DonkeyCigars

I think the difference for those of us who didn’t like this episode and vocalized it is, we’ll let me just speak for myself, I think not everyone watches and consumes TV in the same way and with the same intentions and benefit of the doubt. Seems like people who liked, or tolerated well enough to be confused as liking, this episode are those who ingest a lot of different television and consider that part of their life (and personality) and have a varied amount of TV shows they watch and can appreciate experimentation or attempts in TV even if they don’t land. I barely watch any TV; I have time for maybe 2-3 current, non-binge shows a season to really watch end to end, week to week. TV— whether it be the show, the industry, the mechanics, the art and craft, or just being a “TV show guy”— does not have a carved out place in life where it can fit and afford a bunch of content that is more or less a waste of time. I’d spend time on social media or tiktok or whatever if I didn’t value my time like that. So when I watch a show like Ted Lasso, it’s because I’ve heard great things, I’ve seen some of it, I’ve read a thread on here, etc. and I jump in. It’s a great show. But when a few episodes start deviating wildly what made it a great show, it’s disappointing and then there is added resentment of the time wasted. Season 2 Ep 1 and 4 were far inferior to the worst episode of Season 1. That’s a 50% fail rate and that’s concerning for a guy like me. So sorry to all those who watch TV differently for having to hear about it, but maybe that makes more sense. The insulting part too, was the show saying “yea probably weird it was aired in August but we think or hope you will watch it again in December!” Acknowledging it was dumb, served little purpose in the TL arc, and a time waster for a lot of folks.

The worst part of this episode to me is not that it was silly and completely out of place and not very funny, not good, not well written and not too cheesy (the show itself admitted it was walking the fine line between cheesefest and a good show, and it sounds like half of us thought it worked and the other half have secondhand embarrassment for the show amd those associated with it as well as resentment for the waste of time). The worst part is that the last episode ended with a nice cliffhanger. Politics have intersected with sports. The team seems to come together around it. The billionaire ceo of Dubai Air (and Rupert’s best friend) is barreling down on Rebecca and also adding in the real conflict needed of Rupert, and Jaime is going to be a better teammate and get some growth with the shrink. Then we fast forward in real time August to Christmas where we get the cheapest trick in the book of an exposition/information dump (“wow coach, our win next week means we will be 5-4-14 wink wink”) and nary a peep about the political, or athletic, or personal or professional fall out from the duct tape game and nothing about Dubai Air. (And not to mention Jaimie in all that time with the good doc is still a selfish dummy who can’t give good gifts at Christmas and needs to be bailed out showing absolutely nothing was done in that interim.)

Good input and what I was wondering about. This confirms that it felt like a throwaway episode because it was. Sounds like there is also one more throwaway or one off special episode as well that isn’t meant to fit into the arc of the show.

I thought this episode was weird and so light and stupid that it really slowed the momentum and felt like a throwaway. Maybe because I’ve spent two weeks in Malibu and am still very much in beach mode, the Christmas special in August threw me off and I couldn’t get bought in, and then nothing of consequence really happened. Some good lines (higgie smalls, John Holmes, D’s nutz, etc.) and the physical comedy of gagging on breath brought some limited laughs but I thought this episode was a pretty big miss and I like this show so much I was sincerely bummed by it. Why did they do the Christmas show in August anyways? Did something happen in production or otherwise screw up the linearity of the schedule? Covid probably to blame somehow? I could see enjoying this episode on the week before Christmas when society and my headspace is in Christmas mode, but otherwise meh. And the kid seeing Santa flying was the stupidest and cheesiest and uncharacteristically hackneyed thing the writers have done in this series. Hopefully this was just an off week and the show can get their heads back into the game and get back to form next week. One bad show doesn’t make a trend, yet, so I’m hopeful.

I just watched Death of a Salesman (1985) and Happy Loman is played by Stephen Lang. And I thought the name was familiar. He later gained relevancy and was introduced to me as none other than Ike "let's have a spelling bee" Clanton:

Death of a Salesman (1985) starring Dustin Hoffman and a young John Malkovich. Pretty strong-- I've never seen the Broadway versions with Lee J. Cobb which I've heard was the gold standard, but Hoffman was fantastic. Arthur Miller wrote the character as extremely Jewish without explicitly saying it.

Not having a state tax and high taxes seems like a local/state political reason why a lot of folks are moving to Florida @Lobo. Heck, me and the fam seriously considered a move to the Tampa area a few years ago for a great opportunity and the reason it was short-listed over a few different cities (MSP, SJ/SF, LA, and DC/DTC) was because the take-home and disposable income power-up that FL provides versus other states not named Texas.

