My All-Entertainment NBA Team

After today’s news that the Golden State Warriors changed their names to the MONSTARS, I decided to draft my most entertaining hypothetical NBA roster. I stress most entertaining, because this isn’t a hypothetical “Best Team” one could assemble (although there is significant overlap), but rather which group of basket-ballers would ensure that on any given night you were sure to see something you hadn’t before.

I limited this hypothetical to only those players I’ve watched live TV at ten and older (1997 and sooner), which still includes His Airness, but precludes the Showtime Lakers, and other greats.

Starting Five: 

PG: Mid 2000s Steve Nash - There was a point where he was averaging 50/40/90 and crossing up

 helpless defenders all while his floppy hair seemed to rub it in with a “sup bro.” His signature move was dribbling under the hoop, appearing lost with no real destination in mind, and then suddenly either hitting a wide open 10 foot jumper or lobbing a jaw-dropping oop to Amare. Bonus: He and Kobe play 1 on 1 soccer before games on turf field put on the court.

SG: MJ | Kobe - Two of the greatest competitors to ever lace em’ up, and perhaps the two greatest shooting guards of all time. The hypothetical is even better when we throw in this kicker: Before each game, the two must battle in a one-on-one competition of the fans’ 

choosing to determine who starts that evening’s game. One night it may be Table Tennis, the next could be Checkers, and the next night could be a 50m breast-stroke swim. The competitions are recorded
and aired in the arena during halftime, further incentivizing fans to attend in person (video of the competitions aren't released to the public for 48 hours). On the court, we could expect plenty of showmanship, dunks, and defense. Best of all, each would enter the arena with the competitive fury of a bull at a rodeo.

SF: Vince Carter – For pure entertainment value, there are few who top Air Canada. Nothing against LeBron, but despite LeBron being a better all-around player, Carter’s dunking portfolio is 2^nd to none. With Vince in the starting line-up, fans are going to do whatever they have to do to make sure they are in their seats at tip-off. 

PF: Shawn Kemp | KG – Supremely athletic power forwards with a mean streak, both could dunk with the power of a center and the finesse and creativity of a shooting guard. KG is the better player, but as Kemp’s #1 dunkshows, it’s hard to beat Kemp’s almost comical insanity. As with Kobe & MJ, these two would have to battle each night to determine who starts. KG & Shawn would compete in a trash talk battle a la Nick Cannon’sWild n’ Out (sorry parents, this

definitely wouldn’t be a PG event). The team would bring in different judges each night to determine the starter, including local celebrities for away games.

C: Shaq – As great as Shaq was, he was also a genuinely funny dude. You’d want him on the team just for his soundbites, much less his ability to break a backboard. Bonus: Shaq has to take all of his free throws from the three point line. Double Bonus: He has to play point guard on 25% of his possessions.

Reserves

Steph Curry: Dude is ballet in basketball shoes and provides instant offense. Some would want him to start over Nash, but Nash gets the nod due to his passing ability. Bonus: He would have to wear his white shoes during each game. Kids would participate in a raffle to draw in colored pencil on the shoes before each game. Double Bonus: The other team is assessed a free throw for every 5 seconds his mouth-guard is out of his mouth.

Allen Iverson - Not my favorite athlete, but the “pound for pound…” comment rings true and he’s nothing if not entertaining. Bonus: He intros the team’s “Practice” segment before each game.

LeBron James: He doesn’t start over Vince Carter, but he probably finishes each game if it’s close. Bonus: He anchors a segment called “The Decision” that features team management and some of the decisions they have to make.

Antoine Walker – This team would obviously be winning by a large margin in most games; Antoine’s only on this roster for his shimmy.

Rasheed Wallace – Talk about entertainment value! From the Malice at the Palace to his litany of other technical fouls, this guy is the best “goon” basketball has seen. His volatile nature detracted from his play, but Mr. Wallace could most definitely ball. 

Hakeem Olajuwon – What could be better than pairing the almost zen-like Olajuwon with ‘Sheed? In my view, Hakeem is one of those greats who is still underrated (he has the most blocks in NBA history {granted, they weren’t recorded when Russell was playing}). He was also more athletic in his Phi Slamma Jamma days than may remember. The “Dream Shake” is also perhaps my favorite move (slightly edging Dirk’s one-legged fadeaway).

Dirk – It’s my list and I’ll add who I want, even if gangly white dudes draining threes may not provide great entertainment value. Bonus: watching the 7' Shaq to 7' Dirk drive and dish.

Woody Harrelson – Woody brings his “White Men Can’t Jump” role from the silver screen to the hardwood and becomes a mesh of everyone’s favorite hometown walk-on and B-list celebrity. Bonus: Woody stays in character just to incite drama with ‘Sheed and A.I.

Coach – Bobby Knight. Despite this team going 80-2, Bobby would still find a way to throw a chair.

Tell me you wouldn’t pay decent money and $11 for beers to watch this team?

Are Pro Sports Franchises a Public Good?

Are Pro Sports Franchises a Public Good? | 6.11.2016

It's a random fall Sunday with nothing on your social calendar other than avoiding the dread of the coming work week. You and your friend text a few emojis to commiserate the lack of events around town on this gloomy Sunday. Given the lack of activities and the impending rainstorm, you default to watch the big game, eat some brats, drink some beers, and reminisce about John Madden.

You could be described as a lukewarm fan, despite the recent success of the Omaha Omicrons, who have won 3 of the last 4 pigskin championships. Your interest in their rivalry game with the Little Rock Lizards is a half-notch above mild, but you know that your friend has been a lifelong Omicron fanatic, and he sports all of the jerseys, table coasters, and frozen mugs to match. You sit down to watch the game, and begin your slow march through a pack of brats and the newest Lincoln Lager varietal (don't ask why I picked Nebraska for this hypothetical). You enjoy the rest of the game, and even jump out of your seat when the Omicrons defeat the Lizards on a ridiculous last second fake-punt double reverse throwback to the eligible tackle. After the ensuing chest-bump and beer spill, you exit and make your way home to get ready for the week, your mood slightly better than it was 3 hours earlier.

