a more responsible Iran is the nuclear agreement, one on Iran's terms.

However, even this hope seems to be increasingly abandoned by the administration, as Eli Lake and Josh Rogin explain the now less far reaching expectations of the deal:

For anyone hoping a nuclear deal with Iran might stop the Tehran government from destabilizing the Middle East or free its political prisoners, the Obama administration has some bad news: It's just an arms control agreement. As details of a proposed pact leaked out of the Geneva talks Monday, administration officials told us they will ask the world to judge any final nuclear agreement on the technical aspects only, not on whether the deal will spur Iranian reform.

There is much, much to dislike about the Netanyahu government. However, he is still the prime minister of an essential Western ally, in both values and interests. Many people intensely disliked George W Bush and felt he was an embarrassment. However he was still the President of the United States - the office and the country still deserved respect. These circumstances are not very different. Netanyahu comes to speak about a critical issue important not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the whole world. It is not farfetched to say the era of nonproliferation hinges on how the world responds to Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program. 

Wow. What a game. What an ending.

Now on to the commentary and analysis. 

Sports are... weird. From game to game, you never know how things will play out and which plays will prove to be critical turning points.

I firmly believe that games can come down to one critical play, or a horrible call by the officials, or a terrible coaching decision, etc - a singular event that comes to define and decide the game. But that is not true of every game, even games where one play does seemingly have the most meaning.

In a back and forth game, where every play truly matters, it is a competitive tossup the entire time, these are the games when (generally towards the end) one play can decide the outcome. Seattle v Green Bay was not one of those games.

Green Bay had ample opportunity to close out the game and in play after play, they went stupid, conservative, or both. Without going on too long, they certainly should have gone for it on at least one of the fourth downs at the goal line. Giving up the fake field goal, when a field goal barely dents the 16-0 score, was totally inexcusable. When Morgan Burnett (Safety, GB) intercepted the ball, he should not have gone down right away. He had yards and yards of daylight to gain more yardage for his offense. I understand the impulse to protect the ball and not risk a fumble. Fine. So go down as soon as a tackler is near you, not 10 yards before. That was ridiculous to watch. You do that with 30 seconds left, not five and a half minutes.

But the play that has been on my mind is, of course, the Brandon "Botchstick" Bostick non-catch of the onsides kick. The reasons this fascinates me is because, based on everything I've seen, I've had a nagging impulse to question his motives. We now know his assignment was to block, not try to catch the ball. You would think the special teams coach and his myriad of assistants would be hammering home the assignments since, you know, this play literally decided if they would go to the Super Bowl or not. So we can safely rule out that he might have been confused or uncertain of his job for that special teams play. So let's look at the actual play: http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/seahawks-onside-kick-packers-brandon-bostick

At first I thought, okay maybe he intended to block but instinctively (and understandably) looked for the ball, saw it was coming right at him, and felt he had no choice but to try to catch it, that it would be stupid to ignore a ball coming right at him. But the more I watch the replay, the more I am convinced this is not what happened. Notice that he is lined up to block, but does not even take a step towards the oncoming Seattle players. He immediately looks up for the ball and goes for it, which is the opposite of what he is supposed to do. Also, the ball is not really coming directly at him. Obviously it is heading towards his general vicinity (and you could say the general vicinity of all the players), but he has to take about 4 steps towards it, cutting off Jordy Nelson in the process and jumping about six feet in the air to try to catch it. We can safely say this ball was not heading right towards him. And when you look at the slow motion, zoomed in replay, there are three players in view - Bostick, Nelson, and the Seahawks Matthews, who ends up with the ball. Based on this, it's not farfetched to assume Bostick would have blocked Matthews had he done his actual job of blocking, allowing Nelson to catch the ball unencumbered, securing the Super Bowl. That's a spicy meatball. 

Immediately after the play went down, obviously he had the look of a man who fucked up. But something nagged me about it. It was not the look of someone who gave it their all and came up short, which obviously happens in sports all the time. It was the look of someone who fucked up by knowingly attempting something he was not supposed to do, screwing up, and destroying his team. It was the look of someone guilty of something, more than just not completing the play. Knowingly is the key word. What I wonder is if he never intended to block and that he wanted this to be his chance at glory, at being the guy who makes the play that put Green Bay in the Super Bowl.

It's a lot to put on someone, but based on how he played during the actual play (never attempting to block, making a beeline for the ball when better catchers were trying to get in position, looking guilty after the play), this is not a farfetched interpretation. 

This USA Today article discusses how “intent” (and lack of it) was a prime factor in the grand jury’s decision not to charge the police officer who killed Eric Garner.

