I hate Malcolm Gladwell’s latest book “David and Goliath”

The relationship between a writer and his reader is personal, delicate, and intimate. It’s unlike any other artistic covenant. Painters and Sculptors create visual stimuli that cause the viewer to ask “what was the artist’s state of mind when this was conceived?” The Cinema and Theatre use actors as conduits to move and interpret action in a story leaving very little for the patron to contribute. However, Writing and the result of reading is our purest example of a meeting of the mind as it were. There are no middle men, no short-cuts, no noise. It’s raw. When you read someone’s work it’s as if they are telling you a secret; a wonderful secret in black and white. The writer tells a story, and the reader’s experiences fill in all the blanks. It’s collaborative, unifying, and beautiful.

Over the last 10 years or so I’d say Malcolm Gladwell has become one of my favorite writers. I enjoy his point of view, and the fact that he writes about interesting things from a unique perspective. I look forward to his book releases, and “David and Goliath” was no exception. The book came out at the perfect time, I was on a six week break, and I was challenging myself to read 5 books during my hiatus. I was looking SO forward to diving in to it.

Sidebar:

Donald Rumsfeld has a quote attributed to him that I’ve become very fond of…. In speaking on military action … He said “there are KNOWNS, there are KNOWN UNKNOWNS, and there are UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS”… he has to negotiate all three when making a decision. I’ve adopted this paradigm for many things including works in non-fiction.

Unknown/Unknowns are by far the most interesting reads because the writer has to convince the reader that something exists, and then explain how he found its existence. This is why the Bible, and religion will always be a dominant idea.

I’d say Gladwell’s second book “Blink” falls into the unknown/unknown category. He wrote masterfully about the genius of the split second decision maker, through the prisms of an NFL quarterback turning 22 moving pieces into one frozen snapshot, a marriage counselor who could observe a couples dialogue for 15 minutes and know with 90% accuracy if their marriage would last 15 years, and a ranger who knew instinctively that the only way to survive a raging oncoming brush fire was to run directly into it. Facinating material!

Known/Unknowns are interesting because the writer is attempting to create the definitive work on a subject that is universally believed to exist. This is why the JFK assassination will always be fertile ground. Gladwell’s first book “Tipping Point”, and third book “Outliers” fall into this category. “Tipping Point” was Gladwell establishing laws for what had been previously called happenstance. “Outliers” was his unveiling of the “Ten Thousand Hour Rule” essentially a statement to the world proclaiming that greatness requires very little luck. Covered ground and yet still very interesting.

Gladwell’s fourth book “What the Dog Saw” is a collection of his “New Yorker” articles but in a nutshell it borrows from “Outliers” as it chronicles the conception of a genius moment.

Knowns are by far the least interesting thing to write about. This is why newspapers are dying. Writing about factual accounts without a great idea is boring which brings us to “David and Goliah.”

Expectations aside, “David and Goliath” is by far the worst book I’ve ever read. The distance between it and “Blink” is akin to the distance between the guy that thought the earth was flat versus the guy that knew it wasn't. The book is dead, lifeless, uninspiring, and worst of all lazy. At best this book could be used as propaganda in a third world nation, but not middle class America. It’s “Outliers” for NOBODYS. It’s as if Gladwell had a 5 book deal, only had enough zeal for 3, and mailed in the last 2. I kept hoping while reading (for the sake of our relationship) that it would get better; alas it never did. I kept wondering who was supposed to be the audience? Smart people couldn’t be his audience for this book? People that read his other 4 books could not be the audience for this?

I used precious time reading this book that I can never EVER get back!

I feel used. I feel outraged. I feel hate.

I hate the NFL Coaching Carousel in January

Picture this. You’re engaged to be married. You’re happy. Life is good. Everything leading up to the wedding has been bliss, and then one week before the big day your fiancé’ comes to you and says she wants to go speed dating just to see what’s out there. You know, so she can possibly upgrade her situation. How would that make you feel? Not good…. right?

