Kneel Before Sod

The situation in North Korea is still tense. And Puerto Rico's infrastructure was devestated by hurricane Maria. But here we are talking about football players kneeling. Well, that's what Donald Trump wants to talk about, and everyone else is following along. I'm guessing that's because unlike North Korea, Puerto Rico, and the Obamacare repeal, this is something where there's a chance to fight back.

Some have suggested that Trump made the condemnation of NFL players kneeling for the anthem as a distraction, so we won't notice the health care disaster, or because he knows that there's incriminating Russia evidence about to drop. But the world just doesn't seem to work that way any more. We're used to new megastories coming at us every few hours; we can easily drop one story for another whenever we need to. Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm writing this article late at night; there will probably be a new outrage by morning.

The real reason for Trump's attack is that it's a great issue for him to score points with his base. It's got everything he likes: nationalism, condemning dissent, and a racist subtext. The whole thing is not very surprising really. What is interesting, though, is that the way each sport has responded has illustrated the sport's personality.

Football

I was pleasantly surprised by the reaction. A lot of players protested, there didn't seem to be much anger. There was even some official sanctioning, including the anthem singer himself kneeling in Detroit. No one seems to have been fired over this, or even much anger expressed by the owners (though give them a few days.) And there was thankfully little of the feel-good avoidance I complained about previously.

Having said that, the guy who started it all, Colin Kaepernick, is still without a job. So teams and owners' tentative support of their players comes with a big dose of hypocracy. Which is typical NFL too.

Basketball

The NBA and Basketball's culture clearly won the weekend. Trump looked desperate when he revoked Steph Curry's unaccepted invitation to the White House. And the Warriors' decision to "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion" in Washington in place of a White House visit was a bold response. And Lebron James's Twitter burn of Trump was something Kim Jong Un could only dream of. Come on, NBA stars, I'm trying to hate you. Stop acting like the only adults in the room.

Hockey

The NHL isn't really involved, but somehow managed to turn the incident into a public relations loss by choosing now to announce that the Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins will still be visiting the White House. It's just like them to find a way to lose a controversy they weren't involved in.

Having said that, I will forgive the NHL and become a Penguins fan if Yevgeny Malkin spends the entire visit acting like he's only there to pass on Putin's latest instructions to Trump.

But this is also typical of the paradox that hockey culture hates to rock the boat. It's a sport that takes bravery to play, yet never seems to generate bravery away from the rink among its players.

Baseball

It seemed kind of separated from the rest of the sports world. After all, it is the most conservative, traditional, and increasingly the whitest sport. So it seemed almost like an afterthought when news came out that A's catcher Bruce Maxwell knelt for the anthem. We were like, oh, right, baseball players might be doing that too.

But going back to the hurricane: given Trump's lackluster reaction, you have to wonder how many Puerto Rican players don't feel like standing for the anthem right about now.

Nascar

In sharp constrast with the other sports, Nascar was totally on board with Trump. Legendary car owners Richard Petty and Richard Childress both said they would fire any employees who didn't stand for the anthem - to my knowledge, the only owners in any sport to follow Trump's advice.

Of course, this is just the latest example of how Nascar is fine with being exactly what everyone expects it to be. It's like they want to make it really clear whether you are welcome in the sport or not. Certainly I'm feeling happier with my decision to walk away from it.

We Built This City On Reasonable Land Prices And Tax Incentives

Amazon.com is looking at adding a second headquarters. That's pretty impressive; so many companies haven't felt the need to leave their own main office. But then, I guess Amazon isn't like most tech companies in that they have a whole lot of world-wide logistics to take care of, and at some point you can't do all that from one campus in one place. So now they want a second headquarters; it didn't work so well for the Roman Empire, but they're going to try anyway.

What's amazing to me is watching various cities jockey for the position, and the tech/urbanist pundits try to handicap the race. All we know is that it will be in the U.S. or Canada. Presumably it will be some distance from their current HQ in Seattle. Good transportation is a must. There's also an assumption that high costs will take New York, Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area/Silicon Valley out of the mix too. And since CEO Jeff Bezos is pretty hands-on, it will also have to be a place where he has or is willing to buy a home

It's an interesting question, and reminds us of how geography still has meaning in tech. The media talks about tech as though it all happens in Silicon Valley. And while it is remarkable how concentrated the industry is, the fact is that there are a number of smaller tech centres around the U.S. Amazon's current home in Seattle is one (also home to Microsoft) but there's also Austin, Washington D.C. and Boston, among others.

