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.