Will you stay with me, will you be my love
Among the fields of barley
We'll forget the sun in his jealous sky
As we lie in fields of gold
Sting 1993
Do you remember Dr. Phil? I never watched a minute of his show, but I remember talking about him with my wife. She told me that he had a best-selling weight-loss book. I started laughing and responded honestly, “But isn’t he fat?” I’ve never understood this type of thinking. Why do people constantly follow the advice of people who have either no track record of success, or a clear track record of failure? As I recall, Dr. Phil was somehow affiliated with Oprah. You’re really going to take marriage advice from a woman who’s never been married? You’re going to listen to a stranger without kids tell you how to raise your own children? How does this make sense?
I’ve always found that the easiest way to be successful is to just do what the successful have done to get there. In whatever endeavor, finance, health, personal relationships, etc. Tweak it to suit your personality, but the rule holds. I’d love to sit down with Oprah and have a long conversation, where she could give me advice on accumulating wealth. Just not how to lose weight.
Let’s run back in time for a minute. You remember the year 2001, right? The dot.com mania was in full force. You would turn on CNBC and hear the experts tell us that this was a New Age, that traditional stock valuation formulas no longer mattered. Profit and fundamentals were out; revenue and following the trend were in. Old ladies who had never invested a penny formed investment clubs over tea to discuss how much money they were making. The financial geniuses egged them on.
The slaughter, as slaughters usually do, happened quickly. Stocks lost 98%, 99%, 100% of their value. People were wiped out. Daytraders had suicidal thoughts and had to look for work again.
The financial geniuses weren’t quiet for very long. The same people who advised the masses into bankruptcy soon had another tulip to cheerlead, the housing market. “Houses never go down in America”. “You’re an idiot if you’re not in this market”. “God ain’t makin’ no more land”. CNBC was again a really fun place. Shiny happy people, who failed miserably before, were again looked at as experts by the sheep.
You know how the game ended.
Which brings me to gold. People who have read my past blog posts know that I put 100% of my money in gold years ago. Although overall it’s been a good investment (I got in at around $880, it’s now at about $1,300) last year was horrid. It went down 28%. Never mind that it’s gone up 11 out of the last 12 years and is up again this year; that’s a tough 12th year. So what am I doing now? I’ve doubled down and then some. On the days when gold trends slightly higher I borrow between 1-2 million dollars of someone else’s money (in this case TD Ameritrade), and buy more gold. By the end of the day, and sometimes within 30 minutes, I give them their money back. If gold goes up I get a nice little hit; if it goes down I get hit.
My point of this particular post is not to discuss why I think gold is still a fantastic investment (if you’re interested just call or e-mail me), but to point out one inescapable fact. Literally every single one of the guys and gals that called either one or both of the bubbles is bullish on gold. Everyone. We’re not talking a big group here. Not many had the brains and guts to go against the majority. Likewise, there is not one analyst I know who is bearish on gold that called any of the bubbles correctly. Do your own research. It’s shocking the same idiots are still on TV.
This is not brain surgery. At the end of the day, you can follow the fools and the folly. Or you can pay attention and see how the winners play chess. I know which direction I’ll go.
Have a good night everyone,
JR
\
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
The Endgame
Let’s get this out of the way early: violence works. This is a difficult concept for most people in democracies to grasp, because we don’t think of ourselves as criminals. But occasionally righteous people in righteous countries find themselves in a situation where it is kill or be killed. The only way to conclusively defeat an enemy that has no interest in peace, but an intense interest in murdering you, is to thoroughly and convincingly defeat them militarily.
Fortunately, history judges us favorably in a moral sense when we unleash the violence. Nobody blames America for the 7 million Germans who died in World War II. Very few blame us for stopping the Japanese kamikaze pilots with a well-placed nuclear bomb. Likewise, history judges us very unfavorably when we unleash the violence when there is no threat to us, such as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the latter 90% of the war.
