America's gun culture: is it beyond the state of repair?

I don't own a gun. I've never really had the desire to throughout my entire life outside of a small window where someone tried breaking into my home several years ago. It was really unsettling to feel unsafe in my own home, so I considered the possibility for a couple of weeks. The last thing I wanted to do was be awakened in the middle of the night with a stranger in my bedroom and having no means to protect myself. But over time that fear subsided, and I still have no strong desire to own a firearm at this current point in time in my life.

I've never really had an overly passionate stance on the gun debate. I've always believed that if every gun in America, both legal and illegal, up and vanished off the face of the earth, the US would have significantly fewer deaths and homicides every year. It would be exponentially safer. I don't think any sane person could even argue otherwise, guns account for the majority of homicides in the US, and half of suicides. Not to mention accidentally deaths factor in as well. And if tomorrow guns were hypothetically banned nationwide, I really wouldn't care much, because as someone who doesn't own a gun, it really wouldn't affect me. But at the same time, I've always tried to see the other side of people who advocate for guns. The woman who has the crazy ex-boyfriend stalking her, and is tired of looking over her shoulder all the time and wants a means of protection. The family that lives in an impoverished, drug and gang-ridden neighborhood ravaged by crime, and don't feel safe in their own homes with simple locks, security systems, and baseball bats. I could name a variety of examples of people and situations those who aren't gun nuts might feel the need to own a firearm just to feel safe in their daily lives.

There's no denying though, in my opinion, America does indeed have a gun problem. And a violence problem(I'll get to that later). Part of the reason the aforementioned bad neighborhood is unsafe, to the point where a family feels they need a gun for protection, is most likely because criminals who operate in these neighborhoods also have guns. Rise in crime, as we've seen over the last couple years with gun ownership increasing directly coincides with a rise in crime. Those people may not necessarily even be pro gun. They may just be thinking "As long as this country is going to have a gun problem, I may as well protect myself with the most effective weapon possible, because bad people certainly aren't going to stop getting their hands on them any time soon." And for that logic specifically, I can't knock anyone. After all, even someone like me who never had a desire to own a gun, felt that way for a brief moment of my life.

So one of the questions then becomes: if America has a gun problem, is it beyond the state of repair? Is this country too far gone? America has more guns than people. There are over 350 million guns in this country. And an incredibly deep historical culture and an affinity for guns. The gun culture in America is an entity unto its own. Unique in the western world. How do we get to a point where mass shootings become a rarity and homicides and/or gun deaths are significantly less frequent? Is it even possible? I'll explore each idea one by one. By the way, when I explore each one, I'm talking about how each idea would or could be implemented, not the likelihood it would make it through Congress and eventually become law. I think we all know the likelihoods on that(not very).

Universal gun ban: 

While if guns were universally banned tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eye, I don't consider this remotely feasible. Banning guns and offering some type of buy back program for 350 million firearms would be an undertaking unlike anything this country has ever seen. I don't see any conceivable way it could be effectively implemented, let alone enforced. And that's assuming people even complied, which I think a large portion of the gun-owning population would not. Policies only work if you get compliance. This is not Australia 1996. Australia didn't have the hardcore gun culture America has now, nor the excessive amounts of guns. The US has one major storm and trash collection gets backed up for a week, how the hell are they going to manage confiscating hundreds of millions of guns? And the tens of millions of gun owners who refuse to comply? What do we do with them? Throw them in jail? We don't have the prison space or the resources. Fine them? And if they refuse to pay those fines? Again, we don't have the prison space. Seize their assets? The last thing we need are millions more homeless people in this country. And what of those who claim their guns were stolen and hide them off their property? Hell, they could hide them on their property. We don't have the law enforcement prowess to go door to door through an entire nation looking for peoples' guns.

And then there's that other issue: bloodshed. People are die-hard about their guns, and I mean that in the most literal sense. "Pry it from my cold dead hands" is a slogan for a reason. People believe it. Those guns mean that much to them. If you've ever spoken to a hardcore gun advocate, you would know this. If there were a universal gun ban, maybe saying a civil war would break out is a little extreme, but there certainly are millions of people out there who will fight to the death to defend their right to retain those guns. And would take the use of force to remove them through government authority as the exact reason they need them in the first place, further strengthening their desire to keep them and fight for them. This would not go down without bloodshed, by any stretch. The question is how many people would die.

