Retcon This!

The Charlotte Hornets were formed as an NBA expansion team in 1988.  Owned by the infamous George Shinn, they played in Charlotte until 2002, when prolonged contention between Shinn, Charlotte city officials and Hornets fans resulted in Shinn moving his team to New Orleans, becoming the New Orleans Hornets.  In 2013, the team changed its name to the New Orleans Pelicans, in honor of Louisiana's state bird, the brown pelican.

The NBA and Charlotte business leaders held that the failure of the original Hornets franchise in Charlotte was attributable to fans’ dislike of Shinn, and was not indicative of the city’s capacity to sustain an NBA franchise.  Wikipedia:

While the Hornets put a competitive team on the court throughout the 1990s, the team's attendance began falling dramatically. Many attributed this lapse in popularity to the team's owner, George Shinn, who was slowly becoming despised by the people of the city….  The consensus was that while Charlotte was as basketball-crazy as ever, fans took out their anger at Shinn on the team.

So, in 2002, the NBA awarded a new Charlotte franchise to a group led by Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson, to begin play in 2004.  The new franchise was named the Charlotte Bobcats, and was purchased in 2010, in its majority, by former NBA superstar Michael Jordan, who thus became the first former NBA player to become majority owner of a franchise.

In 2014, the Charlotte Bobcats officially renamed themselves the Charlotte Hornets, with the permission of the original franchise, which wasn’t using the name anymore.  Moreover the “Hornets” moniker has special significance to the city of Charlotte:

The name was derived from the city's fierce [opposition to the] British occupation during the Revolutionary War, which prompted the British commander, Lord Cornwallis, to refer to it as "a veritable hornet's nest of rebellion."

So far, so good.  Here's where it gets interesting:

At a press conference regarding the change, team officials also announced that as part of a deal with the NBA and the Pelicans, the renamed Hornets reclaimed the history and records of the 1988–2002 Hornets.

Say what?  Wikipedia finds it necessary to clarify:

To restate and clarify a confusing series of events: after the 2002 season, the original Hornets moved to New Orleans. In 2004, Charlotte was granted a new franchise, the Bobcats. After the 2013-14 season, the Bobcats changed their name to the Hornets and reclaimed the history and records of the 1988–2002 Hornets. As a result, the Hornets are now retconned as having suspended operations from 2002 to 2004, while the Pelicans are now retconned as having joined the league in 2002 as an expansion team.

“Retconned”?  I had to look that one up.  According to Google, “retcon” is a verb, meaning to “revise (an aspect of a fictional work) retrospectively, typically by introducing a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events”  (emphasis mine).

The thing is, history is not a fiction that can be “retconned.”  No matter what deals are made, the history and records of the Charlotte Hornets from 1988 to 2002 are those of the original franchise, the one that moved to New Orleans.  You can’t “reassign” a past from one organization to another, no matter how much you pretend to do exactly that.  To assume that the people of Charlotte will be comforted by ignoring the facts and pretending that their present team was established in 1988 and “suspended operations” from 2002 to 2004 is condescending and insulting.  This deal, as well as its precedent, set by the NFL’s Cleveland Browns in 1996, is nothing less than historical revisionism that illegitimately distorts the historical record, and is the malevolent purview of totalitarian regimes, not professional sports leagues.  Are fans in Charlotte and Cleveland supposed to make believe that their franchises never abandoned them?

Dan Feldman of NBC Sports, reflecting on the Charlotte franchise name change and records “acquisition”:

This is a much more logical and satisfying reflection of NBA history and records….  Kudos to the Pelicans for following suit and helping to make this happen. The NBA and our sense of history is better for it.

Really, Mr. Feldman?  Our “sense of history” is better for something that fictionalizes the past and obscures history?  History can’t be altered so that we feel better about it.  Our “sense of history” can only be improved as we clarify the past, not as we obfuscate it   Obviously there are many things in the past that we would have liked to have happened differently, but, guess what, they didn’t!  And pretending they did doesn’t change anything.

I was born in Barranquilla, Colombia in 1961.  I left Colombia for the U.S. as a student in 1978, became a U.S. Resident in 1985, and a U.S. Citizen in 1994.  All true so far, but now, for the sake of argument, let’s say that I became a world famous tennis player, a constant leader in the ATP tour.  Let’s also say that in 1994 I changed my name to John Peters.

I became so famous that in 1990, a baby born in Barranquilla was named after me, Jack Azout. The city of Barranquilla, proud of my accomplishments, offered me a boatload of money in exchange for reassigning my history, through 1994, to the “new” Jack Azout.  I agreed.  So now, the 25 year-old Jack Azout that lives in Barranquilla is celebrated for his accomplishments on the world tennis circuit.  How ludicrous is that?