Which brings me to Israel. As I’m writing this, the country is being bombed by terrorists, this time in the Gaza Strip. It’s a frequent scene, whether the enemy is Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, or Hamas. Every few years the Israelis are terrorized. It’s a bizarre situation, as militarily Israel could kill every human being in the Gaza Strip, and quickly. But they choose not to.
Meanwhile America, for as long as I’ve been living, relentlessly pressures Israel, and to a lesser extent the Palestinians, to make peace. This especially ramps up in the second term of American presidents, a.k.a. legacy building time. It fails every time. I lived in Israel in 2001. Believe me, the people there totally understand what Westerners don’t get: the Palestinians have zero interest in making peace. Hey geniuses, maybe the first clue was when they started teaching their kids in school maps showing Israel magically erased.
So how about a different approach. I propose a modified Ron Paul/Rand Paul approach. First, the Ron Paul approach. Israel, we have total faith that you can defend yourself militarily. We are not going to impose ourselves on you morally to force you into a crappy peace plan, with you giving up part of your most treasured possession, Jerusalem. We’re actually not going to pressure either side. Also, we are not going to second guess you in deciding how you are going to defend yourself against your enemies. If you decide you need to kill some people to defend yourself, so be it. We will not impose our moral judgment on you. We, and the rest of the world, understand what the response would be if America was repeatedly bombed by Mexico.
If you decide you have to really unleash the violence, and kill a lot of people to defend yourself, so be it. And if you decide that you have to permanently end the conflict with overwhelming military force, we won’t make any judgments there either. You will never hear the idiotic phrase “proportionate response” from our lips.
The Rand Paul part comes in when we verbally express our strong support for Israel, unlike Ron, who refuses to take sides between countries. Check out YouTube. I’d love to have a libertarian in the White House, but unfortunately Republicans won’t win another election in my lifetime.
Back to Israel. Look, I know that many people think that this approach would be horrible for the Palestinians. However, I really, really believe that giving Israel a free reign would ultimately be good for them. Back to my examples above. Germany is now a strong democracy and has the strongest economy in Europe, and it’s not particularly close. Japan has been Democratic since World War II and has the third biggest economy in the world. When Israel’s enemies finally understand that attacks on Israel actually lead to the pain and suffering happening to them, the attacks will end. They can then move towards a democracy where women can go out alone and drive, people are not used as human shields, hospitals are not storehouses for weapons and terrorists, and innocent civilians are not bombed.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
Fortunately, history judges us favorably in a moral sense when we unleash the violence. Nobody blames America for the 7 million Germans who died in World War II. Very few blame us for stopping the Japanese kamikaze pilots with a well-placed nuclear bomb. Likewise, history judges us very unfavorably when we unleash the violence when there is no threat to us, such as in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the latter 90% of the war.
Which brings me to Israel. As I’m writing this, the country is being bombed by terrorists, this time in the Gaza Strip. It’s a frequent scene, whether the enemy is Saddam Hussein, Hezbollah, or Hamas. Every few years the Israelis are terrorized. It’s a bizarre situation, as militarily Israel could kill every human being in the Gaza Strip, and quickly. But they choose not to.
Meanwhile America, for as long as I’ve been living, relentlessly pressures Israel, and to a lesser extent the Palestinians, to make peace. This especially ramps up in the second term of American presidents, a.k.a. legacy building time. It fails every time. I lived in Israel in 2001. Believe me, the people there totally understand what Westerners don’t get: the Palestinians have zero interest in making peace. Hey geniuses, maybe the first clue was when they started teaching their kids in school maps showing Israel magically erased.
So how about a different approach. I propose a modified Ron Paul/Rand Paul approach. First, the Ron Paul approach. Israel, we have total faith that you can defend yourself militarily. We are not going to impose ourselves on you morally to force you into a crappy peace plan, with you giving up part of your most treasured possession, Jerusalem. We’re actually not going to pressure either side. Also, we are not going to second guess you in deciding how you are going to defend yourself against your enemies. If you decide you need to kill some people to defend yourself, so be it. We will not impose our moral judgment on you. We, and the rest of the world, understand what the response would be if America was repeatedly bombed by Mexico.
