text:
Thursday, May 22, 2014
4 comments Bill Simmons Attempts to Get All Sentimental about the Oklahoma City Thunder
There's a poignant moment in Jonathan Abrams's oral history about the 2002 Kings,
It's the first sentence of the column and Bill is already pimping out a Grantland feature. Granted, a good Grantland feature, but it's the first sentence and he's already using his supposedly-weekly column to push other Grantland features. Bill is quickly becoming the NASCAR driver of writing. His columns feature links to other columns (hence the sponsors in NASCAR) on ESPN or Grantland.
That moment resonated for a simple reason: That WAS their shot. And that WAS it.
The boss wasn't describing a "shot" as much as a window. If you're blessed with Michael and Scottie in their mid-twenties, that window should last for a decade, as long as nothing funky happens.
You mean like Michael Jordan retiring for two seasons because his father was killed over his gambling debts or does Bill mean like how the Kings would have made the NBA Finals if it weren't for the lone wolf official (and there were no more, not at all...and I don't believe that at all) who was gambling on NBA games who screwed the Kings over in Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals? Funny how both the Kings and Bulls windows closed during a period where there were rumors of a conspiracy involving David Stern and his attempts to keep the integrity of the NBA together. I don't miss David Stern.
If you're teaming up Pierce and Garnett and Allen at the tail end of their primes, you're publicly hoping for five healthy years and secretly praying for three.
Come on, it's the Boston Sports Guy. Like he wasn't going to mention the Celtics as early as possible in this column. Bill only mentions the Celtics two more times in this column, which is quite the achievement for him. The article is about the Thunder, but it's no secret Bill shoves some Celtics talk down the throats of his readers whenever possible.
Every A-list contender has a built-in window, and almost always, you know what it is. When that window slams shut well before you're ready, you never really get over it.
Fine, but how do we know a team is an A-list contender? The Bulls were second-fiddle to the Pistons until 1991. The Kings never really were an A-list contender because the Lakers were in their way, right? They never made an NBA Finals and even the Lakers had to share a few titles with the Spurs during Kobe and Shaq's prime.
Will we remember Oklahoma City that way someday? We know that it's Kevin Durant's seventh season and his sixth with Russell Westbrook. We know they're playing for a small-market franchise that actively avoids the luxury tax. We know Durant's contract expires in 2016, and Westbrook's deal expires one year later.
We, we, we, we. I don't give care if Bill is reciting facts here, the repeated use of "we" in four sentences would make an English teacher cry or give up out of frustration.
We know Westbrook endured three knee surgeries in the past 12 months. We know that bad luck comes in all shapes and sizes. We know the West is loaded, and we know LeBron is never going away. We know they easily could have blown the Memphis series, and we know the bumbling officials saved their season Tuesday night.
We overrate youth and potential with sports, movies, TV, music, art and even politics — it's more enjoyable to imagine what something might become. We envision the Thunder overpowering LeBron's Heat in Durant's MVP season because that's the age-old NBA formula, right?
Bill begins 10 straight sentences with the word "we." 10 straight sentences. I'm not the best writer in the world at all and my sentence structure isn't very good, but Bill has to do better than this. The use of "we" in 10 straight sentences is ridiculously bad writing.
A few thoughts about these "we" sentences:
1. LeBron is going away. Not anytime soon, but he will go away at some point. His window does coincide with the Thunder's window, though I feel like it will be running out in a season or two with Wade getting older.
2. The Lakers had their 2001-2002 season saved by the officials too. This wasn't a sign their dynasty was done, it was just a sign the officials wanted them to win Game 6 to force a Game 7.
3. "We" don't overrate sports, movies, TV, music, art and politics. Bill Simmons overrates sports, movies, TV and music. He has built an entire career on overrating these subjects and tying them into his sports columns. I don't want to hear about how "we" overrate these things. Bill has used them as a writing crutch for 15 years and tied together any sports event with movies, TV or music. Bill needs to find a mirror so he can see who is the one that really overrates these things. As usual, he's happy to take the success caused by tying these subjects to sports, but when it's a bad thing "we" are the ones who overrated these subjects.
Just like we overrate youth and potential, we underrate injury luck, unfortunate breaks, untimely trades, the Disease of More, greed and egos, poor coaching and plain old bad luck.
Stop saying "we"! YOU write these columns. "We" don't write weekly columns for ESPN/Grantland or any other national sports publication/site. Simply because you overrate youth and potential doesn't mean everyone else does also.
The Thunder could definitely topple San Antonio and Miami next month, but they're just as likely to not win a single title with Durant and Westbrook.
The Thunder may or may not win the NBA Title this year. Step back people, this is expert analysis occurring. This is how Bill got a prime job on "NBA Countdown," by making bold statements like this.