I've always been a little mystified by how tech companies choose to locate. The usual explanation is that they cluster together in these areas because they have to go where the talent is. But the counter-argument to that is that you're also going where other employers are. Whether you're in an area with lots of potential employees and lots of companies, or few potential employees and few companies hiring them, you'll probably end up with the same quality of employees. And the less-competitive job market has the advantage that less competition won't drive wages up.

But the truth is that there are many other reasons that tech companies huddle together. For instance, venture capitalists work closely with their investments, so they're much more likely to back a company that's local to them.

But we're not talking about a startup here, we're talking about a company that already has a reputation and a ton of money. So I figure they have a lot more freedom to go anywhere they want. They could probably go somewhere that doesn't normally have a big supply of tech employees, and just assume that their presence will draw applicants to the new place. Even the cultural accoutrements of tech employees will probably follow. That could be a boon for cities that are stuck in a rut, perhaps held back by a staid old populace unwilling to try new things. But add a bunch of young cosmopolitan folks with money to spend and you'll soon have all the ethnic restaurants and art installations you want. Having grown up in a culturally conservative city, I'd always fantasized that a tech company relocated there and disrupted the culture. Well that could be about to happen.

But that brings up the big disadvantage of winning the Amazon sweepstakes. You don't just get the good parts of Silicon Valley, like jobs and sushi. You'll get the bad parts too, like gentrification. Dropping a bunch of well-paid employees into a city will take supply and demand in unpleasant directions. As the San Francisco Bay Area found, just because you have a really advanced economy: 1. the people who already lived there aren't going anywhere, and 2. You're going to need people who do less glamorous jobs, who don't make a lot of money. So whoever wins the new headquarters won't fix all their problems, they'll just get lots of exciting new problems to work on.

World Of Tanks

Apparently, the NBA is going to do something about tanking. That's the practice of intentionally losing so as to get a better draft pick next year. They're talking about not giving the last-place team the best chance of getting the first pick, and instead just giving the last three teams the same chances. That way, bad teams get a chance at rebuilding, but there's no incentive to be last.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone cares about this "problem." Well, I figure it's because the idea of losing intentionally is so abhorrent to sports culture. And also because North American Pro sports has had some historic problems with intentional losing. But I couldn't care less. If we were talking about teams intentionally missing playoff spots to go for a better draft pick, then I could understand fans being angry. But what actually happens is that a team that might at best finish 25th out of 30th will instead finish dead last. That isn't great behaviour, but I don't think it even cracks the top hundred Things Wrong With Professional Sports.

And part of the problem is that it isn’t even possible to define tanking. If you want to tank, you trade your best players, and let the youngsters and journeymen sink to the bottom. But if you’re not tanking, just rebuilding in earnest, you trade your current assets for draft picks and prospects, which causes your team to drop to the bottom of the league.

That’s the point that was put forward by the Buffalo Sabres recently, after a bad season that netted them a second-overall pick. They’ve been accused of tanking, which is frustrating because their geographic rivals in Toronto finished last the next year and got the number one pick. The Sabres have been painted as tankers, while the Leafs were portrayed as wise rebuilders, even though they essentially did the same thing.

Some of that double standard is surely due to the bias of a largely-Canadian pool of journalists. And a lot can be chalked up to that infamous night that the Sabres’ own fans started cheering against them in the hopes of a better draft pick. But it’s hardly fair blaming a team for having insightful fans. I think the real problem is that for some odd reason, people only get angry at tanking when it’s unsuccessful. Going back to the NBA, the most obvious tank jobs actually resulted in teams getting game-changing talents, yet people look back at those incidents with a smirk, while current tankers who are yet to see any benefit get all the ire.

And that gets back to another reason I can't get angry at tankers - and why I doubt this measure will actually work. It's really hard to get a winner in the NBA without a superstar. Yes, you can point to counterexamples, including my own Toronto Raptors, not to mention superstars drafted way down the table like Kobe Bryant. But for the most part, a high pick is needed to join the league's elite, and neither lowered odds nor journalists' scorn with change that.

Cleveland Crocks

In this weekend's NFL games, the TV coverage treated the National Anthem as a competition of its own. Even highlights noted who, if anyone, didn't stand for the anthem, or gave the black power sign. If you're not aware, this started with Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the anthem in protest of the treatment of African Americans. Kaepernick himself was suspicious by his absence, having still not been signed this season. Although his performance has gone downhill since nearly winning the Super Bowl in 2013, it's still hard to believe that he's not qualified for a league with about a hundred quarterback jobs. It will get even more suspicious as time goes on, and we see some of the has-beens and never-weres that aren't getting the job done.