I consider this possibility extremely unlikely and unrealistic.

Further gun regulations?

Another one I'd be perfectly fine with. I think many more people would be in favor of this than an outright ban. Perhaps even many gun owners. Things likes separate licenses for every firearm, more thorough background checks, mandatory training to show you're competent to own one, giving a credible reason to want to own a firearm to authorities, raising the age limit, banning AR-15s, etc.

The AR-15 ban might face stiff opposition given that, like the outright ban, people who already own AR-15s may be forced to give them up, which would likely face strong push back. But most of those, I think many Americans could agree on. The question is: would they make a difference? If you have 350 million guns already in circulation, and any gun legislation is not retroactive, that would only impact the gun sales made henceforth. If that were the case, and guns became harder to acquire, illegal gun sales would likely dramatically increase, which means harsher penalties for illegal gun sales would have to face severe punishment and lengthy prison sentences. Would this make a difference with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation? I don't know. But I'd be willing to try. I think out of all the ideas, this one has the strongest likelihood of acceptance considering it's a decent compromise in between outright bans and doing nothing at all.

Tighter security nationwide in schools and other institutions?

This is one a lot of people seem opposed to, though I think it's because a lot of people who offer this solution want this in spite of gun regulations, not in addition. In addition to new regulations, I don't know why anyone would be against it. Tons of businesses and institutions already have tight security. The question is: is it feasible? Probably not. Where would the money come from to pay for it? Where is the manpower going to come from? There are thousands of schools in the US. And those are just schools. We don't have the resources to protect every building in the country where large amounts of people may be gathering. However, if individual schools, businesses, etc can afford it or find a way to make it work, and at the very least it gives those who frequent them peace of mind, by all means, go for it.

Making America a less violent place?

Contrary to the belief of some, the gun problem is just one of America's problems. America doesn't just have a gun culture, but it has a culture of violence. Take away crimes committed with firearms and America still has a higher crime rate than many countries. Like rape, assaults, batteries, non gun-related homicides, etc. Why are countries like Japan and South Korea just more peaceful and friendlier than ours? Why are they less violent? Japan was once a country steeped in war for centuries. It's not like it has no violence in its history. Once upon a time, all Japan knew was bloodshed. Yet today, it's significantly more peaceful than the US, when as recently as World War II it was involved in global violent conflict. I wish I had the answer to those questions. I think it's extremely complicated.

I do think mental illness has something to do with it. And yes, every country has mental illness. But not every country has the same rate of the same mental illnesses. There are mental illnesses like depression, bipolar, Tourette's, etc. And then there's mental illness like sociopathy and psychopathy. The latter being a major precursor for someone becoming violent as opposed to the former set of mental illnesses, which usually do not. Is America breeding sociopaths and psychopaths, when combined with the tools to commit mass violence we create killing machines with the means to succeed? And if so, how are we doing so? What is it about our culture that creates people who have a thirst for killing? America's also had a serial killer problem in its history. Many serial killers don't even use guns. Yet the state of California alone has had more serial killers than several nations combined.

People steadfast in their stances refuse to acknowledge both problems exist. Gun advocates refuse to acknowledge guns are a problem, and anti-gun people refuse to acknowledge America has a violence problem. Is it fixable? Honestly, with how little we know about the human brain and psyche, I'd bet my money than the gun problem is solved before the violence problem. Only one of those requires legislation. Which, depending on how elections and voting goes, and who gets in power, there is always a chance of that. Solving the violence issue and understanding the human condition in relation to its surroundings? That requires years of research, funding, technology, and innovation, which I fear we are a long ways away from.

 

So, given my thoughts on a variety of angles of these issues, did I even answer my own question. Maybe... somewhat? Do I think America is beyond the state of repair regarding its gun culture? Probably not. Do I think it's in an place for optimism? Also no. Do I think everyone will ever agree on every aspect of this issue? Not in our lifetimes. But I never say never.

 

On Lia Thomas and the trans athlete debate

I typically don't talk about or have much interest in any topics in the political sphere, unless those topics bleed into my areas of interest. It just so happens that over the past couple of years, that has happened quite a bit, being a lover of true crime and sports. Being someone who has played and watched sports for my entire life, one of the hottest stories in sports right now has piqued my interest. That being the ongoing debate about Lia Thomas, the trans woman swimmer who has been competing against(and dominating) women's swimming competitions. So I'm just going to throw my take on the whole situation out there, as it's something I've thought about a lot, and predicted would happen years ago.

