If Dad Jokes Were a Tennis Player

That’s Mansour Bahrami. THE Iranian tennis player.

That’s not much of an exaggeration. When the mullahs took over, they banned tennis outright. Said it was too capitalistic. Too western. Too rich folks-y. After a while, they relented and looked the other way. If I were a betting man, I’ll bet it’s because they saw Mansour play. He’s a great tennis player, don’t get me wrong. You can’t monkey around like that without a titanic game backing you up. But Mansour is so much more. He’s the cure for how stuffy tennis had become. He could amuse the most hidebound person you could name, like an ayatollah, or a tennis fan with a daughter named Muffie. He’s the tennis version of “Why so serious?”

I’ve played tennis up to the high school level. I was taller than the other kids, had arms like an orangutan, and learned to win points using a rocket serve. It was coming from higher up and faster than the opponents were accustomed to. Unfortunately, being about as athletic as a sloth, that was the entire extent of my game. And of course the bane of the attempted rocket serve is the double fault. In my mind’s eye, I can picture a spectator at one of my matches. I have to picture it in my mind’s eye, because it never happened, but still. Watching a guy lose a match by double faulting twice to every aced serve would be awful. Literally nothing interesting is ever happening. It’s either not in play, or not in play.

Every modern tennis player is playing that very same game, only not sucking at it like I did. The modern racquet made it almost mandatory. I started out with a wooden racquet with a small, oval face, and you had to put some serious mustard on the ball to serve an ace, and put it in exactly the right spot. Slower serves, and ball speed overall, meant the other guy could probably reach more volleys to hit back. The ball would travel over the net more than once or twice.

By the time I got to high school, we were all kitted with those big steel or composite frames with a plastic gutstring face as big as a trampoline, and tight enough to send balls into low earth orbit. That’s exactly where I put them most of the time instead of into the one-third of the court where they belonged. The guys who could hit it hard plus where they were aiming made the game even worse, if that’s possible. Scorching serve, the return into the net, or maybe lamely popped up for a return slam isn’t interesting to watch.

For a while, women’s tennis was more interesting than men’s because something happened. The ball traveled back and forth a little. Then the women got ugly and the found muscles in some jar somewhere and there wasn’t much point in watching that, either. The game was boring to play, and boring to watch. After a while, people only tuned in to see misbehavior by ill mannered participants. Complaining to the umpire got to be the only amusement left in it. It was  the equivalent of watching NASCAR for the crashes.

The game might not have seemed so dreary if it didn’t take itself so seriously. Hushed crowds, anachronistic scoring and various other customs worthy of a cricket match suited Bill Tilden et. al., wearing long pants and sweaters and swinging tiny rackets, playing on grass. Even the bad boys of tennis were more like toddlers pitching a fit in church than a rebellion against the stuffiness of a game that had entirely retreated to the baseline to try to return a serve once in a while. It’s why pickleball has caught on down at The Villages, I guess. It’s faster and more convivial. Less stuck-up. But I’m sure Americans propensity to never leave well enough alone will wreck that eventually, too.

And then along comes Mansour. He could have fixed tennis all by himself, I think, but not many people ever see him play. He’s the Harlem Globetrotters and Victor Borge and a standup comedian rolled into one pair of Izod togs. He’s the Dad Jokes of tennis, a sport that desperately needed to hear a joke, no matter how lame, as long as it was funny. Just like the Globetrotters and Borge, his tomfoolery was backed up by prodigious talent, completely subsumed to serve the end result: Harmless, amusing fun.

AI: The World Will End Yesterday. Plan Accordingly.

Well, if you watch the artificial news, Artificial Intelligence is going to take your job and your girlfriend, at least when it’s not too busy taking over some bunker in North Dakota and launching nukes willy nilly. You could form the opinion that AI already has taken over the world. You can’t turn on anything on these here intertunnels without some demented form of Clippy the AI assistant offering to correct your grammer, and maybe write that email for you that you’ve been meaning to send, but you can’t for the life of you remember how to spell Deer Sur.

