Chinos and the Man

Winter is officially here. The cold weather means I have to reluctantly give up my penchant for wearing shorts. I can deal with the high forties to mid fifties weather going from office to car to home isn’t too bracing in shorts. Any colder than that and some full coverage is a must. The breezy arctic chill is too much for bare legs. I feel a bit like a hippie for saying it but I just don’t like pants.

If I had to list the problems of pants I would start with the weight. Too heavy and they hang off your butt, too light and they won’t keep the cold out. I’m perpetually hiking them up, both to keep the cuffs from dragging on the floor and to keep them waist level. Nothing is worse than walking into a public bathroom with a semi-wet floor and worrying about how much the cuffed bottoms are soaking up. Also my wallet and phone add extra weight to already hefty trousers. I can only tighten my belt so far before the stomach starts to pinch in the belt buckle. Want to witness an embarrassing spectacle? Just wait for me to hoist that belt one extra hole down the strap and yelp when the stomach flesh rolls up in the metal clasp.

Jeans are a bit of problem too. Because they’re denim they’re rigid and unrelenting. Jeans have a position of their own. No two are alike. They don’t flow and swoop the way polyester golf pants do. They’re more stiff than a corpse and they bind on the thighs, never wielding. Jeans hate us. Oh sure they last a long time. Wash after wash they hold their position. They mock our attempts to control them with fabric softeners and hang dry efforts, useless. The slim cut variety are even worse. Seriously, who needs a tighter fit?

Cargo pants are bulky and massive but necessarily so. They aren’t stylish and they don’t care. Utility is their game. The extra space in the pockets is perfect for tools and snacks, just in case you’re working outdoors and need row of chocolate mini donuts. Pockets on cargo pants are like seagulls at the beach; they’re interesting and even fun at first but quickly become annoying. Most of us don’t need that much space. It just increases the chance of losing more stuff in the washing machine, from gum and coins to cash and toothpickers. For everyday use cargo pants are probably the worst option unless you work construction.

   

Dress slacks are dignified and sharp but I don’t have enough excuses to wear them. If you don’t normally wear slacks to work, try it someday and see what people say. “You going to funeral or something?” or “What’s with the dress up, you coming from church?” The chances to wear them are so seldom you’ll realize when you finally do, they’ve shrunk. Pants are always shrinking. One of life’s mysteries I guess. Also, dress pants fit great while standing but sitting is a nightmarish surprise. They suck up tight and expose your white/sock black/shoe combo if you aren’t careful. Standing quickly back up doesn’t help either. You’ll have to massage the legs portions back down into standing position because they won’t fall gracefully back into place. You can use the kick method, where you kick your feet out to get the legs to slide back down but it will look silly. Movement is a bit restricted while wearing them because if the cloth is old it might rip along the butt seam. This is definitely worse than having everyone know you wore white socks to a formal event.

Sweatpants are a wonderful respite from a tough day. The fleece moves around effortlessly never bunching or tearing. Plus if you spill your drink on them the cotton fibers will soak it up better than a paper towel or whole stack of napkins. Even floor spills are a cinch. Just get off your recliner, put down your beer and sit directly on the puddle. The fleece will suck up the liquid like a shop vac. Don’t put them on too early in the day though. You might have to go out and get some milk or lottery tickets. Very few sweats are good enough to wear at Target. Not that Target is high class, but you don’t want to be accused of someone begging for loose change and have the employees throw you out. Especially with the stains and wet spots on your pants.  Wearing them out to go shopping is like reminding people that you don’t care. Sweatpants say “Don’t mind me I am just having a rough day” and “Could you spare a couple of bucks for gas?”  

Golf pants certainly go in the most improved garment of menswear. The ones I used to buy were cotton and bunched up with even the slightest bit of movement. Now they’re light and wrinkle free. Most even have a layer that prevents wrinkling.  You can wad them up in corner before tucking into bed and in the morning wear them again without worrying about ironing out a mess. Also the textile geniuses have figured out how to make them loose around the legs which is a huge improvement for me. They aren’t too formal either, you wear them with your Pearl Jam t-shirt and you’ll never regret being both ‘adultish’ and ‘hip’.

Until warmer weather I’ll just have to make do cycling through my small wardrobe of khaki and black golf pants. I really do prefer shorts. 

Humility and Leadership

 I glanced over this latest research from a couple academics who studied personality types. More precisely they compared arrogant thinkers to humble ones and came to the conclusion that ‘humble’ leaders are more powerful and effective. I read the Washington Post’s quick summary of the findings, short and neat. I don’t read full academic papers unless I have to. For my purposes a summary by a respected newspaper is enough. The people studied were considered 'intellectually' arrogant or 'intellectually' humble. 

I clicked on the link because it was headline-grabby and seemed to remind everyone what we instinctively know to be true.  Readers can draw what they like from the results. The findings don’t seem surprising for anyone who has experienced poor leadership. Those with the misfortune of serving under a boss with an outsized ego know the pitfalls of pride. Thinking well of oneself doesn’t always mean arrogant however, and being soft spoken doesn’t mean humble. 

First, the study had participants (both arrogant and humble) read from a list of statements and asked how familiar they were with the topics. The topics covered science, history, sociology and a mixed bag of knowledge. Second, they read from a slightly longer list and had to recall which statements were covered on both readings.

 A few fake news items were slipped in.

The arrogant ones mostly skimmed the passages while the humble read with closer detail. Arrogant participants got more items wrong and were susceptible to the fake items as well. Humble participants did better on identifying the correct statements and the false, but also were more open to changing their mind if the true statements conflicted their previous positions. The arrogant rarely changed their mind. Most people who have held any job for any amount of time has encountered bosses who blame others for their failures and refuse to take advice. They also hate giving anyone credit if they can take it for themselves.

 Mostly, humility gets a bad rap, as in “Oh my God I was so humiliated!” As a character trait it describes a person willing to understand their own shortcomings and learn from them. Humble people have a reasonable view of their strengths and weaknesses. If the image of a soft spoken indecisive person emerges, throw out that image. Humility sometimes gets interpreted as milquetoast men afraid of making choices.

Humility is just honest, self-reflection.

When leaders have it you know it. They aren’t afraid of others getting credit but they take decisive moves and improve along the way. They don’t apologize and agonize about wrong choices or bad information, they improve. 

From the study: 

As Owens and Hekman wrote in Academy of Management Journal, “Our findings suggest that humility appears to embolden individuals to aspire to their highest potential and enables them to make the incremental improvements necessary to progress toward that potential.”

The findings show that humble authority figures make everyone better by inspiring performance. The opposite is also true of reckless pride.

There is a great illustration of this from the excellent mini-series Band of Brothers. The film follows E company through much of the war in Germany as they parachute across France in June 1944 to VE day in the summer of 1945. In one harrowing scene the battalion is crossing a hail of gunfire in the Ardennes Forest to occupy a town held by the Germans. The company commander (Dyke) freezes up under the mortar fire and refuses to move from a covered position. The charging men look to their leader shouting "What we do?, We have to move, we're surrounded!" His only reply "I don't know! I don't know!"

 Soldiers are being killed all around until another lieutenant (Speirs) storms in and starts directing men. He takes over swiftly and urges the men to move and fire. Staying in one place and getting shelled is what is hurting them. He takes over command from Dyke who seems more concerned with his own safety. The battalion takes the town with heavy losses but if not for quick thinking leadership E company might have lost every soldier.

Lieutenant Speirs’ humility is seen in other scenes as he praises individuals and delegates responsibility. He is humble where it counts. He shows bravery and gives orders under pressure but he also has shortcomings in administrative functions. His character is quiet for much of the movie, only popping up with advice when needed. Dyke is arrogant because he doesn’t bother with the details of leadership (preparing for battle, making decisions) and is only around when necessary. It’s a tough scene to watch knowing that battles often play out exactly like that, when lives are at stake and decisiveness makes a crucial difference. A big theme in the series is leadership. Few events prove it out like war.