I’m going to forgo any pretense of professionalism or civility: what the fuck fuck?? 

I don’t think anyone reasonable believes the officer intended to kill Eric. What everyone witnessed was that he used an illegal chokehold on an unarmed civilian who was not being belligerent in the least. The video clearly shows him agitated and upset, but not violent, not even when four police officers tackled him without any apparent or legitimate* cause. This was not a case where an officer did what he had to do to protect innocent civilians or protect himself. The police in the video looked idle, inexperienced, untrained, unprofessional, and after briefly speaking to Eric, seemingly chose to arrest him out of nowhere via tackling and choking.

The article goes on to explains that murder comes with intent. No one disputes this. Manslaughter, however, does not. Simple googling produces this federal definition "Federal law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion." (source). And the New York definition: "Manslaughter is a form of homicide - conduct which causes the death of a person - committed when a defendant recklessly causes death (second-degree) or, with an intent to cause serious physical injury, causes death (first-degree)" (source).

Even if you rule out first degree, as it can be argued the officer did not intended to cause serious physical injury, only to subdue and arrest a large man, how can anyone argue that the officer's conduct, regardless of intent, did not directly lead to his death? You literally cannot argue this. The coroners definitively ruled that the (illegal) chokehold was the cause of death. 

This article fails by not even attempting to address a charge of involuntary manslaughter and why it might have been dismissed by the grand jury. (Here is an article by a Virginia paper about a man found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for… wait for it, choking a man he got into a fight with.)

Upon Derek Jeter's retirement, it was announced that he would start a website, called The Players Tribune, where athletes would speak directly to fans through articles, blog posts, social media updates, and the like. This did not strike me as a bad idea but as a venue to (purportedly) get an athlete's unbridled perspective on something, be it an experience they have had (playing for Donald Sterling) or an important topic of today (domestic abuse among NFL players).

While I thought that this website could be a valuable addition to the myriad of communications forums available to athletes, I never thought it would replace traditional (or the "new traditional") outlets and I don't think anyone else thought that as well. There are thousands of hard working sports journalists and media figures who make a living interviewing athletes and delivering that content to fans. This, obviously, has not changed.

What has been interesting to witness are some of the newer outlets move to immediately defend their turf and, for lack of a better term, shit on The Players Tribune at its immediate onset. It has been disappointing to watch these juvenile attacks for attack sake, which have been devoid of any legitimate criticism and instead relied entirely on snark to "make" a "case" that this website is unnecessary and stupid. Only it's not, and it's not. 

Take Deadspin, part of the Gawker empire that has elevated snark to a 'legitimate' journalistic pursuit and form of content. (Side note: I hate admitting that I have read enough Gawker for it to get old, but that's exactly what I'll admit - it gets old as shit and the exact moment you realize how vapid it is when you also realize you're the idiot who has been duped by professional click-baiters). They published this piece by someone or other on the first few articles from TPT. No surprise, it's unnecessarily critical, empty, and with no meaningful point. The person who typed the words (it is hard to call her a "writer" or "author") mentions Blake Griffin's article detailing his experience on Roger Sterling's team. Her criticism (one of them) is that he told a piece of the same story in a GQ interview before TPT existed. How dare he. I found his article easy to read, fairly interesting, and it did exactly what the site is designed to do, provide an athlete's direct perspective on an important issue without media filtering. Deadspin wasn't offering any kind of legitimate critique or review of the site, it was just bitching and trolling a new competitor.

This week, Grantland decided to pile on. (Full disclosure: Charles P. Pierce is the man, I love his work, and by "his work", I mean the few pieces I've read on Grantland, God [and the internet] knows what the fuck he did before). At least his criticism was entertaining to read, even if it had the same pointlessness as Deadspin's garbage: it's been done before, is Russell Wilson really qualified to be a senior editor (note: of a simple sports magazine, not an investigative news site trying to expose government secrets that can have actual and severe ramifications) (sorry, caught up on The Newsroom last night), Tiger Woods sucks, blah blah blah. 

This article about a company called Warby Parker, that apparently exists, offers a really great case study in just how unimportant offering decent wages are to corporations, no matter their legal status.  While most people are familiar with C corporations (your standard incorporated company - think Anything, Inc.), there also exists B corporations. The crucial difference is that the mission of C corporations, codified by law, is to maximize profit for shareholders. A bullshit, disgraceful mission for sure, but the lawr is the lawr.

B corporations, however, do not have that same restriction. They can allocate resources towards some kind of "social good", even at the expense of profit margins, without fear of legal reprisal by "poor" shareholders who are not legally entitled to suck every dime out of the company. 

