Lefty Forrester

Top 10 Beatles Songs

10. Eleanor Rigby

Eleanor Rigby is a song about a person whose name, one might imagine, is Eleanor Rigby. So she hangs around and picks up rice in a church where a wedding has been. And Paul pronounces “been” how I would pronounce “bean.” Like that one part where Mrs. Weasley says “Where HAVE you BEEN?” The beds were empty, the car was gone, and no note was given.

Anyway, then there’s this other person called Father Mackenzie. Mackenzie is a selfish individual. Mackenzie writes a sermon that no one will hear because Mackenzie likes the appearance of doing great things and being a good person. But in reality, Mackenzie doesn’t care at all. Mackenzie only cares about Mackenzie. Mackenzie’s words are shallow and empty. When the time comes for Mackenzie to show some character, Mackenzie does nothing but wipe dirt from Mackenzie’s own hands, merely going through the motions to maintain Mackenzie’s status. Mackenzie is nothing but a hypocrite. Boy, am I glad I don’t know someone like Mackenzie!

Oh, and the vocals are pretty good in this song.

9. Taxman

The Beatles reference a few real people in their songs, such as Edgar Allan Poe (I Am the Walrus) and Sir Walter Raleigh (I’m So Tired). These two references, made by John Lennon, are a bit cheeky, a bit silly, they might even induce a sense of whimsy. Two years before, however, George Harrison referenced two contemporary political figures. They were Harold Wilson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the time, and Ted Heath, Leader of the Conservative Party of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the time.

The Beatles were being taxed an astronomical amount, and George was rather peeved about it. So he wrote this song to express that sentiment. I like to imagine the Assistant to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stepping nervously into Mr. Wilson’s office on the day Revolver came out. “Sir,” he begins timidly, “the biggest band in the history of the world have mentioned you in their recent album.”

“Oh,” Mr. Wilson replies Englishly. “Are they commending my leadership?”

“Erm,” the assistant says, “Yes.”

He doesn’t have the heart to tell Mr. Wilson that George Harrison is telling him to fuck off.

This song is the most politically charged in the Beatles discography. George’s biting, satirical lyrics are his best work with the Beatles, and the bass/electric guitar combo really cooks.

8. Octopus’s Garden

You know I had to include at least one Ringo song on this list. Well, actually, I don’t have to do that. I don’t have to write this at all, or write anything for that matter. But you know what? I want to, and doesn’t that count for something in this work-a-day world? Sometimes you gotta consider what you’d like to do or where you’d like to be. As for me, I’d like to be, you may have guessed it, under the sea, specifically in the garden of an octopus, specifically in the shade. That sounds pretty great.

This is just a nice, pleasant song sandwiched between two heavier tracks. Before it comes the screamlike vocals and desperate lyrics of Oh! Darling, and after it comes possibly the heaviest Beatles song in I Want You (She’s So Heavy). So it’s a nice little break between those two. The Beatles [especially in the second half of their career] were great at sequencing their albums, picking the right order of songs. This is just another example of that.

This song makes me happy, and that’s a good thing.

7. It’s All Too Much

It really is, George. It really is.

This song has one of the best intros in the Beatles catalog. What is John saying? “To your muh!” It’s like he’s about to say “to your mother” but he gets interrupted by this searing, wobbling guitar that fills you with gratitude that electric guitars were invented. When that has run its course, we are graced with glorious chords on a glorious organ. It’s so beautiful.

The drums kick in, and we step into the groove. George’s other-worldly singing is the cherry on top of this birthday cake of a song. So take a piece, but not too much.

This is a euphoric sounding song about euphoric feelings. “It’s all too much for me to take, the love that’s shining all around you.” It’s that feeling when you’re so filled with love, not just love for a person, though that may be involved, but love for life itself, as though every cell of your body is leaping for joy. That’s what this song feels like.

6. Helter Skelter

The Beatles are from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but they were very, very, very popular in the United States of America. 1968, when the White Album [with Helter Skelter] was released, was a very, very, very turbulent time for the U.S.A. There were protests and political upheaval and assassinations and racial tensions and riots and a Democratic President stepping down from his re-election campaign. Kinda like now.

So now, in whatever year this is, I listen to this album, with Helter Skelter, and it speaks to me. It speaks to me like no other music ever has, as if the Beatles were singing directly to me. They’ve tapped into my spirit, you know? Like when Paul says “When I get to the bottom, I go back to the top of the slide,” he’s saying that life is a loop, repeating itself, and things are repeating themselves right now.

And when he says, “I’m coming down fast but I’m miles above you,” well, “down” means south, like on a map, so I gotta go to a ranch in southern California. The words Helter Skelter have a criss-cross quality to them. That means I should carve an “X” onto my forehead.

Then there’s “You may be a lover but you ain’t no dancer!” That’s me to a T, whatever that phrase means. I’m not a dancer, I’m a musician! This whole album [and song] is telling me, personally, to make an album that will rock this country. Man, I really need to talk to a record producer in Benedict Canyon.

5. Why Don’t We Do It in the Road?

In the 15th song from the Beatles’ self-titled album, Paul McCartney asks a profound question, “Why don’t we do it in the road?” Most of us enjoy doing it, and we often find ourselves in and around roads. Yet, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone doing it in the road. So why don’t we do it in the road? It seems homo sapiens is the only species that has developed a sense of shame in relation to sex. Monkeys, as the songwriting story goes, saw no issue with doing it in the road.

Paul’s song harkens back to the very first story in the Bible, that of Adam and Eve. Those two ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and their immediate response is to hide in shame and cover their bodies in shame. Perhaps therein lies the answer to Paul’s question. It’s all about the relationship between knowledge and shame. The setting of the song answers itself. The very existence of a road implies some level of intelligence and knowledge. Roads don’t just grow on trees. An intelligent species has to build them. And perhaps any species that develops the intelligence to build roads would inevitably develop the shame to not “do it” in said road.

4. A Day in the Life

All Beatles songs that were written by either Paul McCartney or John Lennon were credited to Lennon/McCartney. Some were written entirely by Lennon, some entirely by McCartney. Others had varying degrees of collaboration between the two. A Day in the Life is a true Lennon/McCartney collaboration and a true masterpiece.

John’s voice has a dreamlike quality to it throughout the whole song. It transports you into a parallel world. You feel like you’re in England, but not our England. England from an alternate dimension. The lyrics are sublime. Every successive word fits perfectly, as if no other word would work. For me, the song evokes both tragedy and detachment. It feels like listening to an impressionist painting, if it could make music.

The building to crescendo just rocks your ears and mind. It’s terror-inducing, nightmarish, as life is. Then, suddenly, you wake up, and you gotta get ready for work. That’s just how it is. John’s part is amazing, Paul’s part is amazing, and this song is a masterpiece of their songwriting partnership.

3. Yesterday

Yesterday refers to the day before today. It denotes the past, an inaccessible, unchangeable realm. We can only contemplate it, we cannot touch it or change it.

Sometimes everything falls apart on a single day. Your life exists in one way, then some single day comes along, out of the blue, out of left field, out of the left field whose grass has been dyed blue, some Kentucky left field. Get it? Bluegrass?

Anyway something comes along out of left Kentucky field and fucks up everything. So you’re just left a shell of who you were, and you don’t even understand why things fell apart, and you’re trying hard to figure it out, but even if you do figure it out, it won’t change the fact that it fell apart, and you’re unbearably desperate to change the past, but you can’t. I mean, that doesn’t really happen to me, per se, because I’m a well-adjusted, content human being, but it could happen to other people, and Paul encapsulates that feeling perfectly.

2. Tomorrow Never Knows

In 1966, the Beatles released this, Revolver, their most accomplished album. I think their undisputed masterpiece is Tomorrow Never Knows, a song so hypnotic, most people probably don’t listen to the lyrics. But they should, because they’re not just about the power of meditation and the importance of love, it’s also a personal statement about the band itself!

1. You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)

I just like the part where they go “you know my name, look up the number.”

The Greatest Basketball Player for Various Amounts of Time

0.4 seconds: Derek Fisher

In 2004 Derek Fisher proved that he’s the greatest basketball player in a 0.4 second timespan. In game 5 of the western conference semifinals, Tim Duncan made a long 2 pointer to give the Spurs a 73-72 lead with 0.4 seconds left. Classic early 2000’s Spurs score. The series was tied 2-2, so this was a very pivotal game. Either the Lakers or the Spurs had won all 5 of the post-Bulls-dynasty championships at this point, and they both had a legitimate chance at winning the title in 2004.

After 3 timeouts, 2 substitutions from the Spurs, and different inbound formations from the Lakers, they were finally ready to inbound the ball. Now, the Lakers had 4 all-time great players on the court: Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton. Throughout the course of their careers, they would combine for 56 all-star selections. Their 5th player was Derek Fisher, a player who amassed 0 all-star selections. And yet, he was the one to rise to the occasion. Payton looked for Kobe, who was double-teamed. A long lob to Shaq seemed improbable, and Karl Malone was just standing around. So Payton threw the ball to Fisher, and in one fluid motion, Derek caught the ball, turned and shot it. The buzzer sounded, the ball went in, the Lakers won the game, and Fisher cemented himself as the greatest basketball player for 0.4 seconds.

1 second: Rasheed Wallace

There are many contenders for the greatest basketball player for one second. Kobe Bryant comes to mind, catching the inbound and making a fadeaway three against the Blazers to win the final game of the season.

My pick is Rasheed Wallace. It was the March 26th, 2007 game between the Denver Nuggets and the Detroit Pistons. The Nuggets were up 3 with the ball out of bounds, at halfcourt, with 1.5 seconds on the clock. That is a very good situation for the Nuggets. What would have to go wrong in order for the Pistons to win this game?

Statistically speaking, NBA teams are extremely good at inbounding the ball safely when they absolutely need to. Teams are usually able to inbound the ball to a good free throw shooter. Good free throw shooters shoot around/above 80% from the line. So either the Pistons would have to immediately foul a Nuggets player, hope that he misses both free throws [4% chance], then get the rebound and throw up a 90 foot prayer at the buzzer, OR they’d have to steal the inbound pass and make a three in one clean motion.