Well…. Imagine how the San Diego Chargers team and fan base feels today. Against all odds, they made it to the playoffs. They won 4 games in a row. They just played and won their biggest game in 5 years. On Sunday they play the #1 Seed who they beat impressively just one short month ago. And their Offensive Coordinator has chosen to schedule THREE (count them) THREE interviews THIS week for a head coaching job.

In the midst of a magical season where you are only two wins away from the Superbowl, and your offensive guru is flirting in the hall with some other dude. Are you serious? How does this make any sense?

Football is by far the most coach driven sport. Coaches work around the clock during the regular season, let alone the playoffs. You can’t tell me this isn’t a major distraction going into a big game. You can’t tell me that the coach is giving 100% to his team when he is interviewing for another job. You can’t tell me that a player being asked to give 100% of his blood, sweat, and tears isn’t a bit put off playing for a coach that has one foot out the door.

Looks, these Superbowl runs are rare. The city, organization, and fan base deserve some type of loyalty. Would it kill the NFL is they placed a 5 week moratorium on head coaching interviews until after the post season was over? Is 5 weeks going to make that much of a difference? If it does, you can move the Combine, and Draft back to accommodate it right?

This is unverifiable, but I wouldn’t be surprised if teams lose in the playoff because they underrate team chemistry when it comes to these coaches making the rounds while their teams are still alive in the playoffs. The Green Bay Packers were 15-1 a few years back when the OC was flirting with the Dolphins, and in 2007 my Cowboys were 13-3 and lost in the divisional round when our OC was playing footsie with the Ravens.

Look, coaches can’t interview during the regular season why on earth would you allow them to do it in the post season. And if you’re looking for an example of a team waiting you don’t have to look past last year when Charles Kelly (Can’t call a grown man Chip) was the last head coach hired and it was well after the Superbowl. That worked out okay.

Roger Goodell it’s time for you to step up and fix this. It goes to the integrity of the game.

I hate that Stacey Woods wrote this and I didn't

27 Thinks to Leave Behind in 2014 by Stacey Woods (Esquire Magazine)

1. Liking Things Ironically
The Baby Boomers rebelled against their dorky parents. We Gen Xers, however, couldn't rebel against our parents since rebelling against your parents had been done, so instead, we cultivated irony; it was all we could do. This subtle, handcrafted irony, however, has fallen into the hands of subsequent generations who have been misinterpreting ever since, and now we have dorky a cappella singing competitions on TV. Ironically, that's what happens when you try to be ironic — you end up making things a million times worse. Therefore, all intentional irony should be abolished until everyone's clear on what's good and what's bad. It'll probably take about five years.

2. Being All Ghetto
Getting your drink on, making it rain up in here, giving a shout out, being all about things, and throwing gang signs in pictures are all about 15 years out of date and weren't that great to begin with. Classically, a ghetto is a tragic place from which to emerge, not dive into and declare fabulous.

3. Stepping Up Your Game and/or Bringing Your A-Game
Just forget about your game completely.

4. The Namaste Gesture
When directed at, let's say, the dry cleaner, this abridged prayer and bow combo comes off as highly insincere. As with everything, if you can imagine Adam Levine doing it, you should avoid it.

5. Being Stoked
All too often, being stoked leads to giving a shout out. Best to avoid it.

6. Giving It Up
Conversely, giving it up for someone or something often succeeds giving a shout out, and should also be avoided.

7-9. Honoring Yourself, Practicing Mindfulness, and Manifesting What the Universe Wants for You
Over, over, over.

10. Chillaxing
Oh, don't feel bad for chillaxing. It had a good run.

11. The Falsetto Flourish
The advent of You Tube, Funny or Die, and other such do-it-yourself comedy outlets has had the odd effect of turning everyone into Jack Black. Saying something like, "I'mo get my drink on" with the "drink on" part sung in falsetto is a stylistic choice that cannot carry over into the new year. It might not seem like much now, but after a while, when things start to seem somehow better, we'll know it's because the Falsetto Flourish is gone.

12. Strong, Amazing Woman
It's become increasingly rare to hear women described without these two pat qualifiers. Maybe we could come up with two other ones, or maybe — better yet — we could let the strength and amazing-ness of women be quietly understood in a way that is truly strong and amazing. In the meantime, here's what you can say when describing a woman: "I want you to meet my friend Donna. She's really great."

