On the Atlanta Braves 'Tomahawk Chop'

With the Atlanta Braves in the World Series, the topic of the tomahawk chop performed at games by the fans has become a hot topic of conversation in recent days. I don't have a strong opinion on how offensive or inoffensive the tomahawk chop is. I'm not Native American, I don't know many Native American people, so I really don't feel one way or the other about it. I'm sure just like many culture issues, some within that demographic care a lot about it and some don't. But I do have some general thoughts on the discourse in a more broad sense.

I think people have every right to be offended by the tomahawk chop if they so choose. And I think people have every right not to be offended by the tomahawk chop. If MLB bans it from games, that is their right. Though, I don't know how you could ban something the fans partake in en masse. If 15,000 fans at a game break out in the chop, are they going to throw 15,000 people out of the ball park? I don't see how that would work. Nonetheless, like I said I don't have a real opinion on if it is or isn't offensive. What I do have a strong opinion about is when people stand on their soapbox and preach to someone as if their morals are superior. Morals are entirely subjective, and if you feel a certain way about something it doesn't mean you're right. People who feel that the chop isn't offensive at all and anyone who thinks so is an idiot, aren't morally right. And those who feel the chop is offensive and should be banned, and anyone who doesn't think so is callous aren't morally right either.

Whether something is offensive and whether it should be banned are two entirely different questions. Generally speaking, I'm pretty strongly against banning most things. I think open discourse and accepting the opinions of others is the most productive way to run a society. At the same time, I respect the rights of individual businesses and institutions having the right to police what takes place under their confines. 

The issue I want to focus on is the direction of discourse today. Until recent years, I was used to a society that learned to live and co-exist with people you disagreed with. We seem to be trending away from that. It becomes more and more commonplace these days, that people want to ostracize and outcast someone from society for "wrongthink." This is not how the world works. We need to learn to co-exist with those who have opinions we dislike, even despise. That's the only way societies can or will function. Anything else is untenable. When you open the flood gates of banning wrongthink, it's doesn't just stop at one or two things. Set that precedent and it can spiral out of control. For example, banning a couple books because they're offensive, as we've seen in recent news, can eventually lean to burning books by the masses.

So if you're ever at a Braves game, and you're someone who hates the chop and are sitting next to someone who loves it, or vice versa... take a moment to realize that it's okay if that person feels a different way about a certain issue and it's not the end of the world. You'll watch a ball game, go home, go to sleep at some point, wake up the next day and life will continue to go on as it always has. And frankly, you'll feel a lot better not being pissed off at yet another culture issue.

If we want more Americans and athletes to take the COVID vaccine, we need to rethink our strategy

Yesterday, news broke that several Phillies players were put on the COVID list, starting with Alec Bohm being on COVID protocol. Naturally, it didn't take long for people to jump on social media calling the players rednecks, MAGA supporters, selfish pieces of shit, and everything else. In a world currently dominated by tribalism, you are either on the side of the good guys or the bad guys. You're either someone who gets the vaccine or you're a "piece of shit southern redneck conservative." The world is not that simple, and if people aren't going to take the time to understand why so many Americans have decided not to get the vaccine, you are never going to be able to convince them to finally take the plunge.

There is the assumption that every single person who has decided against taking the vaccine are doing it for political reasons. A a recent survey has suggested that isn't the case and that many, if not most, Americans deciding against it have done so for apolitical reasons. That doesn't mean there aren't many Americans who have a hard line political stance on this issue. I'm sure there are. But maybe take the time to grasp why so many people may be vaccine hesitant.

Over the past year, much trust was lost in our nation's health experts, institutions, and political leaders. And for good reason. Many of them have lied on countless occasions to the American people on all issues involving COVID. First, Americans were told not to wear masks, and not only shouldn't they wear masks, but masks may increase your chances of getting COVID by giving you a false sense of security. I remember hearing that last year and wondering "What in the fucking hell am I listening to?" Of course masks work. They're worn in Southeast Asia regularly, even in non-pandemic times, and masks have existed since the 17th century to prevent the spread of disease. In fact, plague masks, with the long beaks, had those beaks as a built-in social distancing design to keep sick people out of your face. So people have been aware of masks and social distancing for literally hundreds of years. Yet, we have our nation's most prominent doctors and health experts telling people on national television not to wear masks, and then months later do a 180 and telling people not only to wear them, but it should be mandatory. Then later they all admitted they lied because they didn't want Americans hoarding masks and keeping them away from healthcare workers. Instead of being up front and honest with the public, and treating them like adults, they were deceitful and treated them like children.

Next, we had politicians putting strict lockdown measures in place, putting countless of Americans in dire financial straits, and putting untold restaurants and stores out of business. Yet, we have politicians across the country like Gavin Newsom, who had some of the nation's strictest lockdown policies, out partying and chumming it up at a 5 star Michelin restaurant with no mask, no social distancing. As well as many other politicians across the country caught doing the same. They can't even follow their own rules, yet they expect the American people not only to follow them, but not to lose trust in their guidance after having been lied to, as they're suffering financially.

It doesn't stop there. When people started protesting so they could go back to work and open up their businesses so they don't wind up homeless, they were ridiculed and demonized for being heartless monsters, that they're going to be responsible for killing someone's grandmother, and they need to go home and just obey orders. Meanwhile, people protesting social justice in the streets were lauded for doing the right thing with not an ounce of criticism. With inconsistent hypocritical messaging like that, it's not a good way to build trust with the people.

Even further, when official word finally came out from the CDC that outdoor spread was very low risk(after the data on this had been known for months), some politicians still refused to allow outdoor dining, something restaurants barely scraping buy could've used to boost their earnings rather than relying solely on takeout.

Lastly, for an entire year anyone who brought up the possibility that COVID could've leaked from the Wuhan lab was labeled a racist and a bigot, and those sentiments were censored and banned from most social media platforms, only for a year later for these same platforms to acknowledge what everyone else already knew it was entirely possible that COVID came from a lab.

We've had people in this country who have been lied to and misled over and over and over again, while struggling just to stay afloat, you should expect at least some of those people to say "You know, what? Screw it. I'm not listening to a word these people say anymore." Think about it this way. If you went to a doctor with a medical problem and they prescribed a certain medication, and then a month later they called you and said "Nevermind, don't take the medicine, it's not going to help you, I lied." Are you ever going to trust that doctor again? Would you ever even speak to that doctor again? I wouldn't.

I've been vaccinated. I'm as pro vaccine as it gets. Ever since I first found out about smallpox when I was in my early teens, I became fascinated with vaccines and the technology behind it, and learning about how they work. Having said that, I know not everyone is like me. Not everyone understands, and it's not always going to be political. Maybe someone knows an individual who got the vaccine and had a very bad reaction to it, but don't know anyone who had a bad COVID reaction and they're now scared to get the vaccine? Maybe after losing so much trust in our institutions, people believe that Big Pharma is using the pandemic to make their stocks go up and make billions of dollars. It's not like the American people had a lot of trust in Big Pharma before the pandemic started. Maybe after being told the vaccines were totally safe, cases of Myocarditis and Guillain Barre have scared people and are having them wonder what more issues could crop up down the road. My logic has always been that the risks of the vaccine are far smaller than COVID. That is why I chose to get the COVID vaccine. The severe reaction and mortality rate of COVID are much higher than that of the vaccine. However, do I know for certain that months or years down the road, health problems won't arise due to the vaccines? No, I don't. And I can sympathize with those who are worried about that even if logically I think it's the wrong decision.

Regardless, instead of shaming and insulting people, we need to start treating people like adults and being honest, and easing their fears. And leaders can't enact policy that they can't even follow themselves. You can't expect the people to trust and follow you if you can't even do what you ask of your own people. If you start leveling with people and start talking about the risks of the vaccine vs the risks of COVID, break down the data in a way that's understandable, and point out the rates in which there are bad reactions to one vs the other, I think more people would be taking the vaccine. The message isn't going to get across if the messenger sucks at their job, and boy have the messengers sucked at their jobs during the COVID pandemic. I can't think of a way we've butchered this crisis worse than from a PR perspective. You can ridicule individual vaccine-hesitant Americans all you want, but we have no one to blame but ourselves for causing this much distrust in the first place.

Want someone to blame? Look no further than the Sixers President of Basketball Operations

 As the Sixers' season reaches a disappointing conclusion, being eliminated in 7 games by the Hawks, the first instinct of any fan, writer, blogger, or talk show host is going to be finding someone to blame. I'm sure Ben Simmons is going to be one of the hottest names to choose. A max player who could hardly generate any offense when it mattered most, and historically struggled from the free throw line. I'm sure Tobias Harris will be mentioned. Another max player, who was overpaid by the Sixers front office, but nonetheless, you expect more out of a player who's shown at times he can take his offensive game to another level than he gave his team with the season on the line. I'm sure some will even blame Joel Embiid for tiring in the 4th quarters of big games, which, in my opinion is asinine, but it'll happen... count on that. And lastly, people will blame Doc Rivers for his rotations, and having a track record of his teams coughing up leads in playoff games, and blowing series where his teams were ahead. But don't expect many people, if any, to even utter Daryl Morey's name among those to blame for the Sixers season ending in disaster... but they should.