That’s exactly what happened. The inbound pass was tipped, Rasheed Wallace stole the ball beyond half court with 1.0 seconds left, turned and shot from sixty feet away, banking in the 3 to send the game into overtime. A beautiful play. A steal and 3 points in 1 second. That’s impressive. Ball don’t lie!

9 seconds: Reggie Miller

In game 1 of the 1995 eastern conference semifinals, the Knicks had a 105-99 lead over the Pacers with 18.7 seconds left. Mark Jackson passed the ball into Reggie Miller, who immediately launched a three, sinking it with 16.4 seconds left. The Knicks’ Anthony Mason couldn’t find any teammate on the inbound, so he made a weak pass, which was caught by Miller. He raced back behind the three-point line and drilled his second consecutive three, tying the game at 105 with 13.2 seconds left. That’s 6 points in 3.2 seconds, or 1.875 points per second.

Knicks guard John Starks gets fouled on the inbound pass. As commentator Bill Waton noted, there was “no need to foul in that situation,” considering the game was tied. Typically teams will just try to get one last stop.

Anyway, Starks, a 73.7% free throw shooter that season, missed BOTH free throws. That’s great for the Pacers! But then Patrick Ewing, the Knicks’ best player, secured the offensive rebound. He shot it, missed, and Reggie Miller was fouled on the next rebound with 7.5 seconds left. Reggie, an 89.7% free throw shooter, sunk both shots, thus scoring 8 points in 8.9 seconds. The Knicks failed to get a shot off, and the Pacers won the game.

Reggie Miller was the greatest basketball player for 9 seconds.

35 seconds: Tracy McGrady

On December 9th, 2004, the Houston Rockets trailed the prime-Duncan-led Spurs 68 to 76 in the final minute of the game. Another classic 2004 Spurs score. McGrady made a three to cut the deficit to 5 with 35 seconds left. The Rockets intentionally fouled Devin Brown, who made 2 free throws. McGrady then brought the ball up, pump faked, and drew a foul on perennial DPOY candidate Tim Duncan, sinking another three in the process. McGrady completed the 4 point play, making the Rockets’ only free throw in the quarter. The score was now 78-75.

After running some time off the clock, Tim Duncan was finally fouled with 16.2 seconds left. Duncan also made his 2 free throws. After a timeout, the Rockets barely made the inbound into McGrady, who dribbled and drained another contested three over another DPOY candidate, Bruce Bowen.

The Spurs passed the ball into Devin Brown, who fell to the floor, losing the ball. It was picked up by, you guessed it, Tracy McGrady. He dribbled up the court and made, you guessed it, another contested three pointer. The Spurs failed to score in the final seconds, and the Rockets won 81-80.

It was incredible, amazing, phenomenal! It showcased how powerful offense can be. As good and as important as defense is, the best offense just wins. You can never really force a guy to miss a shot. If a guy like T-Mac is just gonna make four three’s in a row, you can’t stop it.

Just for fun, if we extrapolate his 35-second stats to 40 minutes [what McGrady averaged that season], he would score 891 points and grab 68 steals. That’s a good game!

1 quarter: Klay Thompson

The best basketball player in a one-quarter time frame was Klay Thompson on January 23rd, 2015. It was the third quarter of a game between the Golden State Warriors and the Sacramento Kings. Klay went off, to put it mildly. He scored 37 points in the 12 minute period, an NBA record. The man could not miss at all. He made everything. He went 9 for 9 from three point range, which would be an incredible feat for an entire game. He went 13/13 overall from the field and 2/2 from the free throw line.

We talk about players being “in the zone,” and this is the most “in the zone” a player has ever been. If this mystical zone does in fact exist, Klay Thompson has been there, and he’s been there more completely than any other basketball player.

1 game: Wilt Chamberlain

The greatest basketball player over the course of one game was Wilt Chamberlain on March 2nd, 1962. The game took place in Hershey, Pennsylvania between the Philadelphia Warriors and the New York Knicks. The day before the game, Wilt stayed up all night partying with a young woman in New York City, as Wilt is inclined to do. He almost missed the bus to the Hershey Sports Arena, but once he got there, he cemented himself as the greatest basketball player for a single game.

He scored 100 points, shattering his previous record of 78 from earlier that year. That 78 required triple overtime, whereas the 100 was accomplished in regulation.

100-point game doubters/deniers are quickly becoming the most annoying subset of NBA fans. It’s always the same: “we have footage of ____ and not the 100-point game.” There are commenters who believe it’s “insane” that we have a lot of footage of World War II and none of Wilt Chamberlain’s 100-point game. And this is suspicious… somehow. It’s actually a brainless take. Yes, we have footage of the deadliest, most important conflict in the history of humanity, which lasted over five years, but we don’t have footage of a random basketball game in Hershey, Pennsylvania during a time when almost no NBA games were filmed. It’s not crazy at all.

There’s a temporally illogical belief at the core of this, which is that, because the 100-point game is historically significant, it should have been filmed. Yeah, people generally film historic things if we can. But you would only know the game is historic AFTER it happened. It’s not like Wilt went around a week before saying, “Hey by the way guys, next Friday I’m gonna drop a hundred points on those sorry-ass Knicks.” It just happened.

Just think about it for more than five seconds. The game was not in Madison Square Garden. It wasn’t even in the Philadelphia Convention Hall. It was in Hershey, a town 95 miles away from Philadelphia. Why? Because the NBA was so unpopular that they were trying to garner fans from non-major cities. It was towards the end of the season, and the Warriors had no chance of catching the Celtics for the #1 seed, and the Knicks were completely out of the playoff picture. Even for an unpopular league [at the time], it was a particularly unappealing game.

And yet, Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player for one game, setting the game’s most famous record. It’s certainly Wilt’s most famous one, and ironically it’s one of the more breakable ones for the Big Dipper. No one’s touching 27 RPG, 48.5 MPG, or 50 PPG for a season. But someone could surpass Wilt in a single game.

1 4-round playoff run: Hakeem Olajuwon

In 1994, the Houston Rockets were the 2nd seed in the western conference, so naturally they faced the 7th seed Portland Trail Blazers. Olajuwon led every game in scoring, including a dominant 46-point, 6-block performance in game 2. It perfectly showcased his excellence on both offense and defense. They quickly dispensed with the Blazers.

In the second round, the Rockets faced the Phoenix Suns, led by Charles Barkley. It was a back-and-forth, seven game series between the two contenders. This included a 36-point, 16-rebound, 5-assist, 3-block performance in game 1, and game 7 statline of 37 points, 17 rebounds, 5 assists, and 3 blocks. Amazing stuff. All-around greatness. He helped clinch the series and he proved that he was worthy of that year’s MVP award. I know, it’s a regular season award, but you always like to see the winner do well in the playoffs.

Hakeem continued his dominance in the western conference finals against the Stockton/Malone Jazz. Unsurprisingly, Olajuwon had more amazing performances. It’s easy to just list the statlines again, and they’re remarkable, but you gotta just watch Olajuwon to appreciate his greatness. He had so many post moves, his presence on defense was undeniable, and his basketball I.Q. was top-notch.

In the NBA finals, the Rockets faced off against the New York Knicks. It was one of those finals matchups where the best player on each team played the same position. Patrick Ewing was probably the 4th best center in the league at a time which was rife with great centers. But as the finals played out, it became abundantly clear that Olajuwon was #1, and Ewing was #4.

Hakeem’s averages were fairly comparable to his MVP regular season, but Ewing’s dropped significantly due to Olajuwon’s stifling defense. His scoring fell by 5.6 points per game, and his shooting percentage fell by 13.5% to an abysmal 36.3% from the field. Hakeem Olajuwon was clearly the best player on the court, and proved himself the best basketball player for a four-round playoff run.

Side note: the broadcast of game 5 of the finals series was interrupted by footage of some guy driving a white Ford Bronco down the 405 freeway. Odd.

1 season: Shaquille O’Neal

Many great basketball players have had many great seasons. Even I had a great season in 11th grade. I was awesome out there. It was must-see high school basketball, in my parents’ opinion. But I wasn’t the greatest basketball player for one season. That was Shaquille O’Neal in the 1999-2000 NBA season.

Now am I biased because Shaq is my favorite player and the Lakers are my favorite team and the early 2000s was my favorite era of basketball? No. I’m not biased. I’m the first non-biased, perfectly objective sports opinion writer who’s ever lived. It’s an amazing feeling.

So Shaq was objectively the greatest player for a season. He thoroughly dominated the game of basketball. It was not just that every team knew he was the best player, though that was true. Teams were lost about what to do with him. Should we double team him? Triple team him? Double team him without the ball? Front him? Foul him? How often? There was no true answer because he was just that dominant. That’s why, when we talk about all-time hypothetical matchups between historic teams, or imaginary teams, you always hear the same refrain: who’s guarding Shaq?

Shaq’s dominance culminated on his 28th birthday, when he scored 61 points, grabbed 23 rebounds, and shot 68.6% from the field. It was a joy to watch this season, to watch the greatest basketball player for one season.

5 years: Michael Jordan

Michael Jordan had the greatest 5-year stretch of any basketball player ever. The only challenge is picking between the 88-92 stretch or the 89-93 stretch. In 88, he won MVP and Defensive Player of the Year, but awards are just awards. People vote on them. They’re not handed down by God on stone tablets. We often use NBA awards to boost our arguments, then disparage the awards/voters when we don’t like them. When Kareem has 6 MVP’s, that makes him the greatest center, but when Shaq and Kobe only have 1 MVP each, that means that the awards and voters are stupid. It’s awesome.

Anyway, from the 1988/89 season through the 1992/93 season, Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player over a five year period. He led the NBA every one of those years in win shares, VORP, and PER, if you care about those things. He also led the league every year in points per game, which is a much more understandable statistic. A player plays a certain number of games, they score a certain number of points, then you take the points and divide that number by the number of games. There you go!

Late 80s/early 90s Michael Jordan had an incredible combination of skill and athleticism. He would fly through the air. He would make acrobatic, contested layups. He had the midrange. He led the league in steals per game in two of those years. His first step was lethal. His competitive drive was legendary, as we all know. He took things PERSONALLY. It’s an interesting quality because, in general, if someone takes everything very personally and gets offended by incredibly minor things, that’s not typically considered to be a good quality. In fact, it’s often considered to a non-masculine quality. BUT if you then kick everyone’s ass at basketball, it cancels out.