I fully support anyone's right to live their life the way they choose to. And the freedoms to be who they are. I don't like to judge and I want equality for all human beings, regardless or race, sex, or religion. I've long been a supporter of trans rights, just like I've long been a supporter of gay rights. And I think trans women should have the right to swim and compete in swimming competitions. However, the core important value of sport and athletic competitions is fairness. Without competitive fairness, sports would cease to exist. It's why performance enhancing drugs are banned. It's why men and women's leagues are separate. It's why able-bodied athletes can't compete in the para or special Olympics or against those with disabilities. It's unfair. In sport, especially when contracts, scholarships, careers, bonuses, and more are all on the line, competing on a level playing field is absolutely vital.

Trans women have a distinct and significant advantage over biological women. Bone density, tendon strength, bone structure, size, muscle capacity, years of testosterone running through one's body. Even transitioning cannot fully eliminate these significant advantages, as studies have shown. Not that one would need studies to show this. There is no sane argument to the contrary. I've seen some people try to argue that men have no real advantages against women in sport, and that women and men's leagues are separate because "people are afraid that women will outperform men and men are too fragile to handle that possibility." If you are reading this and believe such a thing, you might as well just stop reading now. You're wasting your time and are too ideologically brainwashed to accept logic or reason, and no opinion piece of any kind on this subject is going to change your mind. You'll just be wasting your time.

Lia Thomas was a mediocre swimmer when she was competing as a male vs other male competitors. Lia ranked 462nd among male swimmers, and is now dominating the female competition as a trans woman. The world records in virtually all male physical sports dwarf the world records in the same sports of their female counterparts. The advantage in being a male or having been a male in physical athletics are, needless to say, enormous.

With all that said, I think it's pretty obvious at this point to where I stand on this issue. I don't believe trans women should be allowed to compete against biological women in athletic competitions that are counted towards money, Olympic qualifications, scholarships, contracts, or professionally. How does one show their support for the trans community and take the other side on an issue like this? To me, the answer to that question is simple. If you always stand up for what you think is fairest and makes the most logical sense, you will never betray your values as someone who strives for good. That's what I pride myself in. Looking at all the facts, and forming a well-reasoned and sensible opinion. Which is why I've thought about it enough to come up with some potential solutions or alternatives rather than callously booting trans women from sports, locking the door, and throwing away the key. I think there are ideas to make the best of a difficult and touchy situation that affects many different people. So here are some alternatives I thought of that could allow trans women the ability to swim and compete without taking away opportunities from biological women.

An "Open League" so to speak. A league where trans women can compete against against biological women, because biological women are totally okay with it or even embrace it. This would allow trans women to still be able to compete against biological women who choose to do so, but also spare biological women who wish to not compete at a disadvantage to have their own league against only other biological women.

A trans women's league. While in theory would be a good idea, I think it's a little more impractical than the former, as there simply aren't going to be enough trans women athletes to fill out the spots necessary to make these leagues sustainable. However, if there ever are enough women to make leagues like this work, or maybe the numbers of qualifiers and competitors in said leagues are adjusted to make it work, this could be a good alternative.

Trans women just compete against men. Probably would be the least popular of these three ideas. The argument against this is "If someone is a trans women and wants to be accepted as a woman, then competing against men would be an impediment to those desires." However, it shouldn't be viewed as an insult. The pinnacle of women's athletic achievement is to compete against men. It rarely happens, and when that instance does occur when a female athlete is so dominant that they have earned the right to compete against men, it should be(and is) celebrated. There is no greater praise for a woman to say she was so good at her craft, she was able to climb out of the ranks of women's athletics and compete against men. So in this case, it doesn't necessarily have to be something viewed as "disrespectful." Still, probably viewed as the least practical solution of the three.

