reading review - the bus driver who wanted to be god

It's staggering to think I've opened this book at various times over the past decade, but the facts back it up - this is the third book on my reading list, which I started in 2011. I remember these short stories - very short, relative to others - being the perfect length while waiting for and riding the Orange Line from Downtown Crossing to State; approval for this book might be the only thing I still have in common with that kid.

The Bus Driver Who Wanted To Be God by Etgar Keret (December 2019)

I read this last December as part of my annual rereading month, and perhaps the familiarity is responsible for a set of book notes with far more detail than usual - I was surprised to see I'd written short opinions on my favorite stories. I think I agree with my belated conclusion about 'Goodman', but should add that what's missing in my notes is the way certain moments from these stories have stuck with me over these years, and come to me rather unexpectedly - the little brother complaining when I see a blown offside call, the meaning of God's word as I circle a quiet pond, and of course, the truth of career aspirations anytime I see a bus close its doors on a running passenger... it's like a disease, I guess.

business bro, working, manager

The next time I interview for a new job, I'm going to ask this question - how do working managers choose between management work and individual contributions? It seems like the most important thing to learn before joining an organization because I would understand how the culture viewed management - is it a valuable function, a glossy label for supervisory tasks, or merely a career development crutch (but shaped like a carrot!) to reward strong individual performance?

I can already envision how my question will cause problems. The best-case scenario would be a confused interviewer, perhaps buying time with some form of stammering, and maybe forcing a strained smile or slow nod, all preceding the inevitable canned conclusion - of course, it's impossible to know, for sure, what anyone might do, since the context of current priorities is very much a factor in any decision. This is when it would all fall apart for me, or at least for my candidacy, because I would stop to explain that I meant after all factors were considered, that I want to know what the decision is when it's entirely a fifty-fifty proposition - in short, what pressure does the culture exert on the working manager? It would fall apart because if I have to follow up, if I have to go through the step of asking for the answer again, then it's likely the interviewer doesn't want to give me the answer, which means no one in the organization wants to give me the answer; culture in an organization is like the current in a river - everyone in the water can feel the pull, and speak to it, which means evasion implies something unspeakable about the undertow, such that the swimmers fear the very articulation of the fact will discourage those on the banks from joining them.

The only sure thing in this situation would be my conclusion - pass - because from a nonresponse I can at least deduce that the organization doesn't regard managerial work with the same reverence it might reserve for traditionally independent contributions such as, say, programming, or producing a colorful report. This is vital in the context of my own role and its managerial function, but it's even more important in the sense that it will determine how my manager works with me - when I look at my list of qualifications for an ideal manager, I don't have "prioritizes his or her own work ahead of me" atop the list, in fact it's not even on the list; I never considered such an absurd possibility. What's the point of having a good manager if your good manager never manages? It's like a restaurant having its best cook cleaning tables. But most organizations have fooled themselves into the delusion of a part-time manager, a pattern I notice consistently in the notes I collect from peers about their careers, or in the history of my own experiences; the working manager is not only common, but ubiquitous, and in nearly all cases the order of words on the job description is accurate - working, manager.

reading review - slam!

At the height of the statewide COVID shutdown, I basically stopped reading for a few weeks. When things started to come back toward The New Normal, I found myself out of the book habit. I turned to a tried and true book reopening strategy - I thought back to the past and checked out some old favorites from the library. Slam! is a book I remember very clearly from my childhood - it's a great bit of sports fiction, geared toward the teen reader, which I liked as a kid for its sports action, and gradually understood as I grew older to be much more than about basketball.

See book notes here.

Slam! Walter Dean Meyers (July 2020)

The book is about the title character, a seventeen year-old at a New York magnet school, whose struggles on the basketball court begin to mirror the challenges he faces in the rest of his life. I felt at the heart of this story was a conflict of expectations, something Meyers mentioned in an interview included with my copy; what I saw in Slam! was how young people who feel trapped in a certain lifestyle can clash with the instruction, example, and information provided by the adults charged with helping them form better expectations. One of the most interesting examples to this point was a teacher's thought that math skills were applicable in places such as grocery stores - Slam muses that if a store made him do fractions, he would find a different store. It's not so important that one or the other is correct in this example - it's much more significant that when a teacher and a student cannot relate to each other, the breakdown is far more costly to the student.

The plot lines of grades and basketball are among the main arcs in the book, but it's Slam's art project that brings a perspective which elevates the story. It seems that the camera he uses to document his neighborhood and its people gives him his first view of his life through the eyes of an outsider; he's briefly separated from his subjects, many of whom have fallen in life, whose similarities to him suggest he may be the next one to trip. The process of making art out of his life is also a crucial symbolic step toward giving his current challenges a broader perspective, which enables him to make better decisions. As the subplot of his documentary progresses, there are increasing examples of Slam reevaluating his choices, particularly in the contexts of relationships, authority figures, and peers. In the aftermath of a critical incident in which a teacher crosses a line and verbally abuses him, Slam starts to see that there can be a point, message, or lesson even when nothing can be done about the situation in the moment; toughness means battling right to the end, even if it's just to remain accountable to yourself.

TOA Rating: Three free throws out of four.

leftovers - reading review, what if (math at scale)

I noted last week that understanding scale spoke better to math skills than being able to compute sums. In an election year, it's particularly valuable. I heard Biden speaking the other day about "billions and billions of dollars", it sounded quite Trump-like, but if you understand that our country has around 330 million people, you learn to hear that as "hundreds and hundreds of dollars per person" which in the sense of policy doesn't seem like very much.

The federal debt is another story, but again one better told with per-capita numbers - we're around $82K each for one year, which is just under the median income. That seems like a better way to think about it than all the other metrics posted by websites like US debt clock, which seem interested only in alarming us under the guise of providing information.

reading review - the lonely city

Gee, why would I read this book, or take these notes, during COVID?

The Lonely City by Olivia Laing (July 2020)

This book is broadly about loneliness, but the concept comes through more as theme than as topic, at least from my reading. It reminded me at times of how I felt as I read Plant Dreaming Deep - like I was being ushered past locked doors during a house tour. In the case of The Lonely City, my interest in Laing's experience of loneliness was often redirected toward her research, which analyzed how artists have used their experiences of loneliness to inform their work. I can imagine this book will amaze, delight, or inspire many readers, but for me it needed a little more connection to the author's experience to reach the loftiest levels of my reading list.

There were quite a few remarks and insights that have stayed with me over the past three months, some of which have very little to do with the loneliness theme. For example, my transition into remote work has seen my interactions with colleagues changed in a manner highlighted by this book - our communication tools are demonstrating considerable influence over the interactions within my team. The most interesting change has been the perception of effective leadership skills - with our communication technologies of choice essentially reduced to a holy trinity of email, chat, and video, leadership skills have been redefined on the fly as some combination of organization and execution, which has marginalized traditional qualities such as presence, vision, and decisiveness that were seen just months ago as crucial qualities for successful management.

The thoughts specific to loneliness that I liked the most explored its mechanics and considered its various consequences, both in terms of negative impact to the individual yet also in its positive influence on the work of renowned artists. But I thought its most important observations saw loneliness with slightly unusual perspectives - for example, that loneliness is always a reminder that we are alive, or that its collective cure requires constant vigilance against stigma and exclusion. The most significant insight - which points out that we look at challenging emotions such as loneliness as problems to be cured rather than responses to the world - suggested to me that we should be careful of moving too fast toward alleviation, even in the current moment of chronic isolation, because in our individual experience is always valuable intuition about the missing pieces of a better tomorrow.