And of course the Jordan-led Bulls won 3 straight NBA championships, and he gave three of the greatest finals performances ever. In 91, he averaged 31.2 points and 11.4 assists per game which is just absurd. Only Magic Johnson has ever had more assists per game in a finals series. It’s crazy to think about, considering how many great point guards/passers/assist-getters have played in the finals. Magic has the highest six spots, then the scorer Michael Jordan, not Isiah Thomas or Bob Cousy or Oscar Robertson or Walt Frazier or John Stockton or Jason Kidd or Lebron James or Chris Paul. Wild.

In 92, he torched Drexler in the head-to-head matchup, and in 93, he set the still-standing finals record for points per game with 41. The three-peat was complete with MJ earning the finals MVP each time, obviously. He only won the regular season MVP twice in this five year period, but he was the best basketball player in the world throughout the entire five-year period. The NBA MVP award is a strange one.

Oh yeah, he also won an Olympic gold medal as the leader of the Dream Team [though Barkley did lead the team in points per game]. They totally dominated the international competition, winning by an average of 43.75 points over the course of their 8 games.

MJ had the prolific scoring, the amazing defense, the dominant playoff performances, great handles, great finishing, and great passing when he needed to. He had the greatest 5 years of basketball.

1 lifetime: Lebron James

Lebron James was born in Akron, Ohio, just outside of Cleveland, on December 30th, 1984. That was just a few days after Michael Jordan torched the Cleveland Cavaliers for 45 points. Not sure why I bring that up. It’s not like the two players need to be compared incessantly. They’re just two NBA players among many. We can compare and contrast any of them.

Anyway, as Lebron began his high school basketball career, quickly became a phenom, a savant, a wunderkind of basketball. At the time, there were some straight-outta-high-school players who were achieving success in the NBA, notably Kobe Bryant and Kevin Garnett. It’s been speculated that Lebron may have been the #1 overall pick after his junior year of high school. Junior year! I was in some middle school “competitive” leagues back then and we all talked about him like we were fantasy RPG characters in a small town waiting for the hero to come and fulfill the prophecy. Sports Illustrated even crowned him the “Chosen One” in February of 2002. That was when he was a 17 year-old JUNIOR in high school. There was so much hype. The best NBA players in the world, like Shaquille O’Neal, were attending Lebron’s high school games.

He entered the league as the #1 pick for the hometown Cleveland Cavaliers. He and Carmelo Anthony both won the rookie of the month award every month for their respective conferences, and Lebron won the rookie of the year. He quickly became one of the game’s best players, and came in 2nd place in the highly contested 2006 MVP race. In 2007, at 22 years old, he put on a masterful performance against the mighty, defense-oriented Pistons. He was totally unstoppable, scoring 25 straight Cavalier points in the 4th quarter and overtime, making a game-tying dunk to send the game into another overtime and a game-winning layup in the second overtime period.

Lebron’s first stint in Cleveland was characterized by his incredible, Herculean efforts with a subpar supporting cast. The Cavs were never able to secure a true co-star for him. Even the big names they did sign [like Shaquille O’Neal and Ben Wallace] were well past their prime. It’s almost like great NBA players don’t really want to live/play in Cleveland, Ohio.

Speaking of which, Lebron left Cleveland, Ohio with 2 MVP’s under his belt and headed to Miami. There he won 2 more MVP’s, 2 championships, and 2 Finals MVP’s. His 2013 season was one of the best ever, a perfect mix of athleticism, IQ, and skill. Upon his return to Cleveland, fans, players, and analysts began to ask, “How long can he keep playing at an elite level?” and they’re still asking that 10 years later.

Anyway, in 2015, he had yet another great season. This time he was teamed up with Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love. Both were better teammates than he ever had in his first stint in Cleveland. Naturally, they did pretty well in the playoffs. Unfortunately, in game 4 of a 1st-round sweep, Celtics forward Kelly Olynyk hooked Love’s arm and ripped out his shoulder. In game 1 of the finals against the Warriors, Kyrie Irving suffered a fractured kneecap and was ruled out for the rest of the series. Not great. The Warriors won the series, but Lebron did receive some votes for finals MVP.

Lebron had another great season in 2016, with similar stats to his 2015 campaign. The Cavs swept the Pistons, then swept the Hawks. In the conference finals, the Cavs beat the Toronto Raptors, which was very common in Lebron’s second stint in Cleveland. As we all know, they faced the Warriors in the finals again. That Warriors team had just won 73 out of 82 games [an NBA record], they had the only unanimous MVP, Steph Curry, and they were considered one of the greatest teams of all time. Predictably, the Warriors went up 3-1 in the series.

No team had ever come back from a 3-1 deficit in the NBA finals. Teams in that situation were 0-32 at that point. It seemed incredibly unlikely that the first such comeback would be against a 73-9 team with the unanimous MVP and 2 games at home. Yet, in game 5, Lebron scored 41 points on 53% shooting, grabbed 16 boards, dished 7 assists, got 3 steals and 3 blocks in a do-or-die situation. But hey, Draymond Green was suspended [that’s what Draymond Green does], so that probably won’t happen in game 6 right? Actually it was the same story. James had another 41-point night, with 8 rebounds, 11 assists, 4 steals and 3 blocks, on 59% shooting. And in game 7, among other things, Lebron had the greatest, most clutch block in the history of basketball, preventing an Andre Iguodala layup. The Cavs completed the comeback, and Lebron led both teams in all 5 major statistical categories. He proved that, even though he wasn’t the MVP, he was still the best basketball player on the planet, which happened with several MVP winners.

As we all know, Kevin Durant joined that 73-9 Warriors team in the off-season, creating the greatest “super team” of all time. The two teams met up in the finals the next 2 years, with Lebron producing some of the greatest finals averages ever, but falling to the overpowered Warriors. One stat that encapsulates these finals is that in game 3 of the 2017 finals, Lebron James played 46 minutes. In those 46 minutes, the Cavs outscored the Warriors by 7 points. In the 2 minutes that Lebron was on the bench, the Cavs were outscored by 12, ultimately losing the game by 5.

During his time with the Lakers, Lebron has experienced a slow but steady decline. He’s still an elite player, but not quite as good as he was in 2013, which is 11 years ago now. That being said, his longevity is unprecedented. His scoring at 39 is way above anyone else at 39. His scoring in his 21st season is miles ahead of anyone else in their 21st season. He became the 2nd oldest finals MVP in 2020. Lebron is the NBA’s all-time leading scorer and the only player to score 40,000 points in the NBA. Lebron’s basketball career speaks for itself.

But wait a minute… he kinda sucked in the 2011 Finals. Remember that? You know what, never mind. The greatest basketball player for a lifetime is actually Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Opinions on NBA Opinions

With virtually any human enterprise, we want to know who’s the best, the most influential, the greatest, and so on. We make lists of the greatest films, greatest guitarists, greatest writers, and so on. The NBA is no different. We talk about greatest players, greatest teams, greatest coaches, greatest shooters, scorers, defenders, draft classes, big three’s, and so on. It’s fun. It’s fun to think about and talk about and read other people’s lists.

Or, it should be fun. It seems to generate a great deal of anger in some people. Any list of greatest players or teams or point guards or whatever that I see is always followed by a series of infuriated disagreements. It’s fine to disagree, but the anger can get so strange and extreme. A pretty average “Top 10 Players Ever” list might look like this: 1. Michael Jordan 2. Lebron James 3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 4. Magic Johnson 5. Larry Bird 6. Bill Russell 7. Kobe Bryant 8. Tim Duncan 9. Wilt Chamberlain 10. Hakeem Olajuwon. That’s not my top 10 list, but it’s a pretty standard list, if you ask me. A lot of lists look pretty similar. But then you have guys that say things like, “If you don’t have Kobe in your top 3, you don’t know anything about basketball!” Really? I don’t know anything about basketball if I put Kobe a few places lower on a top 10 list? I don’t know anything about basketball? Not a single thing about it?

That’s so stupid. The way I look at a top 10 greatest players list is that they’re pretty close. They’re all amazing players, nearly all just as good, so if I put someone at 8 and another person at 2, that’s not a huge gap for me. It’s not worth getting so riled up.

Here’s another thing that happens: people will cite the opinions of NBA greats as being of more value than a non-NBA player’s opinions. It makes intuitive sense. NBA players, especially great ones, know the game better, they’re playing against top competition, so their opinions matter more. And certainly the opinions of NBA legends are incredibly valuable, insightful, and interesting, but their status as a great player doesn’t automatically make their view “correct.” Because, if you listen to enough NBA legends talk about the game, you’ll find they disagree with each other quite a lot. An NBA writer may put Hakeem at #11 while Kevin Durant puts Hakeem at #4, so you’d think that the NBA writer is just wrong because he’s just a writer, but another NBA great may also put Hakeem at #11, so now what?

It’s just all opinions, man. I love hearing other people’s NBA opinions even if they differ drastically from mine. It tells me a bit about them, how they see the game, what they value. It’s fun. We can go back and forth a bit, but in the end it’s just opinions.

Here’s an opinion of mine: I think there is a highlight bias in the collective NBA mind. Highlights are cool. They look sick. They’re exciting. But they don’t necessarily align entirely with a person’s ability to play basketball. There’s some correlation, of course; if a player has a lot of really great highlights, it’s likely that they are a pretty good player. But it’s not entirely related. Highlights, by definition, exclude lowlights. If you watch highlights of a player, it’s not gonna show them missing shots, turning over the ball, or making costly errors on defense. Sometimes people with great highlights make a lot of mistakes.

I know people don’t base their entire opinion’s on a player’s caliber based on his highlights, but the exciting plays stick in a person’s mind more easily.

So it’s my opinion that the highlight bias favors exciting perimeter players over less exciting “bigs.”

