The greatest era of a privileged society? It's in the past, and not coming back

As human beings, we are always looking ahead and most of the time, that means looking to improve. How can we get better? How can we make our surroundings better? How can we make our experience on this planet in our lifetime a pleasurable one?

The answer to those questions, at least for lower-to-middle class Americans, is to go backwards, and that obviously is not an option. Allow me to explain.

I'm 22 years old. It's an interesting age; young in the minds of many, old in my own mind. But a 22 year-old in 2017 is about as perfect of an age as you can have. I'm a millennial, you know, the kind of person that folks in the media and older generations call "soft" and make fun of for being lazy.

But the interesting thing is, I'm a tweener, as are most people that are a few years older or a few years younger than myself. I'm not that old person who you have to teach how to send out a tweet but I'm also a person who remembers what it's like to not being able to use your phone and the internet at home simultaneously (hi AOL!). I can do wonders with technology, yet I also vividly remember the introduction of the first smartphone in our society. And as somebody who can do all of those things, I can also tell you that the perfect mix is behind us.

What do I mean by the "perfect mix?" Think of it as a sugary drink, where you have to have the right amount of water and the right amount of powder to make it taste just right. That phase was the 90s to early 2000s. Before that, there wasn't enough sugary powder. Since then, there is too much of it.

Going forward, I'll address that time of 90s to early 2000s as the "golden era." In that golden era, we pretty much had all of the main elements of technology that we have today, but in moderation. Cell phones in size had gotten smaller and fit in your pocket, an improvement to the time preceding it, but it also wasn't the main attraction of the eyes in every family or friends gathering. You could pass time on those devices (playing "snake" on those Nokia phones, anybody?) but it wasn't the main event. The main event was still human interaction and consuming the experience around you.

There were still roles. You had the role of a consumer and you practiced that role by relying on professionals to do their job while you soaked in the experience. Now it's muddy water. A prime example of that is journalism and sports, an area in which I personally have a decent amount of experience. When you went to a game in the golden era, you were busy being rowdy, taunting the opposition and taking in the actual game. Pictures and video of those events and players were on the media, as journalists and photojournalists, to capture and provide to you. With the rise of the smartphone to societal normality, you have now become the fan and the person who wants to capture that moment, which leads to a lesser experience for you as a fan. Take this comparison for example. Here is a picture of Dallas Mavericks star Dirk Nowitzki hitting the long-anticipated shot to cross him over the 30,000 points mark. Take a look at the people in the background, who by the way paid a lot of money for those great seats to watch a legend add to his legacy.

Again, those people paid to see Dirk hit that shot. But notice what they are actually doing. Most of them are watching Dirk through the filter of their phone screen. Quite a few of them are too busy making sure their phone camera is in position and they're just missing the shot all together. And then there is the few people (not counting those associated with the team) who are actually soaking in the moment. Now, in a little more of a blurry image, take a look at Michael Jordan hitting a game-winning shot in the 1997 NBA Finals. 

Even though it's not as clear, you can look at the crowd and see people with their hands on their head or cupped over their mouth or just staring in anticipation of the shot. The photojournalists did their job in capturing the moment and the fans did what they paid to do, which is soak in the moment as it actually happened. 

It's a lost art now in society, and that's just one example as it relates to sports. But in reality, this carries over to everything, whether it's family life or a healthy lifestyle or human interaction. See, in the golden era, we had awesome game systems like the PS2 or the XBox or GameCube, but when we wanted to play with or against a friend, we would take our machine to their place or they would come over and we'd sit side-by-side, maybe enjoying a snack and each others company while enjoying a game of Madden. Now, you have XBox Live, where you sit on your couch and just connect with your friend who is sitting miles away on their couch and play against each other. Do you get to play them in a game of Madden? Sure you do, but you don't get that quality time and human experience. 

You see this throughout, whether it's the need to Snapchat while at a concert you paid a lot of money to see the performer or you meet your family once every few months and when you run out of things to talk about, instead of making a further effort, everybody just goes straight for the pocket and starts scrolling through Twitter or plugs in their headphones and is out of the loop for the rest of the time. Back in my high school days literally just 4-6 years ago, we were taught the art of elevator talk, a quick 20-40 second conversation to have with somebody as you ride the elevator together. Forget that, you can't even ask a simple "how are you" anymore because everybody just has their headphones plugged in their ears and is involved with themselves. 