If you decide you have to really unleash the violence, and kill a lot of people to defend yourself, so be it. And if you decide that you have to permanently end the conflict with overwhelming military force, we won’t make any judgments there either. You will never hear the idiotic phrase “proportionate response” from our lips.
The Rand Paul part comes in when we verbally express our strong support for Israel, unlike Ron, who refuses to take sides between countries. Check out YouTube. I’d love to have a libertarian in the White House, but unfortunately Republicans won’t win another election in my lifetime.
Back to Israel. Look, I know that many people think that this approach would be horrible for the Palestinians. However, I really, really believe that giving Israel a free reign would ultimately be good for them. Back to my examples above. Germany is now a strong democracy and has the strongest economy in Europe, and it’s not particularly close. Japan has been Democratic since World War II and has the third biggest economy in the world. When Israel’s enemies finally understand that attacks on Israel actually lead to the pain and suffering happening to them, the attacks will end. They can then move towards a democracy where women can go out alone and drive, people are not used as human shields, hospitals are not storehouses for weapons and terrorists, and innocent civilians are not bombed.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Mulling Marriage
We've only got each other to blame
It's all the same to me love
'Cause I know what I feel to be right
No more lonely nights
You my guiding light
Day or night I'm always there
May I never miss the thrill of being near you
And if it takes a couple of years
To turn your tears to laughter
I will do what I feel to be right
And I won't go away until you tell me so
No, I'll never go away
Paul McCartney 1984
You know what’s the best thing about writing a blog? You can write about things you know absolutely nothing about. Take bad marriages, for example. Luckily, I don’t really know much about them. Amy and I have been married more than a decade, and we’re happy. My parents have been married over 50 years, and I’m guessing they hit 75. Seriously. Although some of my friends have gotten divorced, the vast majority have stayed together.
So when I first got married, I was a little naive about marriage. I just assumed that you spent all your time together, and wanted to; if you didn’t you had a poor marriage that was in trouble. But I started noticing a really interesting strategy that some couples used. They intentionally spent frequent and consistent time away from each other, almost as if they liked to hang out in short doses, but too much time together would kill the patient.
Nowhere do I see this used more than by professionals (and quasi-professionals and wanna-be professionals). Whatever you do for a living, there’s always an out-of-town conference somewhere, right? Even if you’re a maid, I’m sure there’s a conference next month in Vegas to teach you how to clean better. Work is another great excuse. “Honey, I’m so sorry that I have to spend the next 6 straight weekends out of town. Videoconferencing and the telephone just aren’t the same, and if I don’t go we’ll all be out on the street. You don’t want that to happen, do you?” There’s also always a simcha. Who wants to be the mean spouse that says no to going to your old buddy’s 4th kid’s bar mitzvah?
Why does the other spouse allow this? Often they want some alone time too. If one spouse doesn’t want to spend a lot of time with the other, the feeling’s probably mutual. This does not necessarily mean that the two don’t like each other, or that they have a weak marriage. For some couples, time away from each other keeps things going.
Look, I’m not saying this is ideal. I sure wouldn’t want to be in that type of marriage, and I never will be. I’d rather be McCartney/Eastman (less than 1 week apart in 30 years of marriage). Also, I’m guessing there is at least some correlation between time apart and divorce rate. But for some couples, the time apart works, and it’s precisely what keeps them from actually getting divorced.