But in Cleveland, they headed-off the anthem controversy by having a big video on the scoreboard urging peace and understanding.

A special message on unity and equality from members of the Cleveland Browns. pic.twitter.com/CvyTdgTaIS

— Cleveland Browns (@Browns) September 10, 2017

This video gave me a new level of understanding of America. Suddenly I get it. I get why black people hate it when you say, "All Lives Matter." I mean sure, I'd heard lots of explanations. And I'd seen the recent meme that tries to address the flooding in Houston with "All Cities Matter." But it didn't really hit home until I saw this attempt to show concern for real - and rather specific - problems using a bunch of vague platitudes.

It's become apparent in recent years that America has problems that have been around for a while, but lurk beneath a friendly sheen of agreeable principles. The challenge of activists has been to call attention to those problems that are getting ignored by a big portion of Americans that should be sympathetic but are turning a blind eye. Making a feel-good video that doesn't acknowledge any problems is just adding to that facade.

Okay, you can make the point that in the current America where up is down and Nazis are normalized, actually promoting those positive principles is a radical step. And if you're going to promote those values, then the ideal place is the national Lowest Common Denominator, football. But I've moved beyond that. Yes, I'm apparently woke now.

In Your Eyes

You may have seen the story about a man in Britain who is planning on playing the piano in a public square until his ex girlfriend takes him back. A few people have congratulated him on his romanticism, though more are thinking he should really move on. This is an example of a phenomena I've seen many people point out: that the behaviour portrayed in romantic movies - particularly rom-coms - would be creepy if not abusive in real life.

What's interesting is that although most people agree that the man's behaviour is not healthy, there's a divergence in the explanation for it. Some have seen him as just another love-crazed guy, albeit one who's taken it too far (and too public.) And some people have gone straight for a paternalist explanation, saying that he is acting out of a feeling of entitlement. They would say that he is unable to cope with a woman rejecting him, since he - as a man - feels he has a right to a sexual relationship with his chosen woman.

I'm certainly not saying that doesn't happen; there are a lot of men who look at the world that way, including many that you would think would know better. But that's hardly the only explanation. After all, our messed-up sex roles make people do crazy things, but love alone also makes people act plenty crazy. I'm not absolving him of blame - harassing behaviour is harassing no matter the reason. But that's also kind of my point; bad behaviour doesn't necessarily have a bad cause.

There are a couple of lessons here: One is that we have to be careful when we go from trends to individual cases. For instance, even if you know that many blacks are unfairly treated by the police, that doesn't mean that you can assume that any particular black person who gets arrested is being framed. Secondly, we as a society still have a long way to go in figuring out heterosexual men. There's an assumption out there coming from people of many backgrounds that all a man's actions are motivated by sex, and that sexuality is purely about ownership and dominance. I doubt it was ever that simple, and in today’s world, you just can’t jump to conclusions about a person’s motivations.

You (Practically) Da Man

Let's say you hear a story about someone facing prejudice. A person discriminated against at work, or treated unfairly by the judicial system. Assuming you're a reasonably compassionate person, you want to show that you care. But there's two general ways to do this:

You could portray yourself as a sort of comrade in arms, either by comparing it to your own situation ("I know what that's like") or by highlighting a common enemy ("You tell 'em! Stick it to The Man!")

The other way is to act as a representative of society as a whole ("We really need to change as a people.") Or even to take responsibility as part of the problem ("On behalf of all X, I'm really sorry.”)

Which attitude you take largely depends on who you are. If you're a member of the same oppressed group as the victim, you'll surely commiserate. And probably, if you're from a group that had suffered similarly, you'll probably also compare your struggles. On the other hand, If your life situation is quite different, you'll probably avoid comparison, and try to show sympathy from the outside.

As a straight, white, able-bodied cis-male, I'm generally restricted to that second approach. It's going to sound silly if I try to compare my experience to someone who has lived their life with systematic discrimination. ("I know what you mean, let me tell you about how long they're taking rebuilding the expressway interchange I use.") Or, to put it another way, I can't say "Stick it to The Man" if everyone knows I am The Man.