On paper, OKC should evolve into this generation's version of the 1990s Bulls: Durant as Jordan, Westbrook as Pippen, and Ibaka as Grant/Rodman. It's a star-driven league with the least amount of playoff variance in any professional sport. When you have a top-two player, a top-eight player and a top-25 player on one team, you should definitely win a ring.
I really feel like arguing Ibaka as a top-25 player but I have bigger fish to fry right now. Or as Bill would say, "We thought Ibaka was a top-25 player but it turns out we were wrong."
Unfortunately, you never know when "The Rains of Castamere" will start playing.
Hey everyone, it's a relevant pop culture reference squeezed awkwardly into the column!
A similar window opened after Game 7 of the 1962 Finals, when the Lakers came within Frank Selvy's errant 15-footer of upending Bill Russell's budding dynasty. That Lakers team employed 27-year-old Elgin Baylor and 23-year-old Jerry West, two of the league's best five players. (Sound familiar?)
No, it doesn't because Westbrook is not one of the NBA's five best players.
Fifteen years later, Bill Walton's precocious Blazers
These professional athletes displayed traits that belied their years. Sure, they were grown-up adults but trying to win an NBA title is just so child-like. Thanks Peter King.
toppled Philly for the 1977 title, then took a 40-8 record into the ensuing All-Star break looking like Russell's Celtics reincarnated.
Bill isn't really even comparing apples-to-apples here. Jerry West did win an NBA Title with the Lakers and the Trail Blazers won an NBA Title with the team Bill is referencing here. The idea of this column is the Thunder's championship window may be closed without them winning a title and Bill is giving examples, but so far he's given examples of players/teams who did win a title with the team whose championship window supposedly closed. Now if Bill's contention is the Thunder may not be a dynasty, that's entirely possible, but considering the discussion is about championship windows then any team/player who has won an NBA Title with the team Bill is referencing would not be a good example.
Every generation has its version of the '62 Lakers and '77 Blazers, contenders that fooled us into thinking their window would last longer than it did.
I can buy this but the Thunder may not even win one NBA Title according to Bill Simmons. Their window is being eaten up by the existence of the Miami Heat. The 1977 Blazers had won one NBA Title, so there is a difference when using them as an example. Also, I wasn't fooled into thinking these team's window would last longer than it did because I wasn't alive when these teams were alive. When I don't exist as a human in the world, I can't have an opinion on a team's championship window. Don't "us" me.
An alpha-dog battle submarined the Shaq-Penny dynasty in Orlando and, later, a possible seven-title run for Shaq and Kobe in Los Angeles. Derrick Rose, C-Webb and James Silas suffered untimely knee injuries that ruined legitimate title windows for the Bulls, Kings and Spurs. Steve Nash's critically acclaimed Suns teams kept falling short in increasingly unfair ways.
Basically what Bill is getting at is that luck plays a part in whether a team wins multiple championships. He can dress it up all he wants to over-complicate the situation, but this obvious-type statement is what he's getting at. This isn't a new perspective Bill is offering, even though he's trying to make it new by looking at it from the perspective of the Thunder, which is weird since this column is 20% complete already and he hasn't really discussed them much.
Four unstoppable-at-the-time duos — Hakeem and Ralph, Penny and Shaq, GP and Kemp, and Malone and Stockton — somehow finished with a combined 8-20 Finals record. Can we really say, with any certainty whatsoever, that "Those guys are gonna be chasing championships and competing for years to come"?
I would argue that Payton and Kemp, as well as Malone and Stockton were not considered an unstoppable-at-the-time duo due to the existence of Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. They were the unstoppable team. But Bill is going to twist facts/opinions the way he wants them to go to fit his needs.
And "we" aren't saying the Thunder will chase championships for years to come.
You're more likely to bemoan the opportunities that slipped away.
Oh I am more likely to bemoan the opportunities that slipped away? I didn't know that about myself. Thanks for telling me about myself because you don't know me and all.
My father and I talk about the Celtics blowing the 2010 title waaaaaaaay more than we talk about the Celtics winning in 2008.
That's probably because you both traffic in misery rather than celebrate the successes of your teams. Bill really, really, really wants to be a tortured fan. It's pretty much his dream to be tortured by his favorite teams.
How does that make sense?
It makes perfect sense based on who Bill is and how he made his living as a writer. Bill made his living whining about how tortured and cursed his favorite teams are. In fact, he still does this, except he has expanded it to include fans of other professional sports teams emailing him to whine about how tortured their favorite team is. I would say Bill has expanded his horizons, but he really just found a new group to share his misery with.