Everyone’s different. In life there’s not always a 1 size fits all solution. If it works it works.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
It's all the same to me love
'Cause I know what I feel to be right
No more lonely nights
You my guiding light
Day or night I'm always there
May I never miss the thrill of being near you
And if it takes a couple of years
To turn your tears to laughter
I will do what I feel to be right
And I won't go away until you tell me so
No, I'll never go away
Paul McCartney 1984
You know what’s the best thing about writing a blog? You can write about things you know absolutely nothing about. Take bad marriages, for example. Luckily, I don’t really know much about them. Amy and I have been married more than a decade, and we’re happy. My parents have been married over 50 years, and I’m guessing they hit 75. Seriously. Although some of my friends have gotten divorced, the vast majority have stayed together.
So when I first got married, I was a little naive about marriage. I just assumed that you spent all your time together, and wanted to; if you didn’t you had a poor marriage that was in trouble. But I started noticing a really interesting strategy that some couples used. They intentionally spent frequent and consistent time away from each other, almost as if they liked to hang out in short doses, but too much time together would kill the patient.
Nowhere do I see this used more than by professionals (and quasi-professionals and wanna-be professionals). Whatever you do for a living, there’s always an out-of-town conference somewhere, right? Even if you’re a maid, I’m sure there’s a conference next month in Vegas to teach you how to clean better. Work is another great excuse. “Honey, I’m so sorry that I have to spend the next 6 straight weekends out of town. Videoconferencing and the telephone just aren’t the same, and if I don’t go we’ll all be out on the street. You don’t want that to happen, do you?” There’s also always a simcha. Who wants to be the mean spouse that says no to going to your old buddy’s 4th kid’s bar mitzvah?
Why does the other spouse allow this? Often they want some alone time too. If one spouse doesn’t want to spend a lot of time with the other, the feeling’s probably mutual. This does not necessarily mean that the two don’t like each other, or that they have a weak marriage. For some couples, time away from each other keeps things going.
Look, I’m not saying this is ideal. I sure wouldn’t want to be in that type of marriage, and I never will be. I’d rather be McCartney/Eastman (less than 1 week apart in 30 years of marriage). Also, I’m guessing there is at least some correlation between time apart and divorce rate. But for some couples, the time apart works, and it’s precisely what keeps them from actually getting divorced.
Everyone’s different. In life there’s not always a 1 size fits all solution. If it works it works.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
Monday, March 24, 2014
Football Folly
I don't remember, I don't recall
I got no memory of anything at all
I got no means to show identification
I got no papers show you what I am
You'll have to take me just the way that you find me
What's gone is gone and I do not give a damn
Empty stomach, empty head
I got empty heart and empty bed
I don't remember
Peter Gabriel 1980
Preamble: When I wrote this blog two years ago, it didn’t exactly go over so well with some people. 2 or 3 defriended me on Facebook, and a few others came up to me after to “discuss” it. Please understand, especially with the following blog post, that I’m just a guy who writes down my opinions, and whatever else comes to my mind, in the middle of the night. It’s nothing personal. I have absolutely no idea which kids play football and which don’t (seriously), and I’m not saying you’re a bad parent if you let your kids play football. Plus, as with all my blogs, I could be wrong. In fact, I know specifically I was wrong once, in 1973.
I got no memory of anything at all
I got no means to show identification
I got no papers show you what I am
You'll have to take me just the way that you find me
What's gone is gone and I do not give a damn
Empty stomach, empty head
I got empty heart and empty bed
I don't remember
Peter Gabriel 1980
Preamble: When I wrote this blog two years ago, it didn’t exactly go over so well with some people. 2 or 3 defriended me on Facebook, and a few others came up to me after to “discuss” it. Please understand, especially with the following blog post, that I’m just a guy who writes down my opinions, and whatever else comes to my mind, in the middle of the night. It’s nothing personal. I have absolutely no idea which kids play football and which don’t (seriously), and I’m not saying you’re a bad parent if you let your kids play football. Plus, as with all my blogs, I could be wrong. In fact, I know specifically I was wrong once, in 1973.