Daryl Morey had a very underwhelming first season as Sixers President of Basketball Operations. Especially when you consider his track record and the expectations accompanied with the hire. You bring in a guy like Morey to land premium talent, to land big fish. That's what the NBA is all about, it's what every team wants. To amass as many superstar players as possible, and position themselves to acquire them. Some even decimating their current prospects, to be in position to maybe land one several years from that point. And in Morey's first year, he had the opportunity of a lifetime. To land an all-time great scorer, and first ballot HOFer, James Harden. He's the exact player the Sixers have been looking for since the days of Allen Iverson. A high volume scorer from the perimeter, who can create his own shot, can shoot from deep, attack the basket, score on all 3 levels, and setup his teammates. He commands double teams. He was the perfect compliment to Joel Embiid, in a season where Embiid finally put it all together and played like the best player in the league. And according to reports, he had the Sixers atop his list as desired destinations.

Think about how rare that is. In my entire life, and I'm in my mid-30's, I've never had a top 5 NBA player desire coming to the Sixers above all other NBA teams. NBC Sports' John Clark reported the Sixers were James Harden's top destination he wanted to be traded to. It was all teed for Daryl Morey to drive this thing home... and he botched it, in what will prove to be, in my opinion, the biggest mistake of his career even if he general manages for another 20 years. Some will use the excuse that "Houston was never trading him to Philly anyway." Based on what? A couple blurbs from people on Twitter who said Rockets owner Tillman Fertitta didn't want to let Daryl Morey win? Of course he didn't. But that's different than saying Fertitta refused to trade him to the Sixers. I'm sure the Dallas Cowboys didn't want to trade DeVonta Smith to the Eagles either, but they did it because they got a good price from the Eagles. This is professional sports. Teams don't harm their own organizations to spite others. That's not how this works.

In addition to all that, Daryl Morey reportedly informed Ben Simmons' camp that he should expect to be traded on the day the trade went down. So obviously Daryl Morey didn't believe there was no chance they would trade Harden to Philly. Quite the opposite. He not only believed it was possible, he believed it was imminent. Why would he believe that unless in negotiations he was told they'd trade Harden to the Sixers? If he was ever told or led to believe they wouldn't trade Harden to Philly, he wouldn't have even wasted his time. Morey has been around the block, he knows how to negotiate trades. I believe Sixers fans have used this excuse to protect themselves from the feelings of regret. It's easier to cope with a missed opportunity when you tell yourself it had no chance of happening in the first place. I used to do it when I was a teenager too afraid to ask out the best looking girls at my high school or in my neighborhoods and found out they eventually went on to date someone else. "Eh... she was never going to say yes to me anyway" was an easier mindset than spending my time lamenting my cowardly decision to not take that plunge.

James Harden isn't a Sixer because the Sixers didn't match the Nets' colossal draft pick compensation, and/or because they refused to give up their young players, namely Thybulle or Maxey. The Rockets obviously didn't covet Ben Simmons as much as they'd have hoped, because if they thought he was a franchise player, they would have leapt at the chance to replace one superstar with another. What this tells you more than anything is maybe the value of Ben Simmons around the league isn't as high as it is to Sixers faithful. And now, after a hugely disappointing playoff run, the organization and fans alike are wondering what remaining value he has, and what caliber of player they could get by trading him. I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you they won't be the caliber of James Harden.

Daryl Morey did some nice things in his first year in Philly. He got rid of a bad Al Horford contract, but had to give up a future draft pick to do so. He swapped Josh Richardson, for a better fit(and probably better player, which was debated at the time of the deal) in Seth Curry, and drafted Tyrese Maxey, though I put that more on the scouts, who scouted these players long before Morey signed on to manage the Sixers front office. His offseason was fine. Not great, but fine. I don't throw the word "great" around, and acquiring role players certainly doesn't quality as "great" in my book. But his in-season decisions were underwhelming at best, and if you count missing out on Harden as a move or decision, quite terrible. He made some singles, maybe an extra base hit in there, but with the game on the line and the bases loaded, he struck out. Harden and Embiid would have been an unconscionably good duo that would've been unstoppable in the East, and the fact that didn't happen is on Daryl Morey, and he deserves a major part of the blame for why the Sixers are currently sitting at home watching the rest of the NBA playoffs carry on without them. Yes, the Sixers season ended on June 20th, but I'll argue their hopes for a title truly ended on January 14th, 2021.

The Sixers will never win a title until they get an elite perimeter scorer and shot creator

 As the Sixers find themselves down 3 games to 2 and on the brink of elimination against an inferior Atlanta Hawks team, the question is obviously why do they find themselves in this position yet again? Since 'The Process' has taken off the training wheels and catapulted into playoff contention, the Sixers under the Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons core have yet to make it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. It yet remains to be seen whether the Sixers can rebound and win this series in 7 games, but regardless, it's evident that something with this roster construction isn't working when they reach the playoff stage.

Trends matter in life. Some more than others, but at the very least they should be acknowledged and analyzed, as you can always take something, even if that's something small, away from a trend. The trend in the NBA is that elite scoring guards and wing players who can create their own shot win championships. Go through the last 10 NBA seasons. Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, LeBron James, Kyrie Irving, Kawhi Leonard, Dwyane Wade. Those are the guys these teams were built around. That's what wins in the modern NBA, where the game is built around shooting, shot creation, and spacing.

That type of player has been ever-elusive from the Sixers. Other than a short stint with Jimmy Butler, you'd have to go back to Allen Iverson to find the last time the Sixers had a player like that. Joel Embiid is a great player. One of the 5 best in the NBA. But it's different asking a player who is 7'2 and who weighs 300+ pounds to carry a team in playoff games against better teams who play their starters more minutes... not to mention an injury prone 7'2 big man at that. When you spend your entire game banging down in the low post, fighting for post positioning, chasing down guys from behind to block shots, chasing guys out on the perimeter sometimes to defend smaller guards; you're going to tire out and in the 4th quarter, you often are not going to have enough left to carry your team offensively. This is what we've seen time and time again with Joel Embiid in the playoffs. They ask him to do everything, and at the ends of games, he has nothing. 

This is why ideally, you pair him with an elite perimeter player. Someone who can space the floor and give him more room to operate down low. Someone who you also have to worry about not just shooting, but putting the ball on the floor and getting to the basket drawing double teams, or hitting pull up jumpers. Defending that type of player in addition to Embiid would be a nightmare for any defense. It certainly doesn't help that Ben Simmons' defender backs off of him so far that he's essentially already in position to give Embiid a quick double team. The Sixers need a guy who can take over offensively when Embiid can't. They need someone they can effectively run pick and rolls with. All NBA champions these days typically have two superstars at a minimum, both of whom are high level scorers. Ben Simmons is not that. He's a nice player, who can contribute to a championship team in a lot of ways, but you will never win a title with him as your second best player, and these Sixers playoff runs have proven that to this point. Without one, what happens is what you see over and over. At the ends of games, Embiid is tired, so they rely on role players to get buckets, and as one would expect, that ends in failure, because you're asking more of those guys than they're capable of. You aren't going to win championships with the likes of Tobias Harris and Seth Curry being your go-to scorers in the 4th quarter of playoff games.

The question is, how do you get one of those elite guys? They aren't easy to get and the Sixers don't have the cap room to sign one and picking at the end of the first round of the draft, likely don't have the draft picks to select one. That leaves one option left: via trade. And even though Ben Simmons' trade value might have fallen somewhat, there is always a general manager out there who believes he can acquire a player and find a way to get the most out of them. Ben Simmons, at least in the short-term future, is still going to have value. Will it be enough to acquire that elusive elite perimeter player? We'll see, but the Sixers will never win a title until Daryl Morey finds a way to get his hands on one.

Breaking down the good and bad of the George Floyd Policing Act

Today is the one year anniversary of the death of George Floyd, and that has sparked some debate and discussion about the George Floyd Policing Act. Today, Sixers coach Doc Rivers was promoting this, so I figured now is as good of a time as any to break down some things that are in this bill and what's good, what's bad, and potential ramifications if it gets passed.

Grant power to the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to issue subpoenas to police departments as part of "pattern or practice" investigations into whether there has been a "pattern and practice" of bias or misconduct by the department.

 I think this is a positive. Often departments can be insulated from accountability if there is corruption within a department, and this could offer an alternative source to keep departments in check that have run amok with poor leadership. Obviously, things can change based on the framing within a bill, but as of right now, I have no issue with this provision.

Provide grants to state attorneys general to "create an independent process to investigate misconduct or excessive use of force" by police forces.

I'm okay with this also, for similar reasons as above. That said, the process needs to be just and with no agenda, and not succumb to public pressure or activists, who generally have no idea how anything in the law enforcement realm actually works.

Establish a federal registry of police misconduct complaints and disciplinary actions.