It might be a little fuzzier in the business world but the essential character of a humble leader will play out the same. Bosses have different personality types but one who can honestly assess a situation and improve the result is effectively humble. 

Research that supports my intuition is always welcome. I usually ignore findings that don’t. Some might call that arrogant though.

Death, Taxes and Angry College Football Fans

Benjamin Franklin once said “…nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” If he were alive today he would probably include fan anger over college football rankings. The limited number of slots in the playoffs practically guarantee an surge of 'righteous' anger from a neglected team. There are 5 power conferences that contain the best teams. The SEC, the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 10 and the Big 12. Additionally, the few games played each season means that analysts have to determine the best teams from a small sample. The number of variables considered when establishing a teams’ credentials can be technical. Strength of schedule, margin of victory, road wins against top opponents, and something called the ‘eye test’ are just some of the variables the selection group considers when assigning slots.

The eye test is exactly what it sounds like. How does this team actually look on the field? Do they execute plays and hold up under pressure? Do they beat themselves with dumb penalties and turnovers? Do their skill position players have speed? Does the defense shut down high caliber opponents? The eye test gets criticized by stat wonks who love to spreadsheets showing how Middle Tennessee State gets great production, but who cares. The big conferences matter. Stats are one measure of progress but football fans know a good team when they see one. A good team has NFL talent and performs every week. Not that they never lose but they keep loses to a minimum and win on the road. Teams like Alabama and Georgia are great, Illinois and Purdue are not (sadly).

Good stats in football filter out ‘garbage time’ numbers. Those extra 65 yards your team’s running back got on a night when they were played North Eastern Delaware A&M, that’s garbage time. Numbers and measurables can explain a lot but they don’t help with the eye test. I’ll always take the eye test over almost any other measure of tracked skill. Football talent gravitates toward certain schools and we already know which ones they are. They’re called the power 5 for a reason. A quarterback who averages 300 yards passing per game at Ohio State gets more attention than one at Montana Tech. This isn’t news.

I watched Ohio State beat Wisconsin last night and one thing was clear from the start, Ohio had much better athletes. The fact that Wisconsin only lost by 7 was an indication that crowd noise and intensity of the moment play an outsized factor in the college game. These are kids after all, average age is probably 21 or so. They get nervous and make mistakes but the really talented teams like OSU can make a few and usually finish with a win. In an outdoor stadium with less noise Ohio should have run Wisconsin off the field. I did hope the Badgers could pull off a miracle come back but their offense looked slow footed and not used to having to throw to get out of trouble. Badgers run first, always. 

The Big Ten conference game last night was a default play in for Wisconsin and a little more complicated for the Ohio State. They had a chance with a win but it wasn’t enough. The committee decided against them. Buckeyes have 2 loses for the season after all. That’s 1 more than any playoff team should have.

The controversy was over who gets the open slot for the playoffs, only 4 are allowed after all. The teams announced just a few hours ago, Oklahoma, Georgia, Clemson, Alabama. Bama was the wild card since they didn’t play for a conference championship but still managed a 1 loss season. The loss was to Auburn who was a top ranked team at the time. I don’t like to criticize the committee, they have a lot to consider. But putting two teams from the same conference in the playoffs is a sketchy move. I imagine they included the Tide because of their quality wins and 1 loss season. The alternative would have been Ohio State with two losses and a conference championship. If they put the Buckeyes in it opens the door for questions about why they didn’t include the USC Trojans, who basically had the same season. 

Buckeye fans will complain for sure. Every year some team gets left out that probably deserved to be included. With the limited spots it is unavoidable. Most fans will want to expand the field to include 8 teams. For now though there isn’t enough time or games in the season without seriously affecting academics (don’t laugh). That’s the official reason at least from the NCAA for keeping the 4 team playoff. I imagine it will get to that point in the near future. The playoffs should be fun though.

American Assassin

Vince Flynn is the author, Mitch Rapp the killer who hunts terrorists.

This isn’t about the movie, just the fast paced novel that focuses on training and turning lose a young recruit on terrorists and their financiers.

This origin story has all the usual elements of the great bad asses, Reacher, Bond, and Bourne. It does follow a typical narrative track for a while, a secretive government program run by the CIA for assassins. It tells how Rapp lost loved ones in the Pan-Am Lockerbie flight that was shot down in ’88, the event forming the basis for much of his anger. Flynn doesn’t give the kid (Rapp) a military background which most spy types usually have as a precondition. He is a star athlete instead. It works though. Tell a good enough story and most readers are hooked. This is good story.

I am no expert on dialogue but Vince Flynn’s has always struck me as a little flat. He uses obvious lines for his characters when action and mood might work better. But then again, maybe not. Tom Clancy type detailing doesn’t work for action scenes and I can’t imagine this story would be improved through complex examination of financial links between the Muslim Brotherhood and Russian Oligarchs. He prefers to plow ahead with the scenes instead of detailing the setting. More killing less fireside chats “When you have to shoot, shoot…don’t talk”—Tuco. The Good the Bad, and the Ugly.

 It’s a style technique perfectly suited to the author’s philosophy. Train the killer, attack the enemy. The chapters are short and the reader won’t get lost in the rabbit trails of political intrigue and national histories. Vince Flynn assumes his readers know enough about current events to pick up on some of the socio-political layout. The person of Mitch Rapp is the story and events are directly related to his circle of influence. Not that Flynn doesn’t expand the plot from different points of view but he keeps the core intact, not introducing too many characters and side stories.

Another thing unique to Flynn is his black and white understanding of morality. Not an ounce of moral ambiguity seeps through. The author explains dysfunction and politics in Washington D.C. without implicating it for all the world’s problems. Mitch Rapp is a good guy in every way and despite his penchant for violence, it is always warranted—apologies be damned. His is a righteous anger. This may be unfair to other writers who have solitary tough men in the lead role. I never read the Robert Ludlum series but the Bourne movies veer into a “What if WE are really the bad guys?” type questioning. Flynn gives a refreshingly honest assessment of the political problems while still making the lead heroic and the criminality solvable. 

I hope this isn’t true of the ‘Assassin’ movie but I haven’t seen it yet. Movies can’t marinate in full stories like books can, but good ones will find the plot’s core message and build an engaging thriller around it. Bad ones take an engaging thriller and redesign the core message.

I’ve only read one other Flynn book that used Rapp as the character and always hinted at his past. I don’t know if this was first in the series or if he wrote it after the others, as a kind of ‘look back.’ Lee Child did this with Jack Reacher, telling the origin story much later.

When I read the jacket cover of American Assassin I rolled my eyes “Not another bond rip-off?” The reason readers like spy stories and secret agents is the intrigue, the mystery and danger. It’s why writers can keep using broad outlines and tough characters shrouded in secrecy. This isn’t anything like a James Bond thriller, but the secret nature of the agent’s work creates international connections that thicken the narrative. 

Two ingredients of a good novel (to me) are interesting characters and a quick moving plot. Both have to be present. American Assassin has both and delivers an engaging current story with a lot of violence. The dialogue is a little straightforward but guys in a hurry don’t wax poetic about the universe. Now I’ll have to see the movie. 

Where the Dough is

It’s amazing how much difference one person can make to a business.

There is a local donut shop I like to go to on Saturdays. The owners have a few in the region and a location where they bake the sugary goodness early in the morning. When I started going I got to know one of the sons of the family who ran the front counter for walk in customers. He had a friendly demeanor and worked quick, always asking if there was anything else he could do, offered deals on dozen boxes. He had a natural customer service attitude, the kind all retailers depend on. He didn’t miss much work, as I could tell, and was always sunny and attentive. He wasn’t likely to leave for another job but anyone needing a salesman for their business might have easily snatched him up.