13. Inventive Uses for "Much"
As in, "not so much" and "_____ much?" They may have been delightfully fresh in the '90s, but when your idioms are used to sell fast food and car insurance, it's time to abandon them.

14. Literally
Since "literally" can now mean "figuratively," we must stop interjecting it into our conversations in favor of the latter. Let's see if we now can get "figuratively" to mean "literally." Wouldn't that be great? We should figuratively do that.

15. Hey Lady
"Hey lady" has become the new "In the future" — a phrase that signifies something you don't want to hear. If I get an email that begins, "Hey lady," I delete it unread.

16. Being a Hater
Feel free to do it, just don't say it.

17. The Baby Clap Gesture
This stiff-handed, largely silent, staccato clap gesture that is often accompanied by a soft "Yay" (see below) stands in direct contrast to everything a clap should be. It's really goofing up clapping, and once clapping goes, we're doomed.

18. Right Now
As in, "Are you kidding me right now?" and "Are you serious right now?" A totally unnecessary utterance that takes time away from constantly saying "figuratively."

19. Awesomeness
The unauthorized noun-ification of a dead adjective. Lose both.

20. At the End of the Day, It Is What It Is.
Across this great land, roughly 500,000 times a day, one person says this to another person, who nods in agreement, neither of them realizing that they've just participated in the emptiest experience two people can have. No more.

21. Gamechanger
As previously stated, please delete all references to one's game.

22-25. Wheelhouse, Random, Bow Chica Wow Wow, and I Know, Right?
For obvious reasons.

26. Yay!
Perhaps it's because everyone's so thrilled about everything that this once vibrant exclamation has grown feeble. If we're going to talk like children, I propose we say, "Goody goody gumdrops!" It's just as dumb, but at least it's different.

27. Calling Something the Best _____ Ever
You can still do this as long as you only do it once in your life. Only one thing can be the best thing ever, so you'd better think long and hard about that scone before you open your mouth.

I hate when people say “You can’t win them all”

At the end of any competition of consequence, where there is a winner and loser declared, invariably someone will approach the loser, they will slightly tilt there head, suck in their lips, sigh, look the loser in the eye, pat them on the back, and say “you can’t win them all.”

“You can’t win them all” has become the obligatory punctuation for any and every loss whether it be; in the board room, on the playing field, or in the court room. If you’re within ear shot of a loser and you don’t utter the punctuation you’re probably not a good person. Have never seen, read or signed the social contract, and you are not fit for assimilation in our society.

“You can’t win them all” is categorized as an idiom, a figurative statement. In the same vein as “You’re pulling my leg” when someone is teasing /pranking another, or “raining cats and dogs” as a description of a torrential downpour.

Yanking an appendage or animals falling from the sky sounds like a vivid, illustrious, yet inaccurate way of lending color to a white canvas. Where as telling someone, after a competition, that there are winners and losers, and that you won’t always win, seems more like the slight difference between coloring something egg shell or coloring it beige.

It has been my experience that “you can’t win them all” is a very literal frank explanation of outcomes, but is it accurate? Mathematically if one enters a competition where there will be a winner and a loser declared why couldn’t an individual win every time? Mathematically he or she can go undefeated, although it’s not likely.

It’s also unclear to me why the declaration of “you can’t win them all” is always said to the loser, at the end of competition, after a loss. Logically, it would seem to me more sensible to proclaim that at the onset of the competition so that the competitors understand the consequences of their impending competition.

Emotionally, I understand why it’s not said at the onset of competition. It’s not said because no one wants to lose, no one desires to support a loser, and no one wants to put doubt in the mind of a competitor prior to a competition. Which begs the question why do it afterwards?

Unless the competitor is retiring there will be another competition. A loss already feels bad. Losing sucks. Why embrace losing with “loser talk”?

In these fragile times after a loss I find it important to be encouraging. “We’ll get them next time” is poignant, proper, and well placed.

“You can’t win them all” needs to be assassinated.