I have a neighbor that I am friendly with but we do not know each other well. Our interactions are generally limited to pleasantries. I have nothing against the guy and we get along, but every time I say hi, he will ask how I am doing. When I say, “Good, how are you?” His response is always, “I’m OK.” with a shrug.

He’s a good guy, but it bugs me that he never responds positively. I don’t expect him to always be happy, but I feel there’s usually no need to drop anything negative or indifferent in these exchanges. If there is something bugging you that you’d like to get off your chest, then by all means go for it, but if we are both going on our way, I’d prefer to stay positive. Just say, “I’m doing fine, thanks.”

I believe in the self-fulfilling prophecy. So if you say you are doing well, it is more likely to be so. If you say you are feeling down, it is harder to get out of that funk. I don’t like being disingenuous, but there is something to the notion of, “fake it till you feel it.” We all get down sometimes, but that doesn’t mean we have to be a downer. I think we’d all be better off if more people looked on the bright side and actively sought out reasons to be happy. So if someone asks you how you are doing, find something to be grateful for or happy about and spread the love. Now for some football talk.

Err on the Side of Aggression

When some teams get a lead, their focus turns to slowing down the game and avoiding big mistakes. When other teams take a lead, they channel their efforts into getting a bigger lead. Unless it is very late in the game, I much prefer the later style of play. It is not only more exciting to watch, but I think it gives a team the best chance to win.

To see what can go wrong with the overly conservative approach, just look at any of the NFL teams who have blown a second half lead of two scores or more because they failed to put points on the board once they were up big.

Last weekend, the Seahawks took a seventeen point lead halfway through the third quarter. From that moment on they did not advance the ball past their own 30 yard line. A conservative game plan of runs and short passes resulted in a punt on every subsequent possession and a loss in overtime. If they played to score, not just to waste time, they likely would have put up more points in the fourth quarter and be sitting on a winning record. As it is, they let one slip away and have more losses than wins through their first five games. Seattle started slow last year and came on strong late, so I wouldn’t count them out. But they aren’t doing much early on to inspire confidence in their chances of returning to the Super Bowl.

Most coaches call a cautious game with the lead because they likely fear the onslaught of criticism that will come if they make a mistake and lose the game. Belichick is one of the few who does not, but job security is not an issue for him so that makes sense. I have respect for coaches who are willing to take risks that increase their team’s chances of winning but will bring on criticism if it doesn’t work out. I have more respect for the coaches that do this when they are new to the job.

I felt like Mike Tomlin was one of the few newcomers to coach with a set of testicles and I think Bruce Arians is continuing in that mold. I have no connections to any of the teams coached by these men, but I like to see their style succeed because it is more effective and entertaining. When you go up two scores you should focus more on going up three scores than on congratulating yourself for getting a big lead.

In a decidedly contentious competition where the stakes are high, if you want to win you cannot ease up once you have an advantage. When your opponent is down you shouldn’t dial back the pressure and let him get back on his feet, you should step on his throat.

I do not believe the real world to be a zero-sum game and I worry about people who carry this attitude into their daily lives. But a professional football game can only have one winner, and to be successful, you need to be ruthless. Don’t hope the other team hands you a win, do whatever you can to take it from them.

Presidents cup

In golf, a team of the best players from the US took down the international all-stars in the generally ignored President’s Cup in South Korea. Team events in professional golf are rare, but I find them to be quite entertaining. It is interesting to observe players in this pressure packed format and it seems like there are more missed putts from close range in these events. The momentum swings are often quick and dramatic, and in many of the matches, nothing is decided until the final putt on the last hole.

Twice, Bubba Watson entered the 18th hole up one, needing only to tie the hole to win the match. Both times he had a putt within six feet that would have given him the win. Both times he missed the putt and wound up with a draw. Some players step up their game in these pressure situations, others crumble.

The President’s Cup was also the last official rounds for South Korean Sang-Moon Bae who must now take time off from his golf career to serve a mandatory term in the military. Bae will go from winning over $2 million on the golf course last year to being just another grunt in boot camp.

I understand that South Korea is in a unique military position. The war with North Korea has never officially ended and to the north, Kim Jong-un is a paranoid, inexperienced, menacing dictator in control of a nuclear arsenal. But adding a pro golfer to the military ranks won’t change the situation. I would have liked to see Bae given the military exemption that he applied for, not because he shouldn’t have to fulfill his civic duty, but because he could serve his nation better by continuing his successful career and using his resources to assist the people, government and military in other ways beyond direct service. I don’t think Bae should be exempt from serving his country, I just feel there are many better ways for this uniquely talented individual to serve other than by simply becoming a soldier.