I think this is a very good one. It could prevent bad cops from just bouncing around departments and made it harder for bad officers to stay under the radar, although a big reason bad cops are often hired is because there aren't enough applicants, which I'll touch on later.

Enhance accountability for police officers who commit misconduct, by restricting the application of the qualified immunity doctrine for local and state officers,[8][10] and by changing the mens rea (intent) element of 18 U.S.C. § 242 (the federal criminal offense of "deprivation of rights under color of law," which has been used to prosecute police for misconduct) from "willfully" to "knowingly or with reckless disregard."

This is a tough one. I'm not totally against limiting qualified immunity, but it needs to come with some compromise. Essentially, qualified immunity allows law enforcement to face civil suits for their actions. With any proposal, you have to weigh pros and cons, and what net cost might be the end result. Without qualified immunity, the amount of police officers is certainly going to decrease. Especially now, in times where trust in law enforcement is at a recent low, even though policing and number of unarmed civilians killed by cops has decreased over the years. Officers are retiring and/or resigning en masse across the country. As you saw with the death of Ma'Khia Bryant, the teenage girl who was shot by officers in Ohio as she attempted to stab another girl to death, there were massive calls for the officer to be charged even though he objectively and legally did the right thing in that situation.

However, public pressure can be extreme, especially when it's accompanied by the threat of violence and destruction. When the public is in a place where every police incident is heavily scrutinized, especially by individuals who have very limited knowledge of law enforcement or criminal justice, the threat of having officers sued every time they do their just duty is going to deter officers from applying and staying on the force. Which in turn will lead to less officers being on the streets, and crime will inevitably rise. And in situations where officers stay on, it is going to cause officers to be hesitant to respond and intervene in certain situations, which will lead to more innocent deaths of civilians, which is not good. You have to find a balance between holding officers accountable for wrongdoing and protecting the public. Given that civilians are responsible for far more death and wrongdoing in this country than officers are, the net loss might be too great for ending qualified immunity to be beneficial overall. However, there is an exception, which is my proposal.

If you want to end qualified immunity, then commit to training officers better and putting a lot more funding into it. Cops are among the worst trained people of any profession in America. The amount of training they get and that is required is laughable compared to what they are asked to do. For example, in California, it requires more training to be a hair cutter than a cop. Think about that. Almost 3 times as much, in fact. Often, when officers make mistakes, that is the responsibility not just of the officer, but the cities and states who employ them and enact poor standards to departments in the first place. And don't task them to handle situations they aren't trained for, like going to residences with mentally ill people who are not armed. Cops are not trained to deal with the mentally ill, nor should they be held responsible if they handle it poorly. Unless that individual is armed with a weapon is is an immediate threat, the first responder should not be an officer. I think that is a fair compromise, rather than having officers terrified of being sued left and right for handling incidents poorly they weren't trained properly to handle, and sometimes handling situations correctly, but the family of a victim thinks they're in the right, because the officer's actions and legal standards don't align with their personal moral code.

Require federal uniformed police officers to have body-worn cameras.

Not really much to say here, I think every officer should be wearing body cameras. I have no problem with this.

Require marked federal police vehicles to be equipped with dashboard cameras.

Again, like the above, not a ton to say about this. I support this, and just like with body cameras, this can be good not just for civilian protection, but from the officer as well.

Restrict the transfer of military equipment to police.

I don't think I support this. I support redirecting funding to improve other areas of the department over offering military grade equipment, but I do think police should have access to it, in the event it is needed. Especially in a nation now where officers and departments have been under attack, and their leaders have done very little to protect them.

Require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to adopt anti-discrimination policies and training programs, including those targeted at fighting racial profiling.

On the surface I have no problem with this at face value. That said, a lot of policies that are deemed discriminatory are sometimes not. It depends on who is accusing said policy of being discriminatory. How objective or subjective is it? If we go by simple inequities in results, that is a bad idea. There are very often not discriminatory reasons why there are inequities in policing results, that aren't just due to racism. So, in short, I can neither fully support or oppose this unless I find out exactly what policies are going to be adopted, the reason for those policies, and what they hope to accomplish.

Prohibit federal police officers from using chokeholds or other carotid holds, and require state and local law enforcement agencies that receive federal funding to adopt the same prohibition.

This is a bad idea and probably one I oppose the most. It's an extreme course correct that will do more harm than good. The number of people killed by law enforcement with chokeholds or sleeper holds is infinitesimal. These are necessary maneuvers to subdue and control individuals, and to apprehend individuals to place them under arrest. If we start banning means officers can non-lethally subdue an individual, the end result is going to be more officers resorting to more physical or lethal means to subdue and control. That means punches, kicks(until they ban those too) and using their firearm. A better idea would be to budget training officers to use these maneuvers seamlessly, so there's no concern over poor usage leading to fatalities. If your end goal is to make policing better and to save lives, this accomplishes neither, and is a bad idea. George Floyd didn't die from a chokehold. He died because someone's knee was on his neck for 10 minutes. That is not a chokehold or a sleeper hold, which is what would be banned in this bill.

Prohibit the issuance of no-knock warrants in federal drug investigations, and provide incentives to the states to enact a similar prohibition.

I support this. I think in certain situations, no-knock warrants can be useful, but in our never-ending disastrous war on drugs(a war we lost decades ago), raiding peoples' homes over things that some argue shouldn't even be illegal in the first place is dangerous. I think there are some minor drawbacks to this, but I think the net positive is better overall banning them, and things could be done tactically to serve warrants in situations with dangerous individuals in the place of no-knock warrants.

Change the threshold for the permissible use of force by federal law enforcement officers from "reasonableness" to only when "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury."

This one is difficult. On the surface I somewhat support the general premise, the problem is, what will be deemed as "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury"? I'll give you an example. A patrol officer gets a call over dispatch that there was a convenience store robbery in the area and they have the description of the vehicle used in the escape. The officer spots a car matching the description driving past. He puts on his sirens and pulls over the car. He's not 100% sure this is the robber, but he's checking just to make sure. From a distance he asks the driver to get out of his car with his hands up, gun drawn, and announces why he's pulling him over. Individual gets out of his car with his hands up, then reaches for something. In the moment, the officer has to assume the individual is pulling out a gun, otherwise the officer could be shot first, or even nearby civilians. Officer shoots individual dead, and it turns out he wasn't the robber, but was someone in a similar car reaching for his cell phone. Will an investigation deem that "necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm"? There are virtually endless grey areas in situations involving cops. If I trust the justice system to adequately and justly view these incidents with the benefit of the doubt, then I can support this provision. Otherwise, I can't. Too many officers would be held accountable for life and death ambiguity. 

Mandate that federal officers use deadly force only as a last resort and that de-escalation be attempted, and condition federal funding to state and local law enforcement agencies on the adoption of the same policy.

I 100% support attempted de-escalation before resorting to lethal force, if that option is available. Sometimes there is no time to de-escalate. Much like the above, there is a lot of subjectivity here. What qualifies as a "last resort" to the officer, maybe not to their superiors and/or the District Attorney. As long as officers are given some benefit of the doubt that they indeed acted on a last resort, then I could support this. You can't pretend to be in the shoes of an officer, in the moment, during high intensity situations and act like you know what a last resort is, which much of the time is completely a judgement call.

Final Thoughts:

I think there is a lot of good and bad in this bill. I think there is a lot in here to hold officers and departments more accountable for wrongdoing, but what it gets wrong is it doesn't make the jobs of officers easier, nor does it provide anything to actually make them better at their jobs. Much of it is reactionary and I feel are over-corrections. The question is, what do you want out of this bill? Do you want less death? Do you want to make policing better? Or are you just out to hold officers accountable for wrongdoing? Each of those aspects relate to one another, but this bill doesn't focus on the former two enough. Civilians will always be more of a danger to other civilians than cops will. We kill one another far more than police officers ever have and ever will. Ultimately, any reform bill should focus on everything. Preventing death, making it easier for cops to do their jobs, and holding them accountable. This offers little to prevent the death of innocent civilians(quite the opposite), and doesn't seem to do a whole lot to improve the training of policing, and actually make policing better. Like increased funding to train for arrest and control situations, higher standards for firearm training, more and higher standards for situational training, and higher standards for applicants. Just to name a few. Aside from the focusing on de-escalation, which is helpful, I don't see a lot here that accomplishes much to better policing. The George Floyd Policing Act has some good ideas, but in my opinion it is incomplete, and needs some revisions to make society safer, policing better, and hold cops more accountable.

Trading for DeShaun Watson once legal issues are settled is a no-brainer

More than ever before, in the NFL you need an elite franchise QB to win Super Bowls. QBs have always been the most important aspect of a team, but you used to be able to get away with having just "system QBs" who don't turn the ball over if you had a generational defense. With NFL rule changes gearing more toward offense, and offensive innovators constantly one step ahead of defenses, generational defenses don't exist in the NFL anymore. The last we've seen were the 'Legion of Boom' Seahawks defenses, and haven't seen anything remotely close to those defenses since. To win in today's NFL, you need to outscore your opponent, and it's why in the last 3 Super Bowls, of the 6 QBs representing, 4 of them were named Patrick Mahomes or Tom Brady, and the winners of those Super Bowls were not Jimmy Garoppolo or Jared Goff - the two non Brady and Mahomes representatives.