There have been many, many laundry lists published of all the jobs that are going to be wiped out by one chatbot or another. Most everyone outside of longshoremen and prostitutes are slated to be standing on streetcorners holding signs that read: Will photoshop the background out of pictures of female footwear for use on your Shopify store for food. The usual commentarazzi are furiously analyzing the inroads that Large Language Models (LLMs) are making into the economy, and publishing their search engine optimized articles, written by ChatGPT, natch, with headers like: AI: The World Will End Yesterday. Plan Accordingly.

What is missing is some form of sober analysis. Just adding a new definition of slop to the dictionary isn’t helpful, any more than adding a new definition of vaccine kept you from getting the flu. I’m interested in the topic, however, and I finally found one lonely source that at least attempted to answer the only cogent question:

HOW ADAPTABLE ARE AMERICAN WORKERS TO AI-INDUCED JOB DISPLACEMENT?

I remember the good old days on the intertunnel when I’d have to warn you that the link goes to a PDF. It’s 2026, I think. I’m never sure until about February. If it is indeed 2026, I think you should have gotten over your fear of Adobe Acrobat by now. I suppose I could skip the warning about the format of the document, and offer a more timely warning for today’s internauts: It’s not only a PDF, it’s a 54-page working paper from a think tank, and it’s got a lot of words, some of them polysyllabic. It’s likely your lips will get really tired while reading it. It’s got numbers in brackets all over it, too, which I think lead to footnotes at the end. I can’t be sure, I never get that far without my eyes glazing over.

The working paper is from NBER. That’s an acronym for the National Bureau of Economic Research. They’re a think tank in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The locale makes my spider sense tingle. That zip code is ground zero for educated lunatic worldviews. But NBER doesn’t appear to be a big building full of Sovereign Citizens or people eating avocado toast and plotting to dye their hair pink or anything. It’s a loose agglomeration of academics and public policy wonks that seems at least modestly open-minded. So I figured it might be worth the time it took to read the report. Honestly, the question itself, how adaptable are American workers to AI-induced job displacement, demonstrates some clear thinking from the get-go. It’s long past time to stop arguing whether LLMs are real, or here to stay, or bankrupting only themselves or the whole nation, or useless, or whatever. LLMs are real, and they’re spectacular, sorta. Let’s move on. Whose ox is gonna get gored?

The paper doesn’t have a monomania for simple exposure to AI, which is great, because AI is exposing itself in more places than Hunter Biden. That ship has sailed. They’ve come up with an Adaptive Capacity Index, to see how well many types of workers will be able to adapt themselves to the new workplace now that LLMs rule most every roost. The analysis is interesting.

First they predict (or observe, really, at this point) the potential for tasks in an occupation to be affected by AI. Then they measure the Adaptive Capacity of that guy that always takes the last donut in the break room, and everyone like him. Adaptive Capacity is an amalgam of workers’ ability to adjust after the modification of their jobs (or outright displacement) caused by AI. It includes factors like liquid financial resources, skill transferability, geographic labor market opportunities, and  age distribution within occupations. So far, so good. The index they came up with covers 356 occupations. They claim that’s about 96% of U.S. workforce. That’s a lot. I’ll admit I jumped to conclusions earlier, and I’m not really sure if longshoremen or prostitutes might be included after all.

If you’re of the USA Today generation, they’re looking out for you. First, a bubble chart:

AI exposure vs. Adaptive CapacityIf you’re of the Facebook generation, don’t worry. They’ve got a map showing the distribution of the population that isn’t expected to survive the chatbot apocalypse. It has colors and a thermometer, rendering it still more fascinating:

Got that? If you live where the buildings are tall enough to cast shadows, you’re in danger. If you live in New Mexico, you already knew you were in danger, just by looking out the window. A failed state, that.

They’ve got lists, if you’re from the Tumblr generation. Who’s got high exposure, but high adaptability to boot? Here goes:

So much for all the news blurbs about software developers and various other computer nerds being put out of a job by chatbots. They’ve got the highest exposure, and the highest ability to adapt to that exposure.

So who’s on the other end of the spectrum, and the dookie stick? Who’s getting Skynetted first? Here’s who really needs to adapt, but won’t be able to:

I suppose it would be impolitic of me to mention that there are several job descriptions on that last list that I’d like to sign up for manned missions to the surface of the sun.