TOA Rating: Three solitaires out of four.

the left-wing bias

There's a common perception that there is a left-wing bias in our news media. I don't have much to offer to the situation beyond noting that, based on the analysis I've seen, I agree with the view. Why could this be? I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the types of people who become journalists, and therefore make decisions about what ends up in the coverage.

But I think a simpler reason could be at play, which is that it's hard to report news about nothing. And although this is an unnecessary generalization, couldn't it be the case that the right-wing is the politics of the status quo, and therefore less likely to generate newsworthy events? Most people don't tune into the news expecting to hear "nothing happened, same as yesterday" even if at some level that's what they support, in the sense of their political views.

make america debate again, part 3

Hi all,

This is it, we promise... well, assuming these idiots get around to discussing the ballot questions...

Part one is here, and part two is here.

Good luck, as always.

******

BB: OK, we're back!

TOA: Hold on.

BB: Hold what?

TOA: Hold ON, I said.

BB: Hold for what?

TOA: I'm reading.

BB: What do you have?

TOA: The state-sponsored opinions.

BB: Oh wow, they still do that red book?

TOA: Oh yeah, it's my favorite book. Here, take it.

BB: So you are going to vote?

TOA: Well, I'm not going anywhere, but with this mail-in thing, I can still vote.

BB: Magical.

TOA: Shall we discuss?

BB: Well, hold on, I want to finish some points from last time.

TOA: What points?

BB: Well, for starters, all those personal attacks against business bros-

TOA: What attacks? Look, whatever you want to ramble about can come later, but we should do this first, since we keep running out of time when we talk about the other stuff, and the election starts in ten minutes.

BB: Ten minutes?

TOA: Well, you know, see this?

BB: What's that?

TOA: The ballot.

BB: Oh, right.

TOA: So we'll talk about this for a few minutes, then fill out this ballot, and then if we have time-

BB: OK, whatever.

TOA: First up is...

BB: Car repair.

TOA: How'd you know?

BB: I saw, like, eight hundred commercials.

TOA: Right. Pass.

BB: Is that what you call voting?

TOA: I mean, put whatever you want.

BB: Hold on, shouldn't we talk-

TOA: No, it's a waste of time, just pick one or the other-

BB: You don't even know what it is!

TOA: Well, I don't drive, so I don't care.

BB: Great attitude. All that talk last time-

TOA: It's consistent. This is exactly what I meant. I'm happy to vote half for one and half for the other. It's the same as not voting, so just leave it blank, then-

BB: You have to vote!

TOA: I'm not informed enough to vote about cars. Honestly, I'd vote to have them removed, if-

BB: OK, well let me put it this way... are you in favor of monopolies?

TOA: No.

BB: OK, we'll vote yes.

TOA: Really?

BB: Well, specifically it's data being controlled by large corporations, but that's basically a monopoly tactic.

TOA: OK, sure.

BB: But... are you in favor of domestic violence?

TOA: Is that a serious question?

BB: OK, so we'll vote... no... you do waffle a bit, eh?

TOA: What are you talking about?

BB: I'm just reading the state-sponsored opinions.

TOA: Let me see those.

BB: OK, so now you want to vote?

TOA: There's no way it can be, I mean, you're lying-

BB: I'm reading. So reading is lying now?

TOA: Hold on.

BB: Take your time.

TOA: OK, so... this is about cars.

BB: That's what I said.

TOA: That's not what you said.

BB: The vote is about the cars, or car repair, but the opinions are about monopolies and violence.

TOA: See, this is the thing with voting, instead of solving one thing at a time on the ballot, people try to cram four or five things into one, and you get complete nonsense, which solves nothing, and furthermore-

BB: Maybe so, but that doesn't mean you should skip voting-

TOA: I'm not-

BB: Or that you should do a half-ass vote.

TOA: Well-

BB: That's #2 by the way.

TOA: What is?

BB: Ranked choice voting.

TOA: Half-assed is not what ranked choice means.

BB: Says who?

TOA: Says me. Inventing some complicated system of loops and pulleys just so my vote gets counted in full at the end for my fifteenth candidate is still a vote. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about when I agree in part with both sides, a way to split my vote.

BB: OK, well that's #2-

TOA: No it's not-

BB: Fine, but it's definitely not #1, so let's go in order. So, what about #1?

TOA: Yeah... I see the point on "NO" but I don't see the relevance.

BB: You don't think domestic violence is relevant?

TOA: It's very important, but for this vote?

BB: You've lost your mind!

TOA: Hear me out-

BB: I don't-

TOA: Well, last week, I will tell you this, last week I got some interesting mail.

BB: Right, the ballot-

TOA: No, it was from St. Jude's Hospital, in Memphis.

BB: Saint what?

TOA: Jude.

BB: So?

TOA: So I've never been there, never given them a nickel, never said a word to them. Buddy, think about it, where we work-

BB: Your point?

TOA: So how did they get my address?

BB: It's probably-

TOA: Oh, here we go, the business bro-

BB: See, the personal attacks-

TOA: I know how they got it, so I can spare you the creative gymnastics.

BB: OK. How?

TOA: They bought my data.

BB: From?

TOA: I don't know, someone else.

BB: Great.

TOA: It's true, and it's obvious. You business bros, you have so little imagination, you're left to sell my data so you can afford to fly yourselves to conventions.

BB: Whatever. You probably gave it to them and forgot-

TOA: Anyway, I'm sympathetic to the "NO" argument here, but this idea about privacy? No thanks. That ship sailed long ago.

BB: Right, but that's no excuse.

TOA: No excuse?

BB: Just because someone else makes it easy for criminals doesn't mean you should just let it slide for everything else.

TOA: I'm not talking about letting it slide, I'm talking about something that doesn't exist. If someone wants to track location using car data, like, I don't really understand the argument. So people don't have their phones in the car with them? Just track the phone. Apparently, anyone can buy my address, so we always know where the car is eventually arriving. Isn't all that stuff easier than car data, easier to track?

BB: You're ignoring my point. It's like saying people can carry around swords because other people can carry around guns.

TOA: But that's missing my point. This is about car repair, and whether independent car repair shops are on the same playing field as the big corporations. It's not what you said. If you are so concerned about cyberstalking, put a cyberstalking question on the ballot.

BB: There's no need, it's already against the law, this just makes it easier to break the law.

TOA: This law is already broken.

BB: OK, well.

TOA: You just think corporations deserve their monopoly profits. That's all this is.

BB: No, just playing-

TOA: You probably think the COVID vaccine should cost $10K per person, too-

BB: Well, now who's bringing in irrelevant things?

TOA: You think COVID is irrelevant?

BB: It's very important, but for this vote?

TOA: You've lost your mind!

BB: Hear me out-

TOA: OK, really, like I said last time, and the time before, this is why I don't debate, and this is why I don't care- 

BB: What does this have to do with debating?

TOA: Just vote for whatever, because this is just a detail that doesn't matter, that's all a debate is, it's like Monday Night Football, or the commentary for it, just people yelling about something that doesn't matter, and that they barely understand. We know corporations are steamrolling small businesses anyway, every economic indicator is struggling right now except the stock market, and honestly we all know anyone can get your data, you know this, if they don't already have it-

BB: No-

TOA: Plus, are we suddenly concerned with domestic violence? Seriously? I'm supposed to believe this? If we are so concerned, why does nobody listen to victims, or believe them at all in the case of women? Why do we make victims bear the burden of proving self-defense, as if they weren't being attacked enough already, from their abusers-

BB: OK, right, see this is what I said last time, and the time before, you blame the system for everything, but you refuse to participate in it at all, and that's too bad, because you know it would work a little better if you tried to make it work-

TOA: What's working? Monopolies are illegal - we have monopolies in every market. Violence is illegal - we have violence in every city and town. This vote is meaningless.