During your walk home, you notice a flyer urging citizens to vote against using public dollars to fund the Omicrons proposed new stadium. You had heard about the new stadium, and despite the relative newness of the current Omicron Palace (you remember throwing up after you ate too much funnel cake in 5th grade), you hadn't thought much of the proposed stadium until now. The flyer emphasizes the nearly $200 million that taxpayers would have to put toward the stadium, and how these public funds would either raise tax dollars or impact other publicly funded initiatives. You whistle at the magnitude of this sum of money, and continue on your way home.

The rest of your walk was uneventful, other than nearly tripping over the curb, as your mind wandered back to the flyer. Although your daytime job was in accounting, your real passion was music and art, and a week hardly ever passed without you visiting the local Arts Center. You always enjoyed seeing school-children in attendance or others learning, and you were glad that the city had decided to help subsidize the cost of attendance and other exhibits. Your wife was a doctor, but she enjoyed finding time to help tend to the city's community garden, which was located inside one of the larger parks. You knew that while both the Arts Center and park both received private donations, the park especially benefited from tax dollars - there was hardly a day or weekend that went by when the park wasn't hosting an event or festival which were free to attend.

Thinking more about the $200 million the Omicrons wanted the public to spend to support their new stadium, you began to wonder what other initiatives that amount of money could support. How many teachers could we pay? How many miles of sidewalk or playgrounds could we build? How many jobs training programs could we implement? How many new parks could we build and maintain and how many new bus routes could start? Maybe we could finally increase our city staff's wages to reduce turnover and improve efficiency. You thought back to the game watching sauage-fest and recalled that despite the crazy ending everyone was talking about, your mood and emotional state were remarkably similar to what they were prior to kick-off. However, to be fair had to admit that your friend's weekend was actually transformed by the last second victory.

You began to float the $200 million stadium, the emotional rollercoaster the Omicrons' games seemed to always create, and the joy that you and your wife received from other publicly funded initiatives in your head, and the following questions began to percolate from your receding hairline:

• Were you simply an art loving elitist who wanted to suck the joy and happiness from every blue collar person out there? 
• Was a $200 million public investment in a football stadium, and the subsequent guarantee that your town would retain its sports team (and thus entertainment and a default 16 calendar events) worthwhile?
• Would this investment be justified if it were a more reasonable magnitude, as in, something closer to the value of the parks department's annual budget?
• Is a local sports team more intrinsically valuable than a local symphony, opera or theatre troup?

=========

This post isn't to debate whether it is economically effective for public entities to spend tax dollars funding stadiums. From a pure profit and loss analysis, the evidence is so one-sided against that it's not worth discussing. Sports teams are better at swindling public tax dollars to support them than they are fielding, receiving, dunking, or skating. And lately, sports teams are less and less satisfied with their current home, choosing to leave when the stadiums are hardly old enough to vote (Braves after ~20 years, Rangers after 22 years, Hawks renovating after <20 years, Mavericks already planning their next venue after 15 years).

Sports franchises are becoming increasingly more bold, threatening to leave not only if they don't receive public funding for their stadium, but if they don't receive public funding for state of the art facilities (even going so far to define state of the art as in the top 25% of all facilities!). In the excitement of tall cranes, shiny steel and massive jumbotrons, we often forget that the teams that we love to cheer are private businesses, allegedly part of the capitalist framework in which most other businesses operate.

This brings us to a philosophical question at the heart of the issue: do we consider our pro sports teams a public good? My open-ended thought of the evening I tried to capture in this hypothetical but all-too-real story is how much do we value having a sports team in our town? Are sports teams not only a local attraction but also an indicator of significance, in the same way that local Fortune 500 companies or being an airline's hub puts us "on the map?" Is it worth spending millions of dollars a year to be able to say "we have a team!?"

This isn't to say that I want to eradicate all pro sports leagues and franchises. While the fanaticism of certain sports (North American football) is specific to this country, the insanity for soccer and other sports around the global indicates that Americans are not alone in our passion for sport. Atlanta's Arlington's (TX) are not alone in appearing compelled to ensure they keep their sports teams in town (sorry Thrashers fans), even if it means shelling out huge subsidies, tax breaks, and wheel-barrows of cash. No mayor or city council person wants to have had the local fan-favorite team leave on their watch. 

League defining teams like the L.A. Lakers, New York Yankees, Boston Celtics, and Dallas Cowboys are entrenched in their respective regions and leagues, and are as synonymous as Hollywood, pizza rats, cannolis, and big hair, to their respective cities. However, these regions would likely be able to afford at least a few of their local sports teams with no public subsidy due to their population and reputation. However, I would imagine that many smaller markets would not be able to generate the same level of support for a team, as much to do lack of available season ticket holders as any other factor. 

Is it wrong for smaller regions to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on sports teams to "legitimize" their city? Would Sacramento be a better place to live if they hadn't invested in the Kings or Salt Lake City the Jazz? (also, you left New Orleans 4 decades ago, time for a name change) Would the average Joe or Jane embrace their region spending $500 million over 30 years on a new symphony hall and theatre...knowing that these places would charge $200 a ticket and $9 for beer?

I have no problem with jurisdictions spending public tax dollars on recreational goods like parks, school athletic facilities, trails, and similar facilities. I also have no problem with jurisdiction spending public dollars to  support educational institutions such as museums, art centers, symphonies, and theatres. I can sympathize with those who don't agree with this support, although part of my reasoning for supporting these causes is that they are typically not profit driven nor owned by billionaires.

 Yet, when billionaires, many of whom treat owning sports teams as a hobby or investment, request public funds and threaten to leave if they don't receive them, I have a problem. When public tax dollars are used on a massive scale to support a for-profit enterprise, even when the team and sport provide hard-to-quantify ancillary benefits such a "legitimacy," default social activities, and an excuse to wear ill-fitting mesh apparel, I have a problem.

