As George Orwell wrote in Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
Within the last two weeks, the reigning MVP of the National Basketball Association, Steph Curry, and NBA All-Star, Klay Thompson, and All-World forward Lebron James, suffered head trauma.
Curry flipped over an opponent and landed on his shoulders and head. He left the game and received a concussion test.
Thompson was kneed in the head and left the court, got a stitch in his ear, tried to come back in, but ultimately sat out the rest of the game.
James, was knocked out of bounds and propelled his 260+ pounds of body mass - head first - into the barrel and lens of a video camera, substantial enough impact was made to leave cuts and indentations in his skull that may or may not have been visible from space.
James, did not get a concussion test. He did not sit out 1 minute of the game after the incident.
Curry is the MVP, Thompson is an All-Star, but Lebron James is, well, Lebron James. The most equal of all NBA players if not global athletes. If Lebron James does not feel it necessary to submit to concussion protocols, or even take a five minute break on the bench, then the matter is settled.
And the refs and the league and everyone has to be fine with that, because he is Lebron James. Even if that is potentially detrimental to his health and well-being.
And that is the problem with big-time moneyed sports. The biggest cash cow gets to dictate the action.
Friday, June 12, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
The Insanity of Open Carry Laws
Thankfully, this incident ended without incident. Thankfully, the unarmed person who first saw the armed person, did what a rational person should do. He saw someone with a gun walking down the street and called police.
Someone walking down the street carrying a gun is the gold standard of reasons to call the police. Luckily, in this case, the someone walking down the street with a gun was an actual police officer.
But imagine this exact scenario, but with two different people.
Instead of the reasonable delivery person who called the police when he spotted the man with the gun walking down the street, he was an ardent 2nd Amendment enthusiast who also lovingly embraced the philosophy of the open carry folks. And instead of the second person being a cop, he was actually an equally virulent proponent of open carry.
It sounds like the beginning of a sick joke: "two strangers who are open carry whack jobs meet suddenly on the street....what could possibly go wrong?!"
And its not just that the scenario above involves two armed people. It involves two open carry zealots. Open carry zealots are not just people who carry guns. The carry guns because the love guns and what they say about the person openly carrying one: "I'm tough and macho and demand your fear and respect. And if you don't fear and respect me, there just might be trouble."
Open carry people are like severely drunk women at a bachelorette party. Neither keeps their opinions or thoughts to themselves. They air it all out for people to hear and see. In the case of the bachelorette, the alcohol removes her normal inhibitions and allows her to carry forth with no filter. In the case of the open carry guy, the gun removes his normal level of fear and allows him to go after whomever his submerged racism and bigotry points at.
Someone walking down the street carrying a gun is the gold standard of reasons to call the police. Luckily, in this case, the someone walking down the street with a gun was an actual police officer.
But imagine this exact scenario, but with two different people.
Instead of the reasonable delivery person who called the police when he spotted the man with the gun walking down the street, he was an ardent 2nd Amendment enthusiast who also lovingly embraced the philosophy of the open carry folks. And instead of the second person being a cop, he was actually an equally virulent proponent of open carry.
It sounds like the beginning of a sick joke: "two strangers who are open carry whack jobs meet suddenly on the street....what could possibly go wrong?!"
And its not just that the scenario above involves two armed people. It involves two open carry zealots. Open carry zealots are not just people who carry guns. The carry guns because the love guns and what they say about the person openly carrying one: "I'm tough and macho and demand your fear and respect. And if you don't fear and respect me, there just might be trouble."
Open carry people are like severely drunk women at a bachelorette party. Neither keeps their opinions or thoughts to themselves. They air it all out for people to hear and see. In the case of the bachelorette, the alcohol removes her normal inhibitions and allows her to carry forth with no filter. In the case of the open carry guy, the gun removes his normal level of fear and allows him to go after whomever his submerged racism and bigotry points at.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Greatest vs. Best
Full disclosure. I'm a lifelong Golden State Warriors fan and it is killing me to see what is happening in the NBA Finals. But, I offer that caveat to hopefully prove my neutrality on this issue.