Enter Wembly Planky, excuse me, Warby Parker, which is a B Corporation. Warby "shares" its profits and provides a social good by donating free glasses to someone who cannot afford them for every pair that is purchased. A noble endeavor, for sure. But how do they fund this generosity? Through the tried and true corporate tactic of paying lower level employees shit, relative to their HQ in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the most expensive borough in the most expensive city in the US.  Ahhh social good capitalism, we hardly totally knew thee. 

As an avid supporter of the concept that thriving corporations need not be legally bound to making rich people even shit ass richer (maximizing profits), my naive hope was always that being free of these rules would let a company truly share its revenue with the people who actually make that revenue: its employees. This would allow them to have above market, yet still sustainably high wages, lifting their lives and providing a much more impactful social good. 

But alas, this is not so. Weasely Parkour found a way to usurp the noble idea of a B corp while staying true to the even nobler idea of a C corp: profit profit and more profit through low lower and lowest wages.

I'll end with a visual depiction of the situation:

Is Tinder a game or is Tinder a legitimate way to meet people?

The question itself both implies and explains Tinder's problem. This fantastic piece by Barbara Ortutay on the rise of dating-by-app is more expansive than this particular topic, but it includes the perfect quote to explain the issue at hand:

"I used [Tinder] for a few months but instead of looking for someone it was more like a funny joke," she says.

So just what is the ratio of users who take it seriously as a way to meet people (be it for a date, as a friend, as a one night stand, etc) and people who consider it a joke and a "hot or not" game, with no intentions whatsoever of meeting people?

Apps like Tinder, Hinge, Coffee Meets Bagel - as the article describes, are distinct from Match.com and JDate because there is (thankfully) a much smaller time and monetary investment. Instead of lengthy profiles, extended email exchanges, and a hefty subscription, they offer a quick glance at pictures, a few words about the person, and importantly, mutually agreement about starting a dialog instead of an onslaught of unwanted emails. 

But there is a method to the madness of sites and apps that charge, which is that they weed out people who are only on there for the spectacle of it and are not serious about meeting someone. 

In this context, the Tinder solution presents itself: offer a "premium" service for $5-$10 per month. This would almost immediately weed out the "gamers", as it were, and leave people who genuinely want to use it as a way to find and meet someone. The premium users could have the option of sifting through both premium and non-premium users (so as to keep options open) or only premium users, to narrow down to the more serious people.

Bill, I didn't get to watch too much NBA this year b/c lazy and waiting for playoffs, but still love listening to your NBA pods and the recurring theme of OKC's no-offense offense. So seeing them in the playoffs, talk about an instantaneous "ohhhhhhh that's what he's talking about" moment (or moments - as in every moment they are on offense).

It was ludicrous to see a professional NBA team, let alone a top tier one, seemingly have no clue how to run team plays, with their only "strategy" - get the ball to KD whenever, wherever while Scott Brooks sacrifices goats to the NBA Gods on the sidelines to increase the odds that he scores.

One moment in particular that really struck me was when Kendrick Perkins hit the tying put back layup at the end of game 2 to send them to OT - the way Durant "super-serious hugged him with strength" and wouldn't let go - it was less celebratory and more "oh thank god someone else finally fucking did something meaningful to help me out on offense" - it screamed relief at another teammate contributing at a clutch moment. It really makes me think that when they inevitably get bounced early, he'll be more vocally critical of needing not just offensive help, but an offensive minded coach, this offseason.

Raise your hand if you’re sick and tired of being sick and tired of the unacceptably high error rate when ordering food, be it at the restaurant or over the phone.

It should be a simple process - here is my order, write it down, execute, serve, get paid, work out side deal for when done shift. But it seems that over and over again “chips instead of fries please”, “can the appetizer be served before the entree?” “please add cheese and bacon to my wrap” - these simple requests are, for lack of a more technical term, completely fucked up.

As I listened to my older bro add a few dozen ingredients to his hoagies over the phone the other day, all I could think was “oh boy is he in for a disappointment” - then I thought, but why the fuck is that?? How god damn hard is it for someone to do what objectively should be easy as shit? Listen to order, take down order, add ingredients to sandwich, meet customers minimal expectation of getting what they asked for.