Massive public support isn't limited to big cities. A tiny Mississippi town spent tens of millions to lure a minor league Braves franchise. According to Bloomberg, this resulted in the town's credit rating being lowered, and increased taxes, in effect the fiscal double play.

Interestingly, these subsidies are as prevalent as ever, despite the increasing reach of television and technology. The number of sports and streaming packages is as plentiful as ever, meaning that if you are a die-hard St. Louis Rams fan, you can still watch your team...even if they reside in L.A. As transient as many people in our current global economy, I think it's then fair at some level to ask, "who cares...? if your team leaves town for greener pastures. You can still watch them, and save the money for a festival, local college team, or wherever else you want to spend your hard earned cash.

If we wanted to restrict public funding to pro sports franchises, I'm sure there are multiple options, although most would likely require some level of government intervention. One idea that might provide flexibility but temper funding would be to cap stadium funding at the level of some other budget item or percent of a budget item. Below are a few examples:

• Stadium funding (and tax subsidies for the team) cannot exceed X% of the city's total annual school budget
• Stadium funding cannot exceed X% of total arts funding
• Stadium funding cannot exceed X% of jobs training programs

While this is most definitely government intervention, I am am hopeful that many sensible individuals could see the benefits of these strings to stadium and pro sports franchise funding. It would be nearly impossible for the federal government to pass such a law, but without federal intervention, teams would consistently move to states with fewer regulations (side note: If only a few states held out, it would be funny to see the entire NBA in 6 states. I can see it now...5 city councils in Montana and South Dakota vote to give $200 million for new arenas. Bison get in free), creating a nation-wide pro-sport franchise game of prisoner's dilemma.

There is no silver bullet to this issue, but there is likely a bundle of solutions that would help to address the public support of private sports enterprises. Consider talking to your respective city council members and mayors, and not giving a dime to your local sports franchise - you've already given your tax dollars!

Thoughts on Tipping

Tipping. Often our brain's last remaining useful application of mental math. You've had a nice meal with friends or your date and then the bill comes back. The stress begins and you tug at your collar or fidget with your jewelry as the thought bubbles begin to flood your mind:

How much to tip? (15%?)
Was the service really that bad? (20%?)
Was it really that good? (let's compromise at 18)
Who do I blame for that salty pork chop? (18?...Shit, I need a calculator)
I wanted ranch on the side!!! (I'll just round to the nearest dollar)
I know I tip the bellman but what about the person who cleans my room? (Carry the 1...)
I know restaurants are at least X percent, but what about the nail salon?
-Quick - let's leave before they see what we wrote!

While a stressful practice stateside, tipping is not practiced extensively in most developed countries, and it can even be considered rude.  From restaurants and bars to nail and hair salons, tipping is woven into many of society's transactions.  If not for credit cards, you'd need more $1's than Blondie if you were to take a cab from the airport to your upscale hotel, make a quick trip to the nail salon before dinner and then meet a friend for dinner.  As part of the tipping debate, it's necessary to emphasize that in many of these service industries, those receiving these tips rely on them as a significant part of their income, and without them, many of these workers would not earn what most consider a living wage.

A recent discussion prompted me to consider why we tip. Is it a customary procedure to keep our STEM skills sharpened?  Is it to reward those who are exceptional at their job - to in effect give micro-bonuses? As someone who is privileged/spoiled to have very limited service industry experience, I have no firsthand knowledge of the effort, patience and energy it takes to work these jobs.  Furthermore, this same privilege and desired career track has led me to a salaried position that provides 8 hours' pay, even when some hours are admittedly more productive than others. Most days I believe I add value to the projects I'm working on and teams I'm a part of; however, some days my mind drifts more than it perhaps should or I didn't sleep well or one or a hundred possibilities.
---
Pretend it's 4:00 on Friday, just before your 3 day weekend begins and the office is already nearly empty.  Or maybe you're not feeling well but can't afford to take time off.  Or maybe you've had a death or serious illness in your family but are still at work, trying to push through until the funeral.  Whatever the reason - hangover or heartache, many of us have the privilege of being able to continue billing hours, even when we know we're not giving our best work, and we know there will likely be no direct impact.  No one bills these hours at a lower rate or tells their supervisor - "I didn't deserve my full salary today when I was thinking about my ill family member...or my upcoming vacation"  Yet, conversely, how many of us start to wonder if we deserve a bonus after a few focused 10 hour+ days, weekend warrior campaigns, or back to back weeks of exceptional effort?
---
After that tough day at the office, you head to the nearest restaurant to avoid the effort of cooking and cleaning.  Your service is a little slow, the food isn't cooked to your liking, and they forgot to put ranch on the side.  Or, after heading to the salon after a long day at the office you notice your new 'do doesn't look quite as fresh as it usually does or perhaps your cab driver missed a street on the way home, adding precious minute(s) to your trip home.
In how many of these instances does your waitress/stylist/driver deserve a lower tip?  Most would argue that we tip on performance, just as salaries/bonuses are similarly influenced by production.  Yet, it could be argued that in service industries, the relationship between performance and compensation is both more immediate and greater in magnitude than in most professional industries.

Most professional jobs come with higher salary ceiling than most service industry jobs. Should society further reduce service industry workers' wages if they aren't at the very top of their game 100% of the time?  An alternative compensation structure would be to increase service workers' hourly wages so that they can earn a decent living without tips, and then encourage society only to tip when service is extraordinary.  If service is average, then the servers/stylists/etc will receive no additional money, but if they go above and beyond, you can leave an additional 5 or 10%, knowing that the worker will see this gesture to indicate a job well-done.  Workers are still incentivized to get it right and give extra effort, but are not punished severely on off-nights.
In addition to perhaps becoming a small solution to the nation's growing income mobility and inequality issues, this policy would simplify our shopping, dining, and transportation experiences.  Forget calculating the tip.  That $15.00 quinoa burger & kale fries might come with sticker shock, but the listed price would capture the true cost of preparing it for you and paying the wait staff, not $12.49 + whatever tip you think should be added.