Seriously, I could go on forever. Coloring books? There's an app for that. Hell, want to decide something by a coin toss? THERE'S AN APP FOR THAT!

The problem is that this is only going to get worse as time goes on and the truth is, even the people like myself that despise it, will have to conform to it just to stay with the times. It is July of 2017 right now. It's mind-blowing to think that the very first iPhone hit the market almost exactly 10 years ago on June 29, 2007. Over those 10 years, every year a new model comes out, shrinking the world a little more every time, and we buy it. Having an iPhone isn't the "cool" thing anymore; it's the normal thing, and you're weird if you don't have a smartphone. 

Are there positives to this crazy technological age and all of the advances? Sure there are; there are pros and cons to almost everything in life. Technology helps in medicine and business and so much more. But when you take a look at the bigger picture, the cons far outweigh the pros as a consumer in today's society. As to where there was too much water and not enough sugar pre-90s, there is now too much sugar mixed in the drink now, and honestly, it causes more headaches. 

The golden era is just a memory now, preserved not in the camera roll of your smartphone but in actual, physical photographs that you had developed and were careful not to touch with your fingers. 

See you in line at the Apple store in October when the next iPhone comes out. Unfortunately. 

Disclaimer: This is speaking to a lower-to-middle class and above society in the United States of America. There are obviously less privileged parts around the world who this doesn't pertain to.

Mark Cuban 'absolutely' proud of NBA for speaking up against Donald Trump's travel ban

Mark Cuban, an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump, says he is “absolutely” proud of the NBA for speaking against the recent travel ban against seven Muslim-majority countries.

“That’s who we are,” Cuban said. “We’ve always tried to help those who are less fortunate. We’re community driven.”

Significant NBA figures, including San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich, Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr and Toronto Raptors point guard Kyle Lowry have been very vocal in expressing their displeasure with the policy ordered by President Trump.

Kyle Lowry on the muslim ban: "I think it's bullshit."

Media: "Do you want to try that again, without swearing?"

Kyle Lowry: "no." pic.twitter.com/a4WE712yiT

— NBA Central (@TheNBACentral) January 30, 2017

“As American citizens we can never forget it’s this country first, basketball second,” Cuban said.

Cuban said it’s easier for NBA figures to be more vocal than the other sports leagues because the 12-man rosters are just more visible than, for example, the 53-man rosters in the NFL.

Cuban, who has had a German superstar in Dirk Nowitzki for nearly two decades, says the diversity is important in the NBA. He also fundamentally disagrees with the policy.

“The hypocrisy of it all is that it’s just seven countries,” Cuban said. “Now if it would’ve been all terrorist hosting countries, but seven countries? That’s like locking your door with the best security ever invented and leaving all your windows open. It just makes no sense, so I’m proud of the NBA for standing up.”

Cuban said that everybody is terrified of terrorism but this isn’t the correct way to go about confronting that fear.

“It’s like the sports analogy, character isn’t revealed when things are going well,” Cuban said. “Character is revealed when you’re under stress and you’re being challenged. We’ll see what the character of this country is.”

The Cowboys’ spot in the standings didn’t waver but the faith their fans have in the team did

The week leading up to the Dallas Cowboys’ Thanksgiving matchup with the Washington Redskins, Cowboys legend Michael Irvin said a loss might be a good thing for this team that was riding high.

Well, a couple weeks late but Irvin got his wish.

The 11-game winning streak came to a halt against the same team that beat them for their first loss: Those pesky New York Giants. Judging by the reaction on social media for Cowboys fans, you’d probably think the team hasn’t won a game in a year or has just been eliminated from playoff contention. In reality, the Cowboys, who were on top of the NFC before the loss, fell all the way down to… the top of the NFC following the loss.

That’s right, the Cowboys’ spot in the standings didn’t waver. But the faith their fans have in the team did.

That’s the roller coaster that is the Dallas Cowboys. One year ago, Cowboys fans were clamoring for one win. Today, they are panicking after one loss. Last year sneaking into the playoffs was good enough. This year the top seed is less than satisfying.