Yea, the dismissal as a troll thing is as Gabriel says, a frustrated lashing out. That said, I'm sure I've been guilty of being petty and striking at nerves or going below belts with folks I don't like-- I am a human-- and that doesn't necessarily help. But I also think it's amusing that folks can't fathom that I am only me and have never been anyone else-- TahoeHorn, Donuts, or Chrispy or anyone else. I think it comforts them to think that. And the truth is I'll be gone soon. I'm down to 60 points and I am not going to materially change my stances or behaviors or rhetoric-- and I do truly enjoy the conversations and like you suggest, I do learn (and by learning I have changed some thinking, so maybe I'm wrong about the first part of this sentence).

One of the all time great comedians doing that event justice. Always love the impact of the line, "well, they went up there."

Dude. I bought this book based off that tweet. Wow.

This will tickle a lot of people here... I went through an application/interview process at The New School. It's actually a really awesome school in NYC. Life circumstances changed those plans, but yeah...do with that tidbit what you will haha https://www.newschool.edu/ edit: sorry mean to respond to the quan cosby c-student.

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?” - DFW

This.

This.

I'm not trying to be dense (I guess in reality nobody tries to be dense) but when you say: I don't really even see it as my opponent crapping their pants and making a fool of themselves, so maybe I'm a bad right-winger. Or else the right-winger mentality that celebrates these things has absorbed and fused into me that I don't even know where it starts or ends anymore and we are one. At the end of the day @bad_teammate, I'm glad you awoke from you slumber to converse-- I've noticed you've been busy and I had to call you back from the ether. I appreciate your conviction so much even if half the time I don't understand it and frustrate you with basic imperatives. You bring out the best in us.

Just saw Space Jam....oof.

This is a point I was trying to make, but I believe one that @bad_teammate rejects. And to compare with what the Republicans do as a party I think is not a fair or apples-to-apples comparison (and I think a tricky stance personally for Mr. Teammate to take after literally poking fun and clowning on half this board in another thread for always reflexively comparing to what the GQP does), because their existence as political parties are the same in name only. They might as well be playing a whole different game in a whole different ballpark with respect to the rules for which they charter, identify, enact, and self-govern by are so very different that the fundamental make up is like comparing lobster DNA to chimpanzee DNA. And I think the biggest reason for that is the constituents and human beings (and populations of human beings or groups of personas) that make up the bases are why that is. The GQP of recent memory have a much more monolithic, unified and similar base of people so that the appeal (or red meat, as I've heard it termed) is easy to identify in order to satiate and control the people of the party to impact their behavior (e.g. repeat the party lines and act as a 10x...nay, 100x multiplier effect online and in communities, circle the wagons to protect their own, get out the torches to crucify an enemy, cut something down before it gets traction, and get out to vote). It's both a luxury and also a detriment, it's the age old story of specialization vs. generalization (by the way, you should read Range by David Epstein to see why this is potentially a losing strategy as we saw in 2020: https://davidepstein.com/the-range/) Democrats have a much broader, much larger, much more dynamic and varied base which is unwieldy to manage in the same way. You can't just expect to publish the party talking point like you would with GQP, in this case "Defund the Police" and get a huge, varied population of people on a wide spectrum to come together under one banner. The only time that works is with something so universally and elementally heinous (read: DJT) and even that wasn't an overwhelming slam dunk depending on how you interpret the numbers (electoral votes vs. popular vote vs. what margin is a meaningful referendum vs. what is considered a slim win, etc.) All this talk about parties leads me to this thought-provoking bonus essay question: What else are politicians and political parties for? The answer, as far as I can tell and drawing from my own lived experiences and perspectives, is to collate and obtain power. Politicians exist to gather political power and turn that into whatever resource will further entrench their positions as dictated by their ultimate visions or missions (and history is littered with both good and bad examples of what happens when a great politician wields their great amassed power). Whether it be to retain and keep it as political power, convert it to military power and force, economic power and influence, or whatever, the answer as I see it is power. And political parties exist to make that process of obtaining power more efficient, which is to say easier to organize, manage and control events and people to give them (or wrest from them) that power. Just like why certain personalities and disorders are drawn to the bulge brackets of Wall St., I think the same about politicians-- it's a rare good and honest and noble soul who chooses to reign in hell (public office) than serve in heaven (private sector).

The problem is that the activists and the demands of *some* voters (activists and protestors and other grassroot, bottoms up political voices who are engaged) is not a monolithic, unified, workshopped message from a consultancy or advertising agency that has a clear and concise meaning. It needs to be understood. It needs to be understood by either politicians, who are then taking the baton to make laws or policy that voters like and want and will vote for, based on the forecasted demand consumption of their desires (in this case, their cries in the street and social media) or It needs to be understood by voters, the 80% of the aforementioned uninformed, non-engaged, once-an-election-season-on-a-national-level voter, who will demand of their politicians that they be given policies and laws to vote for that which they desire. One or the other needs to happen in the process for communication and the process to work, I think. Either way, it's the job of those amplifying voices to have some responsibility in a clear hand-off. Just creating a first pass of something, organically and spontaneously created with a lot of legitimate fervency and emotion but messy and unclear in the real vision, leads to a situation where your anchor slogan means 5 different things to 5 different protestors you grab off the street. To then throw up your hands and saying at Dems, "well, it's their fault! It's not my job to create a clean vision for you" when even here there are varied opinions of what "Defund" actually means when unpacked (e.g. Literal defunding of police vs. just taking some money away and siphoning it to mental services vs. getting rid of police all together vs. just stop shooting unarmed people, etc.) feels like it's not the most responsible place to throw rocks. Just my opinion, I appreciate your take and respect your consistency. Educate me.