Paralleling other wage-related and inequality issues, the American service industry should re-consider its stance on tipping and transition from an industry where its workers often rely on tips to one where tips are merely appreciated.  If they work 40 hours a week, stylists, waiters, taxi drivers and many other service industry workers should make enough in base salary to cover their own food and shelter needs.  If they give great service, then diners and others should be encouraged to give an additional tip for a job well done - like an immediate micro spot bonus that many of your companies may give.  If service was average, customers can leave without tipping but with the knowledge the person serving them was still paid a decent wage. Service workers can do their jobs without the stress of worrying about rude college kids leaving a 10 cent tip on a 40 dollar meal, while still having an incentive to provide impeccable service.

Research: http://tippingresearch.com/uploads/Waiter_Survey_Initial_Report__1_.pdf

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/04/everything-dont-know-tipping.html
Labor Statistics: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes353031.htm

Advancing Modern Healthcare to the 1700s

1796...AD.  Edward Jenner develops the world's first vaccine for Smallpox.  For most of us, smallpox is as described here - ancient history.  This horrific disease terrorized the world for most of recorded human history by blanching its victims with a gut-wrenching outer appearance in addition to internal trauma.  Smallpox claimed the lives of over 20% of those who contracted the disease, including 5 European Monarchs and a Pharaoh.  Yet, smallpox was not limited to the Egyptians, the Renaissance, or even the Victorians.  To illustrate the recency of Smallpox devastation, the World Health of Organization estimates that smallpox was responsible for 2 million deaths in 1967, only 20 years before many of you reading this were born.  After a herculean effort, Smallpox was eradicated in 1980, one of man's greatest achievements.  After Jenner's success, vaccines were developed for Cholera (1879), Tetanus (1890), Tuberculosis (1925), Whooping Cough (1927), Polio (1952), Measles (1963), Chicken Pox (1974), and many others.  Despite the success of the development of these vaccines, only Smallpox has been eradicated and many of these diseases present a serious health issues in many of the world's undeveloped countries.

Typically just a checkbox for children and those entering high school and college, vaccines have anchored themselves in the news cycle because some parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children.  These decisions have been spurred by a myriad of fallacies, the foremost of which is the spurious notion that vaccines cause autism.  This false movement was started in part by Andrew Wakefield, a British physician who lost his medical license after the paper he submitted to the Lancet linking vaccines to autism was discredited.  Others have attacked some of the ingredients included in vaccines, which can include Mercury and Formaldehyde, which on the surface can appear disconcerting, but are safe in small quantities and serve a purpose.  Regardless of the reason, once a critical mass of people has become inoculated, herd immunity is established, which protects those who are unable to receive vaccines due to other pre-existing conditions (yes, my girlfriend has a public health degree :)).  Once this herd immunity breaks down, the risk of infection for those with immunodeficiencies skyrockets, as was recently evidenced in Disneyland.

Many others have provided their take on this ...bizarre? change of opinion in parents' health policies.  I do not have the technical background to provide a unique take on this from a scientific perspective.  Instead, let's look at this from an emotional perspective and how offensive this is to those who came before us.

My grandmother passed away a few months ago.  She was born in 1919, and in addition to living through the Great Depression, several wars, and the invention of the television, modern air travel, nuclear power, all things stemming from the integrated circuit, and gogurt, she could bake a mean chocolate cake and fried apricot pie.  But, she was also born before vaccines had been developed for all of the above diseases except for Smallpox, Cholera, and Tetanus.

It is difficult for our generation to fathom the anxiety associated with exposure to these diseases.  For those who have never seen an iron lung (<-- an incredible story), or are unaware of how extremely contagious Measles was and still is, neither bit of knowledge is particularly positive.  While every parent frets over the health of their young children, early 20th century parents must have felt like their children had to crawl through a minefield of infectious disease. Imagine telling a mother in 1900 that in 75 years, virtually all concern of exposure to these viral diseases would be eliminated.  Imagine first her disbelief and then her desire to do anything in her power to provide that immuno-defense for her children.  Yet, here we are in 2015, saving our nose to spite our face as we comb through statistics to showcase the literally one-in-a-million instance where vaccines could present serious consequences to gloss over the wonderful benefits they have afforded us.  How many of us would have volunteered for an Ebola vaccine if we knew it had the same success rate as vaccines for Measles, TB, and Whooping Cough?  What about a vaccine for HIV?

For those who would like to point out that science can reverse itself, you are correct. It has perhaps most famously occurred in the fields of astronomy and physics.  The earth was the center of the universe.  Then it was the sun.  Now we are pretty damn insignificant.  Newton was right...until Einstein was.  The data supported these transitions in scientific theory.  It is entirely feasible that a medical breakthrough could produce a treatment more robust and more safe than vaccines, but at this point in human history, vaccines present the best option for the overall health of humanity.

Work Tips at 1,000 Days

Sometime in the middle of this February I will have been in the working world for 1,000 days.  1,000 days and nights of carrying the ole lunch pail to work and clocking in and out.  1,000 days of Outlook, Timecards, and The Man (or Woman). 1,000 days of taking the train to work and enjoying nearly every commute as I smirk at cars stuck on the Connector.

This is not intended to be another LinkedIn list, and I admit that I am no more qualified to offer tips at work than any of the rest of you, but I hope that these tips will be of some use to those entering the workforce soon.