Here’s a sub-point to that broader point: it’s not just highlights, but people have a tendency to value “skill” over “ability.” This concept is exemplified perfectly by James Harden’s quote, “I wish I could be 7-feet, run and just dunk. That takes no skill at all.” This is a bit of trash talk about Giannis Antetokounmpo when the pair were MVP rivals. Now I could respond and say that Giannis does have a lot of skill, which is what I believe. But I’d rather take the quote at face value. Yes! If you could just dunk all the time, you would do it! Any player would do that! The dunk is the most efficient shot in the game! It’s like 99% accurate, if you can dunk, you should dunk!

This is what always annoyed me when talking about Shaquille O’Neal. People would say, “He’s just big and all he does is dunk.” I would disagree with that, but even if it was true… SO WHAT? He was the best player at the time. If you want to say that you don’t like his playstyle, that’s fine, but when we’re talking about the best player, the style shouldn’t really factor in. It’s just about who’s best.

Like what was Shaq supposed to do? Was he supposed to say, “Hey guys, I know I’m bigger and stronger than anyone in the game, and I can dunk all the time, but some people might not appreciate that, so I’m gonna take some wild fadeaways and cool step back threes just for fun.” When you’re on offense, you try to score, you don’t get any extra points for scoring in a more “skilled” manner. This also came up with field goal percentage. Shaq led the league in field goal percentage several times while also being near the top in scoring. That’s a good quality, in my opinion, but some would try to deflect the point by saying, “Well, it’s only cause he shoots so close to the basket.” So? He’s able to get close to the basket more effectively than anyone. When you shoot the ball, you want it to go in.

The debate that generates the most emotion is who’s better between Lebron James and Michael Jordan. Personally I think there are a lot of players that could be considered the GOAT, but most people pick one of these two. People are so passionate about this one. It’s funny to me because I think most people who pick Lebron would put MJ at #2, and most people who pick MJ would put Lebron at #2. It’s just one number off, but it’s so desperately important for people.

Sometimes I see people say things like “MJ never won without Pippen,” as part of their argument that Kobe or Lebron or whoever else was better than MJ. It’s fine to think those guys are better than MJ, but this point always seems so silly to me. What was Jordan supposed to do, exactly? Was he supposed to say: “Hey, I just won three championships in a row with my teammate Scottie Pippen. He’s a great player and I’m the best. I retired, came back, and we won two more championships. But you know what? In the future there will be a similar player to me that is part of an amazing duo [Shaq and Kobe], but he’ll separate from his amazing teammate and then win two championships without him, proving that he can win without Shaq. Because I know this, somehow, I need to prove that I can win without my teammate, so I’m going to force management to trade Pippen away for a young Tracy McGrady so I can prove that I can win a championship without Pippen.”?

Ridiculous.

Just one more thing: we talk about underrated players and overrated players. And I used to think of a player like Moses Malone as a really underrated player because the typical 5 best centers are talked about way more often and he’s not mentioned much but he was one of the best players and all that. But then I look at rankings, and I rank him around the same as most lists. Usually he’s #6 or #7 on all-time centers lists and in the 17-22 range on all-time players lists, which is where I’d rank him. So I don’t really think he’s underrated, just not talked about much.

And that’s that. My actual NBA opinions can get very wild, and it’s fun!

Inventing Words and Describing Feelings

William Shakespeare is known for many things, like being difficult to understand for high school students. He wrote some sonnets too. My favorite is #104. Also, he invented and popularized a lot of words including dishearten, frugal, and premeditated. That is according to nosweatshakespeare.com, which sounds like a biased source. I didn’t bother to delve deep and check those facts because the point is that Shakespeare invented many words and phrases that are still used 400 years later. That’s impressive.

Another prolific vocabulary man was Chick Hearn, broadcaster for the Los Angeles Lakers. He didn’t invent words, but he did “invent” terminology within the basketball context. He coined terms. When you shoot the ball and it doesn’t hit the hoop, it’s an air ball. Of course it’s an air ball. But Chick Hearn was the one who coined the term. When you jump up and force the ball through the rim, it’s a slam dunk. Of course it is. Again, Chick Hearn came up with the term. Even though the words “air,” “ball,” “slam,” and “dunk,” all existed, he helped develop the basketball lexicon.

In more recent years, new words have emerged, like “selfie,” and new meanings for words have developed. My favorite of the latter is “spam,” which is an inexpensive meat product. It was then featured in a skit by British comedy troupe Monty Python. After that, the word evolved into a new meaning: unwanted emails. It became such a real definition of the word that the major email service providers all include a “Spam” folder, not an “Unwanted” folder that we colloquially call “spam,” but the biggest tech companies in the world literally type “spam” into their code. Hilarious

Anyway, there’s another phenomenon where we want new words to exist. So we describe specific feelings or experiences, and then try to come up with a word for it. Here’s an example: there are books and films that I love. They’ve affected me in a profound way. I consider them to be very beautiful, which is a good thing, but there’s a twinge of sadness when you realize that I can no longer experience those things for the first time ever again. Other people have felt it, but what do we call it? I don’t know. Maybe someone can invent a word for it.

So I want to explain another feeling I get sometimes. It’s a feeling that I’ve never explained to anyone. It’s half a feeling and half just a thing I think about. When I think about myself, I think that I have two parents. They each had two parents, so I have four grandparents. And I have eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents, thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents, and so on. The number increases as we go back in time, multiplied by two with each successive generation. When I visualize this, it looks like this:

and so on.

But then I think about the population of planet Earth. It’s around 8 billion now, and in 2000 it was around 6 billion, and around 1.6 billion in 1900. When I visualize this, it looks like this:

and so on.

So they’re complete opposites. And that makes me feel really weird as I pointlessly try to visualize numbers of people as a function of time going into the past. It creates an annoying dissonance in my mind. It’s like a little itch in my brain that I can’t scratch. Am I supposed to visualize the past as a cone or a funnel? What word can express this feeling? How about chronodemodissonance? Do you think that’ll catch on?

Celebrities are Stupid and Pointless [except the one that I like (Brie Larson, please go out with me)]

So recently an event called the Met Gala happened. Well, not recently, but it was recent when I started writing this. Then I took a long break and moved to another continent. They call it the Met Gala, but I don’t think I ever see, you know, Tom Seaver there. Or Darryl Strawberry. Definitely not Mike Piazza. I don’t know how it can be the Met Gala without those guys, but I digress.

The Met Gala is a special event where celebrities come together and wear the stupidest things that humanity could possibly imagine. And they all get together and talk about how amazing they all are for being celebrities and attending this celebrity event for celebrities. And the rest of us are meant to watch admiringly from behind an invisible [though incredibly strict] societal barrier between us and them. Because they are our superiors. And we must honor them.

In reality, though, they’re all just out-of-touch, phony people who are completely full of themselves. Phoniness, out-of-touchness, and full-of-onselfness are bad qualities, no matter who has those qualities, and celebrities have them in abundance. Except Brie Larson. She’s cool. I can just tell, somehow. She’s chill, she’s pretty, and if she ever felt inclined to go out with me, I think that would be a pretty cool thing. Maybe we could even go to the next Met Gala together.

But hey, it’s possible that I’m being a bit too harsh on the celebrities. They can’t all be all that bad all the time. I’m sure some celebrities (like Brie Larson, for example) are very nice people. If you saw them, you’d say “Hello there,” and they’d say “Nice weather we’re having!” or something along those lines. That’s pretty nice. Some are nice, fine, but many have those aforementioned bad qualities. Qualities that you wouldn’t like in a “regular” person, whatever that means.

And it seems like celebrities are just getting worse and worse, doesn’t it? In the 20th century, there was at least a general sense of merit. Babe Ruth was so famous because he was good at hitting home runs. Marlon Brando was good at acting. Michael Jackson was good at making music, and so on. We still have some of those. People are still good at hitting home runs and acting and making music. But we also have celebrities who don’t seem to do anything, as far as I can tell. Social media influencers and socialites and whatever other terms they use. Famous for being famous. And, admittedly, we did have that before with people like Zsa Zsa Gabor. She was kinda famous for being famous, but the level of fame and the commonality of the “famous for being famous” phenomenon is so much greater in the 21st century. 5 of the top 20 most followed people on Instagram are famous for being famous [by my understanding of the phrase (and in my personal opinion)].

Not only all of that, but they’re also consuming us off the proverbial cliff. Celebrities are unsustainable, that’s what I mean. Their countless vacations with private jets, their giant mansions, huge swimming pools, car collections, almost everything they do is just horrible for the environment. They’re just so bad. I mean, if you were an interplanetary consultant, and you came to Earth to analyze its climate problems, you’d quickly say, “First off, you gotta get rid of these fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists, they’re just the worst.” Then the second thing you’d say is, “Man, these celebrities are really fucking it all up. Definitely get rid of those people. Not Brie Larson, though, her smile alone could light up a city.”

Okay, so I’ve been pretty critical of the celebrities so far. Let me advocate on their behalf for a quick second. I don’t think celebrities should be gawked at or harassed or stalked or anything like that. If a celebrity wants to enjoy a cappuccino at an outdoor cafe, they should be able to do so in peace. If you’re walking by, you shouldn’t stare at them or bother them. Unless the person walking by is me and the person enjoying the cappuccino is Brie Larson. In that case, I will walk up to her and chat her up. That wouldn’t even be bothering her, it would just be a great moment for us.

People shouldn’t take photos or videos of celebrities when they’re out and about. And those photos get on the covers of Star and People and Us magazines, and that’s supposed to be important somehow. If you’re a paparazzi photographer, you should go home and rethink your life, but you probably won’t.

Don’t mistreat them, that’s the basic point.

So celebrities are bad, and they should be criticized for their harmful behavior and mistakes [Brie Larson never makes any] but we shouldn’t be horrible to them for idiotic reasons. We shouldn’t stalk them. We shouldn’t obsess over them. We shouldn’t concern ourselves over their dating lives [well, in Brie Larson’s case, I think we can all agree that she should date me.]