**********************************************************
So imagine you and your spouse go on vacation. You leave your two kids with your trusted nanny and come back 10 days later. She comes up to you and says, “Great news! I wanted to make sure that the boys got enough exercise, so for about 30 minutes each day I had them run headfirst into the basement wall. After that we spent another half hour having the kids run headfirst into each other. The only bad news while you were gone was they seemed to be having some difficulty doing their math homework…” You’d call the police, right? Welcome to youth football!
70 years ago we thought smoking was good for you. Doctors were pitchman for cigarette companies. 30 years ago we thought a diet sky high in carbs with no fat was the way to go. And up until the last few years we blissfully ignored what was happening to retired NFL players, until the evidence became too obvious to ignore. Forget about the joint replacements and orthopedic injuries, a huge amount were getting CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy). Basically, they got hit in the head so many times and with such force, their brains degenerated and aged rapidly. This is some really nasty stuff; depression leading to suicide, major memory loss, confusion, etc. It’s all there, and this time the players are not keeping their mouths shut.
But I know what you’re thinking. My son isn’t 295 pounds and doesn’t run a 4.2 40. This is true. But the younger brains are far more vulnerable and susceptible to concussions. Google it. Also, there’s just no way to play the sport safely. They found out that even for players without true, identifiable concussions, the constant jarring of the brain still led to the disease. I’m now reading where some neurologists are recommending kids younger than 15 don’t play football. I have a much better idea; kids under the age of 95 don’t play. Seriously, I’m reading that the effect of two kids running into each other at full speed with their helmets on is like dropping a bowling ball on their heads. Enough already. Just stop.
Look, I know people who played football when they were young who are now doctors and lawyers, and as smart as can be. I had a case a few years ago where the other lawyer was a starter on Tom Brady’s Michigan team his senior year (for the record, he told me that he had no idea Brady would end up one of the best players of all time, that he had great accuracy but no other skill that stood out). Nor am I saying that if your son has ever played football he’s doomed. He’s not. I’m sure he’ll be fine. But let’s not take unnecessary risks.
I realize there’s a certain level of hypocrisy here. I’m a type A male who likes violent entertainment. I love watching the NFL. I can’t get enough of the UFC. I like violent movies. My wife lasted about 5 minutes watching The Walking Dead, while I’m a fan. The more gory a way we can kill a zombie, the better. But I don’t want your kids in particular to get hurt. There’s just a ton of stuff nowadays for kids to do to help them reach their potential. It doesn’t make sense to me to do something that might lead to the opposite.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Guess Again
When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the world's asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.
Supertramp 1979
When I was young I had the luxury of making emotional and incorrect decisions at a fairly consistent rate. Now that I’m older and responsible for other humans, I don’t have the option of getting things wrong. The stakes are too high. That’s why over time I’ve embraced completely the idea of basing virtually everything on objective evidence.
This idea began about 30 years ago when I started reading a baseball writer named Bill James. He was the forefather of what is now called “analytics” in sports. Basically, instead of guessing based on incomplete information (“Who’s better, Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds?”), it sought to answer definitively every conceivable question in baseball, using primarily math and logic. We no longer had to guess what made a winning baseball team, we could simply look at every single team in history and see what factors the winning ones had that the losing ones did not. Opinion was out, fact was in. Unsurprisingly, the teams in all sports that have embraced analytics have greatly outperformed those that don’t.
That’s how I run my life. In everything. I have zero interest in alternative medicine based on anecdotes and opinions. I want double-blind controlled studies from an unbiased source to see what really works. I want to see evidence for as much as I can in my life. I watch less politics then I used to, because I have no interest in biased, prearranged sound bites. Anyone with a basic level of math competence, and the desire to do so, could see that in the past presidential election neither the Romney budget plan nor the Obama plan had any chance of working. I embrace the grind of figuring these things out. Looking at the numbers, and not the ideology, gives you a huge advantage when it comes to things like investing, health, time management, etc.
I want to be Spock. I want to be a Vulcan. There’s enough time and opportunity in life to be emotional, let’s be logical and figure this stuff out. The advent of computers and the internet has made the ability to lead an evidence based life pretty easy. We can gather massive amounts of information in all the relevant areas we need, quickly and in any hour of the 24 we choose.