• You have a lot to learn; but you will have some good ideas to offer to your superiors and organization.  Be confident in the ideas you can bring from school, but learn when to offer them.  There will be times you speak out of turn and cringe, and there will be instances where you could have offered a helpful idea but refrained.  You won't be fired for either.
• Unless you are at a small start-up, you will have some co-workers who have a wealth of experience.  Take the time to find out who those people are and talk to them.  They may not be in your exact area of expertise, you may not sit near them, and you may have to awkwardly introduce yourself, but it will pay off.  Find a point of commonality and find time to learn from them.
• Conversely, you will work with some people less intelligent and talented than you expected you would.  You probably graduated from a good school surrounded by intelligent friends and classmates.  The world has a wide spectrum of people, and many of those that might be less talented are still engaging, interesting, and good people.  Frankly though, some are weird.
• Don't evaluate work on a day by day or week by week basis.  School often gave you boring classes that weren't what you were interested in - work does the same with projects and tasks.  Don't let a few bad days or weeks send you to Monster.com or LinkedIn too quickly.  Work is more of a long-haul grind than school (except for those getting a Ph.D :)
• I am not an early riser, but getting to work early can have numerous benefits - the biggest - even above being seen as an early-morning go-getter - is time for conversation at the coffee pot/Keurig/donut box.  Here, you become a person and not a number. You can learn about projects, ask to be involved, learn about other people, and generally become more liked by your employees.  Some people aren't morning people and that's understandable - people return to the coffee pot several times throughout the day :)
• Lunch is your most valuable time of the day.  I try to go out to eat with a co-worker, client, or someone else in the industry once a week.  While I may be friendly with these people, I intend for these to be learning lunches.  Prepare questions but don't make it an interview.  Ask those experienced people out to lunch and learn from them. As an added benefit, when you're still young, they will often pay for yours.  During the morning and afternoon grind, people are occupied with meetings, getting things done, phone calls, and other managerial tasks.  But here's what they don't tell you in school: everyone has to eat.  Half of the time, managers will agree to eat with you simply to get away from work stresses.
• Volunteer.  For something. Anything. Make it look like you care about more than whatever you do for 40 hours. Pretend to be interested, then do a good job at whatever you're pretending.
• If you are really passionate about your field, get involved in a professional society. Or start one :)
• Plan vacations.  The year is too long to go week after week without having something to look forward to.
• If you can, work late a few days and cut early on Friday to go to a museum or enjoy something in town.
• While planning ahead, don't gloss over getting good at your technical area of expertise.  Planning for your second degree or CEO take-over will be pointless if you can't get promoted from Widget Make I to Widget Maker II.
• Let's face it, sometimes you need a little gchat/texting/Lync to keep you sane.
• Don't be afraid to show your co-workers you aren't a trained robot.  You can have feelings.  You can get sick.  You can be sad. You can be happy.
• Buy you co-worker's girl scout cookies - mainly because Samoas are delicious.
• Don't be afraid to ask questions.  Super cliche, but still super true.

These probably all don't apply to you, but hopefully you can benefit from a few of these.  I hope you have/had a great first 1,000 days of work, whenever they start or end.

Thanks for reading!

The Trait Most Good People Share

Good people. When asked to describe them, you might offer phrases like "kind" or "trustworthy" or "having integrity."  Synonyms abound for as how to describe good people and this slice of society's elite.  Yet, this elite is not tinged by swirls of racism or classism.  Good people can't be defined by race, class, geography, gender, education, or career.

We all know good people.  We all hope others think we are good people.  Fortunately, unlike grades on a curve or the All-Star Roster, there is no limit to how many good people the world can hold.  There can only be so many CEO's, or NBA players, or Stanford grads, but we all can be good people.  Statistically, there can only be so many wealthy and highly intelligent people, but we can all be good people.  There can only be so many A-list actors, Grammy winners, ballerinas in the Bolshoi ballet.  But we can all be good people.

If you were to form a committee of "experts" who could point you in the direction of good people for you to observe, what traits might you associate with most of these people?  Good hygiene (who doesn't love a frequent flosser)?  Out going and super smiley?  Response?  Great communicator?

My guess: The vast majority of these people frequently giving back to their community. These people are not just "involved," but also give back.  By and large, good people donate their time  - whether or not its asked - to better the community around them.  Think of the people in your life you consider to be good and how many of them donate time not just to an organization, but donate time to give back in some way.  Maybe they mentor.  Maybe they tend a community garden or teach Sunday School or coach youth sports, but I would bet you a Whataburger sandwich that they give back in some way.

Volunteering and giving back makes you feel good.  My father once told me that "if you have enough to give to someone else, you must be doing okay."  He was referencing money with respect to giving charitably, but the principle holds true for donating one's time as well.  If you have enough time in your life to give to other people, you must have your life put together.

Once you start volunteering your time, you suddenly find yourself around other people who enjoy doing the same.  You start interacting with other people who are often kind, generous, selfless, and care about the community in which they live.  It does not take a genius to see how these positive effects can begin to snowball.  

I have been fortunate to have had opportunities to give back beginning in high school that have continued through the present.  From dreaded CAS hours, National Honors Society, and Beta Club in high school to the many friends i gained through PSEF at Purdue to the wonderful people I continue to meet here in Atlanta through Community Bucket (shoutout to Jesse Grossman and that wonderful organization), I have found wonderful people in organizations designed to give back.  While everyone has different life experiences, (disclaimer: volunteering will not pay your bills, cook your food, wash your clothes, etc), I would suggest that the next time you are feeling meh, consider giving back to those around you or the community you live in.  You'll probably do good.

Comparing The Bachelor & The NFL

I don't watch much TV these days. Like many in my generation, I cut cable's cord and rely solely on streaming and the 5-ish major network channels I receive over the airwaves.  Since Scandal & How to Get Away with Murder ended a few months ago, 95% of my television has consisted of:

• The Good Wife
• A few maddening games of Purdue basketball
• Portions of Cowboy games
• The two semifinal games and College Football National Championship
• Occasional Jon Stewart
• 2 episodes of The Bachelor

In the last 72 hours I have watched an NFL game (still don't see how that wasn't a catch), my least favorite college football team win a National Championship, and 90 minutes of 20 women swooning over 1 male.  A few minutes into the swooning, I began to see several similarities between the NFL and Bachelor hype machines, which set in motion the following technical analysis.