About as ludicrous as the 1988-2002 records of the “new” Charlotte Hornets.

Photo by Lin Pernille Kristensen [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Full of Barbaras

Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to read is true. Only the names (and a few facts) have been changed to protect the innocent.

As he walked around the back of his car, wallet in hand, to get to the gas pump, Joel’s phone vibrated in his pocket.  He quickly swiped the credit card, selected the gasoline grade, popped the fuel tank open and put the nozzle in place.  He then put the credit card back in his wallet, and laid the wallet on top of the fuel pump so that he could quickly fish the phone out of his pocket and take the call.  It ended up being a long conversation, so by the time it was over the tank was full and the pump had automatically shut off.  Joel put the phone back in his pocket, hung the nozzle back on the pump, and drove home.

The wallet, forlorn, lay helplessly on the pump.

It was a long drive, and Joel took the time to think about the implications of his telephone conversation.  It was only about an hour later, when he got home, that he realized he had left his wallet at the gas station.  He tried to call there, but the number he found online was inoperative.  Driving an hour back to the station seemed futile, as Joel was sure by that time someone would have happened upon the wallet, and would have been up to no good.  He cancelled his credit cards, ordered replacements, and requested a duplicate copy of his driver's license.

An hour later, he received the following comment on his website:

Hello, I have found a wallet that belongs to Joel Ferguson. I'm hoping this is you.  If it is, please contact me at (813)555-1234 as I would like to return it. Thanks!

Barbara Thompson

Joel immediately called the number.  The otherworldly charm and kindness of the woman who answered was such that it placed her in fictional 1950’s Mayfield, not today’s South Florida.  Barbara offered to mail Joel’s wallet back to him.  Joel thanked her.  Profusely.

A few hours later Joel received a text from Barbara with the tracking information for the wallet.  She didn’t merely stick the wallet in an envelope, slap a few stamps on it and throw in it a mailbox.  She took the time to visit a post office, and paid extra to send it via First Class Parcel Service, which includes tracking.

The very next day he received the package.  She had lovingly placed the wallet in a cushioned envelope for added protection.  Along with the wallet, (its contents, of course, intact), Barbara included a note, handwritten on notebook paper:

Hi Joel,

I hope this package finds you in good spirits.  I’m sorry I had to riffle through your wallet to find you, but I’m glad I get to return it to you.

Wishing you well,

Barbara

Joel had told Barbara over the phone (and repeated it in a note he sent her along with a box of chocolate-dipped strawberries) that she restored his faith in humanity.  But as he thought about it, he realized that the opposite was really the case.

Barbara, Joel thought, is a remarkable human being, but the fact that she is remarkable is sad.  If humanity were deserving of his faith, Barbara’s actions when she found his wallet would be commonplace, not exceptional.  Joel discussed this incident with many people, and every single one of them was astonished that he got his wallet back.  We just don’t expect honesty from people, Joel thought, because we rarely get it.   So Barbara’s actions did not restore his faith in humanity.  They only made him realize just how wonderful the world could be.  

If it were full of Barbaras.

Photo by KRoock74 [CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Sadly Expedient

As is generally spelled out on their citations, traffic offenders usually have three options:

1. Simply pay the fine, which is considered a conviction, resulting in points assessed against your license and possible insurance rate increases.  Additionally, accumulating a certain number of points on your license during a specified time period may result in license suspension.  Fines (or “Civil Penalties,” as they are gently referred to on the citations themselves) vary, but are usually at least $150.  So, this option is relatively low-hassle, but expensive in the immediate term and potentially far more expensive in the long term.

2. Go to traffic school.  Successful completion of a Driver Improvement Course will generally avoid the assessment of points against your license, but you still have to pay the “Civil Penalty” and court costs.  This option is expensive and time consuming, as physical driver improvement courses involve sitting in a classroom for four hours, and the online versions of the courses use timing mechanisms to make sure you spend the same four hours sitting in front of your computer.

3. Request a hearing.  This is a crapshoot, since the police officer who pulled you over may fail to show up at the hearing, in which case charges are dismissed and you get away scot-free. However, if the officer does show up, you end up in the same situation as with Option 1, except worse since you have to pay court costs.  Either way, you spent all morning at the courthouse.

As a seasoned human being who has held a driver’s license for almost 40 years, I can say, albeit not proudly, that I have some experience with each of those options.

What the citations fail to tell you, though, is that there is a fourth option: Justin Diamond, Esq.  and his Traffic Ticket Team.  (There are many other law firms that specialize in traffic tickets, but I have personal experience only with Mr. Diamond’s practice.)