Gen Y is often shat upon for not being able to think for ourselves, needing explicit instructions, constant positive feedback (participation trophies), etc. Here we have in life a Gen Yers dream - I’m giving you homework, it’s called make a sandwich with these exact ingredients, you don’t even have to guess what they are or solve a riddle or word problem to find them, I’m going to give you the exact items I’d like to be served. Commence epic fuck up of order. Now to be fair, this isn’t a generational issue, it’s an Americans (and whatever other nationality is taking the order) are stupid and indifferent as fuck issue and no longer give a shit about getting anything right.

Which leads to my innovative business venture. A hoagie place that gets orders right, every time, no excuses. When someone calls in and orders a hoagie, they are going to get everything they asked for, and if not, the person who took the order is shot on the spot under the generous laws of “stand your ground”. “Your honor, he threatened my life by not adding fried onions to my cheesesteak.” “You’re free to go sir, you’ve done a service to your country.” OR, if he or she can prove sandwich maker screwed up, then that person’s life is forfeit. There may be early turnover, but boy will that solve itself quickly.

I have a lot of respect for Microsoft as a company and organization and want to see them excel. One area where they have had trouble increasing market share is the smartphone/mobile phone arena, despite overall positive feedback on their actual mobile phones (based on my friend saying he really likes his).

Although it is possibly (at best) and probably (getting real) too late for this marriage, I always thought Microsoft buying or at the least partnering with BlackBerry made a tremendous amount of sense for both companies, each filling a need for the other. Microsoft is (or should be) synonymous with business software. BlackBerry (for a time) was the business phone. Both struggled to adapt to the changing landscape for reasons that could have been solved by partnering.

BlackBerry's software is atrocious. And that's a compliment. Microsoft has a great handle on software and UI (related aside: I give Microsoft tremendous credit for being the first to bridge PC/desktop software with mobile/tablet software with Windows 8 and the Surface). Had they partnered with BlackBerry to power their phones, overhauling - no, destroying and building anew, the software and interface, both companies could have prevailed in the mobile phone marketplace, especially among business users. Imagine seamlessly accessing a PPT or Excel file on your BlackBerry from "the cloud"? Or even better Outlook/contact/calendar integration? 

Additionally, they could have smartly expanded the BlackBerry handset line. 99% (approximate) of former BB users will tell you they loved the keyboard. In fact, a number of phone accessory makers are trying to replicate this keyboard as an iPhone attachment - even to the point of being sued by BlackBerry, as a testament to the market they firmly believe still exists of phone users who want the tactile (usage?) keyboard experience. Microsoft could have said, hey, let's keep the keyboard but make the screen... touchable (? it works). I know BlackBerry has this option - I'll direct you back to their joke of a software (and hardware as well) for why it failed. Additionally, MicroBerry could have kept the keyboard-only option while offering the Lumia to people who want a non-iPhone, non-Android touchscreen-only phone.

Microsoft buying BlackBerry (back in the day) would have immediately expanded their mobile phone market share and customer base, allowing them to compete with Apple and Google and likely beat them among older, business-focused consumers.

Of course, it's probably way too late for this to happen with the impact and splash it would have had 3-5 years ago, but hey, I still felt like writing this anyway.

Ezra Klein writes about Upworthy generating unprecedented levels of sharing (or "going viral") even though the amount of content they produce is dwarfed by more established, longer running outlets, both traditional and newer media sources (think Times/Washington Post and Gawker, Yahoo!). Here is the piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/10/does-upworthy-prove-media-outlets-are-hurting-themselves-by-publishing-so-much-content/

He brings up questions speculating on value of less but perhaps more thoughtful content while clarifying that Upworthy does not actually create their content (or "their" content), just redistributes existing stories with the specific goal of finding viral-worthy content.

This is different than the traditional media goal of finding what writers/editors believe (or guess?) is a compelling story for the public, and then hoping it goes viral.

My thoughts are thus: Upworthy specializes in uplifting stories, triumphs, especially truth-to-power and justice-to-power archetypes. In this day and age where images of corporate and governing power are ever present and the "common" folk seem to be losing influence while their common causes are losing ground to the powerful and elite, there is an incredible amount of resonance in these stories.

Maybe instead of looking at Upworthy's form, they should actually look at the function, the content and realize people are thirsting for examples that the individual does still matter, that dignity and respect for the little guy (and girl) by the powerful still matter and still count for something.

Can you imagine the influence a mainstream media would have if it re-grounded itself and rolled back its obsession with the almighty corporation, the almighty stock market, the almighty presidency? And instead started focusing on stories that matter to people's everyday lives, on the new hardships people face in an increasingly "dog eat dog, fuck you if shit happens to you" world?

This is one of many pieces that says it all: http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/20/by-the-numbers-the-incredibly-shrinking-american-middle-class/