He does other work now for the family. I talked to his brother this morning who has taken over daily service duties, bagging donuts for walk in customers and selling coffee to hurried workers. He isn’t the attentive employee his brother was. He seems to be fighting off sleep most days and his tone suggests he has better things to do. He isn’t completely rude but he is dismissive and moves slowly through the morning, reluctantly stuffing doughy treats into sacks and punching sales totals into the register. He doesn’t talk much and gives the impression that walk in customers are interrupting something, probably just his empty thoughts.

Customer service isn’t a lost art but I wonder how much businesses really focus on it nowadays. Given enough time people go where the food is good and the service is friendly. Local places can survive for a while on legacy and exclusive offerings but service keeps people coming back. Small companies are especially slaves to friendly sales associates because they lack a managing hierarchy that angry customers can appeal to. 

 Who gets the complaint if the service is lousy? The boy’s mom? She might scold him in the moment but family dynamics always come into play. The dressing down isn't likely to stick. "That's just mom nagging me again" he is likely to think. Family relationships come before boss and employee relationships. Better to hire out, it’s less messy that way.

Successful stores have an established code of behavior for workers and evaluate that behavior on regular basis. This is apparent in companies that expand and grow. When employees understand the specifics of their job and are held accountable they flourish, or get fired. The attitude of one employee should never determine the success or failure of the overall project.

Small companies often don’t consider this when beginning a venture. After securing the financing and selecting the logistics, raw materials, wholesalers, buildings, city code compliance, there isn’t time for training. Just get the project up and running the thinking goes, so training gets overlooked. If they’re fortunate, an effective and eager employee, maybe a family member, handles the job well. If unfortunate, the struggling company will run off customers quicker than a listeria outbreak.

It's tough to add another critical 'to do' to already expansive list owners have to consider, but in dealings with the general public don’t skimp on friendly and attentive. Either teach it or hire git from somewhere else. It should be self-evident that people who are giving you money need to be treated like… well, like someone giving you money.

Don’t overdo it. Just smile, be quick and greet them coming in. Some stores have gone a little far with the warm greetings and “How can I help you?” type queries. I am not crazy about the “My pleasure” phrase that Chik-fil-A uses. I can tolerate the energy soaked barista at the gym juice bar, “Bro! you got to try this, loaded with protein!” But if they go too far it is because they’ve learned the lessons of pissing off the wrong customer. They see value in good service.  

Some, like Quick Trip, are legendary for speed and convenience. The model works. The gas station/short order/market puts up new stores about every 5 minutes (not quite). Keep the employees moving fast and teach them to be nice. Oh and most importantly, fire the ones who don’t get it.

Small shops and businesses hoping to grow should focus on customer service for employees, if not they flip a coin on success. Learn from the big stores on this.  

  

Security and Liberty

I was at a night club in Beijing talking to a slightly inebriated African artist. I say “African” because I can’t remember which country he said he was from. I am sure he told me but it was loud. “I like you’re W Bush!” he said in a straight-forward tone.

 I thought maybe I heard him wrong so I tried a different approach. “You mean the president…our president?” I said loudly hoping to be heard over the energy fueled thumping bass the DJ happily pushed out.

“Yes of course! He is like a parent spanking a bad child” He was referring to the war effort in Iraq, Afghanistan and the despots like Muammar Gadhafi that had surrendered their nuclear programs to international observers.

“I am sorry did you say you were an artist?” I said, shocked at his gratitude for a president who was universally despised outside the United States, at least I thought. Here was an artist (bohemian, liberal) who saw Bush in a positive light. Not only in a positive light but also someone with the moral authority to ‘punish’ evildoers. This was a first for me. After traveling around China and hanging with expats I just assumed the American president to be a figure of scorn and ridicule, at least this president.

I didn’t feel that way myself of course but defending one’s own culture to a vastly different one can be exhausting. I never took it personal. I didn’t understand some of the unsavory aspects of Chinese life either. The open air pet shops are a cultural blight I couldn’t un-see if I wanted to. The dogs and cats were crammed into a tight metal cage without enough room for each one to turn around in place. I felt like buying them all and letting them run away. Culture is unique to different parts of the world and I never wanted to lecture on minor points. So I let the criticisms of the US and Bush slide without much fuss. The harshest critics were back at home anyway.

The encounter with the African man at the expat bar taught me that Africa is different from Europe and America, as if you didn’t know. I can’t say for sure how representative he was of his countrymen but I didn’t meet too many Africans (a few Nigerians) from any country while in China. It is fair to assume a significant amount had no problem with the war in Iraq and even applauded the effort to rid the county of Saddam Hussein.

“You’re the first person to say that to me!” I smiled while shouting over the pulsating tracks. Still a little slurred but being friendly he suggested we visit his exhibit. “I have a show tomorrow at the embassy if you want to come.” he said. He pulled out 2 pamphlets for the event, signed them and handed them to my friend Andrew who was still as surprised at me about the Bush comment. The “show” was for artists from the area, I guess, at the Democratic Republic of the Congo embassy in Beijing. The details of the event were a little fuzzy even at the time but we did attend. It isn’t every day I get invited to any embassy. Turns out they speak French in the DRC, we didn’t understand a word from the speaker.

The incident at the bar was one of my first stark reminders that all corners of the world understand things like war and suffering differently. The reasons are varied. I couldn’t begin to put together all the personal accounts and experiences to fill out a complete picture. National histories, economics and international exposure all come into play. Many people associate ‘greatness’ with recognition only. As was the case with my Mongolian students who told me (through broken English) that Hitler was a great German leader.

I assume they meant “recognizable” and therefore “great”. At least I hope that’s what they meant.

When I say “understand things like war and suffering differently” I don’t mean it in the moral relativist way like, “Corruption is a way of life in every country, who can say it’s wrong”, or apologizing for drug dealing because jobs are hard to come by. Most of us are guilty of doing this logic some of the time. We want to justify wrong by contrasting it with larger wrongs.

Concrete institutions we as Americans take for granted like the rule of law and economic liberalism aren’t fundamental to many others. Not that citizens of DRC or even China wouldn’t love a just legal code with freedom of movement and the freedom of religion. Of course they would, but experience and practicality put those notions out of reach. Also cultural norms often dictate what change is possible.

Corruption is indeed a way of life and changing it requires a herculean effort. Only strong and determined leaders can stop it, and even then only through fear. People hate corruption because it disadvantages those who can’t afford to participate and it puts the 'machinery' of the state up for sale. It sends a strong signal to everyone, “If you want government to work be prepared to pay.” When paying bribes is a way of life no one can imagine life without it.

Much of the world doesn’t get to experience reliable institutions (imperfect as they are) year after year. In the US we have a legal system rooted in notions of liberty and justice, we complain of course but mostly it doesn’t change when the administrations change. In other words presidents don’t get to establish new courts and throw out governors or Senators because they want to. They can’t introduce new currency into the economy or kick in doors in Pennsylvania and arrest Quakers. Attempts at overreach are met with legal smack downs or citizen protests. Presidents aren’t kings. The conflicts are messy but the system prevails and security is maintained overall.

Security is not always transferable in the third world (however you define it) from outgoing to incoming leaders. Transfers of power can be contentious and violent. An official on a losing side can be imprisoned or killed. Poor leaders who are interested in nothing more than power are destructive in the long term.  This is a big part of why security is valued more than liberal thought and democratic norms. For many people it changes like the weather.

My friend from the DRC embassy probably recognized the injustice of those dictators in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or maybe he just had too much to drink.  

  

Tax Man

The sum total of my tax knowledge wouldn’t fit in the upper half of a 1040 form. Just the same I thought I’d wade into this latest plan from Congress. In order to understand it a little better (and be an adult) I’ve skimmed a couple of breakdowns that summarize the plan. My eyes glazed over a few times but I forced myself to focus like my college homework days. Reminding me of my Geology class freshman year and dozing off in front of an open text. It wasn’t a hard class but common, science plus rocks equal sleep.