BB: Meaningless?

TOA: Well, this question, at least. It's not going to change anything.

BB: Fine, just give me the ballot, I'll vote.

TOA: Which way?

BB: I thought you didn't care?

TOA: I don't.

BB: OK, I won't tell you.

TOA: Fine. You can vote on #2 as well.

BB: Really? I thought you wanted, what did you call it, compromise voting?

TOA: This isn't it.

BB: How so?

TOA: I mean look at this, it's nonsense, you can just tell reading the state-sponsored opinions that even the experts don't know what this is.

BB: Bull.

TOA: It's true. These opinions are both false. Look at this, on one side, ranked choice will strengthen democracy, on the other, winners are determined by a false majority. What the hell are they talking about?

BB: Let me see those opinions.

TOA: Here.

BB: OK...

TOA: OK?

BB: OK.

TOA: OK what?

BB: OK, I don't follow.

TOA: It's not that hard.

BB: Would it kill the state to include an example of how a hypothetical ballot might be counted?

TOA: Right? That's what I'm saying.

BB: When did you say that?

TOA: It's... never mind.

BB: Honestly, the "NO" opinion makes a compelling case, but I can't visualize it.

TOA: Well, it's simple, think of it like rolling a die-

BB: A die? Like Joseph?

TOA: It means one dice.

BB: One dice?

TOA: OK, forget dice, think of it like this, you go order a pizza.

BB: OK.

TOA: With a group.

BB: With a group?

TOA: Are you listening?

BB: Go on.

TOA: Ten people. Let's say four want pepperoni, and the other six want a different thing each. You'd ask those six what their second-choice was, right?

BB: Well, couldn't you order multiple pizzas?

TOA: OK, forget pizza-

BB: What if a couple people were allergic to pepperoni?

TOA: Who could be allergic to pepperoni?

BB: This is a waste of time.

TOA: Right-

BB: Here's what I think. I think, if you don't win enough votes, who cares how they break the tie? Let's just vote again.

TOA: Well, that's not on the ballot.

BB: I don't care, that's what I think.

TOA: Yeah, because even organizing one election is leading to complete chaos-

BB: Who told you that?

TOA: That's what it is, right now.

BB: OK, well you believe anything you hear, look, it doesn't matter, OK, here's what we do. In ranked choice, you still get your top vote, same as always. After that, it's whatever, but who cares? Just do it, the main function is preserved, and if it doesn't work, it's easy enough to go back to the old way.

TOA: It's not that simple-

BB: It is. This isn't a new voting system, this is a new tiebreaker. So who cares? Obvious candidates will still win, and it's a very easily reversible decision.

TOA: It's a better system-

BB: Right, we're on the same side.

TOA: Yes, but-

BB: So let's vote, and move on-

TOA: But you don't get-

BB: Who cares how I feel about it? We're on the same side.

TOA: Yeah I know, but still-

BB: See, this is the issue, you talk about change, but it's more important to you that everyone thinks the same thing, feels the same thing, means the same thing. I bet if nothing changed except everyone's feelings, you'd consider that a success.

TOA: What are you talking about?

BB: This debate, the whole point, is to figure out our votes, not so we can pat each other on the back.

TOA: OK, so?

BB: And we did, we both agree on #2, but you are still going on and on-

TOA: I'm not going on-

BB: You are. And it's not relevant at all. What matters is actions, what matters is your vote, in this case, because that's what is going to happen next. Who cares if I vote because I think it's less stupid, rather than good?

TOA: Right, that attitude, it'll get everyone into this mess again in four years.

BB: No, it won't, because I think Biden is less stupid, so I'm going to vote for him. I'm not going to pretend he's a good idea just to make you more comfortable. And even if Trump runs again next time, even if he runs with Bernie, whoever runs against him is going to remain less stupid in my eyes, so that'll be my vote-

TOA: Right, I got it, OK? But that's, like I don't think Biden-

BB: Plus, again in four years? See, obviously you don't vote, elections happen much more frequently-

TOA: Enough, you in such a rush to get back to work, to get back to your silly life, you vote for a party instead of a candidate, or vote for your personal economics instead of your community. Actions are nonsense without some underlying idea to stitch it all together, it just becomes activity, and much easier to undo or reverse. If you think without a larger idea, everything becomes a slippery slope, every fleeting idea just undermines whatever larger concept you might have in your mind at the moment, like a house of cards tumbling-

BB: Wait, stitch it together? What stitch? I gave you stitches-

TOA: What stitch? Like the way you bring it together-

BB: Yeah, what's your underlying idea?

TOA: Well, just ending poverty, I guess-

BB: Good, well I said vote "YES" on #1 if you hate monopolies, and those lead to poverty-

TOA: Well-

BB: The point is, if everyone solves a problem, or a stitch as you say, the problems get solved. If everyone votes for what they want to happen next, and campaign to get the unconcerned people to vote for their solution, then the right thing happens next.

TOA: The right thing?

BB: Right, that's the system.

TOA: No, that's not right.

BB: Why not? When you vote for just a party, or you vote for yourself, that's really just a way to look at your underlying idea, your stitch is just that the party is good, or that if everyone did better individually it adds-

TOA: No, because that's what leads to this, you end up looking at each thing line by line, and you forget the whole idea, you just want to know what your party thinks, or your bank account. Anyway, that's what I mean by stitches, some idea that forces you, even if you contradict how your other votes measure up against someone else's criteria, because without something at the core you end up looking at the question on its own and you stop thinking about what you want to accomplish. You just forget that sometimes these ballot questions are just details, and maybe we're better off spending time on larger ideas that encompass all the details, and help us work on these stitches, as you call them.

BB: That's the same thing.

TOA: No, it's not. These questions, and their state-sponsored opinions, don't amount to a principled debate. It's just two arguments. When you decide by argument, you get weird outcomes, or you get sheep. Just because someone articulately explains rank choice voting doesn't mean it's better than the current system, but of course no one is really going to articulately explain the current system, right? I vote, you vote, we count to two. Who wins with that kind of argument? It's just what it is.

BB: Oh, so you like the system now?

TOA: I don't like this system, where people debate. No one asks the relevant question - it's not which side is right, but whether which side is, I don't know, right enough?

BB: Right enough?

TOA: Right enough? I don't know how to put it, I just know it's one thing to make a better case, but sometimes a case should have to be really good, twice as good, to merit the vote.

BB: OK, smart guy, problem with that is, no one ever knows for sure.

TOA: I'm pretty sure-

BB: Right, that's the thing, you call out Trump for being a fascist, but you'd take power, too, claiming you'll do good. Were you complaining about all the other presidents who were busy expanding their own power? I have a better shot at understanding the rank voting nonsense than your logic, or-

TOA: What's so hard about it?

BB: Like I know? It's all riddles from you, rolling dice or dies or whatever. Just say what you mean.

TOA: Well...

BB: You want-

TOA: Want?

BB: You do!

TOA: What is?

BB: Just say it, you want a dictator, but a different kind, one you pick-

TOA: Look, whatever you think, it's not about dictators, it's that at some point it's true for any union, when the parts just don't work together anymore, it's best to move on.

BB: Yeah, so like division?

TOA: Right, blue to the right, red to the left, or right, or what's left, you know-

BB: Secession?!? That's crazier than a dictator, actually.

TOA: I don't think it's crazy, though I don't think it's the right idea anymore, or all that likely.