Here goes.
If you want to say that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time, I will not argue with you. However, he is not the best. Lebron James is the best basketball player of all time and no argument can logically conclude otherwise.
First, the word greatest vs. the word best. Greatest is a blend of objective and subjective reasoning. To be considered the greatest of something the objective rating of your skill and talent must be off-the-charts good. However, there is an equal measure of subjective review. You are the greatest because your achievements have stood the test of time and fans and observers can reminisce about your greatness and can allow the passage of years and decades to further burnish the memories.
If you are the best at something however, there is no room for the sentimentality of the subjective. You are the best because all logic, reason and empirical data shows that you are indeed, the best.
Lebron James is the best basketball player who has every lived. He possesses more talent, basketball IQ and raw physical athleticism than any other player before him. That includes Michael Jordan.
And here is the ultimate test. If we could gather all the general managers and coaches in the NBA, and magically transport them to a time and dimension where both Jordan and James are 30-years-old and at the height of their physical prowess, and asked them to select THE player they would want on their team - and we removed any feelings of sentimentality and emotion from their brains - ALL of these men would pick Lebron James.
And if a few didn't, we'd all know who was being fired soon.
Lebron is equal to or better than Jordan in every specific basketball skill - shooting, passing, rebounding, ball handling, defense etc.
Lebron is 6'8" 260 pounds of chiseled granite. Jordan was 6'6" 215. Lebron is faster, stronger and in better shape the Michael ever was.
Lebron is a better teammate, a better person and has a more team-centered approach to his game. Lebron James makes his teammates better because they want to play better for him. Jordan made some of his teammates better because he scared the crap out of them. The others, he turned into quivering shells.
I am the right age and the right level of fandom to easily mock younger fans who say Lebron is better than Jordan. I should do that, I should defend the best-ness of Michael.
But I won't because I can't. Lebron James: the best of all time.
Here goes.
If you want to say that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time, I will not argue with you. However, he is not the best. Lebron James is the best basketball player of all time and no argument can logically conclude otherwise.
First, the word greatest vs. the word best. Greatest is a blend of objective and subjective reasoning. To be considered the greatest of something the objective rating of your skill and talent must be off-the-charts good. However, there is an equal measure of subjective review. You are the greatest because your achievements have stood the test of time and fans and observers can reminisce about your greatness and can allow the passage of years and decades to further burnish the memories.
If you are the best at something however, there is no room for the sentimentality of the subjective. You are the best because all logic, reason and empirical data shows that you are indeed, the best.
Lebron James is the best basketball player who has every lived. He possesses more talent, basketball IQ and raw physical athleticism than any other player before him. That includes Michael Jordan.
And here is the ultimate test. If we could gather all the general managers and coaches in the NBA, and magically transport them to a time and dimension where both Jordan and James are 30-years-old and at the height of their physical prowess, and asked them to select THE player they would want on their team - and we removed any feelings of sentimentality and emotion from their brains - ALL of these men would pick Lebron James.
And if a few didn't, we'd all know who was being fired soon.
Lebron is equal to or better than Jordan in every specific basketball skill - shooting, passing, rebounding, ball handling, defense etc.
Lebron is 6'8" 260 pounds of chiseled granite. Jordan was 6'6" 215. Lebron is faster, stronger and in better shape the Michael ever was.
Lebron is a better teammate, a better person and has a more team-centered approach to his game. Lebron James makes his teammates better because they want to play better for him. Jordan made some of his teammates better because he scared the crap out of them. The others, he turned into quivering shells.
I am the right age and the right level of fandom to easily mock younger fans who say Lebron is better than Jordan. I should do that, I should defend the best-ness of Michael.