Nothing that I’ve said is particularly groundbreaking or profound or insightful. In fact, I think most people would agree that we shouldn’t care too much about celebrities. I’ve never heard anyone say, “You know what would be good for me personally and for society as a whole? It’d be good to become really obsessed with celebrities. That should be the main focal point of life. Let’s do that.” There doesn’t exist a single person who believes that celebrity obsession and celebrity worship should dominate our lives. Yet, celebrity obsession abounds…

Our obsession with celebrities’ dating/personal lives is particularly pointless. Hot/successful/famous/ talented people will date and have sex with other hot/successful/famous/talented people. Why is this treated as crazy gossip? It’s so unbearably obvious. Oh, the sexy actor is dating the sexy actress? I’m so shocked! The dating lives of celebrities should be of no interest to anyone else, except me and Brie Larson. That’s different. I actually have strong feelings for her cause I basically know her, and we would definitely have a special connection, okay? Brie and I get each other.

Society’s celebrity obsession [that I’m not a part of] creates a horrible series of events. As our society becomes more obsessed with celebrities, the result is that more and more people feel a stronger and stronger desire to become celebrities. Celebrity wannabes resort to more and more stupid/pointless methods of becoming celebrities. So celebrities, as a whole, become even more stupid and pointless than they already were. Wanting to be a singer or an actor is okay. Those are fine, creative pursuits, but the desire to just be a celebrity is a waste.

With the proliferation of social media, celebrities are more inclined to share their support for various socio-political causes and their opinions on various current issues. That’s not entirely new, but it’s more common now than ever. Before, you had to play a big concert just to say, “Hey, maybe the U.S. shouldn’t kill innocent people in Iraq,” but now celebrities can just whip out a cell phone, type 140 characters, and broadcast their opinions to millions of people. Why do they do this? There are multiple reasons. There’s some pressure to do so. A lot of people, for some reason, feel that their favorite celebrities are obligated to voice their opinion on modern issues and conflicts. Some celebrities recognize that it’s good for their personal brand to be seen as a socially conscious person. So even though they don’t know much about any issue, they’ll take an easy stance to support black people or gay people or the environment or something like that. And some celebrities do educate themselves and do feel compelled to lend their support to a certain cause. Often there’s a combination of reasons.

But for the most part, why would we give a single shit? Some of these issues are very important, so why would we look to an actor’s opinion to help formulate our own opinion? Unless that actor is Brie Larson; she so eloquently sheds light on social issues. It’s so beautiful. But maybe we’re not basing our opinions on what celebrities say, maybe we just want them to express good views on current events. Why? I mean, sure, it’s great when actors are good people. I want actors to be good people. I want my mailman and bartender to be good people, but I don’t expect them to give me their beliefs on the Russia-Ukraine war. They might even have shitty opinions on it; it wouldn’t change the actual ensuing events of the war.

Alas, the reality of fame, though. As much as I don’t like it, people pay attention to celebrities’ opinions. Taylor Swift tells people to register to vote, and the vote.org sees a big upsurge in voter registration. So maybe they should use their fame to promote good causes? And if I become a famous but elusive writer, will I feel the moral obligation to give my opinions on wars [they’re bad]? Is it true that celebrities are obligated to use their platform and influence to raise awareness and support change on important issues, despite how stupid that arrangement is? I think the question of whether famous people should speak out on issues is a question for undergraduate philosophy students to discuss in their ethics class. That question is not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to encourage non-celebrities [like myself] to stop caring about celebrities because it’s stupid and pointless. Stop caring about celebrities’ personal lives, their homes, the clothes they wear, the restaurants they frequent, the people they date, and so on. I’m not saying you can’t enjoy their art. That part is great, enjoy as much art as possible. Just stop concerning yourselves with celebrities as people. From this day forward, I will stop caring about celebrities. There’s one exception, though, which is Brie Larson, because I love her.

One more thing: the whole pointless game of celebrity obsession is given away by the fact that celebrities are often mistaken for other celebrities. A person sees a celebrity, recognizes that the person is famous, but doesn’t really know who it is, but they’re excited to see and talk to them, so they guess the celebrity’s name, and they guess wrong. A person sees a person and thinks, “hey that’s an actor! That’s Elijah Wood, isn’t it? I’m gonna say ‘hi’ to him and tell him I loved the Lord of the Rings.” Then Daniel Radcliffe replies politely, says thank you, and maybe even poses for a picture with the other person. This happens with a lot of actors and actresses. If you can’t really recognize them, then you’re probably not a huge fan of their work, and if you’re not a huge fan of their work, then why is it exciting to meet them?

What is the speed of light in football fields per business day?

Speed is represented as a certain distance divided by a certain time. Common units of speed are miles per hour, meters per second, and kilometers per hour. For example, if I were to drive my car 120 miles in 2 hours, we would say that my average speed was 60 miles per hour.

I want to express the speed of light in two of the most beloved units in the United States of America: football fields and business days. Now, football fields is a unit that is sometimes used for area [i.e. this parking lot is bigger than two football fields] and sometimes used for distance [i.e. the Moon is over 4 million football fields away]. Obviously for this exercise we will be taking football fields as a unit of distance.

But how long is a football field? Well, the actual area where you’re allowed to touch the ball without being considered out of bounds is a 120-yard by 53.5-yard rectangle, which includes the end zones. But you could argue that the playing field is 100 yards long, with a 10-yard end zone on each end. So is a football field 120 yards long or 100 yards long? In my opinion, when people use the football field unit of distance, they’re typically referring to a length of 100 yards, so that’s what we’ll use.

So, in physics class, I learned that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. According to Google, 1 meter = 1.09361 yards. After performing some simple multiplication on my calculator, we find that the speed of light is 327,856,030 yards/second, which is 3,278,560.3 football fields/second.

Now, the business day is where things get more interesting. So, 1 day = 24 hours = 1,440 minutes = 86,400 seconds. But business days do not equal days. Over the course of 7 days, 5 business days occur. So 1 business day should equal (1 day)*(7/5), right?

Wrong! That would assume that every week is exactly alike, which they are not.

At time of writing, there are 11 federal holidays in the United States. Okay, so over the course of an entire year, there are 365 days. So there are, on average, 104.2857 non-work days and 260.7143 work days. So if we add 11 days to the non-work days [and subtract 11 from the work days], we get 115.2857 non-work days and 249.7143 work days. So instead of 1 business day = (1 day)*(7/5), we should have 1 business day = (1 day)(365/249.7145), which would mean 1 business day = 1.4617 days.

But wait there for just one second! Not all federal holidays are the same. Some are fixed to a specific day of the week [Thanksgiving on Thursday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day on Monday, etc.], and others are fixed to a specific date [New Year’s Day on 1/1, Christmas on 12/25, etc.]. So the federal holidays don’t all take away one work day every year. MLK Jr. Day, Washington’s Birthday [colloquially called “President’s Day”], Memorial Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, and Thanksgiving are all fixed to specific days of the week. That means that we’re guaranteed to have 6 days taken from our initial 260.7143 work days and added to our initial 104.2857 non-work days.

What do we do with the rest, though?

Well, the non-day-of-the-week-fixed federal holidays [NDOTWFFH’s] are New Year’s Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Memorial Day [formerly known as Armistice Day], and Christmas. At first I thought I’d just multiply the remaining, non-day-of-the-week-fixed federal holidays by 5/7 and then add that to the non-work day total. Easy. But then I started second-guessing myself. It seems obvious, but is it really true that all the NDOTWFFH’s have a 5/7 chance of being on a weekday?

I don’t know why they wouldn’t. Maybe I just doubt my own mind all the time.

Anyway, I started a new Google Sheet. I began to fill it with dates and corresponding days of the week. I set to determine the likelihood that any given NDOTWFFH would fall on a weekday. Then I thought, “What am I doing?” I just went to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management website, and they list all of the federal holidays for each year, and what date they fall on. And guess what? We get 11 federal holidays no matter what days the NDOTWFFH’s fall on! Duh! Now that I think about it, it would be pretty fucked up if they just gave fewer holidays if Christmas was on Saturday. But hey, it’s a fucked up world.

So where are we, then? We’re back to 115.2857 non-work days and 249.7143 work days.

Wait a second, LEAP DAY! Leap Day, what a beautiful day. In the average leap year, we’d have [(366 days)*(5/7)] – 11 federal holidays = 250.4286 work days. In the average four-year cycle, we’d have [(249.7143 work days)*(3)]+250.4286 work days = 999.57146 work days. So close to one thousand! And over the course of four years, we have 1461 days in total.

Therefore, 1 business day = (1 day)*(1461/999.57146) = 1.4616263653626124939581608302422 days. That’s according to my calculator.

We’re getting pretty close now, can you feel it? It’s exciting.

The speed of light is (3,278,560.3 football fields/second)*(86,400 seconds/1 day)*(1.4616263653626124939581608302422 days/1 business day) = 414,031,407,122.3 football fields per business day. That’s a lot!

Individuals and Society [we live in one]

I currently work for a fairly small company, and it’s a fairly relaxed work environment. One day my co-workers were discussing some of the problems in the world and what ought to be done about them. It was one of those conversations that should’ve ended way earlier than it did. Both parties, we’ll call them John and Ben, were making essentially the same points again and again. The conversation was looping around without much progress.

When I reflected on this conversation later, I realized that Ben was talking about the world, civilization, society, or at the very least, our society [the United States], and John was just talking about John. They both agreed that there were economic, societal, psychological, and technological problems with the world. Ben talked about how human consciousness has evolved significantly over the last few millennia, in his opinion, and it should continue to evolve with the incredible access to knowledge. With that evolved consciousness, we could throw off silly notions like nationalism and other myths, and in doing so our species can flourish. And he advocated some change in policies about the environment and guns and agriculture and technology. It was some decent, wide-ranging stuff.

John, on the other hand, suggested that the solution to the world’s problems was the ownership and sustainable cultivation of land. He used the term “sustainable farming” many, many times. Ben agreed that more sustainable farming practices are desirable, but there are many other problems that demand very different responses. But John kept insisting that sustainable farming/living off the land is all we need to do. He presented it as a societal solution, that it would improve society at large, but really it was a personal solution. It was a solution for him, in response to the ills of the world.