BB: In the country?

TOA: The what?

BB: Wait, what do you mean, anymore?

TOA: Like I used to think-

BB: Oh no-

TOA: Will you let me finish?

BB: Uh, maybe, but if you are going-

TOA: OK-

BB: You know what I think? I think you're watching too much TV.

TOA: I don't watch TV!

BB: OK, but whatever it is, too much, too much Peacock, I don't know, I know what your problem is, you think this is new, and you're jumping to conclusions. Settle down, because you have no perspective, this is how it always goes, and it always turns out the same.

TOA: No perspective?

BB: Sure. None.

TOA: Always the same?

BB: Always.

TOA: Whatever.

BB: Go back and read what people said about Bush, or even Reagan. None of this is new, honestly, you could clip the quotes and it would sound like it's about Trump, you wouldn't know which red-faced president they were talking about-

TOA: How is that an argument?

BB: How is it not? Go back and read what Baldwin said about our society in the fifties, or the sixties, you won't know if he wrote from a typewriter or a time machine, like some of his stuff could be published next Tuesday and no one would know the difference-

TOA: It just proves that there's been no progress.

BB: All we've had is progress. What it proves is that you and everyone else just spend more time reading about it, in smaller increments, than ever before. Like you read something on Twitter before it even becomes a story, of course it's all fake news, like going to the ER every time you cough, and all that happens is you just work yourself up into a frenzy-

TOA: Like you think comparing today to the fifties is progress?

BB: No, I'm saying people are writing the same things. If you did a comparison, you'd see real progress.

TOA: This isn't progress. Go outside, talk to people, it isn't good enough.

BB: That may be, we have a long way to go, but it's progress. This system has led to plenty of progress, and with this system there will be plenty more.

TOA: But why wait another seventy years? You want our grandchildren still battling for civil rights? That isn't progress.

BB: Right, just like people sitting around talking isn't progress. What are you doing for civil rights?

TOA: Well-

BB: You know, forget that, think about this instead - you know how you like to talk about civil wars happening so soon?

TOA: Uh, I've never-

BB: Right, maybe not you, but people like you, talking about violence, talking about unresolvable issues, let me remind you, if this is the first time you think anyone in this country has disagreed, then you need a history lesson, or maybe two-

TOA: Yeah, maybe so, and maybe I thought about it for a minute or two myself, but I think I've understood something recently, and it really is history, unlike whatever you think it is, which sounds like just excuses-

BB: Excuse me?

TOA: It occurred to me that this is pretty much the norm, this is the status quo as you say, as you business bros love so much, but what's different is that we're definitely in the middle of something at the moment, I call it a really loud death rattle-

BB: A death rattle, please-

TOA: It's the end of a certain point of view, which is probably being made worse by certain things like social media and the pandemic, so everyone think this situation is much worse than ever before. I'm not sure about that.

BB: Right, that's what I said.

TOA: Not really, because I think the outcome isn't more of the same, but anyway, I know what you mean about certain things. I don't buy it. Still, I'm pretty sure we'll all be marching toward the left again.

BB: Marching what?

TOA: Like, to the left. It's just what happens, as time passes societies tend to move to the left, it's generally slow but for some reason lately it's been really slow, honestly America is moving so slowly the left here is like center-right in some other countries, or so I've heard. They've marched right past us, or left us behind, maybe.

BB: Trust me, you have nothing in common with the center-right.

TOA: Well, not here, but anyway on top of that even a step left for a society is always more like a cumulative one, two steps left and one step right. I just think we've had our right foot stuck in the mud a little longer than usual. Right? Like think about this guy we know, he's really a liberal guy in so many senses of the term, and he's explained to us that it took him two decades to get his head around the idea that some women might not change their last name at the start of a marriage. Two decades! And this guy is, like, probably reciting the Green New Deal from memory at this very moment. These things, they take time.

BB: OK, but I'm really confused now, since you sound like you are in on the system again-

TOA: No, I just can't figure out what's taking so long right now. Like, 2020, and we're setting emissions records? It's insanity.

BB: Compelling theories, crap as always, but I don't think any of it is really true at all, or at least necessarily so, folks move right pretty often, especially as they get older, or become rich, or just become too invested in a certain kind of status quo, and America is getting older, richer, and probably a little comfortable with the status quo, right?

TOA: True, and maybe that's a piece of it, but I still think more people just move further left, so I think cumulatively it's always a leftward shift. I guess on balance the two steps left outweigh the rightward step you describe.

BB: So what's your point?

TOA: Well, the thing I'm starting to worry about is that this period of time, this death rattle as I think of it, isn't about just a point of view, since that always changes-

BB: Wait, like how?

TOA: I don't know, I just mean what's considered progressive changes over time. Like when Bernie finally becomes president in, what, 2080? If his campaign is the exact same message as today, it's probably considered a conservative ticket.

BB: Well, with all the inflation we're gonna have from this coin shortage, everyone will probably be a billionaire by then, Bernie won't like that-

TOA: Right? What I'm saying is, like even Trump wants to protect preexisting conditions, OK? Or at least he says so-

BB: For what it's worth-

TOA: Right, but honestly, is anyone going to be caught supporting that kind of policy? I actually believe him, I mean technically right now we all have the same preexisting condition, lack of COVID immunity-

BB: That's a big stretch-

TOA: Well, for insurance not really, preexisting conditions just mean risk data, and the likelihood of being more costly, so if you don't have the COVID vaccine, it does get the same treatment, at least in the sense that the insurance company is less interested in having you in in its membership pool.

BB: Right, but-

TOA: But if everyone gets this vaccine for the same low price, well isn't that how health care is supposed to work?

BB: Well, technically that's true, but you can still discriminate if the preexisting condition is something indirect, like poverty, I would argue that since poverty is so closely associated with bad health outcomes the way we charge for insurance is a form of preexisting condition, and should be something to consider as well.

TOA: Oh, good point.

BB: But right, in the current moment, everyone is singing the same tune about protecting people with these preexisting conditions.

TOA: But tell me, oh great business bro, in all your infinite business wisdom, how can you run private insurance if you can't price discriminate? Where does the money come from, if you can't rob from the sick, or selectively enroll members that are unlikely to ring up large claims?

BB: Well, that's probably true. Like charging the same price for flood insurance on a hill as you do at the coast.

TOA: This thing is already coming apart at the seams, but people are still clinging to some idea, and no one can really explain it, they just cling to it, like they did with newspaper, or coal power, just like they are doing now with racist systems, and I'm thinking, why just private health insurance? Why not the whole system? Aren't we at a point where too many people are clinging to outdated ideas that are clearly falling apart? Maybe it's not about ideas, maybe it's about the system-

BB: Well, it's always possible-

TOA: Why isn't it entirely possible that these specific things aren't separate problems, but rather all symptoms of a larger issue, that being the collapse of our current system?

BB: Yeah, but this system is pretty resilient.

TOA: How so?

BB: Look at it right now, we were founded by a bunch of racists who didn't want to pay taxes, and now we have a racist in charge who doesn't want to pay taxes.

TOA: Yeah, you can put it that way-

BB: In the context of a system, the last four years wasn't just proof that it's working, it was like seeing a prophecy come to fruition.

TOA: OK, but that ignores a lot of other stuff.

BB: Yeah, it ignores that people still look at the Constitution like it's relevant, even though it was written hundreds of years ago by pretty vile people, at least according to today's standards, white supremacists is the only fair term-

TOA: I see that, but it's ignoring some stuff, right? We're really rethinking some basic assumptions, or so it seems like, about daily life, and it's happening all over. You see it when people lose jobs for their roles in maintaining toxic status quos, or you see it with statues, I mean that Columbus statue a few blocks away? It isn't coming back anytime soon, and that park is probably being renamed sooner rather than later.