The testosterone laden frenzy that fuels the NFL and its ups and downs is well documented.  Some of the country's most physically gifted athletes - regulated modern gladiators - stride onto striped fields bearing their tribe's insignia up to 20 times each year.  Through this physical adversity, bonds are forged, rivalries created, and lines drawn.  On game day, these relationships are on full display, as players employ both physical strengths and mental deception to distract their adversaries from gaining competitive advantage.  All of this is captured weekly in stunning 1080p or 4K, with dozens of cameras highlighting the toned muscles, cursing coaches, drunk fans, and manicured fields (okay maybe not in Chicago or Pittsburgh) that comprise the NFL game day experience.

http://nfldraftdiamonds.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Dez.jpg

Tonight I saw cameras capture toned skin, drunk women (Jordan), beautiful scenery and and manicured nails on the manicured lawn of a picturesque mansion.  Some of the nation's most beautiful women - modern day Aphrodite's - used their sass, fake laughter, and cleavage to battle one another for a man they hardly knew.  As past seasons have taught us, these women will forge friendships, passive-aggressive pacts, and rivalries in their attempt to win Mr. Chris Soules, a handsome farmer from Iowa about whom they know little else.

Surrounding the NFL is an army of other related industries.  These include journalism efforts emanating from every type of media known to man, ranging from the Worldwide Leader and major newspapers to small college newspapers and thousands of official and unofficial blogs.  In recent decades, Fantasy Football - sports gambling light - has continued to grow both in popularity and in dollars invested.  The hype has perhaps caused the NFL to be "too big to fail," as media giants cater to its scheduling demands.  As we near the Super Bowl, the Pantheon of programming hyperbole, the ghosts of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson seem like distant bumps on a long road trip, speakers blasting the entire way.

http://www.girlsonthegrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/the-bachelor-show-abc.

The Bachelor does not match the NFL's standing in modern culture, although the world was rocked last week when Andi and Josh announced their break-up.  However, as I have recently learned, the Bachelor has its own cavalry of "journalists?" who chronicle the show's every move, faux pas, and rose delivery.  Accompanying these dedicated reporters of romance are Bachelor Bracketologists, who predict how long each of the girls will last on the show.  Much in the same way that ESPN and other sports outlets have their own Fantasy Football gurus, this hardcore sleuthing helps supply information to those guessing completing their Bachelor brackets.  Given these complementary guessing games, it is fair to ask: Can someone be any more sure that Rodgers will Discount Double Check or that The Legion of Boom will shut out an opponent based on last week's stats than they can be sure that Mr. Soules won't eliminate a girl next week based on his rose delivery this week?  These are tough decisions!

Further, as this blog entry fully illustrates, people who might not initially be interested in either of these shows can become interested as part of their infatuation with their significant other.  While some females truly love the NFL (I see you Stef!), I'm sure throughout history, after going to enough watch parties, some wives decide they might as well enjoy football.  In addition, I know of at least one other boyfriend or husband who watches the riveting... drama that unfolds weekly on ABC because they want to share common interests with their wife/girlfriend and I would surmise there are other male Bachelor viewers in hiding.  Unlike series like Game of Thrones or House of Cards, the NFL and the Bachelor likely have more disparate audiences if segmented by gender (and I would argue that the Bachelor still does).  Yet, anecdotal evidence suggests that in some social circles, the NFL and the Bachelor can draw interest from across the gender boundary.

To be fair to the NFL and its supporters (including me), it is a live event where fans can pay exorbitant amounts of money to attend and prove that what you see on TV actually occurs in real life.  For this, I have long argued that sports was the original reality TV.  You can see past the editing and experience the ungodly TV timeouts in person, never having to ponder what happens at the stadium in the time it took you to use the restroom, get another beer, fold your laundry, and rotate your tires before the game returns. The Bachelor does not afford us this luxury, perhaps my biggest complaint with this genre of "reality television."  This leaves us forever wondering how a group of 20 women who had never met really spend their week when not on exotic group dates. Yet despite the uncertainty of what happens in the editing room, many would agree that these shows draw significant (if not massive) weekly television audiences.

Millions tune in weekly even though many supporters would acknowledge that both shows have issues.  The Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, and other violence related stories that gained traction early this NFL season were simply the latest in a barrage of issues the NFL has faced, ranging from how players treat women to the lasting impact of head injuries.  Most individuals would also likely admit that despite the attractive contestants and exotic locations, finding love on camera in the middle of a battle royale with 20 other contestants is a recipe for drama, crazy emotions, and embarrassment, rather than an ideal setting to find love.  

It is likely that we engage the NFL and shows like The Bachelor at least in part to put our own lives on hold and to live vicariously through others pursuing more unique activities.  I have no doubt die-hard NFL fans could provide a laundry list of other reasons they watch the NFL, and I'm sure most are legitimate.  All I can say is that after a long 3 hours of pondering, it is hard for me to say that cheering for grown men to advance and stop the advancement of an oblong, formerly pig-skin object is more logical than gasping at how someone you've never met offered a pruned red flower to someone else you've never met.  I only wish that the next girl to receive a rose would spike it, dunk it over a goal-post, or throw up the X, as the Bachelor has no 15 yard penalty for taunting.

Red vs. Blue Update: Suburban Poverty

This is an update to the blog post from earlier this week that discusses Richard Florida's NY Times article entitled "Is Life Better in Red States?" This post relates Florida's article to a January 7 article in The Atlantic by Alana Semuels entitled "Suburbs and the New American Poverty."  