A loss to a division opponent is always less than ideal, specifically one that is on your tail the way the Giants are. But being two games up in the win column with three games left to play on that very team shouldn’t be something that is just glossed over.

The loss to the Giants can serve as a valuable learning experience for a team that is oozing with young, inexperienced players pretty much across the board. December football is magnified. A loss in September may have raised an eyebrow. Maybe a yellow flag. But in December? It’s a red flag, at least for the fans.

The Cowboys won’t panic. They have players that are disciplined and focused. They have enough veteran leadership. In the words of their head coach, they have “the right kind of guys.”

The Dallas Cowboys will be just fine. Whether their fans will be is a whole different story.

The 2016 Dallas Cowboys are a team of destiny

Sometimes, it just seems like it’s destiny. For the Dallas Cowboys, the 2016 season feels like that. It’s not just that their first round pick is playing like a future Hall of Famer. It’s not even that their fourth round pick is looking like their quarterback for the next 15 years.

Actually, it’s everything else.

The success of rookies Dak Prescott and Ezekiel Elliott is at the same time unprecedented but not the difference. The difference is the rise of the Cowboys and the seemingly demise of the NFL.

 Who in todays NFL can legitimately challenge the Cowboys? The Seattle Seahawks, the team that just lost their All-Pro safety Earl Thomas for the season? The Atlanta Falcons, who are dealing with an injury to their All-Pro wide receiver Julio Jones? The New England Patriots, who in consecutive weeks now have lost top offensive weapons in Rob Gronkowski and Danny Amendola? The Washington Redskins, who the Cowboys have already beat twice? The Oakland Raiders, who though win a lot of games, find plenty of ways to shoot themselves in the foot throughout the contests?

Those are the top teams in the NFL and it’s hard to make a case why the Cowboys couldn’t beat them with their strong rushing attack, careful ball management and opportunistic defense. Now, before you scoff on the defense, remember than they are the ultimate bend-but-don’t break defense. Yes, they may not get a ton of pressure on the quarterback or some up with takeaways, but they also just give up three points, not six and three-pointers only win games in the NBA.

Another thing is, while these injuries may set back the Seahawks, Falcons and Patriots, the Cowboys have such strong depth, the dropoff for any injury wouldn’t be insurmountable. They already proved earlier in the season they can win without Dez Bryant and Orlando Scandrick. They’re showing they can win without Morris Claiborne. If Prescott goes down, their backup is a guy you may be familiar with in Tony Romo and if Elliott goes down, in comes a guy in Alfred Morris who has been a 1,000 yard rusher in the NFL and has the luxury of the best offensive line in the game. 

So yes, the Cowboys have a lot to do with why their fan base should feel good, but so does the rest of the NFL.

The one, big thing that justifies the Cowboys returning to Tony Romo

The debate has now escalated from a local banter to a national conversation.

Dak Prescott or Tony Romo?

Each side has its argument. For Prescott, can you really take a guy who’s been so successful and looked so good out of the game? For Romo, can the franchise turn their back on a guy who has kept them relevant for the past decade?

History says Prescott keeping his job is something that wouldn’t be uncommon. After all, Steve Young took over for Joe Montana. Tom Brady took over for Drew Bledsoe. Colin Kaepernick took over for Alex Smith. Heck, even Andrew Luck, who hadn’t even played an NFL snap, took over for Peyton Manning. All of the original starters lost their job due to injury.

So what’s different with Prescott and Romo? One big thing actually.

Emotion.

Montana was Bill Walsh’s guy. The guy in control when the 49ers decided to move on from Montana was George Seifert.

Bledsoe was already the starter years before head coach Bill Belichick arrived in New England. Belichick drafted Brady his first year on the job.

Smith was there when head coach Jim Harbaugh arrived in San Francisco. Harbaugh drafted Kaepernick his first year on the job.

The difference with the Cowboys is that it was under the watch of Jerry Jones that Romo came to be who he is right now. Jones has an emotional investment in Romo that Seifert didn’t have in Montana, Belichick didn’t have in Bledsoe and Harbaugh didn’t have in Smith.

As ruthless as Belichick is, try asking him right now to move on from Brady for Jimmy Garoppolo, even if Brady suffered numerous injuries. It would be very hard for him to pull the plug.