BB: Yeah, but these are just actions, sure, meaningful actions, but they don't change things. The name of a park?

TOA: I guess I'm not sure. I guess I'm not sure, because what we really need to do, as you mentioned earlier, is look all the way back to the start, and figure out what the heck we're thinking when we blindly follow some of our founding ideas, and what it means when we block everything else out. Like if someone came to you and said they ran their business based on some ideas written down in 1776, would you invest in that business?

BB: Well, that's different-

TOA: My numbers might be off, but the formula is solid. Think about it, we're in 2020, and it took a pandemic, not technological progress or the increased value of leisure time or just plain common sense, it took a pandemic to get a majority of our states around on mail-in voting. It took a pandemic! And every study I've seen says this increases voter turnout, using a technology as old as America itself.

BB: Oh, that reminds me-

TOA: And if we put these people on trial, or even just TV-

BB: Which people?

TOA: The people in charge of voting, like running elections, if we put them up there and said "why did you wait until 2020, almost two and a half centuries after America was invented, to do this really simple thing to increase voter turnout?" You know what they'd say? They'd say - we always did it that way.

BB: OK, but this reminds me-

TOA: And you know what else they've said that about? Like literally every problem in this country's history, they said it about-

BB: Wait, can you-

TOA: Like, in my mind, this stuff, it's too simple, if the only defense is "that's the way we always did it"-

BB: But like, what did you do in the last four years to get this going?

TOA: What do you mean?

BB: Like you talk about it now like this is so obvious, but what's the point? You weren't out there getting this going, trying to change the system-

TOA: Why should I? It's not my charge.

BB: Maybe so, but it's not a great excuse, right? This is what I meant last time, like why not just find a problem and solve it? Maybe you do it through work, you get the people in charge to give everyone time off to vote, right? Like that's the point.

TOA: Well-

BB: Never mind, this reminds me anyway, we actually have to cast this ballot.

TOA: Oh, right.

BB: OK, let's seal this thing, and hit the road, we are way over time, and probably about to get kicked off the internet-

TOA: OK, what do we have?

BB: Let's see - #1, car repair, I voted -

TOA: Wait, I said I didn't care about it.

BB: OK, whatever, #2, half-assed choice, we said "YES".

TOA: OK.

BB: And... your buddy Trump-

TOA: What are you talking about, your buddy-

BB: He's not my buddy-

TOA: Well, you business bros all stick together-

BB: Whatever, give me that pen.

TOA: Wait, can you use a pen? Not a #2 pencil?

BB: Huh?

TOA: To fill it in? Where's the instructions?

BB: There are instructions?

TOA: Goodness, let's just go, we'll figure it out.

BB: OK, until next time?

TOA: Next week?

BB: What, no! Next election, which is... you'll figure it out, I'm sure.

TOA: OK, until next time.

the thirsty horse

I'd love to find out the origin of the expression "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". My best guess is that alcohol was involved, the expression invented over the first third pint at the local pub, perhaps by the village stooge as he stumbled over with a fresh round of drinks, who invented the expression out of necessity to conceal the embarrassment of being told, against all odds, no.

Tie a rope to a horse or grab it by its neck - I don't know what you do with a horse - and then try to make it drink? Think about it from the horse's perspective - why have a drink of some muddy mess at the edge of a lake, pond, or puddle? We might all be better off with a new idea - if you lead a thirsty horse to water, it will probably drink.

reading review - what if?

Longtime readers - or even those of just the past few months - will recall that I highlighted Munroe's How To back in June. I suppose I'm a little out of order here, as What If? was published five years before How To, though I must note that the books aren't strictly linked despite sharing an obvious spirit of scientific exploration through the lens of the extreme. The main difference is that How To had a functional edge, in that it at least looked for absurd processes for the mundane; What If? gives serious consideration to the most outlandish, improbable, or simply absurd scenarios - see my book notes here.

What If? by Randall Munroe (February 2020)

The most interesting theme in this book was how general intuition fails when considering extremes. Most of us can't visualize how materials collide at extreme speeds (Munroe makes the point that a feather moving fast enough can knock us over) and struggle with the magnitudes involved in energy questions (an unused charger, if warm to the touch, is using about a penny of electricity per day; the sun provides a million times more consistent power than lightning). This ability to comprehend scale is perhaps the most unrecognized form of intelligence. I have a friend who was never considered smart in book terms - he couldn't find 180 in the corners of a triangle - but he has an incredible grasp of scale; I consider his brain a better example of a great mathematical mind than someone who can do long division without a calculator.

I also noticed a tendency of this book to draw simple logic out of complex math or science. Munroe notes in one section that hard drives often transfer data much faster than the internet, due to a combination of storage size and connection throughput; it spoke to my related feeling that although the internet is a net timesaver, it's certainly not always the most efficient tool. I also liked the advice that the best way for people lost in the wilderness to find each other is to follow three basic rules -  leave trails, move faster when you get on someone's trail, and always remember to look for where someone was rather than where they are. Perhaps the most amusing insight was that if you believe your soulmate lived in the distant past, then it means you shouldn't rule out that soulmates can also live in the distant future - just think about it from the perspective of your soulmate.

TOA Rating: Three hypotheticals out of four.

eight grand is thirteen bucks

I saw an interesting story last week - Russell Westbrook, star guard for the Houston Rockets, left an $8K tip for hotel staff as he left the NBA bubble. This was a serious gesture of gratitude and generosity, and before I stick my tongue in cheek I want to point out that eight grand is always eight grand; it changed lives, and those lives were changed by Russell Westbrook.

But we here at TOA, sometimes we can't help ourselves, at least when it comes to the numbers, because some things are better understood in a personalized context. So I had to ask myself, what is an $8K tip for the True On Average Joe?

I started with Westbrook's annual salary - $38.5M for this season. Then, I calculated the proportion of his salary that was represented by his tip - 0.00021%. I came up with the following figures based on a series of True On Average Joe salaries:

• $7,500 annual salary
• You would pay $750 income tax on this amount
• Tip - $1.58 
• $12,760 annual salary
• Federal poverty level
• Tip - $4.20
• $61,937 annual salary
• Median household income in the US
• Tip - $13.01

Thirteen bucks, for the average American! And those figures aren't even adjusted for the bubble lasting months. I'm not here to pat my own ass, but even in 2020 I've left larger tips (in proportion to my salary) - for a one-off concern like takeout.

So what's my point? It's not to suggest anything about Westbrook - he's one of the NBA's great examples of giving back, and the work he's done for his community through his foundation speaks to his immeasurable off-court impact. But maybe it's better to highlight those accomplishments, which would demonstrate a more significant truth to how Westbrook changes lives, rather than settling once again for the distraction of fluttering dollar bills or glittering silver coins; our adulation of money, even in a legitimate sense, only makes it all the easier for frauds and phonies to flash wads of bills as they fake their way into power. Or maybe we should merely be consistent - the next time the president leaves a $3 tip, we should all applaud, and toast the man whose generosity is twice that of certain NBA superstars.

why i learned about christopher columbus

Last Monday was a holiday for me, and I suppose it depends on who you ask - it was Columbus Day, or it was Indigenous Peoples' Day. It might even matter when you asked - in my workplace it was one last year, but the other this year; we seem very much in the middle portion of this ongoing conversation.