In relation to this blog, I thought her article was a great follow up to Richard Florida's January 3rd NY Times article that asks if life is better in red states, which I commented on in my initial post on this subject.  Florida's article offers the benefits offered by the policies employed by both red and blue states, as well as the inherent issues that associated with each, including the high cost of housing in blue states and the sprawl and low tax revenue often seen in red states.

http://allgeorgiarealty.com/files/2009/11/Gwinnett-County-GA-Map-allgeorgiarealty.com.jpg

Semuels' focuses on Gwinnett County, a suburban county centered about 25 miles northeast of Atlanta.  (As an ATLien studying transportation and urban planning, it is bittersweet that so many of these sorts of analyses and articles seem to be set in Atlanta).  Semuels swiftly shifts in and out of profiling some of Gwinnett County's families and individuals in poverty and provides statistics about poverty at the national, local, and regional levels.  Perhaps most poignant of these stats is the fact that "between 2000 and 2011, Atlanta's suburban poor population increased by 159 percent while the number of poor in the city remained essentially flat."  In an ironic and sad twist, life has come full-circle for those who decades ago fueled "white flight" in part to find homogeneic, gated-community harmony. This irony is emphasized by a quote from the article, when a resident claims that she "doesn't let the kids go outside," a statement more typically associated with the "perils" of the inner-city.  

From a policy standpoint, the most important points made in the article stem from the fact that "many of these communities lack the infrastructure, safety-net supports, and resources to address the growing needs of a poor population." Inner cities by nature have denser street networks than suburbs. This tighter spacing, often in a grid network, makes it easier to provide health-care, education, and resources, as agencies and non-profits can have more efficient routes to see clients and provide benefits.  This closer spacing also makes it more likely that they will be near others they know, trust, and can lean on.

Semuels' provides reasons as to why poverty rates in the suburbs have been increasing.  These include housing costs, and a disconnect between where jobs and housing are located, the skills needed to qualify for these jobs, the wages those jobs provide, and the transportation options available to access them. With gentrification, housing prices increase and good paying jobs follow millennials closer to the core. This leaves the poor with higher housing costs and often a dearth of jobs for which they are qualified (educating the poor is another blog post entirely), which means they must travel great distances to jobs in the suburbs.

How do these individuals access these jobs, given that in 2013 AAA estimated that owning a small sedan costs $7,000 annually? Yes, owning a car is expensive and often consumes more of a household's budget than estimated, when the cost of fuel, which although currently relatively cheap has been more expensive much of the last decade, maintenance, insurance, registration, and the actual cost of the vehicle is included. These costs impact the poor and middle class even more significantly.  Most of you reading this probably grew up in a suburban environment. Just consider the time, coordination, and uncertainty needed to keep a job in your suburban hometown if you didn't own a car. There might be a bus route nearby, but you will likely have to walk through a neighborhood with poor connectivity (see this, this, and this as to why the suburbs negatively impact walkability), or wait a long time for your bus due to long headways. Said simply, most of the time, it is nearly impossibly to move reliably within suburbs using transit. Thus, if you can't afford a car and have to walk or take transit, you likely spend hours each day commuting to a relatively low paying job.

Why is transit service typically so poor in the suburbs?  The reasons are numerous, but for the sake of simplicity let's boil it down to the following:

• Suburbs typically have poor connectivity, decreasing the ridership catchment at transit stops
• Many suburbanites are not as familiar with using transit and have grown up almost in an almost exclusively autocentric household
• Suburban counties have less comprehensive funding mechanisms to support transit

The last bullet brings this post's update full circle. Semuels' article shows that the number of poor in the suburbs is increasing, which means that elected officials have to new challenges to solve and the economy in these locales is impacted in different ways. The ancestors of those who long-ago moved to the suburbs to escape the mid-century inner city blight seen now find themselves again adjacent to pockets of poverty. Florida's NY Times article relates as elected officials must make decisions (red v blue) to solve new and unfamiliar problems.  Semuels article The Atlantic provides a relevant and personal foray into the results of these decisions.

Thanks for reading and I hope you have a good weekend!

Why I'm a Polar Bear: The Benefits of Cold Exposure

In the January / February issue of The Atlantic, James Hamblin writes about the relationship between cold exposure and weight loss in his article entitled "Will Global Warming Make me Look Fat?"

http://www.nicolanaturalists.ca/2011/11/02/across-the-top-of-russia-wildlife-adventures-on-the-northeast-passage-17-november-2011-7-pm-at-nvit/

Yesterday I was headed to work on MARTA, skimming this month's edition of The Atlantic when I stumbled across this: an article about both global warming and obesity - both of which relate to my interests in city planning and the future of cities.  And then the first sentence ..."When you put on the ice vest..."
For those who have known me awhile - especially in high school or at Purdue, I was a self-proclaimed polar bear.  Initially stemming from my affinity for wearing shorts in the cold and later transitioning as my chest sprouted enough hair to actually confuse me as a bear.

Mr. Freeze

http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Freeze/Gallery

The aforementioned ice vest is an invention by Wayne B. Hayes, a UC Irvine professor (not pictured above), who claims that wearing it for an hour burns up to 250 calories.  Hayes and the author, Hamblin, explain that this calorie burn stems from thermodynamics, as the body must work harder to maintain a normal body temperature.  To give credit where due, Hayes' work was spurred by the efforts of Ray Cronise, a former NASA scientist who now devotes his time to cold exposure research.  Oddly, Michael Phelps spurred Cronise' interest in cold exposure.  At the peak of his training, Michael Phelps was consuming 12,000 calories a day while training, but burning no more than 3,000 calories each day while training. What was burning those other calories?  Why did Phelps not look like a beached whale?
[Suspense]
In the end, Cronise realized that it was the heat transfer properties of water, Phelps training medium, that were aiding him in this massive calorie burn.

Motivated by this finding, Cronise began taking cold showers and cold winter strolls and "lost 26.7 pounds in 6 weeks."  According to Cronise and Hamblin, this weight loss was due to the fact that his body was using stored fat to burn energy and stay warm.  While you may not have any bff's employing his methods, Cronise has gained mild fame from these discoveries as the subject of a Timothy Ferris best seller "The 4-Hour Body." He also recently gave a TEDMED talk where he discussed his findings.  Yet, even with this notoriety, Cronise emphasizes that one "can't simply freeze themselves thin" and notes that today, people rarely accept continued exposure to 55 degree temperatures.