Under Option 4 (let’s call it “The Diamond Option”), you call Mr. Diamond’s office, give the professional, courteous paralegal that answers the phone the citation number and your credit card information, and that’s it.  You are done.  The firm will charge you for their services, usually $59 (no typo, only $59!), and represent you in the matter of your traffic violation.  And somehow, magically, it seems, most of the time they get your case dismissed.   Again, I do not say this with pride, but ever since a millennial friend of mine recommended Mr. Diamond’s firm a few years back, I have benefited from its services on several occasions.  So far, Mr. Diamond and his team have never failed to either get the charges against me totally dismissed (no fine, no points, zero dollars, except for the $59 legal fee), or, in the worst case, have adjudication withheld, which means I pay court costs, but no fine and no points.

So, let’s say you are caught speeding.  You know you were speeding.  You have no problem admitting that you broke the law.  You have no problem with standing up and taking the punishment for your transgression.  But given the existence of “The Diamond Option,” any other course of action is clearly irrational.  And that is a sad thing, because it means that the most efficient and effective way to deal with a traffic violation is to hire someone to exploit the technicalities, flaws and shortcomings of our legal system.  

The pragmatist in me takes “The Diamond Option.”  The idealist in me wishes it weren’t viable.

Photo by wallyg (Flickr.com) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The New TripTik

My son and I drove back home to Miami from Port St. Lucie yesterday, as we concluded the 2016 installment of our annual Spring Training extravaganza.  Although I know the way, I entered our home address into Google Maps anyway, just to see which one of three possible routes she would suggest.  (Obviously Google Maps has no gender, but I refer to it as a “she” because of the service’s no-nonsense yet lovable female default voice.)  To my surprise, she suggested a fourth route, one I would never have  considered, based on live traffic conditions.  I gladly took her up on her suggestion.

About halfway into our roughly 2-hour drive, Google Maps interrupted the podcast we were listening to and said: “There is a slowdown on the Florida Turnpike approximately twenty miles south of your position.  I have calculated a new route, which will save you five minutes.  Touch the ‘Accept Route’ button on your screen to accept the new route.”  I did, so instead of staying on the Turnpike for 34 more miles as was the original plan, Google Maps guided me to exit in 10 miles, and take I-75 South to SR 826.  The new route resulted in us arriving at home 10 minutes earlier than Google Maps’ original ETA..  (It seems fair to mention that the new, “Live Traffic” features that have gradually rolled into Google Maps are a result of Google’s 2013 acquisition of Israeli startup Waze Mobile.)

Of course all of this seemed perfectly natural to my 17-year old son.  So, as I am prone to do in these situations, (to his constant dismay), I attempted to describe to him all of the astonishing technologies that contributed to our blissfully event-free journey.  Of course, he wasn’t interested.

Yet I, on the other hand, was utterly fascinated by all of the different technologies involved.  A pocket-sized computer thousands of times more powerful than the computer that took Apollo 11 to the moon (the smartphone).  Technology which allows wireless, high-speed data communications (cellular data). A global network of networks, which links billions of devices worldwide (the Internet).  A space-based navigation system that provides location and time information in all weather conditions, anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more satellites (Global Positioning System, or GPS).  The fact that Google has literally mapped out our entire planet.  The technologies pioneered by Waze that allow Google to analyze driver data and determine traffic issues and their optimal workarounds in real time.

So, to my son, we just had a normal drive home from Port St. Lucie.  From my point of view, however, we harnessed multiple independent technologies, each of which my 1979 self would consider outside the realm of even remote possibility.

But then again, my 1979 self thought the AAA TripTik was magical.

Safe Place

Much has been written and discussed regarding the iPhone 5C used by Sayed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters, and Apple Inc.’s refusal to comply with a federal judge’s order to allow investigators access to the data on the phone by creating a new operating system that circumvents several security features and installing it on the 5C.  Apple CEO Tim Cook details his company’s position in this eloquent open letter.

I support Apple’s stand in this case, basically for the reasons enumerated by Mr. Cook.   However, I think the fundamental issue at stake, which will probably not be resolved by this particular case, is fascinating: are we, as United States citizens, entitled to a space totally impenetrable to law enforcement?  

Everything that we own, and all of our communications, are accessible to government, provided (in theory) probable cause and a warrant.  Our homes, cars, places of business, safe deposit boxes, etc., are subject to search.  Our telephone conversations are subject to wiretaps.  Our bank accounts and financial records are fair game as well.  As long as law enforcement provides a judge with probable cause and obtains a warrant, there is nothing we can legally keep away from them.  There is only one exception to this.