But I won't because I can't. Lebron James: the best of all time.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
The Worst People in the World
OK, maybe Worst People in the World is a tad harsh, but when it comes to a group of people I really have a hard time understanding - ranchers often take the cake.
Specifically, I'm speaking about ranchers in Oregon who are bitterly and loudly complaining about the minuscule growth in the wolf population in the northeastern part of the state. Because this once completely decimated species is making a glacial comeback, the rednecks and blue hairs are raising a holy stink about the "critical need" to remove wolves from endangered species protection and give Ma and Pa Kettle the right to shoot the big bad wolves.
Two quick things, with the latter completely obliterating the former.
1. Yes, wolves have the ability and probably the desire to kill livestock. And yes, such killings have the potential to cause economic harm to the rancher.
2. BUT....RANCHERS ARE COMPENSATED BY THE STATE OF OREGON IF A WOLF KILLS THEIR LIVESTOCK!!!. Basically, there is no risk at all to raising livestock where wolves are present. First, because according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, wolves normally kill less than one-tenth of one percent of the livestock available to them. Second, if they do kill some livestock - the rancher gets paid.
No, the real reason that Jethro the Rancher wants to kill wolves is because Jethro doesn't want to be told what he can and cannot do. It has little to do with his ranch, his herd or his livelihood. It has everything to do with his pride and his sense of manliness.
And that is why I think ranchers hold a special place among terrible people.
Specifically, I'm speaking about ranchers in Oregon who are bitterly and loudly complaining about the minuscule growth in the wolf population in the northeastern part of the state. Because this once completely decimated species is making a glacial comeback, the rednecks and blue hairs are raising a holy stink about the "critical need" to remove wolves from endangered species protection and give Ma and Pa Kettle the right to shoot the big bad wolves.
Two quick things, with the latter completely obliterating the former.
1. Yes, wolves have the ability and probably the desire to kill livestock. And yes, such killings have the potential to cause economic harm to the rancher.
2. BUT....RANCHERS ARE COMPENSATED BY THE STATE OF OREGON IF A WOLF KILLS THEIR LIVESTOCK!!!. Basically, there is no risk at all to raising livestock where wolves are present. First, because according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, wolves normally kill less than one-tenth of one percent of the livestock available to them. Second, if they do kill some livestock - the rancher gets paid.
No, the real reason that Jethro the Rancher wants to kill wolves is because Jethro doesn't want to be told what he can and cannot do. It has little to do with his ranch, his herd or his livelihood. It has everything to do with his pride and his sense of manliness.
And that is why I think ranchers hold a special place among terrible people.
Monday, June 8, 2015
Black and White
In my opinion, here is what a lot of people miss when issues like this occur on a fairly regular basis.
If everything were exactly equal except the color of the young people's skin, would this incident have even taken place?
Take everything that happened in Texas over the weekend. Everything:
I grew up in the kind of community where this happened. I have been in situations like this. And I know for a fact how this situation would play out in my old neighborhood:
A white officer responds. He's confronted with a bunch of white teenagers. Teenagers he's used to dealing with on a daily basis, from speeding to drug use. He exits his car calmly and authoritatively. Still, teenage testosterone-fueled attitude is lobbed in his direction. A somewhat aggressive but calm counter salvo is lobbed back. The snap on his holster is firmly kept in place. Every single white teenager knows the snap on his holster will be kept in place. The only concern from the kids is whether or not the cop is going to call their parents for jumping a fence.
But again, I grew up in that kind of community. I have not been in a situation like this in Texas because I'm white. However, I know for a fact how this situation - with different kids would play out in my old neighborhood.
A white officer responds. He's confronted with a bunch of black teenagers. Teenager's he's hardly ever dealt with and he's glad because he assumes that if he did, he'd be dealing with rapists and murderers. He exits his car with the snap already off his holster. He's tense and nervous. He steps on the sidewalk ready for battle. Teenage testosterone-fueled attitude is lobbed in his direction. At first he says nothing, but in his mind he already can see the sights of his Glock framing the largest male teenager's center-mass. An almost animalistic rage is lobbed back. His gun is drawn. Every single black teenager knows the cop might draw a bead on their forehead. The only concern from the kids is whether they are going to be shot for jumping a fence.