Let's consider all of the other actions people take to lose weight.  I for one would much rather stay cold for a few hours than consume some of the cleanse drinks/smoothies I have seen or forego carbs.  In the big scheme of things, is cold exposure really that crazy of an concept in the quest to shed pounds?  Regardless, there is more to Hamblin's article than weight-loss.

"When I was Your Age..."

Hamblin points out that -
           "many of us live almost constantly, year-round, in 70-something-degree environments.  And when we             are caught somewhere colder than that, most of us quickly on a sweater or turn up the heat."

For most of us, it has been two generations (or less depending on where you are from) since our grandparents quite literally had to sit by the fireplace or wood burning stove to stay warm at some point in their lives.  Thus, our recent ancestors likely had to deal with the cold more often, were more tolerant of cold weather, and had less flexibility to flick a switch and find comfort.  While most of the people reading this likely worry little about getting cold, this is a very recent event in human history.

Hamlbin goes on to discuss how Cronise and two other colleagues (Bremer and Sinclair) propose a "Metabolic Winter" hypothesis which states that "obesity is only a small part due to lack of exercise and mostly due to a combination of chronic over-nutrition and chronic warmth."  In what is my favorite quote of the article, Cronise states "'In the last 0.9 inches of the evolutionary mile, we solve both [refrigeration and modern transportation."  Later Cronise goes on to suggest that "maybe our problem is that winter never comes."

My Thoughts

If you haven't noticed yet, this blog post is my sad attempt to put North Face and Ugg out of business.

This article speaks to me most from it's role as a microcosm of society's technological advances and the cumulative impact of these advancements on our health and daily routine.  Just as many cities' car-centric designs have resulted in less exercise, our ever-increasing demand for comfort may have produced a similar outcome, as bodies don't have to work as hard to keep us warm.  Those who drive to work literally spend 99% of their days and steps in a climate controlled setting, only subjecting themselves to the harsh elements of their locale in their garage and during the walk into their office (which also might be a garage).  Poor energy efficiency, health, and urban planning aside, the way in which we've organized our cities has reduced our tolerance to the elements. (Aside: denser, more vertical housing with more shared walls would help to lower the cost of heating for everyone and result in better planning with more walking, etc...)
---
Should we toughen up as a society?  Should we do away with flannel (sorry Vermonters), wool, and fleece (sheep rejoice)?  Perhaps the most logical course of action is as follows: The next time it's cold and you're under a blanket, eating popcorn, and feeling a little flabby, consider ditching the blanket and not the popcorn.

Thanks for reading and have a good hump day.

        

Red vs. Blue and the American Dream

Recently, Richard Florida, Canadian, frequent contributor to the NY Times, urbanist, and frequent commentator about his self-coined "Creative Class," wrote a piece in the Times entitled:

 "Is Life Better in America's Red States" 

Via Reddit

In the piece, Florida chronicles the often stark divide between red and blue states, how their economies differ in what they need to thrive and what they provide to local citizens, how blue states have become more unequal, and the crux the nation faces going forward between these two strategies.

Please read the article; for those who read Florida frequently, his comments and conclusions likely won't surprise you.  And for those of you who know me (let's be real - this blog has been live for like 4 days - everyone reading this knows me) - you probably already know my thoughts on many of the topics discussed in the article.

To be clear, I agree with Florida in that a society cannot frack and sprawl it's way to prosperity without some consequences (health, environmental, etc).  Yet, it is important to emphasize Florida's points about inequality and the high cost of housing in blue cities like San Francisco, Boston, New York, and Washington D.C.  I think most would agree that the public and innate benefits offered by these cities (transit, food, arts, education the opportunities that stem from museums, great universities, and being surrounded by a dense collection of intellectuals) are superior to those offered in redder cities - sorry Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc. 

People have long indicated their preference for this with their zip code and wallet - some people sacrifice more square footage for a more walkable neighborhood and many people continue to choose the more bucolic American dream in exchange for being weekday commute warriors on the road.  What I have often posed to my friends in redder states (especially those I have known for awhile back in Texas), is if they would continue to choose to live there were the environmental and health damages induced by sprawl monetized and applied to their housing costs?  I won't try to sway any votes tonight, but considering the environmental externalities is at least worth a brief consideration.

The most daunting challenge I took from Florida's article is the inequality induced by these popular blue cities.  Because so many people want to live there and the tax rate needed to maintain a dense lifestyle is relatively high, housing costs in these places have sky-rocketed.  Build too high and the cost of going vertical makes housing expensive; building without density results in higher land costs - both of these factors have resulted in smaller and smaller units and longer and longer commutes.  Creating methods to provide low-medium cost housing going forward will be critical for these blue cities.  I certainly have no breakthroughs.  My only direct thought would be to perhaps explore asking developers not to build units with stainless steel appliances and granite countertops in every unit.  The higher profits the developers can glean from these units also end up pricing the median worker out of most new construction.  I realize this request would not employ capitalism to the fullest, but that probably bothers me less than it might bother you.  

Other potential solutions likely involve examining tax policy in general - but that would digress from the intended discussion points of this article quickly.

I am always amazed at how divisive our country can be.   Children who grow up in the same neighborhood in similar family structures can end up with vastly different political and social values.  The divisiveness seems as strong as ever and these differences will likely remain strong for better or worse - some people will still prefer 400 ft studios in Manhattan and others will still prefer acre lots in McKinney or Acworth, and I have come to accept there is nothing wrong with that, as long as all parties are paying for the resulting external costs.

As emphasized in the article, red and blue states will continue to depend on each other.  Blue states will need to find long-term solutions to at least quell the recent rapid rise of housing costs and provide reasonable options for their lower-income residents.  Red states will need to recognize many of their recent low tax high frack policies are both environmentally and economically unsustainable in the long run.  There will be no shortage of opinions offered in the meantime.

Thanks for reading - have a great day!

--------------------------------------------------------------UPDATE ---------------------------------------------

See update to this post in other blog entries