Since I own a home the Mortgage Interest Deduction is something I thought to look at because I use it. Or at least I thought I did. Turns out I don’t qualify anyway and have to take the standard deduction. I don’t make enough money. Ok so this is good, soak the rich baby! Not sure what the current rate is but I am a safe distance away from it for now. The bill says only those above a certain threshold ($500,000) on new home sales get their deduction capped at a $10,000. So far so good. This might be the most controversial part of the bill since the home buyer groups will oppose it. If it remains in the final version it will certainly affect new home sales, which is bad for construction companies and realtors.

Another part that seemed strange was the limit on deductions for (SALT) state and local taxes. I don’t understand the thinking behind giving federal tax deductions for interest  paid to states and cities. This is like getting a price break on a new muffler from Pep Boys because you had to pay for new tires at Midas. Why should Midas care that you already paid to have a different problem fixed at Pep Boys? There might some give back the states are required to account for but I’m unaware of it. It seems if states and cities want to charge high rates for whatever excuse they can muster it shouldn’t be the fed’s problem. In either case I’m good. I live in a low tax state (relatively) and my deductions don’t amount to much anyway. So hooray again and soak the blue states!

The best part is the portion least likely to remain in place: the corporate tax rate will go to 20%. I say “best” because it practically guarantees companies will have the extra cash to invest in research and development, new construction and new hiring. Who doesn’t want more money and better paying job? The current rate is 35%, the highest in the world. In truth though hardly any company pays this rate. Most have exemptions and offsets built in to their current obligation. In order to get big business to back the plan the rate needs to be significantly lower since they are loathe to surrender their offsets. Some energy companies get to deduct ‘intangible drilling’ costs and ‘percentage depletion’ to account for fewer oil reserves. This is how they avoid paying the hefty top rate.

Part of the reason that going full overhaul on the tax code is so difficult is because someone always loses. They either lose a deduction they’ve counted on for years or they lose an incentive for business or personal reasons. Much easier to lobby an industry group, like labor unions or energy lobbies, to slip in a provision to the existing code. This is why the US has so many exemptions.

Think about why that probably is. If a blue state like California elects politicians who promise to ‘go green’ and cut carbon emission from the atmosphere, they are likely to tax coal. A coal state like West Virginia meanwhile elects representatives who promise to stop EPA overreach. They are likely to put an exemption in place for coal emitters. Both get what they want. Congress passes a bill limiting carbon in the atmosphere with a special exemption for coal. California politician can say he “Got tough on polluters” while West Virginia’s rep can say he saved the industry money. It is messy but the alternative is even messier, trying to write a new code. For any tax to work, it must reduce the overall tax burden below what companies would pay under any current law.

As with most giant re-writes this one will change significantly and resemble a small scale version of the existing one. The idea to change tax law is both to make it simpler and to cut down on the overall tax burden for corporations. If votes weren’t necessary the Republicans would only do the corporate part since this is the quickest way to grow the economy. Tax cuts for the middle class are pretty marginal at growing the economy but changing the law without including households is a nonstarter politically.

I imagine the reason that some get cuts while others lose their benefit is so the budget math balances. Congress has to account for a theoretical loss of income and offset that loss with increasing money from other areas. Federal tax experts always talk about ‘paying for cuts’ as if they shouldn’t nix some of the current runaway spending. The last budget was over 3 trillion dollars. Are there really no federal programs we can do away with? Even in a vibrant economy 3 trillion is ridiculous. I understand wars and health care are expensive but it shouldn’t be this expensive.

Anyway my tax knowledge is building about as fast as that giant cup of spare change on my dresser, but building still. Budgeting beats Geology anyway.

Marketing the Air Jordan

Everyone about my age remembers when Nike’s Air Jordan shoes first became a thing. It wasn’t just the ‘coolness’ of the shoe or the fact that Jordan endorsed them, although Jordan’s popularity was the bulk of it. His athletic dominance night after night turned him into the biggest star in the biggest sport. Nike’s control of basketball shoes began with a likeable star and a genius marketing campaign; it continues using the same formula today. 

Live sports on TV took a major financial leap in the late seventies and another in the eighties. Athlete salaries spiked in all three major sports (basketball, baseball, football) owing largely to television contracts for professional sports. Big contracts for TV rights ensured that clubs had larger payrolls. More people watching sports meant more people for advertisers to sell to.   

 What better way to sell products without creating events to market products. Instead of going to trade shows and marketing new kicks to dealers, well heeled (pun intended) shoe companies could sell direct. And sell they did.

The Air Jordan taught us that people bought products that had buzz and not quality. Not saying Michael’s shoe was crap just that its quality was beside the point. The aggressive marketing and Jordan’s easy charm sold the shoe more than anything. The sneaker aesthetics played a role, who didn’t love the black patent leather covering the bottom like a twenties era spat? Every single new pair looked different than the other models on the floor at the time. Most basketball shoes were pretty boring until Nike proved it was possible to sell a colorful trendy high top with some flash.

 The Air Jordan became the “it” product for kids desperate to stay hip.

The original shoes didn’t conform to the league's standard on colors that matched the jersey. So the NBA fined him. Nike picked up the tab for the fines and used the controversy to spotlight the banned shoes in commercials. A selling opportunity was born out of an unlikely event. 

Jordan the standout. Nike the rebel.  

After that Nike could use release dates to ramp up awareness of the shoe, a very expensive one for the time. The first model sold at $65. A sky high sum for the mid-eighties. After the first few models the company made just enough shoes to keep public interest high. By never making more than they could sell they ensured that interest stayed high and the prices even higher.

Gaming companies like Xbox and Playstation used to do this all the time. Create hype over the new system and produce less than you expect to sell. It does make sense to not overdo a good thing. Overproduction is the death knell for businesses hoping to keep selling similar models year after year. Too much of anything in the marketplace drives the cost down making the “it” product something everyone can buy. Better to make a few and sell them high. Keep demand soaring like the iconic Jumpman, always in the air.

 Nike knew it had a gold mine.

The increased money coming in from TV contracts added to increased visibility of stars able to sell, and sell some more. Jordan never made a lot of money in salary. Until his last couple years he was between 2 and 3 million a year. His money was through endorsements, none bigger or more important than Nike.

I read a quote recently from Kevin Durant about Nike’s popularity. “…Shoe companies have a real big influence on where these kids go. So, nobody wants to play in Under Armours, I’m sorry. Like the top kids because they all play Nike.” He was answering a question from Bill Simmons about why he didn’t want to go to Maryland (his home state school). Maryland is also ground zero for Under Armour apparel and shoes. I don’t know if Durant is right about kids not wanting to wear Under Armours, but knowing how Nike does marketing I wouldn’t be surprised if they set up the question and answer that way. Create doubt about the opponent.

Others have tried to crack the Nike code in basketball and get their own superstars like Jordan. Under Armour famously signed Steph Curry away from Nike. Adidas has a few stars, Damien Lillard and James Harden that show potential. But the battle is uphill for competitors hoping to cash in and create the next "it" shoe. Talented kids are spotted at the AAU(Amateur Athletic Union) level now and most just before that. The shoe companies sponsor many AAU teams with free sneakers and gear. Often kids want to remain loyal to a brand and sign with a college that also wears the same brand. At least that’s what Kevin Durant suggested. There is no bigger player in the shoe game than Nike and more teams wearing kicks with the swoosh on them the better it is for Nike Co. Now the Jordan brand is separate from the parent Nike but still a subsidiary. 

Long story short, Nike has been in this ad game for a while and they don’t take it for granted. Their sales techniques are still aggressive and they don’t hesitate to use bad press when it fits the situation. It will be fun to see them loose a little ground to Adidas or Under Armour and keep the shoe wars hot.

 Now if I could just afford a pair of the new Jordans.