The content of our mind.

Thanks to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we cannot be legally compelled to answer questions that may incriminate us.  Our brain is effectively out of the government’s reach.  So, for example, while law enforcement can compel me to use my  fingerprint to unlock my phone, they cannot compel me to hand over my password, since the password resides in my memory.

The question then becomes, should our digital devices be considered extensions of our mind, and therefore also out of the government’s reach?  Nothing of this sort has been the case in the past.  If you write things down on paper in case you forget them, the paper is subject to search.  Why should digital devices be different?  Philosophically, maybe they shouldn’t.  But digital devices have brought on a fundamental game-changer: encryption.

In the case of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone (or, more accurately, the iPhone owned by San Bernardino County and issued to and used by Syed Farook), Apple has the capability of creating a compromised operating system and installing it on the phone, thus allowing law enforcement to use a “brute-force attack” to crack it’s 4-digit, numeric passcode and thus decrypt the data on the phone.  Even though newer iPhones use their “Secure Enclave,” instead of iOS, to enforce the security features that the FBI wants Apple to weaken in the San Bernardino case, in theory the Secure Enclave could be hacked in a similar way.  The precedent that would be set is one of the reasons why Apple is so adamant in its refusal to comply in the San Bernardino case.  

But that will not always be the case.  In fact, it is already not the case.  It’s no secret that Apple is working hard to develop encryption technology that even Apple itself cannot hack, but, more to the point, encryption that is virtually unbreakable is already available elsewhere to whomever wants it.  The math is out there, and there’s nothing anyone can do about that.  As many in the tech community have pointed out, you can’t outlaw math.

Many in U.S. law enforcement argue that companies that develop encryption technology should be forced to leave a “back door” for potential government access.  However, that argument is woefully misguided, because if that were the case then not only would the privacy and security of U.S. technology consumers be compromised, the bad actors out there would still be able to obtain unbreakable encryption; just not from U.S. companies.  So the “good” guys and gals would be insecure, the “bad” guys and gals would still be able to prevent government access to their nefarious data, and U.S. tech companies would lose all credibility in the world market.  And, of course, thanks to American hero Edward Snowden we know that the government has quite a tendency to overreach, trampling the Fourth Amendment in the process, so who is to say they wouldn’t abuse any back doors they are given?  

Going back to our original question, are we entitled to a space totally impenetrable to law enforcement?  Well, the availability of unbreakable encryption deems the question moot.  Whether or not we should have the ability to store information in a place the government can’t access, for the first time ever, we do.  

So, is this a good thing?

What, Me Worry?

Today I received an email from Louis C.K., letting me know that Episode 6 of “Horace and Pete” was ready to download or stream.  Great news, since “Horace and Pete” is one of the most compelling television shows I have ever seen.   Really, go watch it.  Anyway, Louis C.K.’s email included a postscript with a bit of political advice:

Please stop it with voting for Trump.  It was funny for a little while. But the guy is Hitler. And by that I mean that we are being Germany in the ’30s. Do you think they saw the shit coming? Hitler was just some hilarious and refreshing dude with a weird comb over who would say anything at all.

Read the entire, lengthy postscript here.

Louis C.K. could not be more spot on.  An “insane bigot” is the Republican front runner by a country mile, and his ascension to power seems more inevitable every day.  We have an electorate disgruntled with their government, and deservedly so.  To support Trump is to flip the establishment the bird, to say “fuck you” to the politicians.  So it doesn’t matter how preposterous his positions are.  It doesn’t matter how many times he contradicts himself.  It doesn’t matter that we really don’t believe in the things he espouses.  It doesn’t even matter that we think he’s dangerous, because once he gets elected he won’t follow through on the absurd things he’s saying now.  Like all politicians, he’s saying things to get votes, but once in power he’ll dial it back.  Right?

Absolutely, people say, according to Slate.com :

One thing you will hear people say about Donald Trump is that he might not actually be that terrible a president because he wouldn't actually follow through on the fascist things he says he is going to do, like deporting 10 million Latinos and banning Muslims from the country. Lots of regular politicians say things they don't really mean or promise things they couldn't accomplish to get attention during campaigns, so maybe Trump is the same way, right?

Well, as the same Slate article points out, that was the official “New York Times” take on the actual Adolf Hitler.  From the 1922 article where Hitler’s name first appeared on the Gray Lady’s pages:

But several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch messes (sic) of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic and inline for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.

“The New York Times,” for crying out loud.  “Reliable, well-informed sources confirmed.” (Emphasis mine.)

Will Donald Trump be the Adolf Hitler of the 21st century?  Are we willing to take the chance?