And in a society that is prominently white, many of the people I know are in the same boat. Generally, if I'm talking to someone who ticks any of the oppression boxes, it's a woman. That is, a straight, white, able-bodied cis-female. So how do they react when looking at someone else's struggle?

I've noticed that in these situations, they're pretty quick to go to that first reaction. They align themselves with the victim, and jump to a very negative view of society. This always makes me feel kind of awkward. Sure, I'm quick to acknowledge the unfairness of society, but in this case, I'm like, excuse me, The Man is right here, I can hear you.

But here's the interesting point: In recent years - thanks to social media - I've had the chance to see the perspectives of more people with many different backgrounds. And I've discovered that although white women may see themselves as part of The Oppressed, many others definitely don't see it that way. There's a widespread feeling that white women are hardly worse-off than white men, with a lot of pent-up anger aimed at them.

I don't know how fair that is. It often seems like a grass-is-greener situation, in which white women have taken on a mythical status among frustrated activists, envisioned as incredibly privileged, hardly different from folks like myself. That’s clearly inaccurate; domestic abuse and sexual assault are problems that are not easily dismissed.

But ultimately that just adds to my point: There’s a big divide there amongst progressives, and a lot of misunderstanding. So please realize that people don’t understand one another’s struggles as much as they think they do. You may not have the oppression-cred that you think, and it will look fake if you pretend you do. But conversely, you will look out-of-touch if you assume that another’s life is easy.

The Fall Of Television

We're seeing ads for this fall's new TV shows. That seems so quaint; it hearkens back to a simpler time when all the shows started at the same time, then half of them were canceled in the first month, like some sort of media Hunger Games. These days it's more complicated, with shows coming out at different times of the year, having breaks mid-year, coming back from the dead, etc.

But we still have some new shows debuting in September the way God intended. It's weird watching them publicized now, because these ads aren't the usual commercials for shows; they have to spell out the premise/catch/novelty of the show. And we watch them knowing that it might be an idea that becomes iconic and gets copied for years to come, or it might be quickly forgotten like some unprepared tribute from district eleven.

The Good Doctor

The ads stress this is the autistic doctor. That's potentially an interesting idea, but it's also derivative of the smart but socially difficult person trend. It was hardly surprising that it was from the makers of House. It could still work, though the ads make it out to be a heavy-handed feel good story, complete with the usual Hollywood intelligence clichés.

Wisdom of the Crowd

Crime dramas are hot; crowdsourcing is hot; let's put them together! Here you have a crowdsourced crime-solving app, and that's the premise. It begs the question: if you have that idea, why would you write a show about it? I'm sure you're there in Los Angeles thinking that it could be a popular show and make you a millionaire, but if you had taken the idea a little ways up the California coast you could have created the thing in real life and become a billionaire.

I'm thinking that the fact that it's only a TV show is kind of an admission that WikiSherlock wouldn't really work. Can you imagine if everyone on the Internet who considers themselves an expert were to try to solve crimes? You'd get false accusations all over the place. If the creators of this show are clever, they'll make that problem part of the show: Rather than your average whodunnit, you also have to wonder if the investigators can be trusted. That could be interesting, though I suspect that this is going to be like watching a CSI episode written by Malcolm Gladwell.

Me, Myself and I

This is a sitcom taking place at three different eras in one man's life. I'm sure I had the same reaction as a lot of people:

• That could be an interesting concept depending on how they execute it, and
• Isn't John Larroquette about a foot taller than Bobby Moynihan? How can they be playing the same person?

Okay, according to IMDB, it's only 9.5 inches. Since that portion of the show is in the future, maybe they'll have cosmetic growth surgery. Really, the whole show comes down to that one question. If they have a wacky/creative explanation, it will probably be an entertaining show, but if they just hope we won't notice, then it's likely just a half-assed hack job.

Young Sheldon

Speaking of time shifting, there's this show about the childhood of Big Bang Theory's Sheldon Cooper. I don't know that there is anything like that before. There could probably be a lot of characters in TV history that could have had the prequel treatment. Speaking of John Larroquette, I would have loved to have seen Night Court's Dan Fielding as a teenager coming of age in the sixties. It just writes itself.

But seriously, I don't seen how Young Sheldon can possibly work. Watching a grown up intellectual misfit trying to navigate the world is funny, but watching a child do that is tragic. I know, they probably won't show Sheldon actually getting bullied - except during Very Special Episodes - but that will just be unrealistic even by sitcom standards.