I occasionally run into this societal problem/individual solution phenomenon in other conversations. It’s very common when discussing economics. For example, you might look at society, and when you do that, you might notice that there are companies, such as McDonald’s, that generate around $20,000,000,000 of revenue per year. Of course it generates that revenue by people making hamburgers and french fries and cleaning the dining area and operating the cash register and so on. These workers, whose labor the $20 billion is built upon, are mostly unable to purchase basic necessities with their McDonald’s wages. When I say “basic necessities,” I mean food, running water, a modest shelter [like a cheap apartment], and an ability to get around the city, whether by car or public transportation. They work and they work, but are unable to afford the basics.

Now, you might look at this situation and say, “Well, this seems like a problem, a societal problem.” We probably shouldn’t have a society where that type of arrangement exists. People who generate such gargantuan profits should be able to take care of themselves, at the very least. We’d certainly all be against an arrangement where McDonald’s makes twice as much profit, but the store workers are paid no wages at all, and are just given a cheeseburger on their lunch break to sustain themselves. That’s surely worse than the current arrangement, but the current arrangement can also be improved.

And then we could discuss how to improve the situation, whether by some better minimum wage, a restructuring of corporations of a certain revenue threshold, or some other regulations. When you bring up these kinds of points, a common response is, “just quit your job if you don’t like it,” which doesn’t address, or even acknowledge the existence of, the societal problem. It’s an individual solution [it’s hard to even call it that] to a societal problem.

In truth, they don’t offer the advice “just quit your job” as a solution at all. They don’t want to solve any problem, societal or individual. They just want to throw out something so they can reject the very idea that there is a problem. If I can throw out this little bullshit “solution,” it stands to reason, then there isn’t any problem at all, is there? But they’re presenting it as a solution to the problem, not as a denial of the problem’s existence. Because if they were to say, “no, I don’t think that McDonald’s arrangement is a problem at all with our society,” then they might get dragged into an argument about what society is, what it ought to be, and so on. They just want to say, “quit your job,” then wipe their hands clean. Another problem solved!

But let’s take that “solution” seriously for a second. Let’s say that the arrangement is a problem in society, and the solution is for those affected to quit their jobs. So, tomorrow, nearly everyone who works at McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Subway, KFC, Domino’s, Panda Express, Pizza Hut, Little Caesar’s, Walmart, Target, Home Depot, CVS, 7-11, Amazon, Walgreens, and basically every grocery store, all quit their jobs. They all just stopped going to work tomorrow. Some chaos would ensue. Perhaps, then, the hundreds of thousands of workers who just quit will look around at all the other workers who just quit their jobs, and they’ll realize that they’re all in the same boat. Though they work in different industries, some make coffee, others deliver packages and so on, their experience is shared. Then maybe that could develop into a camaraderie based on their shared experience, a class consciousness if you will. With that class consciousness, they could demand better conditions.

I have a hard time believing that the “just quit your job” guy really wants that solution.

I think that the individual-solution-for-societal-problem [ISFSP] comes about from people who either believe that society doesn’t exist [Margaret Thatcher] or that society-wide problems/solutions don’t exist or, at the very least, they’re not worth considering.

I would, of course, disagree. One example comes to mind. There used to be lead in gasoline. Our society is set up in such a way that most people need to use gasoline-powered cars to get around. The lead would get into the air, and people breathe air, and breathing air with lead in it is very bad. Lead in gasoline correlated with a decrease in children’s school performance, and it’s probable that lead led to violent crime. That’s a societal problem if I’ve ever heard one. It’s such a societal problem that it’s difficult to even come up with an ISFSP for it. Let’s try, though.

“Oh, you think leaded gasoline is bad? Why don’t you just… uh, invent a lead filtering, air purifying helmet to wear on your head at all times?” Yeah, I suppose people could have done that. Or just get rid of the lead in gasoline, which is what we did.

So what am I trying to say? What’s the point of all this? Well, I’m trying to say that societal problems exist, and should be treated as societal problems, with societal solutions. It’s good to discuss these problems and solutions, but if you run into an ISFSP person, you might find yourself dragged into a circular, pointless conversation. ISFSP sneakily changes the question at hand. Instead of “should mega-billion-dollar corporations pay a living wage?” we’re now discussing “should people who don’t like their jobs quit those jobs?”

ISFSP people don’t like that first question. Corporations pay what they pay, people work, profits are made, there is no “should” at all, they often. In that case, the conversation is close to becoming pointless. What I’m suggesting is that we learn to recognize ISFSP when we see it. When it arises, we should acknowledge it and open up a dialogue about it. Just ask if the ISFSP believes that the original topic of conversation, the societal problem, is a problem at all. Often they don’t. Asking them will at least force them to admit that no, they don’t think that people not making a living wage is a problem. At least you’d know where you stand at that point. They then have to defend a society wherein so many people work but cannot afford to live.

I think it’s worth asking an ISFSP person what they think the point of society is and whether we should bother improving it at all. You likely won’t change their mind, but it’s more valuable than doing the circular conversation I’ve described.

I’m not saying that individual solutions are always useless. Society’s not perfect, and you gotta play the hand you’re dealt, but societal solutions are important too, and it’s worthwhile to recognize when one party is talking about society and the other is talking about an individual in society.

Is Technology Even Good?

I’m at a bit of a crossroads in my life, which has happened many times before. Life is just one crossroad after another. Is it a crossroad or a crossroads? Seems like crossroads can be singular or plural. Is that right? Anyway, I’m at a crossing of roads, of sorts. New beginnings, big decisions, life changes and all that. My health has improved a lot. My diet changed for the better, I stopped drinking, I’m exercising more, and my sleep… well, it hasn’t gotten worse, that’s for sure.

Within this streak of self-improvement, I decided to get rid of my smartphone. I’m done with it! I. Am. Done. It’s a huge time waster, it’s designed to play little addictive tricks on my brain, social media is bad for mental health, all of that and much more. I feel like we all know most of that. Phone bad. Phone very very bad.

Now I’m not some genius or hero for giving up my smartphone. Far from it. I’m a genius/hero for other reasons, obviously. Anyway, I still feel like I need some kind of cell phone because sometimes my boss has to call me when we’re working in different locations. I still have my old LG cell phone, the one before my smartphone. It’s a good phone. It slides up for a full keyboard. I charged it, it held the charge, and all the buttons worked perfectly.

So I took it to the Verizon store to get the old phone in service again with my current phone number. But no. The LG phone is 3G, which doesn’t exist any more, apparently. So this cell phone, which is perfectly functional, just as much as it was the day I got it, is now completely useless. Might as well be a clump of dirt. I was disappointed by that. I clearly don’t understand cellular technology at all, but I really thought I would be able to just use a cell phone to make calls and texts. Is that a stupid thing to expect? I mean, you can use a telephone from decades and decades ago, but with cell phones I guess you gotta stay with the times or get left behind.

I asked the guy at the Verizon store if they had any flip phones that still work, and they had one, but it was around $150. I thought it’d be like $30 because of how [apparently] obsolete they are. I left. What I really want is to have a basic phone with a really cheap plan. That’s all I want in this world. I’m paying a lot for my infinite, unlimited, inexhaustible amount of data and whatnot. Mint Mobile, that’s what I want. But there are no Mint Mobile stores, at least not anywhere near me. But hey, there’s a Cricket Wireless store pretty close by. They’re pretty cheap, I think.

The next stop on my long journey was, in fact, Cricket Wireless. I told the clerk that I wanted a new phone, and she presented a number of intriguing offers. And they were really good deals, honestly. If you buy a certain plan for a certain duration, you get a certain smartphone. Pretty advanced phone, but I explained that I really really really wanted a phone that just does talk and text. She got one, she showed me the plan, and it was fine. But then it wasn’t.

See, in order to transfer my current phone number to the new Cricket Wireless flip phone, I needed my current T-Mobile account # and transfer # and PIN of some kind. I don’t have that. “It’s on your T-Mobile app,” she says. I don’t have that. “Well, there’s a T-Mobile store a few doors down, they can help you.” Another obstacle on our hero’s journey! I ask the T-Mobile guy for the info and he says, “It’s on your T-Mobile app.” I don’t have that. “You gotta call customer service then, we can’t look up that info in the store.” I called, and there was a thirty-minute wait so they were gonna call me back. At this point I knew it was going to be a total nightmare to get the necessary information.

When I first got the smartphone, I had Sprint. I got the phone from the Sprint store, I used Sprint data and Sprint calls and texts, I paid my bills to Sprint, and I had a Sprint app and all that. Eventually, Sprint was absorbed by T-Mobile. That’s fine, but I never got fully integrated into T-Mobile. I didn’t get an account number or any account at all. For a while I was still paying my bill via the Sprint app. Then, one year ago, I was about to leave the United States for a few months, so I wanted to put a pause on my phone plan since I was in a month-to-month situation anyway.

Boy, did that prove to be impossible.

I got stuck in some sort of unsolvable labyrinth of transferring phone calls. I talked to a Sprint guy, then a T-Mobile guy, then another Sprint guy, and on and on. I gave them my phone number, name, date of birth, all the information I could, but it was futile. I seem to have fallen into some kind of cellular black hole. They know I have to pay every month [I just “pay as guest” from the link in their automatic text reminder], but they can’t find me in their system. It was like Sisyphus but instead of pushing a boulder forever, it’s being on the phone forever. Not quite as bad.

Anyway, I walked around Target, waiting for T-Mobile to call me back, and I decided, “Fuck it, I’ll just buy a flip phone here at Target, and figure out a way to get my phone number on it with a cheap plan.” And that’s what I did. There were still a few hurdles, but I don’t want to get into them now. I’ve already written 1,000 words about buying a cell phone.

So, taking a step back in technology can be surprisingly difficult. Then why do it? As I said, social media is manipulative, it makes you sad, it’s addictive by design. Your phone tracks you and it and the more you use your phone, the more you become dependent on it. There are so many aspects of social media and smartphones that are bad for our well-being. When I bring up these points, many people look at me as if I’m explaining that the sky is blue. Of course social media and smartphones are bad for mental health, everyone knows that, so why bring it up? I find this very bizarre, but hey, that’s the nature of addiction. I know that alcohol is bad for me, but I still occasionally drink it.