Writing for Dummies

I’ve had a chance now to look back at several writings I’ve compiled over the last 5 years or so. The offerings are pretty slim there from 2011 to 2012, like searching for sea shells at the community pool. I graduated from college in 2012 and after that my writing began to improve a bit more. I determined to write more often but I held out on establishing a rigorous goal, a certain amount of words per week or so. I think I was genuinely worried about losing the passion for writing and missing that inspiration. I didn’t want writing to become homework, something to dread and avoid at all cost. That kind of thinking was nonsense. If we only worked when we felt like it how much would honestly get done?

 It’s the lazy man’s way out to talk about passion and inspiration. I figured that out the hard way.

I had a friend in college who majored in classical guitar. No one worked harder at practicing. He put in countless hours playing in his room and learning new techniques (is that a musical thing, not sure). I don’t think engineering or physics students put in as much time as him in the actual pursuit of excellence. Engineering is hardly an easy path but no one dedicated more time than the music majors. I don’t know if he stuck with it till graduation. I kind of lost touch with him after that year in the dorm. I know he had days when he didn’t want to practice for hours at a time but the discipline demanded he improve by putting in work. He wanted to be a great guitar player. He understood what it took.

If I broke down my previous writing into 3 segments it would probably look like this. First couple years I just needed to put something, anything into words whatever the format. I made a conscience decision to ignore all grammatical errors and focus on nothing but filling up a page with words. The essay needed to reflect a coherent thought but beyond that I wouldn’t get caught ‘churchin it up’. “For God’s sake man, just write it” was the idea. I knew if I focused on spelling or subject/verb agreement stuff I would never finish. Getting hung up on perfect grammar was a mental block for me. Now I can write much more carefree and go back later for edits.

Second, I knew that writing essays only once a month or so would lead to a pile of crappy essays. Here is where the ‘but what if I lose the passion’ instinct kicked in. People who are good have to work at it, whatever the discipline. I remembered my guitar strumming friend playing late into the night while staring at sheet music in his dorm. I wasn’t ready for hours of staring at a computer screen, but I could certainly do better than I was. I still hadn’t set specific goals but I managed to start writing every week, after that a couple times a week. I started doing the blog as a way to keep myself accountable and put out ideas that are edited and coherent-ish.

Third, I’ve started writing about things I didn't understand well by doing small amounts of research and putting together web blogs, some freelance work writing for companies that need copy. This phase is still in its infancy but making sense of topics I don’t fully understand is kind of fun. And I get to stretch myself a bit into other types of writing, and learning. It doesn’t pay well but the point is to get better and improve all around. I still mostly write practice logs for myself. I read the book On Writing: A memoir of the Craft by Stephen King and got the idea to write to a word count. King does at least 2000 words a day. I was thinking half of that to start out, not sure though.

So what have I learned so far about writing, and myself? Write when you don’t feel like it and make it as regular a habit as brushing your teeth. Sometimes it is dreary and my only concern is to get in the word count as quick as possible so I can go watch TV. The really dreary times are not as frequent though and I’ve found the more consistent the practice, the more I look forward to it.

Habitual activities designed to improve skill do pay off.

My classical guitar pal could have told me that years ago. If only I had asked. 

Why so Cynical?

Why cynicism?

Cynicism is learned trait the way anything is. Ever tried to throw a baseball? The first thing you learn is how to hit the strike zone. When you’re a kid this is the most important thing. Other kids will likely swing and miss at pitches right over the plate. Young kids don’t have the skill in their arms or the timing in their wrists to square up and drive one out to left field. Some advance quicker than others but baseball is a game of averages. Most kids swing and miss. Learn to throw strikes first. Worry about sliders and curve balls later. Negativity works the same way.

Cynicism creates early doubt in small personal matters but if not corrected becomes your default philosophy on life. 

Kids learn to be cynical right around the time they learn to play baseball. It isn’t intentional of course. No parent pops up off the chair on a beautiful Saturday and says “Listen, Toby (ruffles his son’s hair) these Senators and Congressman in Washington are out to screw us hard working folks. They line their pockets at the expense of decent people like me and your mom.” It’s generally more subtle. When effective, cynicism creates a feedback loop that parses every success and explains every failure.

How many times have you blamed a football player for dropping a pass because he wasn’t in a “contract year” or blasted the electric company for being “greedy” when the bill shot up in the summer? Ever blame the church clergy for having their “hands in the till” after a Christmas donation push?

Usually we learn to expect losing from our favorite team. The Chicago Bears fans have a saying, shorthand really: S.O.B for Same Ol Bears. Did the kicker miss a 30 yard field goal to lose the game in overtime? “SOB”. Did they just burn through another quarterback that throws picks and loses games? “SOB” In reality most franchises have up and down seasons and similarities between fan complaints can be heard across fandom. Most people dump on their team.

Cynicism plants a seed that says “Expect less”.

Cynical people are class conscience. I used to think it was an old world or even European thing to view people by breeding and money, Downton Abby style. Maybe it always existed in America but more in pockets of the country than something in the ether. I see resentment of success and wealth more than disdain for the poor. This is almost the reverse of the old model where titled land holders joined exclusive clubs and kept ‘undesirables’ out of certain industries.

 In America we have too many ‘victims’, victims of poverty, of discrimination, of sexism, of homophobia and of ‘reckless’ capitalism. If you’re a victim there’s a group. A person who imagines they are taken advantage of will most likely always feel that way. The negativity reminds the individual of the mistreatment, unfairness and the ‘stacked deck’. 

Cynicism is easy because you don't need to defend the failures of a system or belief. You needn't have awkward conversations about why a famous athlete (Lance Armstrong) turned out to be crooked and vindictive. We can cover ourselves up with cynicism like a shield and pretend we “ain’t surprised” when someone famous falls from the pedestal. 

Change is tough for jaded people but some common wisdom from the interwebs goes like this. First recognize the problem. If you always bring down the conversation in group with a dig about pop culture, religion and politics, you have a problem. Second, stop hanging around others who complain and assume ulterior motives about everything from sports to the manufacturing of foods-“they use horse meat you know!” If people have stopped being around you because of your dark cloud and social anomie consider yourself warned. Third, accentuate the positives (yes I know, but it fits).

If being a cynic means assuming conspiracy or wicked design behind every good deed, try instead to relate something positive with the individual. You don’t have to ignore that inner Sméagol that says “I knew they were up to something” but don’t encourage it either. Overwhelm negative with positive. Do it enough times and the new positive feedback replaces the old.

The same mind that learned how to throw a curve ball and picked up cynical thinking can undo it through replacement thinking and positive attitude. The mind is a wonderful tool. 

Sadness in Vegas

Sadly another shooting claimed the lives of almost 60 people late last night. This time a Vegas country music concert became a horrific scene of mayhem as fans ran for cover as a man from across the street rained down bullets on them. I got the alert early this morning on my phone. I need to turn that thing off for peace and quiet before I start the day. Some days are tough enough to just begin as it is. This is partly why I start off my days with teaching and a bible verse. I need to get my mind centered on positive things. Also I avoid the radio in the car on the way to work. I used to love the local talk radio station, anymore though I need to go to God.

There is still too much we don’t know about why the 64 year old single man decided to go sniper on a crowd of people. I won’t say conspiracy but some things don’t add up. He used a fully automatic weapon. Those are almost impossible to get even by illegal means and he wasn’t really a gun guy. He owned a handgun and a couple of rifles but nothing in his past suggests a fascination with firearms. The Islamic terrorist group I.S.I.S claimed responsibility but even this seemed fishy. So far investigators can’t locate any evidence of that. I am sure older white Americans occasionally sign up for jihad without anyone knowing how radical they are, but it isn’t likely. This guy owned a handful of properties and seemed to be well off if not wealthy. Nothing suggests he might fire indiscriminately into a crowd killing 60 and wounded over 500.