If you want to be taken seriously as a Super Bowl contender, you need to construct a team that can score with Mahomes, Brady, Wilson, Rodgers, and now the emerging Josh Allen... although we'll find out this season if he was a one year wonder. And luckily for the Eagles, there is an elite top 6 franchise QB available in his mid 20's, which is virtually unprecedented. Ask yourself when the last time a QB of his caliber was traded at that age. I've gone back decades and haven't found one. The closest were Jay Cutler when traded from Denver to Chicago, who wasn't close to top 6. And Brett Favre traded from Atlanta to Green Bay, who also was not top 6 at the time he was traded. It simply doesn't happen. Superstar QBs in their mid 20's are invaluable. They don't get traded. And here, one is available, and the Eagles happen to have the most 2022 draft capital in the entire NFL to make a trade happen.

This is an opportunity that cannot be passed on. Legal issues obviously being taken into account here. Even if next year's QB draft class ends up looking promising, there is simply no guarantee. We've already had multiple recent draft classes where a team's first round QB is no longer with the team that drafted them. Carson Wentz, Jared Goff, Marcus Mariota, Jameis Winston, Sam Darnold, Mitch Trubisky, Josh Rosen. The draft is a gamble. Always was, always will be. You know who isn't a gamble? DeShaun Watson. The guy threw for 5,000 yards this past season in a year where his team got rid of his top go-to receiver. He's tough, he's athletic, and he's won at every level. The Eagles have a literal one in a lifetime opportunity to land a proven elite QB, who under normal circumstances would never be available. This is a ticket to fast track their rebuild overnight to being a team that could win the NFC East and be set up for a decade to contend. As long as they are able to put the pieces around him.

This is the no-brainers of all no-brainers. If people can't find it in themselves to root for a guy who has several sexual accusations against him, I totally get it. But here, I'm talking from a purely football perspective. This is a move the Eagles have to make, and from day one, would be one of the greatest trades in Eagles history. Get DeShaun Watson.

The Eagles having a bad record in the 2021 season would be best for their long-term future

 Every year, the NFL schedule release is like a holiday for football fans. It's the first day fans can analyze their schedule, make traveling plans, do wins and losses, and start dreaming about the upcoming season. It's the first day where fans allow hope to creep in, even when their teams suck, and fans talk themselves into thinking their team could potentially be great. When it comes to the Eagles, I'm not telling fans they should root against their team when the games are on, but I will tell you it would be for the best if the Eagles had another bad season.

Right now the Eagles are an organization still trying to figure out exactly what they have. Are new head coach Nick Sirianni and defensive coordinator Jonathan Gannon any good? Is Jalen Hurts the answer at QB? Can Jalen Reagor showcase the speed he did in college? Can Jordan Mailata play at a high level for a whole season at LT? Can any of the other young WRs step up and take the reins on a starting role? And so many more questions I could point to.

However, depending on how the 2021 NFL season plays out, the Eagles could be in total command of the 2022 offseason, and their collection of draft picks and assets could be the envy of the NFL. They could potentially have three 1st round picks in the 2022 draft, and obviously depending on how the Eagles, Colts, and Dolphins finish, the positions of those picks could make a significance difference in their value. Even if the Dolphins and Colts have successful seasons, and say, pick in the 20's, if the Eagles have another bad season record-wise that allows them to pick in the top 5, they would essentially have the opportunity to do whatever they wanted in the 2022 offseason. Virtually all options would be on the table for them. 

If Hurts impresses and they feel good about him leading the team going forward, they'd have three 1st round picks available to them. One being a top 5 pick. They could stand pat and take the best players available, hoping at least their pick is a blue chip prospect, and put more talent around Hurts. They could trade down with any of the picks and stock up on more future draft capital to keep momentum going, stringing together drafts with multiple 1st round picks.

If Hurts doesn't impress, they could select a QB in the top 5 they liked to succeed him. If there is someone they like who's projected to draft ahead of them, they have the ammo to move up and draft a QB they love. And if DeShaun Watson(legal issues not withstanding) and/or Russell Wilson hit the trade market, they'd have all the draft capital they need to outbid any other team vying for their services. If the Eagles play their cards right and a few things go their way, they could turn their future from murky to glowing overnight. Oh, and they'd have plenty of cap room on top of it, to fill in some other needs on the roster.

There really is nothing to be gained by winning 7 or 8 games in 2021. The only argument one could make, would be that if they win that many games, it means a handful of their key players had strong seasons, which would make their future brighter. But I don't think this is a guarantee. DeShaun Watson had a major season in 2020, throwing for 5,000 yards and about 70% completions, and his team only won 4 games. The Eagles, ideally, could have players like DeVonta Smith, Jalen Reagor, Jalen Hurts, and Dallas Goedert play well, but the team still stink enough to win 4 games.

Still not sold? Close your eyes and envision this. Once the season ends, the Eagles enter March with a ton of cap room, three 1st rounders, one being a top 5 pick, and multiple star QBs on the trading block. Now try and tell me you wouldn't be as excited as you've ever been for an offseason in your life. It's only one more year. You dealt with The Process, you can bite the bullet here to catapult your team back on the path to NFL contention.

Philly sports fans: where has your self-respect gone?

The Philadelphia I have known all my life has been a tough, demanding sports town. Sometimes too tough. We have been known to alienate some of our stars for nitpicking minutia, and taking successful players and coaches for granted. But it came from a good place, and in my opinion, an important place. The incessant desire to win and a demand for greatness. It puts pressure on ownership to not get complacent. Philly would always let their teams know when they weren't holding up their end of the bargain. Andy Reid and the Eagles made it to 4 straight NFC Championship Games, and one Super Bowl, but because they didn't win it all, the fans didn't take their foot off the pedal. They demanded better, even though most NFL fan bases would have killed to be in the position of the Eagles fans.

However, something has changed lately. I don't know if generations of sports fans have changed or there's something new added to Philly's water supply, but ever since the Eagles won the Super Bowl, Philly sports fans have gotten complacent. Maybe more saddening, is this city has lost their collective self-respect.

The Phillies haven't made the playoffs in a decade. Ten. Fucking. Years. And all it took was keeping the status quo by retaining JT Realmuto, Didi Gregorius, and adding a couple bullpen arms for the fans to get fat and satisfied. "This year is going to be different!" fans said. "I think under year two of Joe Girardi, they will find the groove and make the postseason!" Fans were dreaming playoffs and thinking big this season and ready to fill John Middleton's pockets with their cash, for as much as one can do during a pandemic. And what changed? Nothing, really. Fans were enthusiastic about a status quo that had already been proven over a 10 year period wasn't good enough. In years past, we would have never given a free pass to a team that hadn't won anything in a decade and made them prove to us they'd changed before buying in.

What happened to the demanding Philly sports fan that would call out their teams when they didn't do enough? This Phillies team's current playoff drought is approaching that of 1993-2007 in length and fans cut them more slack than they did Andy Reid's Eagles who made 4 NFC title games.

Now,  the Eagles. Coming off one of the most boring, unwatchable, unexciting seasons, with the most bland and unimaginative offense you'll ever see, the Eagles were sitting pretty at pick 6 with the potential opportunity to draft two generational pass-catching offensive talents. Guys who would entertain this city for years, and make game days fun again. Instead, Howie Roseman decided to trade down to pick 12 to acquire more draft capital, as a trade-off for a lesser player. And fans ate it right up. Because of course they did. Since winning the Super Bowl, the Eagles can do no wrong. Howie Roseman can run the team into the ground, Jeff Lurie can meddle and make absurd excuses for Howie during zoom conferences, and the fans will still talk themselves into being excited over lesser players than they could've gotten at their original draft spot. Ja'Marr Chase or Kyle Pitts? Bah, it's cool, we can settle for a Jaylen Waddle fans say with a teethy grin, almost as if they smile large enough they may actually convince themselves they're legitimately excited.

Something similar is happening in the video game industry. I've played video games my whole life. In the last year of video games, any fellow gamer would know we've seen our fair share of broken games at launch. If you don't play video games, that doesn't mean it in the physical sense, it means that the games didn't work right at their initial release date. Full of bugs and glitches. Games crashing. They weren't released in proper working condition. But video game fans made excuses for the game developers. Because their allegiance to their favorite developers and publishers superseded their self-respect, and the right to have a working product that they paid for. And the reason this issue of broken games continues to happen is because fans continue to pay money to these companies over and over again so they have no incentive to improve their work. Stop giving them money and they'd get the message that this state of gaming is unacceptable.