Algorithm. I’ve grown to hate this word and all it encompasses. The almighty algorithms that dominate our digital lives, that affect our non-digital lives as well. Now I’m just an idiot, and I don’t know what an algorithm really is. Maybe it’s a very general computer term, and when I use word “algorithm,” what I’m talking about are the super advanced algorithms of the biggest tech companies, that absorb and process unimaginable amounts of data, then spew out a stream of content uniquely tailored to you.

I don’t know the future, but one would have to imagine that personal data collection will become more advanced and invasive, and the algorithms will become more advanced at personalizing things for us, if we allow them. Google Home, Google Pay, Google Mail [gmail], Google Maps, and YouTube all collaborate to form this giant tapestry of your activity, then it suggests the next stitch.

But it doesn’t necessarily suggest things that will improve our lives. It merely suggests things we’re most likely to click on, videos we’re most likely to watch, posts that will most likely keep us scrolling, and products we’re most likely to buy, whether those things are good for us or not. We seem to be approaching a bastardized version of the Mirror of Erised. Instead of showing our deepest, most desperate desires, our phones reflect our most basic consumerist impulses.

So I don’t really care for algorithms and I severely dislike how much they’ve come to infect our way of life. But just because I got rid of my smartphone does not mean that I have rid myself of the influence of algorithms. I’m trying to get a new job, for instance, which puts me at the mercy of the sneaky, devilish algorithms of LinkedIn and Indeed and Ziprecruiter and so on. I’m still beholden to algorithms, unfortunately. And then there’s the fact that I’m posting this in the first place! There are algorithms that factor into the popularity of this very post. They’re watching me! And I’m cognizant of their presence, so I try to choose the right tags, post at the right time, give a good title, so that the algorithm may boost the post just a little bit. Trying to please an algorithm is a soulless experience.

I guess I’m trying to make the points that current technology creates problems, the pervasiveness of algorithms in our lives is bad, and I recommend taking steps backward, like getting rid of your smartphone. I already feel better without my smartphone, and I hope to take more steps backward soon.

Then there’s this other thing called A.I. Or, as Steven Spielberg calls it, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence.” Why does he do that? Just call the movie A.I. We know that you’re not making a biopic of Allen Iverson, Steven. He did the same thing with “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.” I’m surprised he didn’t name his 2016 film “BFG: Big Friendly Giant.”

Anyway, I don’t fully understand A.I., and sometimes people equate that lack of understanding with an illegitimacy of critique. You can’t criticize the technology, they say, unless you fully understand it. That’s obviously ridiculous. There is a lot of evidence to support the claim that social media applications have a generally negative impact on our mental health. I don’t have to be a neuroscientist, psychologist, computer programmer, and big tech CEO to know that and criticize it.

So, A.I. has tremendous potential. Some of the potential is good, like assistance with farming practices and assistance with medical diagnosis/treatment. But it also has extremely negative potential such as disrupting economic/financial systems, A.I.-infused military weapons for mass destruction and targeted assassination, more advanced surveillance than any in history, and a possible “point of no return,” where A.I. dominates so much of our civilization that it becomes extremely difficult [or impossible] for an individual to secure housing, food, or other necessities without A.I. being involved in some way.

We don’t really know, but it could lead to some very bad things. We ought to try putting some reins on technology before it’s too late. There are, of course, funny “A.I.-generated,” or so the channels claim, YouTube videos. Some have Elvis Presley singing that he likes big butts and he cannot lie, some feature Harry Potter characters as bodybuilders, and some show Donald Trump and Joe Biden playing video games together. They’re funny, to be honest. They can be funny. Then someone will comment something to the effect of: “*AI will take over the world!* Meanwhile AI:” As if the ridiculousness of the videos negates the possibility of A.I. being used for nefarious purposes. As if A.I. can’t be used for different things. It’d be like if someone said, “how can drones be used for bad things when I’m using one to take beautiful footage of Hawaii?”

Anyway, I just wanna mention one more specific example about technology that just bugs me. When I was in middle school, there was a device capable of holding thousands upon thousands of songs. It was small enough to fit in your pocket or purse, with headphones tied around it. It was incredibly easy to use. You just plug it in and drag songs onto the device. Then on the device you can find music by artist, by album, by song, you could shuffle, you could make playlists, there were no ads, it was amazing. It was perfect.

And now the most common way to listen to music is to download an app. You can make playlists, but you can’t listen to them in order, it’s always on shuffle, and there’s a few obnoxious advertisements after every three or four songs. You can’t listen to full albums. You can’t even always listen to specific songs. You pick a song, and it generates a playlist around that song, which may start with that song. And you have a limited number of skips. If you don’t like these features, you have to pay $10 every month. Month after month after month after month, just to have the app behave like the device from decades ago. What a sick joke.

I still have the old device, but the battery doesn’t work. This is another shitty aspect of technology, the shelf life. The product, the iPod, could be used for my whole life, as long as I can change out the battery. But that’s not valuable to the company that makes the iPod, so the plan is to use the device for a couple years, then set it down forever. Fucking stupid, I’m gonna figure out a way to fix the battery. Bye!

A Single Day’s Worth of QR Codes

I’ve become increasingly fascinated by QR codes. I don’t know what QR stands for, and I have no intention of looking it up, but I wanted to take a look at the QR codes that I’d see on a typical day.

So I’m in my last semester of university, so I live in a house with other people. That’s a bit of the old context for ya. I walked into the kitchen, and the first QR code of the day was on a pack of bottles of iced tea. Well, it’s just tea, not necessarily iced. You can put it in the fridge if you want, but these were just on the counter. Apparently I could’ve scanned the code for more food information, but I didn’t.

I turned on the TV because I’m evidently incapable of eating breakfast without it. Maybe I should reconsider my life choices. Anyway, an advertisement came on for a phone app that somehow helps you buy tickets to sporting events. A giant QR code appeared on screen, which facilitated the download of the app. I did not download it. If I wanted to buy tickets to sporting events, I’d go to google.com, then type “[sports team name] tickets,” and go from there.

As I prepared my breakfast, I noticed a Walmart receipt that someone had left on the counter. There was a little QR code on the bottom of the receipt. I’m not sure what it did, but does every Walmart receipt have a QR code on it? Do we need that? Why? That’s approximately a zillion QR codes a day, just from one company. It’s a bit overwhelming to think about. I guess they’re probably not unique to each receipt, but more general. Like it probably takes you to walmart.com or something. But that prompts the question: what person would know how to use a QR code and not know how to go to walmart.com? No one.

I only found one QR code in my own room while I was getting dressed. It was printed on the first page of a large packet I received in the mail. Apparently the bank that I use is going to be bought by a different bank, and they wanted to welcome me to the new bank for some reason. It’s funny because right under the QR code, it shows the URL destination. So again, I could just type that in.

Then I went to my university, where I was promptly bombarded with QR codes everywhere I looked. They were on bulletin boards and on posters in hallways and on COVID test vending machines and on normal vending machines and on shelves in the bookstore and on professors’ office doors and on random doors leading into random rooms in random buildings. I took a picture of every QR code I noticed, which came to 107, just on the university campus.

Being a university student, I think that I’d come across more QR codes than the “average person,” whoever they are, out there in the world. Maybe it’s you. That being said, I was still pretty shocked by the sheer volume of QR codes that were present in a simple day of pursuing a B.S. degree. To be fair, there were some duplicates. For example, someone had put up flyers advertising their photographic abilities to take professional headshots. But I want some unprofessional headshots! I saw a couple of those flyers, but I still counted them as part of my QR code total.

Most of the QR codes promised “more information,” as if we needed any more of that. We have more information now than ever before. Enough! Some QR codes were related to upcoming events, and presumably you could scan the code to register for the event or buy tickets. That’s actually pretty convenient and helpful, I would assume. I don’t go to many events.

The most memorable QR code from the university was located in the Arts & Letters building. I had to go there for a one-on-one meeting with my professor about my progress on my final essay [I’m gonna do it all on the last day]. One of the other professor’s office doors was completely filled with flyers, and one of those flyers had a particularly juicy QR code. An illustration of a human hand pointed to the code, and the flier urged you to point “your fancy smartphone at the strange agglomeration of black squares on a white field (or are they white squares on a black field? the mind boggles).” Cheeky! Seems others are fascinated by these codes as well. Nevertheless, I did not take the flier’s advice.

I went home for a quick little lunch. I made myself a pathetic little quesadilla. The package of tortillas had a QR code on it, and the package of cheese had a QR code on it. A full QR code meal right there. Then I drove back to the university. There’s a major intersection right outside my neighborhood. On one of the corners, a chain link fence separates the sidewalk from a bunch of trees, which separates the fence from a park, which separates the trees from whatever lies beyond. But that chain link fence is used for community announcements and information and stuff. I saw two posters with QR codes on them.

After all of my classes, I went to the gas station to fill up my car with gasoline. When I got there, you guessed it, I was greeted by a marvelous QR code by the pump. The code was doing its best to coax me into applying for a Shell credit card that would supposedly add fulfillment and happiness to my life. But I don’t want any more credit cards! No more!

Then I went to CVS to purchase a few items. Near the entrance, a display advertised some kind of handheld machine. The user is supposed to hold up the machine to their face, insert part of the machine into their nostrils, and then the machine is supposed to clean your sinuses, or something. The accompanying QR code promised a video demonstration of the device. But alas, I have no such need for sinus cleansing apparatus. The next display, with its own QR code, informed me of a rewards program with CVS. I don’t want it.

To be honest, when I’m in CVS, my mind goes into a strange state, and my senses dial down. I flow from aisle to aisle, like a drifter from town to town.

Anyway, there may have been some QR codes that I missed, but there was one posted right by the checkout. It would take me to a survey where I could rate the service at this CVS. I was tempted to take the survey and give five stars or two thumbs up or 10/10 or “excellent” or whatever was the highest. It’s a fine CVS, like any other, but I know that corporations place a weirdly high value on surveys and bullshit like that. So maybe it would help this local CVS and its workers if I did the survey. But I still didn’t. “Next time,” I deceptively told myself. I did notice a QR code on the container of protein powder that I bought. I believe that if my muscles got a little bit bigger, I would become happy somehow. Still a work in progress.