 This was monstrous--a real nightmare scenario for Vegas police. Over 40,000 fans crammed into an open air venue make a perfect target for a psychopath. Unfortunately even large scale mass murders like this recent act of terror are getting too common. This may carry a news cycle for a few more days; the ugliness of it washed over by the regularity of it. Not that the slaughter of so many people happens every few weeks but the lone killer taking a few with him before he offs himself is shockingly regular. The Orlando night club shooting happened just over a year ago. Most of these acts of terrorism, recently, are connected to Islam. This may be as well but he doesn’t seem like the convert to Islam type.

 I.S.I.S has been keen on a war with the West from the Paris concert killings to the Brussels airport bombing and truck attacks in London. They have professed jihad and set about recruiting Americans, Brits, French and other Europeans. This latest one is a real mystery, a total head scratcher. It could take a week or so to make sense of it. God be with the families of those poor souls gunned down for doing nothing more than enjoying live country music. I started off trying to read other stuff online, Facebook posts and job board listings. Everything seems hollow next to this. Tom Petty also died today but there doesn’t seem room in our minds for mention. Nothing against Tom but a whole lot of people just had their world turned upside down. Fixating on celeb deaths and sports feels so wrong.   

Economy and Trade: the next 20 years

There is a shift afoot.

The election of Donald Trump means a change is coming in economic thinking at the policy level. Globalization has defined the trading order for the last 25 years or so, but like a rusty freighter it is starting to show its age. Assembly line workers who saw their jobs outsourced have always felt cheated. Replacement jobs and training haven’t been there for laid off men and women hoping to replace big incomes. It isn’t just Donald Trump who is pulling back from economic entanglements; the Europeans are seeing a rising tide of nationalism. This is bound to change the international thinking on economics and determine trade policy for the next 20 years.

Economics is theory, the big picture stuff. It won’t explain why cotton prices suddenly jumped up in June or why steel prices dropped in December, that’s business. It can give you scenarios where prices might swing, or historic trends where political and social pressures existed on the market. Economics is a snapshot of the existing trading system and a historic record of how it got that way.

It isn’t a surprise that it’s changing; the dismal science is due a makeover. Economic Nationalism is on the rise in America and across Europe. Economic Nationalism is a phrase used by Steve Bannon (one time Trump advisor) to explain his view that the U.S. government should support American companies through tariffs, subsidies, tax breaks and quotas at the expense of other countries. So basically everything once thought of as anti-competitive Steve is for. Did you hear the president’s inaugural speech in January? That was Bannon. He wrote it. It pitted ‘elites’ against regular folks, politicians against citizens and nations against nations. It wasn’t exactly nasty but it laid out a case (in some minds) for a government that hasn’t valued its citizens. It has chased after foreign investment and low wage workers.

 Like multiple theories of economics though, there is some good and some bad.

Why do protectionist policies lead to sluggish growth? because any business or industry that isn’t pushed to keep prices low gets lazy. Companies that rely on regular installments of federal money tend to relax their research and development side and pay higher wages. The downside is Uncle Sam just took away the small firm’s ability to compete. 

The wild tiger is more likely to hunt than one in the zoo.

I always go half-way with Bannon. Foreign countries like China play a different version of trade than we do. The economic models we learned in school that show how trade benefits everyone are seriously lacking. You remember the Ricardo ones don’t you? Country A has sheep and makes wool clothing, country B grows gapes and bottles wine. Instead of country A growing grapes and bottling their own wine and country B doing the same with sheep and wool, they trade. This trade creates an advantage for both nations since they specialize and gain the comparative lower costs.

The model works well on a mathematical level but there are too many missing pieces that throw off the balance. The missing pieces get chalked up to ‘elites’ benefiting themselves at the expense of hard working Americans. But it's really tough to draw a straight line between jobs going to China and long term unemployment in the US. The gains are spread out, more diffuse. They mean lower prices at Target and Kohls but lower wages for workers. Gains for some, losses for others.

 It’s a tough sell for politicians: “Vote for me and you’ll probably lose your job but don’t worry, the gains will be marginal and spread out.”

Trade is anything but fair. Modern economies have all sorts of clever ways around straightforward competition. Tariffs aren’t used a lot anymore since a lot of work has been done to eliminate them. Countries still use subsidies to prop up their industry. Agriculture in the US couldn’t survive without them, neither could Chinese steel manufacturers or Japanese car makers. So the Economic Nationalists are right about foreign cheaters either helping their companies or propping up the currency.

“Why bother playing by an old trade model where we get screwed every time? How about instead we help our own companies first and trade later”? He figures.

Mainly because in order to grow big companies need overseas markets and blocking tires from Mexico means they’ll refuse to buy machinery from us. Also, I don’t think Steve realizes that certain manufacturing jobs don’t pay what they used to. Everyday market forces make it impossible. Foreign car companies like Honda, Nissan and Volkswagen started getting better and cheaper, right around the early nineties. Americans began buying them and putting a squeeze on Detroit. Putting up tariffs on Japanese and Korean car makers would have held off the onslaught for a while, but GM and Ford couldn’t compete overseas forever. Legacy costs also hampered the American companies; paying ruinous fees to retired workers would have undercut their ability to be competitive anyway. 

Banon and Trump are right to be skeptical about Chinese business and current iterations of ‘free trade’. For both Republican and Democrat lawmakers any international trade deal was considered good, because ‘free market’ equals good—or something like that. 

The Trump version of economics, which is really Bannon’s, insists companies look first ‘in country’ for tax deals and breaks before leaving for a low wage environment. As to how the policy toward economics will be affected it remains to be seen. Most supporters of globalization (free trade) sound a little humbler these days as populist politicians get elected all over the Western world. They admit that the benefits of trade have been gradual and slow while the downsides have been immediate and ugly—losing a job always is. Globalists aren’t ready to change their belief in the free market (neither am I) but admitting to missteps is a start. Agreeing to reconsider, and walk away from, large scale trade bills is a good move.   

"If Grace than Deeds"

Depression is a strong word for occasional ‘funks’ in life that drag us down.

 It suggests clinical, medical problems that demand attention and action. I fall into these shallow pits occasionally and have found the quickest way out is through selfless behavior, good works. No this isn’t one of those “So what is your biggest weakness?” interview questions where I get to pretend my weakness is actually a strength. “Well you know..I just love everyone so much, I don’t know when to say no.” This actually helps. Focus on someone in need. Any need. Just get involved with helping others and stop focusing on self. That clears up the funk clouds quicker than anything.

Good works allow others outside the faith to see a healthy example of love. That love exemplified through Christ’s death and resurrection is the goal, salvation is the point. Lead them to Jesus.

Good works have gotten a bad rap the last couple of years. Works are constantly juxtaposed with grace, as if humans must choose between them. Like the scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where a totally subjective grail choice determines the drinker’s fate. If it’s been a while since you’ve seen it, Donavan the antiquities collector goes for the shiniest most bejeweled cup to drink ‘eternal life’ from. He sips from the wrong one mistaking it for the holy grail. Tthe Knight deadpans “He chose poorly” as Donavan’s rapidly aging body decomposes seconds after his sip. He got one chance and picked the wrong cup.  

We think our choice is limited to accepting grace and eschewing deeds. Grace and deeds are not mutually exclusive, they exist together. One is a gift and the other constitutes action--if grace than deeds.

 Ephesians 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourself, it is the gift of God—not by works so that no one can boast.” (NIV)

Paul uses ‘deeds’ so Christians see an obvious contrast between something offered and something earned. He is saying that no one can earn it so don’t even try. Good works are still an essential part of Christianity and witnessing to the lost. Again, the best way to show the character of our Father is through good works and generosity. Don’t imagine deeds aren’t critical to winning souls and touching lives.

James 1:27 “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” (ESV)

There can be no doubt that ‘widows and orphans’ falls comfortably under the works category. Works are encouraged in order to show the Father’s love. Just don’t imagine works can be traded in for credit at any time. Salvation through grace is free. Isn’t that wonderful?

The knowledge alone should get you out of your funk.