We're seeing the same thing in Philly sports. The Phillies can give the fans a mediocre baseball team for the nth straight year, yet fans continue to shovel money into Middleton's pockets. The Eagles continue to let Howie Roseman screw things up, pass on elite talents to prove to the world how smart he is. And Fans continue to throw their money at Jeff Lurie like a kid at an arcade. All the while, no improvement is being made. They shuffle the deck chairs of the Titanic a few times now and again, but the end result remains roughly the same over the last few years. When are you going to put your foot down and say "Enough, I'm tired of being treated this way"? When are you going to feel like you deserve better and start demanding it again? The Dodgers and Padres, two elite teams already, are adding new high-level talents from outside their organizations, but Phillies fans are over the moon just keeping their own. Howie Roseman is now at the point where he's being openly mocked by the mainstream sports media, which hardly ever happens with general managers because relationships need to be maintained. Yet Howie stays on, despite a catastrophic 3 year stretch, and fans have relegated themselves into getting excited about lesser players in a draft, and signing middle tier free agents they had to settle for because it's all they could afford after years of destroying their salary cap.

This is one of the premiere sports towns in the country. A top 5 market. This isn't Little Rock fucking Arkansas. Get some fucking self-respect and stop giving these teams the light of day until they start doing what needs to be done. I never thought I'd long for the days of hearing fans trash Andy Reid after his first loss following a 6 game winning streak, but I do. At least those fans held their teams accountable when they needed to. You saw Josh Harris reverse course on a decision to cut employee salaries during a pandemic because of mere public pressure. You, the fan, has more power than you realize. Start using it. Get your dignity back, Philadelphia.

Is human life special?

I've been thinking a lot about existentialism lately and the purpose of human life. Particularly after I listened to Sam Harris' recent podcast episode about free will, which is definitely worth checking out. I started thinking about the vastness of the universe and though I don't believe it's likely we are the only intelligent life in existence; if we were, what would it say about the human species? It has to mean that if true, it makes us all the more special, right? I think the answer depends on how you look at things.

You can make the case that if us humans on earth are the only forms of advanced life in an entire universe that has trillions of galaxies and trillions of planets within each galaxy, that it would make us so incredibly rare, that it would be impossible to argue that we weren't special. And that is a very valid point, where if someone believed that I couldn't possibly say they were wrong. In fact, I might believe it myself. However, let's view things from a different perspective and see if I can maybe provide an alternative take on just how extraordinary human life is.

Yes, human beings are unique. We are capable of incredible things. The pyramids, skyscrapers, governments, currencies, nuclear weapons, vaccines, leaving our own planet and landing our own on the moon, landing rovers on Mars. Throughout our history, humans have achieved unbelievable things. Yet, we aren't alone in this when it comes to the extraordinary. Supergiant stars, black holes, quesars, magnetars are all capable of insane things. The fact that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so powerful that not even light itself can escape. Light. The thing we take for granted every single day, so much so, we don't take the time to stop and think of what it actually is. In the vast star ocean we call space, something so infinitely big will always have something discovered that is unique and amazing. Scientists discover them all the time. Just because they may not have a mechanism called a brain, doesn't make them any less incredible.

Some might argue that one day, if our species lives long enough, humans might change the universe as we know it. Turn it into an intergalactic haven for life. Travel between galaxies, establish trade not between countries, but between planets. The ability to extend life to virtually endless horizons. And yet, the universe is changing all the time even without us. Galaxies collide and destroy one another. Stars explode and wipe out everything remotely close to them when they supernova. A giant meteor could take earth out tomorrow and every human along with it. And the universe would continue along without batting an eye like we never existed.

Everything we know of in the universe is matter: made up of atoms, and quantum particles. We all have that in common. After all, atoms in our bodies came from exploding stars at one part in our universe's history. All matter, whether it's protons, electrons, photons, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, planets, stars, or anything in between all exist to perform a certain task. The universe exists unto itself, it doesn't care what those tasks are, but we all have our own role to play nonetheless. What we accomplish as humans is meaningless to the universe. We can't stop the universe or destroy it. We can't grow it our shrink it. We exist within it like all other matter. What makes us more special in our role than the role of a star or a black hole or a comet?

Our roles as human beings comes almost entirely from an evolutionary and biological nature. We need to think highly of our capabilities and our accomplishments, otherwise we'd never have the motivation to advance as a species. We need to feel like our advancements are contributing and mean something in the grand scale of the universe. But are our accomplishments any more important or significant than say that of quantum particles? Particles are performing tasks every fraction of a second 24 hours a day all around us and within us. We wouldn't exist without these particles. Nothing would. They're performing a task they are designed to do, making up everything that we observe in the universe. Just because we can't see it happening with our naked eye, doesn't mean it isn't important. When we achieve something considered groundbreaking, like landing on the moon, we all applaud ourselves and high five each other. As we should. Accomplishments like that are objectively impressive. However, we do this in the context of ourselves. We find what we do important. No one else does. No animal or insect cares about these things. They don't even know they're happening. There are no stars or planets or comets out there applauding us. They don't care. Nor does the universe. It exists irrespective of how we act or live our lives.

So in the end, just how special or unique is the human species? Are we possibly one form of intelligent life in an unfathomably massive space? Or are we one entity among an infinitely large number of entities that all perform specific tasks within a universe, that couldn't care one bit about who we are and what we've done? I think you can make the case for either. I'm not sure what I believe, but I wanted to share both perspectives to give you something to think about.

2020's social justice movement has backfired, as things in America have gotten objectively worse for minorities

 It's one thing to identify a problem in this world. It's another thing to identify how to solve that problem. 2020's social justice reckoning brought about an important landmark in America, but how it will be remembered will depend entirely on the solutions and reactions to those problems.

Since mid 2020, the US has seen both homicide rates and hate crimes rise exponentially. If it is true that the sanctity of human life is our most precious treasure, then it's impossible to argue that life in America for minorities has not gotten objectively worse. Most of these crimes are taking place in major cities, where the majority of people of color in America reside. In 2020, you saw homicides in America rise from 2019 by over 35% according to recent analysis. Individually some cities' rate, both large and small, rose by over 100%. In 2021, homicide rates continue to increase in many cities. In Philadelphia for instance, homicides rose to 500 in 2020, up from 356 the year before. As of a few weeks ago, 2021 is on pace for close to 700 murders. We're talking 1990's level violence in some major cities.

Since defunding the police, Portland's homicides are up roughly a whopping 2,000%. Is that entirely due to merely defunding the police or a coincidence? I'll get into that shortly. Many of the lives lost in these major cities are black lives. Many of them children, even. If the goal of social justice is to protect life, and therefore, prevent death, then we have failed, as have our solutions to this problem.

The question is why have they failed? In part, I believe because a lot of proposed solutions came from a place of emotion and not logic. People were angry, sad, hurt, and were not in a place psychologically to think of rational solutions to the problems of racial injustice in America. Solutions proposed were to strip away the funding from police departments, who, very often, are the only entities equipped to protect minority neighborhoods. Especially ones gang and drug ridden. The argument was that "we'd only be taking away some money to invest it into communities and help in other areas, and wouldn't affect the departments' ability to do their jobs." And how has that worked out? Already, several cities are rushing to pass legislation to increase funding, as there are a shortage of officers in some communities, that are now ill-equipped to be protected. Many officers have resigned and/or retired due to the lack of backing from their city and state leaders. And some, like Michael Brown's father, have questioned how donations to Black Lives Matter are being used.

Anyone who thought logically about the drawbacks of defunding the police departments could have seen this coming. I wrote about this several times. I'm no expert, though I do spend a lot of time reading and blogging about crime. All I did was think rationally, take the emotions of an incredibly emotional situation out of it, and realized that this was going to backfire. For minority communities most of all. In fairness, I do believe that some of the homicide spikes in were due to 2020 COVID lockdown frustrations, but not as many as originally assumed by some. As homicides spike even more in 2021, and America is more open than it was in 2020, that no longer stands up well to scrutiny.

Another area we have failed, was the allowance of Critical Race Theory rhetoric to permeate our culture and institutions the way it has in recent years. Not just with with homicides, but with hate crimes as well. Just recently, after a spike in hate crimes against Asian Americans, The Chinese American Citizens Alliance of Greater New York (CACAGNY) released multiple statements condemning Critical Race Theory for the poison that it is, knowing full well its potential for harm. Some of whom see very familiar Maoist ties in its rhetoric, and "struggle sessions" often pushed by institutions who adopt CRT. Hate crimes in 16 of America's largest cities rose by 145% in 2020. We'll see where the 2021 stand once the year ends, but there appears, at least on the surface, to be a substantial amount to start the new year.

Yes, some of this is linked directly to COVID. Just like after September 11th, hate crimes rose against Muslim Americans in the US, it stands to reason(unfortunately) that after COVID hate crimes against Asians are going to rise. However, not every perpetrator is what many would refer to as a "Trumper." Many of them haven't been. Most of these are coming in Democratic cities with people of all races committing these crimes. I think it's a variety of factors, but Critical Race Theory propaganda ties in directly as well. In recent years, Asians have been discriminated against, for being very good earners in America, and being very well represented in prestigious universities as a demographic. Some publications have start lumping in Asian Americans with white people, in certain race-based studies. A tech company advertised a job that was only open to "non-Asians." A San Francisco school board member accused Asians of using "white supremacy to get ahead." And the term "Yellow Privilege" was used as an adjacent to the term "White Privilege" as a way to demean individual Asians, and infer that they have protections under criminal law. As if there isn't more to an entire race of people and their accomplishments than one tiny slice to analyze. Notice the terms "oppressor" and "oppressed" in the attached photo, both staples of CRT.