I hated Obama’s campaign theme of “hope”, and it had nothing to do with the fact that a Democrat was saying it. It had everything to do with the fact that I do not want to hope good things happen; I want to know good things will happen, because I looked at the evidence, acted based on it, and eliminated the risk.
I especially want to know everything about people, for various reasons. I have no interest in hearing agenda based nonsense on how people of different races, cultures, religions, etc., should act. I want to know the actual numbers on how they do act.
Everything in life can and will be figured out. I won’t live to see it, but we’ll eventually learn how to stop cells from aging and be immortal. The math, evidence, and facts will solve everything eventually. In the meantime, I’ll use what’s available as best as I can.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.
There are times when all the world's asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.
Supertramp 1979
When I was young I had the luxury of making emotional and incorrect decisions at a fairly consistent rate. Now that I’m older and responsible for other humans, I don’t have the option of getting things wrong. The stakes are too high. That’s why over time I’ve embraced completely the idea of basing virtually everything on objective evidence.
This idea began about 30 years ago when I started reading a baseball writer named Bill James. He was the forefather of what is now called “analytics” in sports. Basically, instead of guessing based on incomplete information (“Who’s better, Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds?”), it sought to answer definitively every conceivable question in baseball, using primarily math and logic. We no longer had to guess what made a winning baseball team, we could simply look at every single team in history and see what factors the winning ones had that the losing ones did not. Opinion was out, fact was in. Unsurprisingly, the teams in all sports that have embraced analytics have greatly outperformed those that don’t.
That’s how I run my life. In everything. I have zero interest in alternative medicine based on anecdotes and opinions. I want double-blind controlled studies from an unbiased source to see what really works. I want to see evidence for as much as I can in my life. I watch less politics then I used to, because I have no interest in biased, prearranged sound bites. Anyone with a basic level of math competence, and the desire to do so, could see that in the past presidential election neither the Romney budget plan nor the Obama plan had any chance of working. I embrace the grind of figuring these things out. Looking at the numbers, and not the ideology, gives you a huge advantage when it comes to things like investing, health, time management, etc.
I want to be Spock. I want to be a Vulcan. There’s enough time and opportunity in life to be emotional, let’s be logical and figure this stuff out. The advent of computers and the internet has made the ability to lead an evidence based life pretty easy. We can gather massive amounts of information in all the relevant areas we need, quickly and in any hour of the 24 we choose.
I hated Obama’s campaign theme of “hope”, and it had nothing to do with the fact that a Democrat was saying it. It had everything to do with the fact that I do not want to hope good things happen; I want to know good things will happen, because I looked at the evidence, acted based on it, and eliminated the risk.
I especially want to know everything about people, for various reasons. I have no interest in hearing agenda based nonsense on how people of different races, cultures, religions, etc., should act. I want to know the actual numbers on how they do act.
Everything in life can and will be figured out. I won’t live to see it, but we’ll eventually learn how to stop cells from aging and be immortal. The math, evidence, and facts will solve everything eventually. In the meantime, I’ll use what’s available as best as I can.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Suit of Clubs
Zoot suit, white jacket with side vents five inches long
I'm out on the street again, and I'm leaping along
Dressed right
For a beach fight
But I just can't explain
Why that uncertain feeling is still here in my brain
The Who 1973
Recently, my midnights have been spent watching the original Star Treks on Netflix. So let’s use some Vulcan logic for comparison purposes:
-A suit and tie look pretty slick; a sweater or polo and slacks look at least as good, and to my eyes usually better. If you’re in shape, there’s no comparison. The sweater shows off your body, while a suit was mainly designed to keep fat, middle-aged guys from being embarrassed.
-Suits take longer to put on.