Once the report has identified the problem, they go on to mention the only solutions anyone ever mentions. The government has to step in with retraining and handouts for these benighted souls flummoxed by ChatGPT. One can’t help but notice that a lot of those job descriptions are more or less either government jobs, or private sector jobs made necessary only by government regulation. Retraining? Handouts? It’s a maladaptive snake eating itself, and turtles all the way down. Maybe they can all open daycare centers in Minneapolis. It pays well, I hear.

One is also tempted to observe that the people on the first list are preponderantly male, and the second list is loaded with the distaff set, and in many cases, just plain loaded. I was tempted, but I got over it. So I won’t mention it, or parallel parking, or any other divisive topic.

See? I’ve adapted to the internet. It has girls on it now.

Reply Hazy, Try Again

I’ve done as you instructed. I’ve kept this coupon. For thirty years or so, I think. It was in that metal tin I keep pennies in. If you’re young, ask your parents what pennies are. Unlike this coupon, they’re not valuable, though.

It’s valuable. I’m not sure if the value is extrinsic, or intrinsic. Well, that’s mostly because I don’t know what those words mean, and I’m too lazy to look them up. But trying to discover its value is a fool’s errand, anyway. I’m generally overqualified for any given fool’s errand. My resume is full of Quixotic skirmishing, Columbia House subscriptions gone fallow after one Creedence album, and various other unsuccessful attempts to bring back a witch’s broomstick for a big payoff. But I know it’s a waste of time to wonder about its value. It says right on it: IT IS VALUABLE. It’s in ALL CAPITALS. As you know from reading the internet, typing in ALL CAPS is the cruise control for awesome. You’re not just right, you’re RIGHT. We’ve got to play it as it lays. Honestly, the only way it could be manifestly more valuable is if they’d put a period after each word in the tag line. Can you imagine? IT. IS. VALUABLE. That would really have been something. But it wasn’t.

Still, I yearn for answers. I search for clues. Wait! there’s a number on it. 0477863. Hmm. It’s got the right number of digits.

It doesn’t roll off the tongue like 867-5309, does it? And I don’t think you can have an exchange numbered 047. There is an area code 047 in County Monaghan in Ireland, but we’re short a bunch of numbers at the end if we use it for an area code. I thought about contacting one of the bog trotting layabouts that live over there and asking if the number meant anything. Well, they’re layabouts if they’re my relatives. Then again, Carrickmacross is north of Dublin, and my people were never allowed up there. We were instructed to stay down south and cook our rotting potatoes over a burning mud fire, and like it, while it lasted. They casually mentioned the mail boat to Halifax N.S. was free. No reason.

Bah! Let’s try Google. Google would never lead you astray. Let’s not tart it up, either. Let’s put 0477863 straight in to the Palo Alto Pandora, and see what comes out of the box. Here it is. The 0477863:

Now, this is intriguing. It has more than a hint of B. Kliban’s Genitals of the Universe series.

Somehow, I’m not convinced I have a ticket good for one alien abduction, with a free probing thrown in. Upon reflection, I realize that since I’ve never lived in a trailer park, or read von Däniken, books, I’m an unlikely candidate for alien abduction. I’m not even sure if the alien probe is free, come to think of it, or if there’s a co-pay, like the one my doctor keeps offering me every checkup. In any case, I think I’d pass.

I’ve tried consulting my Magic Eight Ball, but it said Reply hazy, try again, over and over. I quizzed my Ouija board, but the answer XQZTRMPLAAOOE wasn’t that informative, and the second reply was L M N O P Q R S T, which is just a roadside sobriety test, which I would have failed because who Ouijas sober? I gave up.

So I’ve done as the ticket instructed. I’ve kept this coupon for thirty years or so. Just because it hasn’t panned out yet, there’s no reason to give up. That’s also what I tell my wife about our marriage. I guess I’ll have to hang on to it for another thirty years to see how it turns out.

Looks Like We Always End Up in a Rut

That’s Eddie Harris and Les McCann performing “Compared To What” at the Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland in June of 1969. People who don’t know who’s who often assume that Eddie Harris is the piano player, because he’s the star of the show in this video. But Eddie Harris is the saxophone player. It’s his trio, so he gets top billing. Les McCann is the guy pounding the horse teeth and singing. The song had a little revival when Scorsese put it in the soundtrack to Casino. It’s not listed on the Soundtrack album, but it’s in the movie. The video also features Benny Bailey on trumpet, Leroy Vinnegar on bass, and Donald Dean playing drums. I remembered Leroy Vinnegar’s name from his tenure in the Jazz Crusaders, but if you look at his Wiki page, he played with an amazing list of jazz artists beside them. He’s even playing on a Van Morrison record somewhere.