Critical Race Theory teaches us that only two types of people in the world exist: the oppressors and the oppressed. That we must view every situation race-first. That racism is the single defining factor in every major societal, government, or corporate decision. That racism is incurable. That minorities in America can't succeed on their own, and need white Americans to ally with them, while simultaneously also saying that white people are irreparably racist, are born racist, and are solely the cause of every racist policy in America. CRT is both hypocritical and regressive. It's both racist, and sophistry. It's no wonder hate crimes and homicides are rising. The ability to relate to one another and see each other as human beings is being eroded. Instead, we blame and point fingers. We ridicule and demonize. We strip down each individual's complex identity down strictly to their immutable characteristics. Recent surveys have shown the unwillingness to speak or interact with others is rising. How are we supposed to have complex conversations and understand one another if we are afraid to speak to one another or when one side already has decided the other is wrong about any given issue? How can society come together to cure racism if it's taught society is irreparably corrupt and racism exists in everything aspect of it? What would be the point in even trying if that's what you were led to believe?

What has spawned is resentfulness, anger, and the increased likelihood to treat someone as subhuman, whether it's killing them or committing hate crimes against them. This will come true if you view them less as an actual person with complex beliefs and ideas, or are taught that person you don't even know either hates you or has wronged you just by existing. It's going to be much easier to feel helpless and resort to desperate acts, including violence, if you believe you never have any chance of making something of yourself regardless of how hard you work. And over time, the racial divide from this rhetoric will continue to grow as certain communities grow bitter and resentful, as any injustice committed by one ethnicity against another will be affirmation of any ignorant belief that one ethnicity is out to destroy the other. There are a lot of areas where society has fallen short, but we'll never find solutions to those problems if we cannot get along with one another. As some institutions, particularly universities, where our young adults go to grow and learn; have started to adopt segregation-based policies under the influence of CRT, that feels less and less likely everyday.

So, what is the solution? To start, our nation's biggest entities should stop listening to the vocal extreme activists, that's for damn sure. If they had it their way, Capitalism would be abolished for some form of Marxism, every person with money, no matter if self-earned, would have everything they own stripped away and be redistributed; police and prisons would be done away with; and race-based segregation would return to every aspect of society. The institutions that lead this country need to grow a backbone, and stop listening to vocal minority of social media mobs who have no idea how anything in society actually works. Most importantly, people need to get together and have discussions on how to solve complex issues and be okay with disagreement. We need to use logic and sound rationale instead of our emotions on how to fix what is damaged. We need to base decisions on research and data, not feelings. We need to not over-correct on things that may only be partially broken, where minor tweaks could make a much more positive impact than wholesale changes, because often those over-corrections bring about more problems than originally existed. Like defunding the police and stunting their ability to protect its citizens; or corporations hiring diversity, equity, and inclusion directors who implement struggle sessions in the workplace where you get openly shamed based on your skin color, like Jodi Shaw experienced at Smith College. Then maybe, someday, we can see real social justice in America, instead of just preaching about it.

Philly sports is in its worst state since the 90s

Hope: it's what every sports fan craves. Especially in times like these in the midst of a pandemic, where you need a little something extra to get you out of bed in the morning; the excitement and hope that your sports teams are good enough to win a championship can bring that additional boost you need to get through the day. This is why, as bad as the 2012-2016 period of Philly sports was, one thing it gave the fans was hope. All four teams sucked at the same time. Yes, it was brutal to endure. There were many losses. But most fans realized that all four teams were in the process of cleaning the slate and rebuilding, so sometime soon all four teams would be good at the same time... if only they didn't blow it.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened, sans the Flyers. The Sixers via Bryan Colangelo and Elton Brand squandered asset after asset, the Eagles allowed an organization that seemed unbreakable to be pulled apart at the seams via bad drafting and meddling, and the Phillies' owner got cheap and decided to cut off the funding needed to better his baseball team. Obviously, those are brief summaries as to how we got here, a lot more went into it, and I'll dive more into how we got here and where we are going.

Philly sports sucks right now collectively. The only team that has a chance to bring the city a championship are the Flyers and I don't think anyone would call them the "favorite" to bring home the cup. Still, the Flyers are an up and coming team and deserve the excitement around them. Even with that, only having one of the four teams in the city with any chance to bring a parade to Philly makes for a bleak situation in our sports landscape. Let's go through the teams one by one and dissect what makes it all so depressing, and give each team a prognosis on their future and how long it will take to get back to a championship contending level.

The Eagles:

The Eagles are going to be upwards of 70 million dollars over the cap. They're an old roster. To get under, they are going to have to cut key players, restructure deals which will hurt future cap years, and won't have the ability to do much of anything in free agency. The team has very little young elite talent, if any, as they've drafted one Pro Bowler since 2016. The main culprit of the poor drafting and roster is Howie Roseman, who Jeff Lurie has an unfathomable attachment to. So much so, that he completely skirted Roseman of any blame in his recent zoom conference with reporters. He made excuse after excuse for poor drafting and the organization's steady regression. He refuses to acknowledge the level of dysfunction that has taken place under Roseman's watch. From 2001-2010, the Eagles had 6 seasons in which they won playoff games. Between 2011-2020?  Two. Howie Roseman took over as full-time GM in 2010. Since then, there have been organizational squabbles left and right, a decline in drafting, and no longer being the yearly Super Bowl contender they for most of Reid's tenure.

The previous two coaches had disagreements with Roseman and both were driven out of town. Executives and scouts from the personnel department are routinely driven out, yet Roseman continues to be the last man standing every single time. He is apparently untouchable and infallible in Lurie's eyes. They've gotten lucky in their previous two coaching searches where they targeted Chip Kelly and Gus Bradley in 2013, both of whom ended up sucking with their respective teams. They targeted Adam Gase and Ben McAdoo in 2016, where again, both candidates ended up being total disasters. They lucked into Doug Pederson, and according to reports tried to fire key offensive coaches after the 2016 who went on to be key voices for the 2017 Super Bowl run. Doug Pederson reportedly saved their job, and hysterically, even Pederson's job status was reportedly on the line after 2016, a sure sign he was never their first choice once they settled on him. How can this dynamic be trusted to lead another coaching search? Nevertheless, it is going to.

The culture of the franchise is toxic, there's finger-pointing and a general feeling of distrust among many key people in the organization, leading to multiple leaks out of the Novacare Complex on a weekly basis. They may not even have a QB on the roster who is worth a damn, and they currently have two they invested significant draft capital and resources into. 

This situation requires a multi-year rebuild even if they nail their head coaching search as well as the draft. And if they don't, which is a big 'if' who knows how long we could be looking at to get this team back into contention. If everything goes absolutely perfect, they're looking at 3 years minimum into becoming a team that can make a deep playoff run. At the very least, they will need to find a franchise QB at some point, if that guy is not currently on the roster, and given the Eagles' poor drafting and talent evaluation under Roseman's watch, that is no guarantee to happen any time soon.

Eagles prognosis: 3 years - 5 years/indefinite(depending on how long Roseman remains)

 

The Sixers:

The Sixers are a good team. To call their situation "dire" would be hyperbolic and unrealistic. Their problem is not the quality of the team, it's how far they are from winning a championship. The NBA is unlike other sports. It's one of the hardest to build a team in, given that you need a very specific thing to win and almost nothing else will suffice: top 10 players. And more than one. This is what wins in the NBA, it's what has always won in the NBA. You don't build a roster full of well-coached overachievers and expect to outplay a talent-driven team with hard work. You either have multiple top 10 players on your roster or you don't. And if you don't, you better at least have one of the top 3 guys or you aren't making a championship run. 

The Sixers currently have one top 10 player, and their next best player is borderline top 25. In a league driven more and more by scoring, it's not ideal their second best player is a below average offensive player. In a guard and wing driven league, in the playoffs, other teams with more and better stars at the guard and wing positions, are simply going to be too much for the Sixers. The Sixers are not built to compete with the NBA's elite. The problem is, they don't have a clear path to reaching that elite level.

Once Bryan Colangelo and Elton Brand used up their stockpile of assets, and allowed Jimmy Butler to leave, the Sixers relegated them back into a luxury version of purgatory. They aren't in the Iguodala-led Sixers purgatory, which topped out as a .500 team. The Sixers are good enough to be a top 5 seed and win 50+ games, but are not good enough to win a championship. And in a sport where the cream of the crop almost always wins the title, good enough is not good enough, whether you win 40 games or 53 games.