Overgrowth

I like to prune my landscaping area for overgrown weeds.

Actually I don’t like it but I have to, if only for a couple times a month. I am that guy who really wants a decent looking yard with trimmed plants and hedges but balks at having to do the work. Once I start it isn’t so bad to keep going but the work is never done. It seems to get worse every year. I realized this today while pulling weeds out of the exact same spots as always. I’ve never put in the time to prevent them from coming back. Not really. In one case I dug a small trench on the back side of the fence to prevent crabgrass from jumping from the lawn to my evergreen area.

 Oklahoma has these strange weeds that grow horizontal instead of straight up. If they grew straight up it would be easy to yank them right out of the ground. Because they run along the ground it’s impossible to see them until they’ve grown a couple feet long. They get through mulch and wrap around plants and bushes, entangling themselves and making it tough to pull out. Keeping them away requires serious dedication because they grow without water and seem to thrive everywhere. 

The quick fix is to rip out the existing weeds and wait till the plants are covered again next month. A better way is to put in place barriers that prevent encroaching brush from taking over. It takes longer though and requires more attentiveness. It’s worth it but mostly I just don’t like working that hard.

 Keeping my yard nice takes more diligence than I often can muster. The Christian life feels this way too often. Those unattended areas of life become havens for all types of unwanted growth. Zones that get ignored, un-managed and open to influence become the areas overrun with messy problems. Only when we put real effort and attention into stopping the weeds of life from getting through do we make any progress. Most of us get lazy though. We deal with the results of overgrowth. We apologize for angry outbursts aimed at family; we break off disastrous relationships after serious emotional damage. We clean up the mess. We clean up the mess because it’s easier than preventing the problem. It takes work. We hate work. 

Many get comfortable dealing with the overgrowth convinced it isn’t a big deal. “Everyone has issues, after all” we tell ourselves so we can keep going without putting in any real work. It isn’t until the weeds become unmanageable and we get exhausted with the process that we make a drastic change. We dig a trench, cut the grass, remove excess roots and pay attention to unwanted growth. 

Only by setting a plan and sticking to it with all the diligence we can muster does our life begin to change. Real change. Change that sticks. The kind others see and learn from. One effective lesson from Alcoholics Anonymous is to do a ‘fearless inventory of ourselves’ in order to progress. Another way to say that is to do an honest assessment of past behavior and evaluate potential trip wires. This doesn’t just have to be about drugs and drinking, or even alcohol related triggers. Chances are most of us need to clean up areas where behavior often gets out of control. Like the weeds it comes back stronger if ignored. Be targeted and honest about the problems.

Tempted to rob the bank? Maybe use the drive through instead—and leave the ski mask at home. Have trouble staying faithful to your wife? Keep away from nude beaches and massage houses on your ‘cultural appreciation’ trip. Seriously though, for every hang-up there exists ways to avoid traps and keep the weeds from getting out of control.

Besides, we aren’t alone.

“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you’ll have trouble but take heart! I have overcome the world.” John 16:33 (NIV) 

NFL Protests: An Exercise in Selfishness

This is the second time I’ve written about Colin Kaepernick. The scenario last year really pissed me off for two reasons. First, non-political events are being dragged into the political realm like a calf to a butcher. Sports is one of those areas, especially football. Second, because refusing to acknowledge the anthem and to bring attention to oneself is so unfair it should be met with scorn and derision for everyone engaging in it. What does the flag (and the anthem) have to do with your particular political grievance? 

Under this logic, any player with ANY political complaint could sit during the anthem. Don’t like immigration? Have a seat. Income tax too high? Too low? Protest the flag. Don’t have enough health care? Take a knee.

This is silly and gets us nowhere except at each other’s throats because the protest is out of bounds.  

I just read a story about some NYC cops who support Colin Kaepernick and his anti-flag demonstration that caused such a fuss last year. The Giants were thinking about bringing him into camp this year as a backup to Eli Manning. Because of the hate mail and pressure they decided against it ultimately. This has been the case with a few other teams, Baltimore to be specific. I don’t want to open the Kaepernick can of worms again but the guy plays in a league with pretty strict policies on everything from off the field behavior to dress code. They didn’t try to stop him from ‘demonstrating’ and sounding like an ass whenever he spoke. He got what he wanted. Now he’s ostracized and he doesn’t like it. He is reaping the rewards of a conscious decision he made and explained to all football fans who frankly didn’t want to hear it.

Some players are going on record saying he should be on a team. Or that he was treated unfairly. The argument usually is the player is being denied some ‘right’ to speak or demonstrate. Using the flag as a prop for your personal grievance is the lowest form of dissent and he should have known it. I can’t imagine doing that in a foreign country with genuine human or religious rights violations. The flag IS the country, good or bad. When supporters of Colin act surprised at the hatred from fans it proves they don’t get it. There are so many high profile ways to bring attention to political issues. Join a group. Start a group. Call a reporter and bloviate about the state of country. Give money to a campaign or cause.  Kneeling for the anthem or holding up a fist is cheap and dirty.

 It’s using a platform that isn’t yours for a cause that isn’t relevant to the game.

There still seems to be some question as to why NFL football fans write letters and react angrily to Colin Kaepernick and I think sports media needs a lesson in why this is. I hear radio hosts comparing Kap’s ‘sins’ to ‘sins of other athletes, drug possession, spousal abuse, drinking and driving, they like to weigh one versus the other. But not standing for the national anthem isn’t a moral failing or poor decision at a night club like a lot of other player misdeeds. There isn’t a scale for this kind of thing. He made a statement on a platform that wasn’t open to him. He stormed into our house, put his cleats on the furniture, and pissed on the floor. Then he shared his thoughts on America as a racist country (the country he makes a lot of money in) and why it must change. He also insisted on ‘doing his part’ by not standing for the anthem, an unrelated act to either cops or the country’s founding.

He is reviled, not because of his views but because he chooses the wrong venue to share them, especially in settings where they aren’t wanted. We’re all upset when our team’s star athlete gets caught with drugs or pulled over for drunk driving. They’ve let everyone down including teammates and fans, family and friends. Ultimately we forgive them when they get on track and make it right. Kaepernick didn’t just offend our sense of liberty and patriotism though. He didn’t tell us something awful, about the country, we weren’t prepared to hear. He didn’t ‘expose our inner racism’ or highlight the unfairness in the system. He didn’t bring attention to anything other than his own fruitless crusade. He stole the attention due the flag and all it represents—liberty, freedom, heroism for his own childish ends. He willfully and spitefully insisted that his on-field rebellion was linked because of cops killing blacks.

He has succeeded in one way. Other players are now sitting during the anthem. They took the most outrageous and beside the point effort toward attention. This is why I think they’re just malcontents. There are countless ways to voice opposition as stated before. Platforms exist for this type of ‘anti’ activism. When it starts bleeding into sports, a traditionally non-political sphere, people feel cheated. They write letters demanding the owner of their favorite team reject Colin. They call the headquarters and yell at the phone operators, they call radio shows and voice displeasure. If left wing activist groups behind Kaepernick thought this was a good idea they’ve been proven wrong, very wrong.

I don’t want to boycott the NFL or turn off the games over this non-sense but if I have to I will. This politicizing of everything needs to stop and I don’t pretend to know where to begin. If support for Kaepernick grows and color commentators feel the need to remark on protests, show the sitting players, or remind the audience of the on-going debate. I’ll tune out. It’s actually getting easier for me to turn off shows I find objectionable. It’s easier than getting angry all the time. I’ll just deny them the one thing they crave, attention. 

Risky Business

I used to love playing Texas Hold ‘em with friends in the student apartments when I was in college. I learned something about gambling and the risky nature of betting money. I’m not good at it. I try to cautiously gamble, which is impossible, and carefully wager money. One of my friends use to say he could read my ‘tells’ easier than most. “Really?" I said. "What do I do that makes you know the kind of cards I’m holding.”