And those are just three ideas. Smarter people than me could come up with more ideas than that which make sense and give the fairest of opportunities possible to all parties. What we can't do is allow blatant and clear unfairness to continue and affect women's sports as we know it. If this trend continues, women's sports will be forever damaged. World records unachievable by biological women will sit atop the leaderboards across all sports, demoralizing biological women who have aspirations of competing right out of the gate knowing those records can never be broken, so why even bother? Young female athletes may drift away from pursuing sports at a young age if they feel there will be competitors in their leagues that will always have an advantage over them no matter how hard and often they train. And over time, though it will start small, and more and more trans women join leagues, we'll have fewer and fewer biological women competing in sports. Tarnishing all women's records and competitive achievements they have earned throughout the decades prior. How as a society can we claim to love and respect women and equality for women, if we are willing to stain all their accomplishments? Women have nowhere else to go as it currently stands if they can't even compete in leagues if their own. It's not like they can all just jump to men's leagues and start competing. Men have the luxury of not having to worry about the trans sports issue. There is no biological advantage of a trans man competing against men. This issue only affects biological women.

Have I offered perfect solutions? Perhaps not. Though sometimes in life perfect solutions don't exist. Often in life, you can't have solutions to dilemmas that all parties are going to completely be content with. And in those situations, the best answers to those problems need not be decided by emotion or morality, but by logic and reason. The best decisions in life are often made with no emotional investment, and doing what makes the most sense when analyzing all factors. You can be both supportive of trans rights and trans people and not side with them on every issue. There is a narrative out there that if you don't fully capitulate to marginalized groups on every single societal issue, the reason is that you "hate them." I'm sorry, but if that's the way you feel, I'm here to tell you that's not how it works. It's a completely baseless and foolish argument that holds no water under the slightest amount of scrutiny. You can be a marginalized person and still be on the wrong side of an issue. Again, logic and reason decide what is right and wrong, not someone's identity or immutable characteristics. Inclusion should never supersede rationality and fairness. Not to mention, not all trans people feel that trans women should be able to compete against biological women anyway. There have been prominent members of the trans community, like Caitlyn Jenner - a former Olympic champion and a trans woman, who feel that it is unfair. What a lot of people don't understand is the trans community is not a monolith. Like any other demographic, they're a group of unique individuals with different ideas, beliefs, and opinions.

Is this a topic I'm super passionate about? No, though I do have an opinion on it and find it interesting to discuss and analyze, as there are so many layers to this debate. However, I always try to put myself into the shoes of others, and asked myself how I would feel if I had a daughter who trained hard for much of her life, only to miss out on qualifying in a particular competition because someone in the competition had biological advantages that were impossible for her to overcome based on something they can't control, like their sex. Think that is an overblown concern? Ask Reka Gyorgy, a female swimmer who missed out on the chance to make the Finals, being 17th ranked, because Lia Thomas was competing and claimed one of those spots. And as the acceptance of trans people in society continues to grow over time, as it of course should, and more trans athletes come out and join sports leagues, how many more Reka Gyorgy's are there going to be? How many women are going to miss out on scholarships and their dreams simply because they were born in a woman's body and with female anatomy?

Right now we exist in an odd place on this topic. Where per most polls, the majority of people disapprove of trans women athletes competing against biological women, but are too afraid to put their names behind it and come out and say it publicly, because they could lose their jobs, scholarships, and potentially be harassed online by angry activists. Over time, I do believe it's an inevitability that trans women athletes will be separated from biological women in athletics. The reason I feel that way? As of now, it's been largely mediocre or lower tier male athletes who transitioned to become trans women. At some point, it seems inevitable that elite world class male athletes will come out as trans and transition to become women athletes. And at that point, if someone like Lia Thomas, who was a mediocre male swimmer ranked 462nd is dominating women's swimming competitions and beating top tier swimmers; imagine someone with the physical prowess of a LeBron James or a Connor McDavid, or a Bryce Harper, or a Michael Phelps transitioning and competing in women's leagues. They would dominate to such a degree, it would make their entire leagues a complete and total laughingstock. You'd have women's teams with those players beating other women's teams by 50 points per game, every single game. You'd have trans swimmers beating the entire field in swimming by 5+ laps. Women's sports would turn into a complete and total mockery, and at that point it would be impossible for larger mainstream audiences to ignore. 

As of right now, there still aren't enough trans women athletes competing for it to become much more than "the story of the week" and there wasn't been widespread competitive balance issues affecting all women's sports leagues. But that time is coming. Whether it's in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or longer... it's coming. And when it does, we'll see how serious we are as a society in the way in which we tackle it.

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.