I rather enjoy the song’s generally disaffected outlook. Then again, the topics broached in the song are 55 years in the rear view mirror. Still, generally disaffected is about the only way to get through this life. If you’re not generally generally disaffected, I don’t think you’re paying enough attention.

Once You Get Started, Oh, It’s Hard To Stop

Let’s talk about Rufus.

No, not that Rufus. I hesitate to cast aspersions on the obvious metaphysical endowments of Chaka Khan and her band of Rufusians (Rufusniks? Rufusticans? Ruffians?), but I’m talking about Musonius Rufus. Dude was a Roman philosopher in the first century AD. He’s like the Roman version of Socrates. Well, I say he is, anyway. For instance, neither togalicious dude wrote anything down that we know of. Everything we know about what they said comes from notes from their pupils. I always hated the kids who sat in the front row and scribbled down everything the teacher said, but I was never averse to cheating off their test papers.

Socrates sounds like about the most irritating person who’s ever trod the Acropolis. Answering questions with questions gets old fast when you’re on the receiving end. If you’re unfamiliar with the process, buy a three-year-old and try to get a straight answer out of them. If you’re in the mood to hear, “Why?,” more than four Columbo episodes put together, I mean.

Gaius Musonius Rufus got under plenty of people’s skin, too. Got run out of town from time to time, but unlike Socrates, he was never forced to ask the question, “I drank what?” He had a hint of Billy Sunday about him, although I don’t know if Rufus batted left and threw right in the Etruscan League. But they both had more or less the same schtick. They were pointing their fingers at the audience and telling them to wise up. They didn’t have TED talks exhorting people to fully explore their solipsism. They told people to straighten up and fly right. Don’t lie, you know what you did. Now knock that shit off.

I see Rufus as the granddaddy of the Stoics. The Athenian Greeks were airy-fairy and thought endlessly about thinking. Worrying endlessly about thinking usually ends badly, when people like Spartans or Philip of Macedon show up, and start doing things. The Romans like Rufus came up with rules for living. It’s robust, moralistic, and practical advice.

So, the internet, in all its glory, got me to thinking about the way the modern woman operates. Unlike the dim dark past — you know, ten years ago — everything is recorded now. The police, your doorbell, lightpoles, Walmart lobbies, your laptop if you don’t have any electrical tape in the house, and every chad and strumpet clutching an iPhone like it’s a heart lung machine makes sure that everything happens in front of a silicon audience, ready to be curated for a silicone audience. It got me to thinking about what Rufus said about Roman chicks back in the day, and whether it applies to the girls nowadays:

“Women have received from the gods the same reasoning power as men — the power which we employ with one another and according to which we consider whether an action is good or bad, noble or base.”

He didn’t mention anything about parallel parking or hogging the bathroom, so I guess he’s on firm ground here. Women have the same ability as men to understand what virtue is. I gather from surveying the internet and entering a Walmart that cultivating virtue is another matter entirely. Are modern women cultivating virtue? Has feminism set them free to become nobler, more educated, more fully formed, more helpful, pleasant, and productive? What practical advice did Rufus have for the distaff set, and how’s it working out two centuries on?

“…a woman must… be pure in respect of unlawful love, exercise restraint in other pleasures, not be a slave to desire, not be contentious, not lavish in expense, nor extravagant in dress.

“As for justice, would not the woman who studies philosophy be just, would she not be a blameless life partner… a sympathetic helpmate… an untiring defender of husband and children, and… free of greed and arrogance?”

… to control her temper, not be overcome by grief, and to be superior to uncontrolled emotion of every kind. Now these are the things which the teachings of philosophy transmit…”

Hmm. Maybe I had the right idea at the top of the page. The philosopher Rufus, featuring Chaka Khan, was on to something deeper and more topical than Rufus the Roman:

Once you get started
Oh, it’s hard to stop
You can’t stop, you just can’t stop
When you get down, y’all
When you get down, ain’t no turning back, no

Month: January 2026

Find Stuff:

Archives