If everything were exactly equal except the color of the young people's skin, would this incident have even taken place?
Take everything that happened in Texas over the weekend. Everything:
- Neighbors from a gated community complain about non-residents using the pool
- A bunch of teenagers - maybe drunk, definitely full of attitude, start talking back
- An officer arrives on the scene with little information and is almost immediately confronted with a group of young men and women who certainly don't want him there and are possibly committed to loosely surrounding the officer and attempting intimidation.
I grew up in the kind of community where this happened. I have been in situations like this. And I know for a fact how this situation would play out in my old neighborhood:
A white officer responds. He's confronted with a bunch of white teenagers. Teenagers he's used to dealing with on a daily basis, from speeding to drug use. He exits his car calmly and authoritatively. Still, teenage testosterone-fueled attitude is lobbed in his direction. A somewhat aggressive but calm counter salvo is lobbed back. The snap on his holster is firmly kept in place. Every single white teenager knows the snap on his holster will be kept in place. The only concern from the kids is whether or not the cop is going to call their parents for jumping a fence.
But again, I grew up in that kind of community. I have not been in a situation like this in Texas because I'm white. However, I know for a fact how this situation - with different kids would play out in my old neighborhood.
A white officer responds. He's confronted with a bunch of black teenagers. Teenager's he's hardly ever dealt with and he's glad because he assumes that if he did, he'd be dealing with rapists and murderers. He exits his car with the snap already off his holster. He's tense and nervous. He steps on the sidewalk ready for battle. Teenage testosterone-fueled attitude is lobbed in his direction. At first he says nothing, but in his mind he already can see the sights of his Glock framing the largest male teenager's center-mass. An almost animalistic rage is lobbed back. His gun is drawn. Every single black teenager knows the cop might draw a bead on their forehead. The only concern from the kids is whether they are going to be shot for jumping a fence.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Want Vs. Need: The Story of Customer Service
Read an interesting story in Slate about why people hate the cable company. The basic premise is that cable companies (and ISP's and airlines and health insurance providers, etc.) don't sell you something you want, they sell you something you need. We don't want cords and cables sticking into our TV's and computers, we want Mad Men, and YouTube. But in order to get Mad Men and YouTube, we need the cords and cable service.
So, there is really no way you are ever going to feel good about buying cable TV or Internet service. At best, you are going to be totally neutral about it and forget it's there while you enjoy the shows and websites you actually want.
And our entire system of customer service is built around the delineation between want and need.
If you sell something that people really want, you HAVE to provide a decent level of customer service. Because that want - left unfulfilled, or disappointed - will drive them somewhere else to get it or get it better. That's why hotels and TV's and restaurants tend to have the highest customer satisfaction ratings among consumers. You want a nice hotel, a great TV and a wonderful restaurant and if one fails you, you can go to the next one.
But, if you need something - connection to the internet, a pipe that brings you 300 channels, or a plane that is the only conveyance to that tropical vacation paradise - you are at the mercy of the provider.
And I'm not saying that the businesses and services in the NEED camp, aren't governed by competition. They are. Yes, there are different ways to get ESPN, and there are different and competing companies that can bring you great cat videos and there are a lot of airlines. But, those businesses know something intrinsic about their customers that puts them in the cat-bird seat regarding service:
When customers need something, they are fearful that the something will go away. And that fear allows the provider to jerk the customer around and consistently lower your service level. They are going to put up with it -because it's a need.
However, when a customer wants something, they are more patient. More willing to shop around and more willing to push back against the service provider.
Want is a reflection of customer power; need is a reflection of company power.