I hear quite often that Columbus Day is an important celebration of Italian heritage. I remember studying him in grade school - we sang songs using the names of his three ships - but I don't remember learning that he was Italian; I'm sure it came up as a fact, but I don't remember it being emphasized. It's been over twenty years, curriculums have surely changed, but I suspect when, or if, or perhaps most importantly, why Columbus is taught to today's youngsters, it isn't related at all to his heritage.

the business bro trusts the reality of fantasy football

I've run a fantasy football league for twenty years, all as commissioner, and I've learned more about leadership from it than I could ever have anticipated. Leadership skills are unusual, in that anyone can develop them by going to school or finding a mentor or reading stacks of business bro books, but from my experience nothing beats actual leadership roles, even if said role is within the nonsensical context of a fantasy football league.

It's been an interesting year for our league so far thanks to COVID and its effect on the NFL schedule - fantasy football is a weekly pursuit, which means the NFL's containment "strategy" of rescheduling games at a fart's notice isn't doing us any favors. Of course, we did nothing to prepare, agreeing in the offseason to deal with issues as they arose, so when the first rescheduling happened three weeks ago we had to respond in real-time. I ended up exercising a little executive power - I imposed some basic rules for COVID-related substitutions, suggested using total points for at least one playoff position, and buffered the fragile structure with a "no assholery" policy to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Over the ensuing two weeks, we clarified the latter policy, detailing that "no assholery" means "anything goes if you and your opponent agree", which I guaranteed by offering to serve as a tiebreaker, if necessary.

The leadership lesson of the past three weeks isn't directly related to any of the above - rather, it's that cultivating a high level of trust is often the most valuable leadership skill. When we decided in the summer to deal with problems as they arose, we were essentially saying that even in the middle of a competitive season we felt capable of placing the good of the league ahead of selfish concerns. We were saying that we had twelve members of a group rather than twelve individual contractors. Most importantly, we were confirming trust, both throughout the league and at the very top of the power structure.

Trust doesn't happen overnight, and it definitely doesn't emerge naturally just because of a crisis. My hunch is that many leagues crumbled this fall as COVID exposed each league's lack of unity, compromise, and sharing, all of which result from trust. Trust is earned, and it is earned over a period of time defined by consistently trustworthy decisions. The leaders who dedicated themselves each morning to the goal of accumulating trustworthy decisions had the trust they and their organizations needed when this crisis hit; the rest learned the reality that leadership without trust is nothing more than a fantasy.

what would truth do?

Paul Graham posted this in the summer, which included this quote that I want to comment on today:

"I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists!"

Graham's essay uses this quote to make the point that unless you are an "aggressive independent-minded" type, that is, not predisposed to either conformity or passivity, you are unlikely to have been an abolitionist.

I think there is a simpler analysis. Why not instead list what actions an abolitionist of the time - Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth - would take if alive today? It would be pretty easy to take that list of actions, compare it to your current life, and get a rough idea of whether you would have been an abolitionist in those days.

make america debate again, 2020 edition - part 2

Hi reader,

Part one is here, part two is below.

As always - good luck.

******

BB: OK... we're back!

TOA: I can't believe it.

BB: It's time. Let's get to business.

TOA: OK, how?

BB: Like I was saying last time, several times, before being rudely interrupted, if we have a ballot we have to debate-

TOA: Nobody has to debate.

BB: We do, this is America, in America you debate, even if only because a debate is the one time we can talk about the same thing, at the same time, under the same conditions.

TOA: So what?

BB: So that means we understand each other, no fake news to hide behind, no second-hand opinion or recycled take, it's just two sides making statements, and everyone gets the same facts to start from, for once, no fake this or that.

TOA: But-

BB: But! And I agree, as you've pointed out over and over, I agree that sometimes one thing is much more relevant than anything else, that one comment can render all the other words moot, but it still means people should debate, if it helps you think about it the debate is the way to get to that one overriding remark, in fact we should debate often-

TOA: Debate often? We're gonna debate more? This isn't-

BB: Quiet! Often enough, will you let me finish? I say people should debate often enough until they get their differences squared away.

TOA: Pipe dream-

BB: Pipe dream?

TOA: Pipe down! Where is the moderator?

BB: What's a moderator?

TOA: It's the person who tells you to shut up.

BB: I didn't see any moderators at the last debate.

TOA: They had one back in... you know what, never mind, I'd hate to see who we'd end up with anyway, honestly some of the fools that end up on TOA-

BB: Do you have a point?

TOA: Yes, unity, it's a pipe dream, there isn't any consensus in some issues, and I don't know why everyone keeps going on about it, unity this or that, like if you favor guns, which you probably do, you don't just compromise, and say "guns on Tuesday, no guns on Wednesday" or allow people to carry guns in their right hands only.

BB: Well, guns are in the Bill of Rights. I don't favor anything, it's just-

TOA: It's not my point, what I'm saying is-

BB: Right, I know what you're saying, you want to start over, what you're saying is, even though you knew the rules, even though you played the game, since you lost, boo-hoo, all the news except mine is fake. You just want to start a new game.

TOA: No.

BB: Yes, it's the same story every time, someone else will say it even if you don't, boo-hoo, the popular vote should count, boo-hoo, the mail-in vote is a fraud, boo-hoo. That's not how it works, that's the system-

TOA: Well, that's actually closer than I expected, still wrong but closer, anyway I didn't say those things, what I'm saying is, the system in place supposedly leads to unity, but it only leads to division. Look at those things you said, those aren't coming from anyone actually interested in unity, or even capable of it, but supposedly that's where we'll get our unity, from them.

BB: Right, just complaining, naysayers saying nay, that's what they-.

TOA: No, it's that people talk about unity because it makes sense to them, and they believe in it, and they want it, but when you ask for the specifics, going one by one down the line, you see that for some issues it's always one or the other, only a yes or no, and when you have winners and losers, it only works if the losers are content with losing, if they accept losing.

BB: That's what I'm saying, just too much complaining-

TOA: No, it's more than that, it's like driving a car, and everyone votes on which way to go, but as soon as you start driving the people who were voted down try to grab the wheel. Where does that car go? And you think the solution is a debate, on TV no less-

BB: Trust me, this isn't on TV-

TOA: Right now, people would rather talk about unity than accept losing, and the reality is that with two parties, which most people support in terms of one or the other, no one is going to be content enough with losing to actually achieve any unity.

BB: What's this got to do-

TOA: You said it about debating, or the debate I guess, everyone saying the same thing in the same place-

BB: Well, with that, I meant is that if we all watch the same debate we can unify and talk and work together, or at least have a chance. It's an honest way for citizens to stop pointing fingers and have a chance to sit down at one table and say "let's figure this out" and a debate gives everyone the same information. You can talk until one side is content with losing, as you say.

TOA: Right, but at some point you reach the limit of the system. The debate is already at the limit, it only highlights the differences, rather than finding points of mutual agreement. How are you going to figure out climate change with someone who pretends it doesn't exist?

BB: How do you know it's pretending?

TOA: Who isn't? We have a "once in a lifetime" weather event every six months. Who thinks this is normal?

BB: Well, who says it's once in a lifetime? Whose lifetime?

TOA: You'd have to be a fruit fly-

BB: Please, the buzzwords, these things are all made up, programs and models, it's statistics not science, these programs only regurgitate the information someone writes into it. There's no such thing as a computer that comes up with an idea, OK? You run a model, it only spits out the conclusions some intern programmed into it, big deal. Once in a lifetime, says the computer, which someone told it to say. What's that prove?

TOA: Like-

BB: Like, someone is making money from climate change.