The QR codes/hour dropped dramatically after I left the university. I was scrolling through Instagram to pass the time. I follow the local Audubon… chapter or whatever it’s called. They made a post about a couple of events that they were coordinating. The post had two QR codes for more information on the events. It’s funny, of course, because I was scrolling on my phone, which I use to scan QR codes. A phone’s camera can’t scan its own screen, like a man can’t see his own eyes.

Later in the evening I was trying to relax, so I prepared myself a snack and put a baseball game on the TV. The snack was pretzels and hummus, and the game was the Chicago Cubs vs. the San Diego Padres. The hummus container had a QR code for more information. What more information could there be? The ingredients are on there, the suggested serving size, the nutrition facts. What else could there be? My curiosity finally caught up, so I scanned the code. The code took me to a site that had the nutrition facts and the ingredients.

Wow! Amazing! Just like the stuff already printed on the package! But this time I can click on each ingredient, and it’ll tell me what that ingredient is. For example, water is “a liquid with no flavor or color which is a major component of all living matter.” Hmm, fascinating!

The baseball game went on, and I was having a nice peaceful time, when a colossal QR code flashed on the scoreboard in left-center field. At Wrigley Field. The second oldest active Major League ballpark. What a meeting of the old and the new! I wonder what Chicago Cubs fans from the 1920s would say about QR codes. Probably something like, “Oh. Yeah. Technology advances over time, so I’m not surprised that it would advance greatly over a 100 year period.”

After the game, my day of QR codes was coming to an end. The last one was on a skincare product that I own. I’m trying to care for my skin, but skincare seems overly complicated. If it’s oily do this, if it’s dry do this. Wash your face this many times per day. Then someone else says no, that’s too many, just once. You need sun but not too much sun, use sunscreen if you’re in the sun for this time. No, that’s fine, actually. Oh, but that’s the wrong sunscreen, that’s made with some chemical acylic-sycylic dioxibenzophosphorenzanate, so don’t use that one. Exfoliate but not too harshly. But not too lightly either, cause you want it to actually work. Steam helps your pores but hot showers are bad. Take cold showers.

I don’t know, I don’t really like it. I feel like, with other health stuff, it’s fairly simple. Eat fruits and vegetables, stay away from sugary snacks and drinks, stay hydrated, and exercise. Basic shit. Anyway, when I scanned the skincare product, it just showed me a four digit number. That’s it. No link to the website, no additional information, nothing useful. What’s the fuckin point of that?

In the end, I came across 124 QR codes in one day. It’s more than I had expected. A lot of them were impressively pointless. Especially the ones on food packaging. I have a really hard time comprehending the utility of a QR code in that situation. Many were basically just ads, which were fairly pointless in their own right. The more useful codes were for events, in my opinion. They can take you directly to the event registration form, instead of going to the organization’s general website, then searching for the event page within the site. It’s more convenient, I guess, but barely. The convenience gained is so minimal.

The general idea of a QR code, using a handheld device to scan a little square out there in the world, gaining more information. It makes me feel like protagonist Samus Aran from the action-adventure game Metroid Prime, released in 2002 for the Nintendo GameCube. She explores ominous environments, scans objects for additional information, uses that information to traverse dangerous worlds and accomplish her goal. But in reality, QR codes are mostly just pointless.

Jack of All/Many/Several Trades

We know ourselves, more or less. I know my height and weight and my birthday. I also know that it takes me some time to get comfortable with people, to come out of my shell. Then there are characteristics that are less concrete, less knowable. These might come up when a potential employer weirdly asks, “How would your friends describe you?” Well, I think my friends would say that I’m an introspective person, and I would agree that I’m an introspective person, but can I really know that about myself? Hmm, I probably need to do some more introspection about that.

My friends might also say that I am a person with a variety of interests. And I am. Some might call me a “Jack of all trades,” which is apparently an Elizabethan-era phrase. That’s Elizabeth the First, not Elizabeth the Second, who recently died. Even Elizabeth the First wasn’t the first Elizabeth who ever was. She was just the first Elizabeth who happened to also be the Queen of England.

Oh, here’s another interesting thing: apparently the “master of none,” part of that aforementioned phrase came centuries later. I guess someone was getting tired of all these cocky all-trades Jack’s, so they put those Jack’s in their place. But then get this: a few hundred years after the “Jack of all trades, master of none,” phrase was popularized, some Jack’s got together and added “but oftentimes better than master of one,” to the end of it. I love it. It’s a centuries-old argument between masters [of one] and Jack’s [of all trades].

That’s how my adult life has felt, a battle between my natural interest in a variety of things and my desire to focus on one thing and give it my all. For some reason [hopefully we’ll explore that reason] I have this belief that the passionate dedication to one thing is better than a collection of interests, passing from one to the next every few months. Part of this belief [I believe] comes from a simple gut feeling. It’s a straight-talkin,’ pragmatic approach to life. It’s saying to myself, “You got one life, so pick something you like and try to get good at it.”

And that brings me to the second part of my reason desiring the master lifestyle over the Jack lifestyle. Life is not just finite, it’s short. It’s eighty years, give or take, if you’re lucky. And for several years you’re either too old or too young to fully engage in these interests. If I lived for 10,000 years [which probably won’t happen], this wouldn’t be such a problem. I could take 100 years to read, 500 to write, 50 years to make my body as athletic as possible. I could make films and cycle all over the place and travel and grow plants and I could spend 100 years making bullshit videos on YouTube.

But that’s not gonna happen. So the shortness of life applies pressure on a person. That’s not exactly profound or new. And the master lifestyle doesn’t necessarily follow from the shortness-of-life pressure. Some people feel that same pressure, which leads them to try to engage in as many different things as they can. Same pressure, different reactions.

I think another part of my preference for the master lifestyle is that it can give me a stronger sense of purpose. It’s this incredible feeling of “I am ____, I love ____, and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop me from doing ____.” It’s very purposeful. I feel vitalized when I throw myself into one thing. It’s invigorating. It’s motivating. And I’ve learned from experience that the Jack lifestyle doesn’t really work. It’s not satisfying, it’s not as fulfilling, and it leaves me feeling stretched too much. But the Jack lifestyle consistently returns to encroach upon the Master lifestyle.

So these lifestyles are in tension, and it feels like a fundamental conflict between who I am and who I want to be. It’s this lifelong question: how much do I embrace who I naturally seem to be, and how much do I force myself to live a different way for some greater “cause,” for lack of a better word. I’m lacking a better word right now. A better word is out there, I’m just lacking it right now.

Anyway, what does this look like? I’m going about my day-to-day life, and the Jack lifestyle starts creeping in. It doesn’t take over immediately. It’s just like, “Hey, maybe I should practice the guitar, and learn this Led Zeppelin song. Oh, maybe I should write a new song. Then I also should record one of the older songs I wrote. I need to get better at recording.” It’s all very exciting, but all of that is happening at the same time that I’m trying to be a writer, working on short stories and a novel. And then oh, there’s some environmentalist volunteer opportunities, let’s be a super-involved, well-connected activist. But I just got this old film camera as a gift, let’s become a photographer. I’ll ride my bike everywhere and go on hikes and take photographs. But I also have the blog and want a better job and I want to work on my body and get better at building things and read all the books and become a speedrunner and post political videos online. Aaahhh!!!

That happens sometimes. It’s happening now. It has happened several times before to varying degrees. Sometimes it gets really serious and existential and then identity crises occur. Usually what I do is I take a long, contemplative walk/hike, and I listen to some contemplative music, and I contemplate. And when I’m done, I feel good. I feel a renewed sense of focus, a renewed sense of drive for that one passion of mine. The master lifestyle prevails, end of story.

Until next time! There always seems to be a next time. It’s like Spider-Man and the Green Goblin, they’ll always find a way to battle again, til the end of time. It’s as the Green Goblin said in Spider-Man (2002): “again and again and again until we’re both dead!” Thus, the Jack and Master lifestyles will duel it out for my whole life.

The Jack lifestyle’s been kicking the Master’s ass recently. I’ve been bouncing all over the fuckin’ place. All these different interests that I’ve mentioned, plus more that I haven’t mentioned, plus finishing school, plus these new ideas that come in my head. Like here’s one: Tom Delong [Blink-182] has a strange sounding voice. I find myself imitating him when I’m singing along to other famous songs, and so I think, “wouldn’t it be fun to make a fake Blink-182 cover band?” Not a band that covers Blink-182 songs, but a band that’s pretending to be Blink-182 covering other bands’ songs. It’s a funny idea, but it would take a lot of time to make it good, so I have to throw that idea in the trash because it’s taking too much away from what I want to do. Sounds dramatic over a stupid fucking idea, but that’s just one fuckin example.

So I’ll soon take a long walk and become once again dedicated to my lifelong pursuit of being the best writer I possibly can. Problem solved. But there’s actually a couple more problems that I want to explore briefly before we close for the day. First problem is this: when I come to the profound conclusion that pursuing a writer lifestyle is what I want to do, that conclusion doesn’t determine how I go about it. Do I work on this blog? Do I finish a novel? Do I write short stories? Do I self-publish or try to get published the old fashioned way? Do I keep writing random letters and leaving them in random places for random people? I still need to function, biologically speaking, so how much do I focus on a healthy diet and exercise and good sleep and whatnot? But hey, I’m willing to face those challenging questions.

The second problem is this: sometimes you can “lose” in your pursuit. What I’ve been talking about is artistic pursuits, for the most part. I can work on writing every day from today until the day I die. I may not achieve the level of success [commercially and artistically] that I want, but I can always continue. I’ll always write. But not everything is like that. If your number one passion is to be an olympic gymnast, there’s a fairly short window in which you can accomplish that. And if you don’t, well, that’s that. You can’t exactly strive for being an olympic gymnast from age 30 to 80. You can still live a good life, obviously.

I’ve been talking about the “Master” lifestyle as a life of achieving greatness in a particular field, like writing, painting, or tennis. But I’m more so talking about the dedication of putting your all into one thing. That could be something like love. You may love someone more than anything, and want to love them, and you want to put all that you have into showing your love for them. But then they don’t love you back. So you’re completely lost at that point. That can happen, I’m told, so watch out for that.