-It’s virtually impossible to be comfortable in a suit. In the winter you freeze, and are left with the choice of, do I keep my suit jacket on and be kind of cold, or take it off and really freeze. In the summer you fry, and are left with the choice of, do I look silly and wear a white short sleeve dress shirt, or man up and sweat profusely for three months. Look, there’s a reason guys come home and change out of their suit into something more comfortable. It’s not like I come home on Sunday and change from one sweater to another.
So I’m never wearing a suit again.
This has been a gradual transformation. Even though I’m a lawyer, I haven’t worn a suit to work in over 15 years, except when I have to go to court. That’s one of the beauties of being your own boss, there is no dress code. I remember when I was 24 and started my practice, buying tons of ties. I especially had a thing for whimsical ties, like Disney and Tabasco ones. Man, did I think I was cool. Man, was I wrong. Now the ties sit in my closet, lonely and looking hopelessly idiotic.
The one place that I have continued to wear suits has been synagogue. Just about everyone there wears one, and I didn’t want to be sacrilegious. No one gets angry with me if I don’t wear a suit at work, but I don’t exactly want to make God angry. But then I thought to myself, why does God want me to be uncomfortable and wrap a noose around my neck? No more suits in shul, either.
The only exception will be if not wearing a suit will make a friend or relative angry, or make a spectacle of myself. So a friend’s wedding, or his kid’s bar mitzvah? Unless he gives me a pass, I’ll wear one.
By the way, for the reasons I just said, I predict that within 25 years no one else is going to be wearing suits either. Look at old pictures of the Great Depression, with men standing in the soup lines wearing a suit and hat. In the 50's everyone used to wear a suit to go to the movies or on an airplane. Syles change. Times change. Comfort rules.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
I'm out on the street again, and I'm leaping along
Dressed right
For a beach fight
But I just can't explain
Why that uncertain feeling is still here in my brain
The Who 1973
Recently, my midnights have been spent watching the original Star Treks on Netflix. So let’s use some Vulcan logic for comparison purposes:
-A suit and tie look pretty slick; a sweater or polo and slacks look at least as good, and to my eyes usually better. If you’re in shape, there’s no comparison. The sweater shows off your body, while a suit was mainly designed to keep fat, middle-aged guys from being embarrassed.
-Suits take longer to put on.
-It’s virtually impossible to be comfortable in a suit. In the winter you freeze, and are left with the choice of, do I keep my suit jacket on and be kind of cold, or take it off and really freeze. In the summer you fry, and are left with the choice of, do I look silly and wear a white short sleeve dress shirt, or man up and sweat profusely for three months. Look, there’s a reason guys come home and change out of their suit into something more comfortable. It’s not like I come home on Sunday and change from one sweater to another.
So I’m never wearing a suit again.
This has been a gradual transformation. Even though I’m a lawyer, I haven’t worn a suit to work in over 15 years, except when I have to go to court. That’s one of the beauties of being your own boss, there is no dress code. I remember when I was 24 and started my practice, buying tons of ties. I especially had a thing for whimsical ties, like Disney and Tabasco ones. Man, did I think I was cool. Man, was I wrong. Now the ties sit in my closet, lonely and looking hopelessly idiotic.
The one place that I have continued to wear suits has been synagogue. Just about everyone there wears one, and I didn’t want to be sacrilegious. No one gets angry with me if I don’t wear a suit at work, but I don’t exactly want to make God angry. But then I thought to myself, why does God want me to be uncomfortable and wrap a noose around my neck? No more suits in shul, either.
The only exception will be if not wearing a suit will make a friend or relative angry, or make a spectacle of myself. So a friend’s wedding, or his kid’s bar mitzvah? Unless he gives me a pass, I’ll wear one.
By the way, for the reasons I just said, I predict that within 25 years no one else is going to be wearing suits either. Look at old pictures of the Great Depression, with men standing in the soup lines wearing a suit and hat. In the 50's everyone used to wear a suit to go to the movies or on an airplane. Syles change. Times change. Comfort rules.
Have a good night everyone.
JR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)