TOA: Please, like that matters, and besides, even if that nonsense were true, it's better than making money from the climate, oil under protected land isn't a market waiting to be freed, OK, there's no such thing as a free market when you free it by stealing-

BB: Oh, very clever-

TOA: It doesn't matter, my point is that when you have temperature records shattering every year like pint glasses in an earthquake, or you have your fifth "once in a lifetime" storm in a decade, you don't need a fancy computer model to tell you that climate change-

BB: OK, forget it, look I know that debates are not going to solve every problem-

TOA: It doesn't solve any-

BB: Wait, OK-

TOA: It creates more problems-

BB: They are a start, at least, they are just like the masks, the masks don't do anything and everyone knows it-

TOA: What are you talking-

BB: Wait! OK, everyone knows this, come on, people are constantly touching themselves and scratching their eyes anyway, and everyone's sitting around inside, outside, alongside restaurants, with masks like chin hammocks, little hammocks, like they think COVID takes lunch breaks.

TOA: It works if you wear them.

BB: That's like saying the cure to insomnia is falling asleep-

TOA: Well, that's what the science says, it reduces transmission-

BB: Please, what are you talking about, just look at what is going on all around you, no one really knows how it spreads, OK? And everyone in a mask is all high and mighty, until they find some excuse to take a mask off, which of course they'll conveniently forget about when they lecture people, "I always wear a mask", what nonsense, mask people-

TOA: Mask people?

BB: Right, they always wear a mask except when they don't, that's just like it is for anyone-

TOA: Wait-

BB: And of course, it's science, right, ignoring that if masks are so great, why are the countries where everyone wears a mask still seeing new cases?

TOA: Well it still works, it makes it better, those places have fewer cases-

BB: True on average, but always wrong, those places are more careful, which means they do everything associated with being careful, it's like that point you stole last week about corporations-

TOA: I didn't steal-

BB: You did! You lie, you said companies lose people they need for change because daily life weeds them out, you stole that from me, and it's just like masks, if you wear a mask it means you aren't doing the other stupid stuff, it's a signal-

TOA: Well, if you want people to stop wearing-

BB: No, I'm talking about the attitude, not just masks, I'm talking about using masks to represent commitment, of course you'd rather hide behind a computer or a spreadsheet or a diploma, it's science, you'd rather tell people what to do and then talk about unity, and blame everyone but yourself-

TOA: Well, look, mask truther-

BB: What?

TOA: You over there, saying you shouldn't wear a mask-

BB: Wrong! I didn't say that, I say wear a mask, wear one as big as your last post, print it out and wrap it around your face, someone might even read it for once, but let's be clear, it's a symbol, not a tool, it shows your loyalty to your family, to your community, to your country, OK? And it should never have been presented in any other way, because when you say it's science and then someone wearing a mask gets sick, how do you not see the way it undermines your point?

TOA: It is science, and no one guaranteed-

BB: It doesn't matter, when it's about safety, and getting everyone on the same page quickly, which is a task utterly beyond science, science is one of the most divisive things in human history, forget science, this is about safety, it's about a government that should have sent ten masks to every American, with the American flag printed on it or maybe Uncle Sam's face or just "USA", and a note that says "wear this", OK? Forget science-

TOA: Forget science?

BB: Yes! Like you said, sometimes one thing matters and the rest of it is irrelevant, in the case of masks it doesn't matter what you believe, and it isn't enough just to wear it, you need to wear it and do everything else, honestly people around here brushing by me because they have a mask on like it's a cloth vaccine-

TOA: So you think we should have just sent masks to people and made it easy?

BB: Right, that's the American way, that's American unity. You don't believe in unity- 

TOA: Well, what's the point of this, if you end up in the same place?

BB: The point is that when it's yes or no, one side or the other, the solution isn't to throw your hands up and cry about how you can't compromise, the point is to debate, and keep looking for new angles until you can't see the dispute anymore.

TOA: Well-

BB: Look, a mask is not just for you, you know, it's so everyone around you can buy into the problem and become part of the solution rather than part of the pollution.

TOA: Lame.

BB: It's true, we need everyone to do it, just like voting, but you over there are all high and mighty about masks like it's "science", listen Bill Nye, if you'd made it about unity we'd be a lot better off, and of course meanwhile you don't see the hypocrisy of talking about "mask science" while you sit around not voting-

TOA: I do vote.

BB: OK, same thing, like you said, everyone needs to do it, it doesn't matter how we get there-

TOA: I do vote, OK, but hold the interruptions, because I want to know who is this "other person" I'm allegedly voting for by not voting, hypothetically, I mean like suppose I'm not voting, how can that be for another person? There's a word for when you vote for another person, OK, it's called "voting". So if I'm not voting, how is it then a "vote for the other person"... I vote by not voting?

BB: How is it not?

TOA: It's a half-vote, I think. If it's A or B and I vote for A and you don't vote-

BB: I always vote, and I vote for whoever you-

TOA: Will you? Play along, for once, OK, I vote for A and you don't vote, it's not a vote for B, it's a half-vote. It's the same thing, because A wins by one vote, whether the final tally is 1-0 or 1.5-0.5, it doesn't matter-

BB: OK, look, first of all what is a half-vote, is that like the new way millennials are being clever, like threatening to move to Canada-

TOA: And you said it earlier, sitting at a table with everyone singing songs, please, how am I supposed to show unity with someone about guns when I can't make a compromise vote? Complete nonsense.

BB: Compromise vote? Hey, also there's no debate on the guns, like I said that's in the law, OK, Bill of Rights, what is the matter-

TOA: Right, because something written hundreds of years ago is more important than my right not to get shot-

BB: There are other laws-

TOA: Whatever, look, this idea of unity is crap, OK, and you business bros show up with this solution like that's the way, "disagree and commit" like everyone is just going to go along after one debate, no one is building toward change, no one sees incremental progress, trust me, there are many middle ground myths, these places that don't exist, unity just isn't realistic at all, maybe there's middle ground in some cases but a lot of our issues are really one side or the other, and you can't talk about working together with someone who is on the other side.

BB: Oh please, like you keep going to one example about guns-

TOA: You brought up the guns, just now, OK? Anyway, tell me about this stat, I got it from Michelle Wu's mayoral campaign website, in Boston the median net worth of a white family is almost $250K, what do you think it is for a Black family?

BB: Uhhh-

TOA: $8.

BB: OK, like any of us are going to read these websites-

TOA: You're too busy watching TV to read, for you a debate happens and that's the most important thing in world history, look at it, $250K to $8, let me crunch the numbers for you, there are only two possible conclusions when you look at it, that's either a symptom of a systemic crisis that requires an immediate solution, or you believe it accurately reflects some underlying reality.

BB: What reality?

TOA: It means you are a racist.

BB: Hold on-

TOA: It's true, and not even on average, it's a median, so half the families are below it. Below $8! Do you understand what below $8 means?

BB: OK, so maybe-

TOA: I'm not even going to let you, honestly, I'll do you a favor here, I'm not letting you make another terrible point, I'm going to point out instead that if you think the solution there is some series of sensible changes, with roundtables and town halls and incremental compromise and all that, let me remind you that those solutions create nothing, invent nothing, bring nothing new to the equation, it's only the very same system playing itself out again, and the system only produces what's in the design-

BB: Right, like I said earlier-

TOA: What?

BB: Never mind.