The Sixers blew an opportunity on Wednesday to acquire one of the NBA's 5 best players. It would have given them a duo of multiple top 10 players that is so critical to winning championships in the modern NBA. As I've written in my previous blog post, that may not be so easy. The Harden market was surprisingly very thin, and to acquire a player of that caliber with their lack of tradeable resources is going to be very difficult. Especially if a bevy of other teams get into the mix for said players. Their most likely options are going to be filling in more role players, which will not put them above the top NBA teams, leaving them improved but still short of their ultimate goal. Joel Embiid is 27 and has a long history of injuries. Who knows how long he is going to play at an MVP level. Big men typically don't play at an elite level for long, so his window might be smaller than fans would want to believe. With the clock ticking, if Daryl Morey can't bring them that missing superstar within the next 3 seasons, we may be looking at a situation that needs to get blown up all over again and rebuild. The prognosis of the Sixers easily has the most variance of any team. If Morey works his magic and lands that player they could win one within a year. If not, who knows?

Sixers prognosis: 1 year to indefinite

 

The Phillies:

The Phillies have the luxury of playing in a sport where wildcard teams can win championships. Granted, you still need great players, but if you get hot at the right time, you can make a World Series run. The Phillies were not the favorites to win a title in 2008, and found themselves on the wrong side of this in the ensuing years where they were among the favorites and were bested by lesser-talented teams.

Unfortunately for the Phillies, to make a wildcard run, you kind of have to make the postseason, and right now the Phillies are a last place team in all likelihood, and at best a 4th place team. The other teams in the division simply have too much talent in key areas, and we don't even know if two highly important pieces in JT Realmuto and Didi Gregorius will be back in 2021. The Phillies aren't great in any one facet of the team, be it pitching, hitting, bullpen or defense. They don't have a stacked farm system to bring up players and lead them on an unexpected pennant run. To rub salt in the wound, all the teams in the division have superior farm systems to the Phillies, putting them at an even greater disadvantage.

On top of all that, John Middleton has shown a total lack of competence running his organization. He's decided to cut off the funds after promising to do everything he can to bring a World Series back to Philly, and that he'll "die trying." He showed no willingness to improve his front office until his team became the laughingstock of the sport, finally hiring a new president of baseball operations, who seems like a poor fit for this current organization that desperately needs a man known to build programs rather than get them over the top. Middleton has shown indecisiveness in handling his front office, flip-flopping on decisions he's made, and sometimes admittedly, allowing fan sentiment to affect his decision-making. He's shown a total lack of conviction in any aspect of his ownership tenure. The Phillies seemed committed to sticking with Andy MacPhail and Matt Klentak... until they weren't. With the Phillies' lack of a deep farm system, it would have been ideal for them to hire someone know to build from the ground up. Dave Dombrowski is a closer. He gets teams over the top that are close, with boom or bust trades. The Phillies don't really have a ton to trade, so he has always seemed like a poor fit, but if nothing else he's better than Matt Kentak and Andy MacPhail.

Still, it's hard to be optimistic about their chances both currently and in future. With other teams being deeper, younger, and with better prospects, and having ownership more willing to spend, the Phillies have the most dire future in Philadelphia sports.

Phillies prognosis: 5 years to indefinite

 

The Flyers:

Full transparency: I haven't watched a Flyers game in 5 years. I keep tabs on them from afar. What I can tell you is they finally found a legitimate goalie, which they've lacked for decades, and they're a young up and coming team with exciting players and promise. Alain Vigneault has pushed all the right buttons in motivating his guys, and in a sport where bottom seeds can get hot and go on a cup run, the Flyers, while maybe not the favorites, are the only team in town capable of bringing this team a championship any time soon.

Flyers prognosis: 1 year to 3 years

The current landscape of Philadelphia sports reminds me of the mid to late 90's. During that stretch, the Flyers were the only team that had a real shot to bring Philly a championship. The Eagles were mediocre, the Sixers were floundering until they got Iverson, and even then took a while to build something, and the Phillies were poor. Our teams were leaderless and directionless and were relying on luck to improve, rather than planning, brains, and competence. Once that dreadful era of Philly sports reached its conclusion, we never really had a hopeless stretch of Philadelphia sports until the year 2012.

And like I noted earlier, even then it was only hopefully in terms of short-term winning. All four teams just happened to be rebuilding at the same time, so you had hope that at some point within a few years all would get good again and be on the rise. But what do we have now? I see one team in the city with a clear path toward a possible championship and a whole lot of murkiness. Much like in the late 90's. Teams that are either totally dysfunctional, don't care enough, or are backed into such a corner where any realistic chance of getting out will require an unbelievable masterstroke of roster moves and luck.

If this city gets one championship in the next 5 years from any of our teams, I would gladly take it, because if things play out the same way they did in the 90's, it could take us more than a decade to get our next. The sports gods need to shine down something on Philadelphia and fast, or we have a rough era of Philly sports to come. At the very least, to give us hope once again.

While not without risk, the Sixers blew a once in a lifetime opportunity by missing on James Harden

Acquiring James Harden was not without risk. He allowed his weight to get out of control just to force his way out of Houston, he stopped caring on the basketball court, and became such a detriment to the locker room that teammates publicly said they don't care if he leaves. James Harden has been known to sometimes clash with teammates, and coming to Philadelphia, getting along with Joel Embiid would've been paramount, as well as dropping that excess weight he tacked on during the winter.

Even having said all that, barring the trade demand from Houston being so extreme, as in something like Ben Simmons, Tyrese Maxey, Matisse Thybulle, three first round picks and four pick swaps; I think the Sixers made a major mistake in not bringing the superstar to Philadelphia.

James Harden is a top 5 player. There are only so many of them available... um, 5 available to be exact. And not only was he available, but he wanted to come to Philadelphia. That is the first time in my life a top 5 NBA player had Philly as his preferred destination, and I'm approaching 40 years old. Those opportunities in this city pretty much never happen. Not only that, but allowing him to go to the Nets strengthens one of your eastern conference rivals, making the road to the NBA Finals that much tougher.

Pivoting away to other stars isn't going to be as seamless as people make it out to be. The Colangelos, and Elton Brand left the Sixers with very little tradeable commodities. They have two significant ones: Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons. The former, you need to keep and build around and the latter, whose value depreciates by the week as he continues to show that he is just a below average offensive player in a league built around scoring guards and wings. The price in trading for star caliber talents is exorbitant. The benchmark was set months back when Jrue Holiday was traded to Milwaukee. The compensation included multiple first round picks and swaps for a player who isn't even close to James Harden's ability.

For the Sixers to pivot and land a guy like Bradley Beal, the price is going to be astronomical. We're talking Simmons, Thybulle, and multiple first round picks and pick swaps. And the Sixers will be operating from a disadvantage this time around given that Harden actually preferred to want to come to your team, and his antics, age, and contract(2 years plus player option) remaining turned off a lot of other teams who had more assets than the Sixers to trade. This came down to the Sixers and Nets - the one team the Sixers had more assets to offer in any trade, and were steal beaten out by them. Good luck acquiring Bradley Beal when teams like the Warriors, Pelicans, Thunder, Heat, Nuggets, Celtics, and others will likely be in the mix this time, while Ben Simmons' value continues to decline.

Then when you look at other players maybe a couple tiers down from Harden and a tier down from Beal, you get to players like Zach LaVine. Guys who are in that "niche" spot where trading Ben Simmons is too much, but you don't really have that other piece to get those players in deals. The Sixers were always going to have to rely on trading Embiid or Simmons to get that missing piece, as their roster consists of very few valuable pieces to bring in an impact player.

I trust Daryl Morey generally. Most people should, he's a tremendous executive. But great executives make mistakes. Daryl Morey pursued Jimmy Butler a few years back, and lost out on him. A move that may have propelled them past the Warriors and winning an NBA title. I think this is one of those times he made a mistake. Arguably the biggest of his career. I think it's highly unlikely an opportunity will come like that again, and I actually think the most likely scenario is Simmons and Embiid remain your two top guys going forward and the team cycles through complimentary pieces every offseason hoping one gets them to a championship level.

NBA superstars at peak greatness when traded very seldomly don't work out. Sometimes the trades work out well for both teams, but not often in the NBA does a top 10 player get traded at a good age and health, and the team that acquires them come to regret it. And I don't believe you necessarily have to win a championship for the deal to work out either. The Sixers wouldn't have just acquired a top 5 player by landing Harden. They wouldn't have just kept him from the Nets. They would've acquired a minimum of two years of hope for a championship the fans haven't legitimately had for 20 years. Think about that. The last time this city had legitimate NBA championship hopes was two decades ago when Iverson's Sixers took on the Lakers. Hope in itself has value to a sports fan and a city.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of Philadelphia always finishing as the runner-up for superstars. I'm tired of seeing cities like LA, NY, and Boston land big fish, while Philly punks out when the price gets too high, and see the trades lead to championships for their cities. I said it in a previous blog piece: Philadelphia operates like a small-minded sports town. We had our chance to land a big fish and puff our chests out for the first time in a while, and that opportunity was squandered yet again. Such is the present day norm for Philadelphia, it seems.