So, there is really no way you are ever going to feel good about buying cable TV or Internet service. At best, you are going to be totally neutral about it and forget it's there while you enjoy the shows and websites you actually want.
And our entire system of customer service is built around the delineation between want and need.
If you sell something that people really want, you HAVE to provide a decent level of customer service. Because that want - left unfulfilled, or disappointed - will drive them somewhere else to get it or get it better. That's why hotels and TV's and restaurants tend to have the highest customer satisfaction ratings among consumers. You want a nice hotel, a great TV and a wonderful restaurant and if one fails you, you can go to the next one.
But, if you need something - connection to the internet, a pipe that brings you 300 channels, or a plane that is the only conveyance to that tropical vacation paradise - you are at the mercy of the provider.
And I'm not saying that the businesses and services in the NEED camp, aren't governed by competition. They are. Yes, there are different ways to get ESPN, and there are different and competing companies that can bring you great cat videos and there are a lot of airlines. But, those businesses know something intrinsic about their customers that puts them in the cat-bird seat regarding service:
When customers need something, they are fearful that the something will go away. And that fear allows the provider to jerk the customer around and consistently lower your service level. They are going to put up with it -because it's a need.
However, when a customer wants something, they are more patient. More willing to shop around and more willing to push back against the service provider.
Want is a reflection of customer power; need is a reflection of company power.
Monday, June 1, 2015
In Praise of Jaws
40 years ago this week, Jaws premiered.
Many items of popular culture and many moments in history have changed our culture and perhaps our human behavior.
Nirvana changed rock and roll. Apple changed the way we think of technology. Star Wars changed science fiction. 9-11 changed our world view.
And Jaws changed the way we view ourselves in the ocean - if not any body of water.
Here's what I mean.
In a pre-Jaws world , people knew about sharks and knew about the potential dangers. But when they went into the surf or dove into a deep lake for that matter, the thought of sharks was in the far background. They were more concerned with the concept of going swimming too soon after a large meal.
After Jaws, everything changed. When you went into the water, you were hyper aware of the horizon four inches below your eyes as you tread water. Why? Because you were casually, but methodically, scanning the surface for the fin. Your toes and the heal of your foot acted like finely tuned electronic sensors, acutely probing for a minor brush of sandpapered skin.
Before Jaws, if you heard someone scream or shriek in the surf, you were instantly sure they were drowning. After Jaws, you were instantly sure they were being ripped in half by a great white.
No matter what, whether it was the cold ocean off of the California coast, a warm beach in the Bahamas, a lake in Nebraska or even a lap pool in New York...our relationship with being immersed in water changed 40 years ago - thanks to that Shark you don't even see until the 81st minute of the film..
Many items of popular culture and many moments in history have changed our culture and perhaps our human behavior.
Nirvana changed rock and roll. Apple changed the way we think of technology. Star Wars changed science fiction. 9-11 changed our world view.
And Jaws changed the way we view ourselves in the ocean - if not any body of water.
Here's what I mean.
In a pre-Jaws world , people knew about sharks and knew about the potential dangers. But when they went into the surf or dove into a deep lake for that matter, the thought of sharks was in the far background. They were more concerned with the concept of going swimming too soon after a large meal.
After Jaws, everything changed. When you went into the water, you were hyper aware of the horizon four inches below your eyes as you tread water. Why? Because you were casually, but methodically, scanning the surface for the fin. Your toes and the heal of your foot acted like finely tuned electronic sensors, acutely probing for a minor brush of sandpapered skin.
Before Jaws, if you heard someone scream or shriek in the surf, you were instantly sure they were drowning. After Jaws, you were instantly sure they were being ripped in half by a great white.
No matter what, whether it was the cold ocean off of the California coast, a warm beach in the Bahamas, a lake in Nebraska or even a lap pool in New York...our relationship with being immersed in water changed 40 years ago - thanks to that Shark you don't even see until the 81st minute of the film..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)