TOA: Right, well we already know the design, we already know the outcome, $250K to $8, we run that again and who knows, $500K to $16? So I'll say that if you can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve some significant change to the system, then the only other option is that you are a racist, and you think this is right, so where is the middle ground in this-

BB: Whatever. You've stood on the coast for so long you don't know what the middle looks like anymore. Refusing to admit you watched a debate is hardly an example of "rebel rebel" going against the system, OK? I don't know why you sit around wringing your hands about every problem in the world, just pick one you can deal with it and get to work on it.

TOA: What-

BB: What are you going to do about median incomes, or masks, or the climate, or half-votes, or unity? Maybe you can do a lot, anyone can accomplish anything here, but surely no one can do something about everything, not for all of those, so just pick one.

TOA: Why-

BB: Hold on, OK, everything else, literally, isn't your problem, just vote and go away, stay away, like you said accept it, win or lose, because when your whole idea of voting is that unless you get your way you'll "resist", then of course nothing gets done, and four years later the rest of us end up worse off.

TOA: Well, that's a great attitude, because while you decide to "see both sides" of some racist idiot's Tweets, the rest of us "standing on the coast" like you say can see the waves coming, it's obvious if you look, but you don't see waves from the middle, not everything deserves a middle ground, sometimes you have to go one way or the other, and the way we are going, well-

BB: Well?

TOA: These waves are going to send this city and all of your stupid "Business Bro" columns back to the Atlantis age.

BB: That's better than doing nothing except taking a break from complaining to check off a few votes every four years, or maybe skipping them like you probably do. Like if you hate voting so much, hate the system, hate democracy so much-

TOA: I don't hate-

BB: Right, well do what you want, but you should find something you can do, and suffer for it. Forget voting for the next promise machine, just find a problem to solve, and solve it, suffer for a problem that's within your reach, which can be solved with real effort, real suffering. If you don't suffer for something, you'll suffer for nothing.

TOA: Oh, what a load of rubbish.

BB: Another soccer expression?

TOA: I'm definitely suffering for nothing here, I'll tell ya that much-

BB: Please. You make it sound so difficult, living in America, it's really very simple. Go volunteer, go to the food bank, go sit with sick people, go and get a job at someplace important, work on something people worry about instead of worrying yourself. If things go really well, you can start a business or even a nonprofit. Then you go vote, or not, in your case not, obviously. Stop worrying about the politics. Imagine if politicians back in March had to agree on video conferencing? Half of us would be on Google Hangouts, the other half would be on Skype, everyone would hate everyone else, lucky for us someone had already invented Zoom. That's America.

TOA: That's not America.

BB: It should be-

TOA: It isn't, and everyone hates Zoom, by the way.

BB: Well-

TOA: And everyone hates everyone else.

BB: Please-

TOA: No point talking about this, none of it makes sense, honestly what you say would take most people forever to do any of that, if they could, and besides, these problems are because America isn't just a place to make money, it's a place to steal money, and all this stealing is creating some problems that are very serious, which you want to ignore-

BB: The only-

TOA: No, these grassroots, individualized solutions sound good, but they don't add up to real solutions. Climate change, that's a problem caused by companies, by the corporations you love so much and the countries that won't stop them, this isn't a problem caused by individuals, who have no choice but to drive around and use up energy so they can keep up with the commitments and routines that let them get on with their disappointing lives.

BB: A billion people choose to drive, and it's the fault of a business?

TOA: It doesn't matter. These days, a billion people, two billion, the problems are still from corporations. What you are talking about is a way to get everyone to stop worrying, so we don't have the support of numbers, the support of people, even though getting those numbers is really the only option remaining. You're talking about something dangerous, because you're talking about isolation, people isolating themselves into tiny little spheres of focus to solve problems they can solve, it's the benevolence of MAGA, but that means we ignore the biggest problems, and we're losing the collective edge we need for cutting into these issues before it's too late.

BB: No, you're the one talking danger, you're talking about something dangerous. You're talking about ideas that you don't believe should exist. And when you do that, you are getting very close to saying that the people who have those ideas shouldn't exist. That's actually not just dangerous, that's violent.

TOA: How is an idea violent?

BB: How is it not? You said it yourself, ideas that are one side or the other, there's no unity. So if there's no unity, there's going to be violence.

TOA: No, that's not right. Nothing is destined.

BB: You mean-

TOA: What I was getting at is avoiding the mess of forcing unity. What I meant was that when it's obvious there is no unity, you need to find another way to make it work.

BB: Well, that's what I said, OK, but maybe it's not obvious to you. But I don't believe you, I think you've given up. You don't want to push, and I know that if no one is pushing, then of course pushing won't work.

TOA: I think we've pushed for ages, and I don't know why we think more pushing is the answer.

BB: Well.

TOA: Well?

BB: So what do you want?

TOA: I don't know.

BB: Right.

TOA: What?

BB: You talk all this talk, but you have nothing. You're like a toddler, you sit there and you point and you yell, but you can't tell us what's wrong, or why, and you can't tell us what would fix the problem. Do you want more parties? No parties? Vote on everything? No more voting? You have no idea.

TOA: No more debates, maybe-

BB: Oh wow!

TOA: That's not it.

BB: It is. You're like a toddler. Maybe it's good you won't vote-

TOA: I'm voting!

BB: Right. Well don't, children shouldn't vote.

TOA: See, you business bros, you don't get a simple thing, sometimes you just need to stop.

BB: Stop? We stop all the time.

TOA: No, you just find a new way to keep moving.

BB: Same thing.

TOA: No, not the same thing, OK? You said it last time, people should wear masks just so they don't make other people anxious. You know what? People should just move out of the way, or just stop moving. A lot of these people on the street, they just keep moving, no matter what, and they create all kinds of problems, maybe even anxiety, because they run into each other instead of waiting for someone to pass.

BB: Right, but-

TOA: It never even occurs to them that stopping is an option. Look, it's the attitude, OK, you said America is in the "business business", well in business you would know, you business bros all do it, you keep moving, if it's going poorly you don't stop, you pivot, you find a new direction-

BB: I don't understand this at all.

TOA: Of course you don't.

BB: I don't.

TOA: Well, I'll make it really simple, we elected one of you idiots, a business bro for the ages-

BB: I didn't vote for him!

TOA: Of course not, but you're just like him, so many of you who claim to be against him, but act like him, a guy so stupid that he couldn't even, couldn't even print his own money, like you were saying earlier about the masks, he could have just printed off his MAGA masks, like with the hats, done it all again, if he were a great businessman he would have had half the country paying to wear these masks, instead he's so incompetent, the very definition of a business bro, he can't do what you said, and bring everyone around to a mask, which would have made him rich, and maybe president again, instead he just goes on yelling about China this or that-

BB: Hey-

TOA: And the most dangerous idea of all, is that so many people are in denial about being just like him, so we aren't going to be back here in four years saying "well, we know a business bro is actually an idiot-"

BB: Who are you calling-

TOA: Look, OK, we won't learn the lesson from these four years, or goodness maybe eight, that we just worship business too much, OK, that the religion of business is killing us, at the very least we should never pretend, ever again, that a business background makes you fit for leadership, but I think in four years we'll have people saying "Trump proved we just needed a better business man". Same crap. You want more pushing, I say stop-

BB: You know something?

TOA: What?

BB: Despite all these personal attacks-

TOA: These aren't-

BB: You had one good idea.

TOA: What?

BB: Let's stop.

TOA: Stop?

BB: For now, this debate. We've been here for ages, we haven't even looked at the ballot.

TOA: Oh, right.

BB: So we should stop, come back, and try to figure out the votes.

TOA: OK.

BB: Same time, same place?

TOA: Next week?

BB: There's certainly nothing better to do.

TOA: OK, next week.