“Easy.” He said. “You’re cheap with fake money the same as with real money. You only make large bets when you’re holding sure winners like Aces or Kings.” I tried to argue but he had me. Some people can’t hide their tells. I haven’t played cards much since then. I tried overcompensating for a while by being reckless, bluffing a lot and losing quicker. I never really enjoyed it anyway. 

I’m risk averse on most things and card games are no different.  

 Gambling for poker chips is a poor measure for determining a person’s risk aversion. Individuals have different levels of risk tolerance for important things in life. I never cared about winning poker chips so I didn’t work hard at it, content to manage it comfortably and stay in the game. This might seem a little backwards. Why wouldn’t I play careless with worthless chips and bet heavy with small cards or risk it all on a bluff? Because I didn’t value winning at poker, I valued the experience of being with friends. The reward was fun, not winning.

At some point the scales tip though and the reward IS worth the risk. This is true of everyone at some point in life. It isn’t as easy as we pretend though.  We all have a risky, wager it all mentality for the right kind of reward. So what is it that turns you into a risk seeking Vegas high roller? Is it job freedom or romance, maybe a hobby?

 Figuring out what might take the better part of life.

Some people are easier than others. Professional athletes want to win and their competitiveness sometimes leads to taking performance enhancing drugs to get a slight edge. Their reward is winning medals or signing big contracts but the competition is incredibly tight so they risk getting caught and having their name destroyed. If it wasn’t worth it they wouldn’t keep doing it. Of course not all do it, but cheating at such high stakes is not unusual. They establish the reward and determine the risk. 

 Most people face the risk/reward paradox at some point in life. Some can navigate the high stakes real better than others. Day traders and commission salesman come out on the competitive side while government workers and salaried employees stay on the safe side. Most of us land somewhere between those careers on a graph, depending on our personal risk tolerance, our comfortability taking chances.

At some point in life all of us take an uncomfortable risk (or should), a step further than we intended. A step we aren’t sure about but that feels right regardless. People who start businesses know this feeling well. The strength required to make a company profitable is superhuman at times and demands regular overtime hours. From hiring honest, loyal workers to keeping customers happy and (hopefully) coming back takes an individual who knows risk. There aren’t guarantees for success and the statistics are against new ventures. Persistence and guts make the difference when talent falls short. 

Small business is not for the faint of heart yet countless people do it because the risk for them is worth the reward. Ask a business owner why they take on the burdens of running it and they’re likely to say something like, “I get to be the boss.” Or “My kids will have something of their own”. Maybe “I love the job, I am good at it.” “I make more money going it alone than working for someone else.”

Different reasons and different rewards but each one figured out the particular scale tipper and went ‘all in’. Some figure it out early in life and others much later. We all have it though and in most major points in life (career, marriage, finance) the scale tips and we make a bet.

As for cards, I just can’t do it anymore. I never enjoyed it much anyway and losing any amount of money is just too painful. Besides after this article everyone knows my ‘tell’. How can I possibly go on?

Marketing Subjects

Convincing people to buy anything is tough. From sales pitches about fear and safety to prideful notions of about ‘sexy’ and ‘powerful’ most of it has been tried before. The successful brands understand how visual cues and pattern recognition trigger wants and needs. 

I remember shopping in a trendy part of Shanghai. The brick road that ran between the glass storefronts was full of venders standing behind temporary stalls. From comic books and cologne to DVDs and fried candy it was a buffet for the senses. This wasn’t one of those markets where you argue with the stall owner over the price of a fake North Face jacket or pick the best looking imitation Rolex. This was a legit shopping experience although the dodgy types were around trying to sell knockoffs to anyone who could be pulled away.

 A lot of the retail stores would look right at home in any major city’s shopping district. One particular store had a display like a wooden book shelf full of square shelves with t-shirts from floor to ceiling folded neatly. It covered the entire side of wall. Much of it was too high for the clerk to reach without a wheeled ladder, again like in a bookstore. I couldn’t look away. It was beautiful. Every imaginable color of shirt perfectly sorted and identical in pile size to the one on each side of it, not to mention above and below. If you stood back, way back, it resembled a rack of those little paint swatches you get at Lowes. It was a freaking wall of cotton t-shirts why should I care about the display?

“Of course I’ll buy one! How about the purple one at the top, someone get the man a ladder! Get a red one too.”

I don’t think I connected it at the time but the impressive display was the point. Our eyes are attracted to symmetry and color. A corporate research team probably figured out the most efficient way to bring attention to their product (This was a chain retailer). By using recognizable shapes and colors they tricked me into buying stuff, the essence of marketing. The t-shirt display in Shanghai was one example of marketing on steroids, or maybe just an updated version of a proven sales tactic. Show the goods, highlight, display, demonstrate.

 Most of us can think of a time when something on a store shelf got our attention or a showy product feature impossible to ignore. It’s the phycology of selling. I want to know what attracts the human eye to product, ordinary boring stuff like cotton shirts that most people would look at unless displayed in an attention grabbing way. This isn’t just intellectual curiosity. I’ve worked retail for a lot of years and in many cases had to set up displays for stuff no one seemed to want.

Two solid rules to selling,  People love ‘cute’ and demonstrations bring audience. 

We used to have miniature baseball bags complete with functional zippers and garish brands splashed across the sides. The tiny wheels rolled like carry on luggage across tile floor, I demonstrated a few times. The marketing idea being a tiny version of the real thing is the best way to show it. Outdoor retailers do this with tents. They were only props though. Problem is the props didn’t work like the props should. Customers were interested in the mini bags instead of the actual ones.

Customer: “How much for the little duffles?”

Me: “Sorry they're just displays, can’t sell em”

Customer: “I just want one, the yellow one?”

Me: “Yeah, I not supposed to sell them either as a set or individually”

Customer: “What are you going do with em after the season, you won’t need the display?”

Me: “Don’t know…probably sell them”

Customer: sarcastically “Yeah thanks!”

Those types of conversations happened almost daily over those stupid little bags. I don’t remember selling too many of the real ones. People just wanted the ‘cute’ ones.

Another thing people like is demonstrations. A product you can show is a product you can sell. We had a putty type material that solidified when hit. You could knead the raw stuff in your hands like Play-Doh. The putty substance company put it in rib protectors for football players and girdles for hip and thigh protection. It was expensive but worked great and we got to demonstrate how protective it was by slamming a helmet on our hand with nothing but a rib shirt between the hand and the helmet. Best part was it made a huge banging noise when we attempted to show how protect-ant the material was. Imagine the thunk--thunk of a slamming football helmet on a counter and you’ve got it. People stopped what they were doing and ambled over the watch the eager salesman mash his hand under a swinging helmet. It mostly worked...mostly. A really enthusiastic smash would still get through. Course you had to play it off like “Pain? What pain?” and hope no one noticed the red throbbing hand. I had plenty of training for this growing up with brothers. Any show of emotion during an arm punching contest was a sure looser.

 I learned how to smile through the pain, tears below the surface.

Ever been to a public event or busy shopping district and noticed kids break dancing? Watched a chef show off some new knives at a grocery store at a makeshift kitchen between the cereal and soap isles? The crowds gather because something out of the ordinary is happening. Some form of entertainment is happening NOW. It’s seemingly spontaneous and demanding. No matter how amateur or silly the show we all want to watch. We love distraction. Best of all, distraction helps to sell when done right.

 The classic example of marketing distraction was Nike at the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Reebok owned the rights to officially use the Olympic trademark and outfit athletes in their gear. Nike managed to set up a giant logo (how is that legal?) outside the athlete’s village so when cameras panned over the facilities a massive swoosh loomed large on TV screens. They also got Michael Johnson to wear a pair of bright gold running spikes in his winning event. They made a lot of enemies for their “ambush” style but nobody could have pulled it off like Nike.

I guess we are all subject to distracting advertising and bright attention grabbing displays. I try to remember it before shopping for t-shirts.