The Poisoning of the American Mind, Weak American Leadership, a New Norm in America, and What To Do About It

 As I sat in horror watching Wednesday's events unfold at the Capitol in DC, I, like many others probably asked themselves "What could possibly lead to behavior this radical?" Maybe part of the answer at least is sitting there right in front of us and we don't even realize it.

I've said for a long time that social media is toxic, and is creating an army of sociopathic individuals devoid of empathy and compassion. When you spend all your time conversing and interacting with other individuals through short bursts of text other than real conversation, you become detached. Humans were designed to interact face to face. To see emotion in another person's face. To read their body language. It's what invokes empathy and feeling. However, another byproduct of mass social media use is propaganda. Never before has there been a tool so effective at spreading misinformation, and our addiction to these platforms leads to constant inundation of this rhetoric, causing more people to eventually believe a whole lot of nonsense.

Our politicians, media, pundits, scholars, celebrities, and entertainers all push blatant information out into the social media sphere, for gullible people to gobble up. It distorts the perception of reality and creates a culture of anger and division. In other words, the American mind is being poisoned.

Ask yourself would yesterday have occurred without social media? Would thousands upon thousands of people have descended upon DC yesterday if their only exposure to propaganda or rhetoric were sporadic statements by Donald Trump on TV? Or did it take weeks and weeks of rhetoric being pounded into the brains of Americans, not just by Trump, but my other users spreading misinformation and misleading rhetoric 24 hours a day collectively? There probably would have been some people down at DC yesterday without social media, but I highly doubt it would have been the massive sea of people it was without these platforms.

Ask yourself if factions like Q Anon would exist without social media. Without the ability to spread asinine conspiracy theories to a wide user base in an instant, would this entity even exist in its current form without social media?

This goes beyond just yesterday's events. Throughout 2020, the country was plagued with riots, insurrections, and looting. Social media was informing the public that police violence in America was out of control and people of color were being "actively hunted." If someone were to believe that, of course they would be freaking out. They would be terrified, panicked, and angry. The problem is, it's not true. Police violence against people of color was its lowest in decades... and those are just total numbers, not per capita, which make it even lower. The number of unarmed black men shot and killed by cops dropped by over 60% from 2015 to 2019. More bad cops are being prosecuted and sent to prison than ever. Crime in general has decreased, making the 2010 decade(2010-2019) the second greatest decade on record for crime in the United States. That's not to say there aren't racist cops. Of course there are. And when these scumbags are found, they need to be removed from the force, and if they commit wrongdoing they need to be charged and locked up.

Social media would have you believe otherwise, however. When you are constantly inundated with propaganda and rhetoric, you'd believe the opposite to be true. And many people do. A recent poll showed a significant portion of the population believes gun violence in the United States is the worst it has ever been in American history, when that couldn't be farther from the truth. 

Americans have been lead to believe falsities pushed by people with an agenda, and it's causing division and discord in our society. It's causing us to hate our fellow men and women who we likely agree on 95% of life issues with. It's unhealthy and unsustainable.

Weak American Leadership

Just last night, people were pushing a narrative that if the rioters and insurrectionists weren't a bunch of white people, things would have gone differently. Maybe. It's certainly possible. I'm not often one to write off the possibility of something until we know for sure. But maybe not. If you're going to make accusations, at least back it up with some evidence and data to support your theory. I don't know about you, but in 2020 I saw regular rioting and looting with very little repercussion. I saw a police precinct burned to the ground by a massive crowd of rioters of all races in Minneapolis, not to mention countless other buildings. A police precinct, the home base of a police department. Did they gun down the rioters and cause mass casualties? No, they ran away

I see weekly rioting and looting in Portland and Seattle. Again, people of all ethnicities going building to building smashing every window in sight and setting fires in many. The cops do absolutely nothing but make a few arrests, most of whom are released on bail the next day and never charged.

I saw Philadelphia get rioted and looted and the police doing absolutely nothing to stop it. People raiding a Walmart and picking the store clean without an officer in sight.

I saw insurrectionists, of all races and backgrounds take over a section of a city in Seattle, dub it an "autonomous zone" and operate unimpeded for weeks until police stepped in... only after innocent people(some kids) were murdered in its confines. 

I saw officers standing guard in front of a courthouse in Portland on dozens of occasions, having bricks, molotov cocktails, glass, stones, and explosives thrown at them by crowds of people of all races, and doing very little about it.

Yesterday's response was per the norm in this country. Rioting and looting goes unpunished. That's the precedent we set in 2020 and yesterday was a reflection of that. Do you honestly think that officers guarding the Capitol stopped to think about the race of these lunatics yesterday? Being assaulted, screamed at, having things thrown at them, all while knowing that it's the job of a few select officers to guard one of our nation's most precious building with its most important people... you really think during the madness, chaos, and carnage they stopped to think about race? If you do, then your mind has been poisoned.

Yesterday was a byproduct of weak American leadership more than anything. Officers have been undermined and abandoned by our leaders for months. Many have resigned because of it. Very few have stood up for them, while they endured months of ridicule and demonization. Our leadership in America is so weak, the very entity they rely on to protect us, were neglected in favor of violent extremists looking to burn our cities, telling them to stand down and don't engaged while their cities are torn apart. And naturally, these same leaders were the first ones to call the cops whenever their personal safety was compromised or threatened, while pushing for these same departments to be defunded.

Cries to strip law enforcement of any means to prevent rioting and looting came from all corners of the country. Banning choke holds, banning tear gas, banning pepper spray. Banning the use of rubber bullets. These tools used to deter and prevent mass carnage were condemned because some claimed "they violated the first amendment rights of peaceful protest" while many news agencies refused to condemn the rioting and burning altogether.

And some cities did just that. Some cities pushed and enacted policies to ban some of these methods. And the ones that didn't? Total demoralization of their police forces. Knowing their leaders won't have their backs and that if they so much as hit one rioter with a rubber bullet in the face, their identity will potentially be put on social media and mobs of angry people will show up at the officer's house threatening them and their family.

The New Norm

So, why did yesterday happen so easily? Because this is the culture that was created in 2020. By catering and cowering activists, we have stripped law enforcement with means to combat these angry mobs, both technologically and psychologically. It's a lose-lose situation for them. If they use tear gas or rubber bullets they're wrong, if they don't they're wrong. If they resort to lethal force they're evil and if they don't they're evil. We have created a culture that tells us destruction and violence is okay if you do it in the name of a certain cause; to quote certain media types "When did protest ever have to be peaceful?" Their duty as leaders and politicians is to protect our citizens and our cities. Yesterday, in part, is the result of those failures. I believe if not for the events of 2020, police would have been more aggressive and better equipped yesterday. I strongly believe if law enforcement didn't endure an entire year of attempted suppression of crowd control tactics, things wouldn't have gotten as bad.

We can't have it both ways. We cannot tell law enforcement that they need to do less, need to be responsible for less, be less aggressive in counter-measures, have less money, but also do a better job at preventing incidents they are ill-equipped for. I said it during the summer, that this was going to come back to bite the country in the ass and was going to weaken the foundations of our law enforcement departments around the country, leaving them vulnerable to a seismic event like at the Capitol.

Meanwhile, these criminals have become embolded after months of inaction. You don't think the people down in DC yesterday were watching on TV and seeing hundreds of cities enduring rioting and looting with very few arrests and say to themselves "Hey, if they can get away with it, so can we."

What To Do About it?

So what can we do about it? How do we prevent mass rioting, looting, anarchism, and insurrections every time something happens that people have a problem with? The only solution I can think of are policy changes.

We need to enact rioting and looting laws that bring heavy punishment. If a riot breaks out and you even step foot inside of a business or building that is being raided? Minimum 5 years in prison with no possibility of early release. I don't care if you're that guy who casually strolled into the Walmart in Philadelphia after it had been ransacked and peacefully wheeled off with a washing machine. 5 years in prison-gone.

If you take part in rioting or looting and you have any type of weapon on you even if it has not been used maliciously? 10 years in prison, mandatory. No possibility of early release.

If you are caught using a weapon or instrument of harm during any of these events, 15 years in prison, no questions asked, and no chance of early release.

Every single person caught is prosecuted. No leniency. No sympathy. 

If things turn outwardly violent and rioters are using deadly weapons to put innocent civilians in danger? Authorized use of lethal force by law enforcement. We cannot allow one innocent civilian life to be lost in lieu of violent radicals.

The only way to deter crime is with crackdowns, and we're way beyond the need for reform at this point. This insanity has gotten way out of control after an entire year of pandering and cowardice from our leaders. We need to get law and order back in our cities and things back under control. Maybe Americans will think twice about taking part in these if they had more reason to fear for their freedom. Crackdowns have worked before with violence, and they can work again. Violence is skyrocketing in our cities, approaching 90's level benchmarks. Violence rates are going in the wrong direction after a great decade of progress. We need our politicians, leaders, lawmakers to step up and quell this madness before it is too late. Otherwise, who's to say the White House won't be the next building extremists decide to storm?