RSUs work great for big public companies, like Amazon or Microsoft. And sometimes RSUs can work great for private companies. But it has to be a really unique private company for RSUs to make sense. Examples would be a company ramping to its IPO, or a private company that is so profitable or has so much in cash that it can afford to help its employees pay the tax on their vesting unit awards. These are very unusual circumstances. In most instances, if you are in a startup, your choice of equity award should be either stock options or restricted stock awards. How do RSUs work? The company awards you “Restricted Stock Units.” Each unit represents one share of stock to which you will become entitled once your units vest. For example, you might get 40,000 RSUs, vesting in equal increments over 4 years of service. After 1 year of service, the company would issue you 10,000 shares of stock. This sounds great, and it is, except for the tax problems. The Tax Problems When you receive the 10,000 shares in the example above, you will owe tax on the value of those 10,000 shares at the time the shares are issued. So, in the above example, if after 1 year of service the shares are worth $20 a share, you will owe tax as if you had received $200,000 in cash. You will have to write a check to your employer so that your employer can send your share of the federal income and employment taxes to the IRS. Or you will have to forfeit the shares instead of receiving them. The tax withholding the company is obligated by law to collect from the employee on $200,000 of income is substantial. You will have to write a big check to the company, or the company won’t have to issue you your shares and you will forfeit them. On $200,00 in value of vested RSUs, the income tax withholding will be about $50,000 (the supplemental wage withholding rate varies from time to time, but assume the current 25%). In addition to that, there will be FICA or Hospital Insurance taxes. Most employees do not have this kind of money to send to the IRS to receive shares in a private company which can’t be sold. Big, public companies, like Amazon or Microsoft–can manage this problem. These companies can establish programs that allow their employees to get liquidity on their shares immediately to pay the taxes. This can’t be done in the private company context. So if you receive RSUs in a private company, with no public market for its shares, be careful. You might be stepping into an unexpected tax trap. https://thestartuplawblog.com/rsus-the-tax-problems/

Please stop or at least take it to a different forum focused on discussing such matters.

It's only a political slogan in as much as it can be tied to a political agenda or initiative. Which means it's only effective if it can be synthesized by voters. It's all good and well to take the higher ground and be right, as I'm sure you are, about activists and protestors owning the rights and meanings of "Defund", but if activists and protesters can't translate "Defund" to make it politically feasible and digestible by both politicians and voters, then either your (the activists and protestors in the street whose groundswell gave birth to "Defund" as we know it in 2021) strategy to affect change is broken, the government of record meant as the vehicle to implement the change is broken, or both. Occam's razor says it's probably the Indian, not the arrow.

So what I think I am hearing is a lot of angst from everyone that this was worse than pointless-- it was actually detrimental. Which, brings up another question-- what did you expect the Dems to do then? Just drop the sure-fire interception instead of catching it and trying to run it back for 6 whenever Tommy T threw the errant pass, because it's better field position, politically speaking? Beyond that, @StassneyHorn, was your post then meant to be in frustration as well? Once I made heads or tails of the post, I thought you were posting it as a good thing.

Ah ha! But I think we are talking about two different problems, both named "Defund the Police" One is a political problem, the one Captain and I have been talking about, which is where Dems are boxed in by the GQP with their talk tracks and billboards and commercials during elections. It's a problem of nuance-- witless voters who make up the mass of the voters on any said voting day (the mostly uninformed, soundbyte, vote once an election season, not locally voting or in tune) who can't be expected to spend time and energy unfurling subtext. The Dems get a win here. This should be celebrated, if you are a Dem, right? The other problem is one where I sense Captain's frustration lie. The Dems/Politicians get a pointless "win" and an excuse to sweep this away and not be bothered by it, or any real effort and energy into what is inherently a very complex problem. They get to keep trodding down the path of least resistance, which is good for them, because most politicians in legacy D or R camps are not very good at solving complex problems. The point I think you are making is that it is not the Senators place to say what "Defund the Police" means because it was something the streets came up with, but I think voters do see it this way and are confused.

I get your underlying point, but are you cannot at least take joy in the Dems dunking on Tommy T and in this case?

It's the first step to a solution. It's like with addiction recovery, the first step is to admit you have a problem. Here the first step is retiring the "Defund the Police" slogan as a political hot potato getting past the slogan because it was an impediment to progress, whether it be through distraction or confusion on what it means, etc.