Owners and coaches can say they always want to do what’s best for the football team but they are human after all. They too feel a certain sense of loyalty to certain players and it’s hard to fault them for it.

So while it may be easy for pundits and many Cowboys fans to turn their back on Romo, it’s much harder for Jerry Jones and there is nothing wrong with that.

LeBron 2010 vs. Durant 2016

With Kevin Durant recently announcing that he will play the next season in Oakland for the Golden State Warriors, people have had a lot of mixed emotions about it. Some people see it as Durant simply wanting to go to a situation that is more ready to win a championship now, something that has eluded him for the first nine years of his career, all of which he's spent with the same franchise (first year they were the Seattle Supersonics, then the Oklahoma City Thunder).

A top three NBA player leaving the only team he's known to go join a super team... Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, LeBron James, after spending his first seven years in Cleveland, famously "took his talents to South Beach" in 2010. Though their are some similarities to the two situations, they are also very, very different. Here's why:

Well first, the similarities. LeBron and Durant had both taken their initial NBA franchises to one NBA Finals appearance, both which resulted in a loss (LeBron got swept by the Spurs and Durant lost to LeBron's Heat in five games). They were both on top of their games when they decided to leave and both were kind of expected to stay. 

Now the differences.

LeBron had been basically taken for granted by the Cavs front office because they gave him very little help. He alone carried that team to the top of the East every year, and even one NBA Finals. Further proof? After LeBron left, they finished in the bottom five of the weak Eastern Conference until he came back. I guarantee you the Thunder will not be that bad with Russell Westbrook leading the charge and I'd bet my money that the Thunder still make the playoffs in that tough Western Conference. 
Durant is a top three NBA player and has had a top five NBA player suit up with him for the entirety of his career with the Thunder. He also has a solid supporting cast of Steven Adams, Enes Kanter, and previously had guys like Serge Ibaka and James Harden for stretches in his time there. The Oklahoma City front office did a very formidable job. 

Also tied with the front office, LeBron had Mike Brown as his coach. No disrespect, but it's Mike Brown. 
Durant had Scott Brooks who was decent but then in his last year he got Billy Donovan, a coach that has been talked about as a young bright star by many around the league. 

LeBron left Cleveland to go play with his already good friend Dwyane Wade. They had a great relationship from the time they were drafted together in 2003. 
Durant is going to play with guys that I'm sure he's good friends with, but Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green aren't exactly his "best friends". They're a bunch of guys that are really good at basketball, like Durant. 

Though LeBron formed a "super team" in Miami, it wasn't already there when he arrived. He brought Chris Bosh and other guys to that team.
Durant is going to a team that may be considered a "super team" even without Durant. Hell, they are coming off of back-to-back NBA Finals appearances and the most wins in a regular season in NBA history.

LeBron's decision didn't look like a can't-beat-em-join-em type thing. The four years before LeBron joined the Heat, Miami was either a first round exit or didn't even make the playoffs. If LeBron had went and joined the Boston Celtics, who he had trouble beating every year int he playoffs, then it would be similar to Durant.
Durant's situation can be argued as a can't-beat-em-join-em situation. The last time KD was on a basketball court, he had just blown a 3-1 lead in the Conference Finals to these exact Golden State Warriors. 

LeBron joined a team that didn't have a championship core in Miami. Yes, the Heat had Dwyane Wade from that epic 2006 NBA Finals run but him and Udonis Haslem were the only carryover from that championship run. There was no Gary Payton, Antoine Walker, Shaquille O'Neal, James Posey, Jason Williams, etc. Even the head coach was different (Pat Riley in 2006, Erik Spoelstra when LeBron arrived in 2010). 
The entire core from the Warriors last championship run is intact for Durant. Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green, and Andre Iguodala are all there. They also have the same guy on top as head coach in Steve Kerr. 

Lastly,
LeBron had "The Decision" and then the parade of "Not one, not two, not three, not four." LeBron had gone to South Beach to stay for a while. 
Durant quietly announced his decision through the Player Tribune and is basically on a one-year deal (two year contract with player option for the second). 

So yes, there were some similarities in LeBron leaving Cleveland for Miami and Durant leaving Oklahoma City for Golden State but there are far more differences in the two situations. And for what it's worth, I don't have a problem with either situation.