Chip Kelly Does Not Care What You Think

When a new coach takes over a team in the NFL and leads it to a 10-6 record in each of his first two seasons, you would think he would have earned some respect from peers, players, fans and analysts. But because Chip Kelly is trying something different, many analysts seem to actively root against him. After losing a few close games and starting 1-3, almost anyone who talked or wrote about football was eager to tell us that Chip Kelly’s up-tempo system doesn’t work in the NFL and he’d be better off taking his gimmicks back to the college game.

The negative rhetoric consumed the media, but not the sports books. When the Eagles hosted the Saints last week, they were favored by about five points. Every opinion I read about that game said to bet on the Saints because Philly has not shown itself to be good enough to cover a spread that big. Of course, the Eagles went out and won by 22 and now the narrative shifts. The Eagles are probably not as bad as we thought, and the Saints are obviously not as good as they once were.

When an aggressive style of play leads to a loss, it usually looks bad. Chip Kelly doesn’t care how bad he looks when things don’t go his way because he believes that his style gives his team the best chance to win. I respect him for this and I try not to overreact to big wins or ugly losses because his style is much more boom or bust than other coaches. In the end a win is a win and a loss is a loss. We ought not to dismiss a style of play simply because the losses aren’t as pretty, especially if it leads to more wins.

Where are the Ad Hominem Attacks?

The Democrats threw down in a no-holds-barred opening debate and aggressively came at each other with loads of mutual respect and similar policies. Of the three lesser known candidates, Martin O’Malley scored the highest, but for me Lincoln Chafee made the best impression. Hillary and Bernie dominated many of the topics, but whenever Chafee had a chance to speak, he was calm, honest, self-assured and well informed. Hopefully this race gets a little more interesting after a few more people were able to get their faces seen and their voices heard.

Talk of income inequality was prominent in the opening statements of the Democratic debate. I agree that it is an important issue to be addressed, but I feel it is being framed in the wrong manner. America has always been a nation of economic mobility. Inequality will always exist; the focus should be on improving the lives of the poorest over vilifying the richest.

Our primary aim should be to improve the standard of living in America so that no one is without food, clothing, shelter, education or opportunity. What people make with it is up to them. Those who work harder and save more should be able to achieve as much as their talents allow. If individuals are productive, tax-paying, law-abiding members of society, I have no problem with them becoming extremely wealthy as long as it does not come at the cost of a lower standard of living for others.

One of the least mentioned but easiest ways to even out our tax code is to raise the capital gains tax. There is no reason that capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned through labor. I believe that wages earned through actual work should be taxed at the lowest rate of any income. Capital gains go overwhelmingly to the richest individuals. It is morally wrong to tax that income at a lower rate than income that goes to middle and lower class families from labor. Warren Buffett should not pay a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, but because of our tax system, currently that is the case. This should be an easy fix.

On the topic of gun control, the candidates spat out lots of words but they mostly sounded similar to Obama. I find it hard to believe anyone can get much done when our current President shares their views but still has yet to accomplish anything meaningful. Most Americans agree that we should make it harder for mentally ill individuals to purchase firearms, but any legislation on the matter is immediately stymied. No candidate made me believe they would be able to change the status quo on this issue.

When I hear these candidates speak of their intentions, they do not sound much different than Obama. I have grown more critical of a candidate’s ability to accomplish their goals. Obama has spoken eloquently about issues like tax reform and gun control but after over a term and a half in office I have seen little progress on either of these issues. I am now less likely to support a candidate based solely on their positions. I feel it is also important to assess their ability to achieve success. Perhaps I am more cynical, but I’d like to think I am more pragmatic. I would much prefer a candidate that has shown an ability to work with people from various backgrounds with a variety of interests.

Well, that’s all I got. As I am writing this, Lamar Odom is in critical condition in a Nevada hospital. He has obviously been fighting personal demons for a while. I’m not sure what to say about the situation besides I wish the best for him and those who care about him. Obviously, our society has a long way to go when it comes to dealing with substance abuse and addiction. Hopefully our attitudes and drug policies become more evolved, enlightened and compassionate.