Then Bill whines about Game 7 of the NBA Finals because life is unfair and he prefers to act like a child and stomp his feet when his teams don't succeed. Not that Bill acts like a child when he doesn't get what he wants. Not that there is a "Rolling Stone" feature on Bill that somewhat proves this to be true.
We thought we were in the minority … until Doc Rivers told me about eating dinner with former assistant Tom Thibodeau last summer. For whatever reason, they spent an hour talking about Game 7...They just sat there eating and drinking and making each other miserable. Only later did Doc realize that the 2008 Finals never came up.
And because Doc Rivers (who was the coach of the Celtics, so it makes sense why he would rehash everything) and Bill Simmons talk more about failures rather than the successes this means "we" must do it also. Obviously.
By the way, remember this column is about the Oklahoma City Thunder? It's easy to forget with Bill's rambling form of writing.
When should you start feeling real anxiety over something as simple as "We might have Durant and Westbrook for their entire careers … how could we NOT win a couple of titles?"
LeBron didn't win a title until he was 27 years old. Durant and Westbrook are both 25 years old. Let's take it easy about them not winning a title during their careers.
When Durant's beautiful MVP speech seemingly inspired their best basketball in Game 2 and Game 3, as well as the first three quarters of Game 4, that seemed like something of a "Voilà!" moment...And then the last quarter happened. If you want to watch OKC at its worst, just watch the last nine minutes of Game 4: one-on-one offense, overdribbling, wrong lineups, bad strategy, no composure, no crunch-time savviness and 27-foot heaves.
You know Bill was sitting at this game (because it was against the Clippers and Bill has season tickets to Clippers games and knows Jimmy Kimmel...you need Kimmel's phone number, because Bill has it right here) thinking, "I have to write a column about this."
That unsettled malaise carried over to the first 47 minutes of Game 5, with their defense floundering and Durant inexplicably turning into a right-handed Josh Smith. Everything flipped again in the last 50 seconds, thanks to Durant's monster 3, two utterly ridiculous calls, three egregious Chris Paul mistakes, and Westbrook draining three of the ballsiest free throws I can remember.
Bill looks at it as the Thunder not playing well, while I look at it as an example of a good team winning a game they shouldn't have won...which is something good teams do, right?
I left that game thinking two things …
1. Why am I out of column ideas?
2. Can I squeeze a column idea out of the Thunder's championship window closing?
How can anyone believe in this Thunder team?
And how can anyone NOT believe in this Thunder team?
It's a great question. And it's a great question.
Bill thinks he asks himself some great questions. No, he asks fantastic questions of himself that only he has the intelligence to appropriately answer. Bill thinks that Bill Simmons has a beautiful, inquisitive mind.
We always hear about the "journey" with NBA champions. Wilt couldn't get past Russell until 1967, when he regrouped and unleashed the best Russell imitation that's ever been done. West couldn't shed that "Greatest Player Who Never Won" label until the magical '72 season.
Jerry West didn't win a title until he was 34 years old. This is important to remember when Bill is writing a column about how two 25 year olds have their championship windows closing.
Julius never climbed the mountain in Philly until a man named Moses showed up.
We see what you did there, Bill!
Jordan didn't become an NBA champ until Scottie matured into a top-five player. Shaq and Kobe kept belly flopping until their unforgettable Game 7 comeback against the 2000 Blazers. The Heat kept caving in 2011 and 2012 until Game 6 against Boston, when LeBron finally said, "Out of my way, this is MY team."
So basically there is still time for the Thunder to win an NBA Title. Great, fantastic. "We" knew this.
With their best four players younger than 25, they seemed like the safest bet for a multi-title dynasty since the 1995 Magic.
Incorrect. Either the Shaq-Kobe Lakers were the best best for a multi-title dynasty or the Spurs "Big 3" of Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were the other best bet. I like how Bill uses the example of the 1995 Magic, as a direct comparison to the current Thunder which would lead to the assumed conclusion that the Thunder won't win a title either.
If Durant and Westbrook never win Oklahoma City a title, the Harden trade will forever be the first reason mentioned.
The Thunder EASILY could have afforded Durant, Ibaka, Westbrook and Harden these next two seasons. Right now, they have Steven Adams and the 21st pick of next month's draft to show for a first-team All-NBA guard. Can you ever recover from that?
Me? Can I recover from that? Yes, I can recover from it because I'm not a Thunder fan. But no, it's hard for a team to recover from trading away a young player like Harden, though the Thunder have won 59 and 60 games in the two seasons since Harden left. The Thunder lost to the Grizzlies last year in the Western Conference Semifinals, but that was after losing Russell Westbrook for the series. This is a big reason why the Thunder didn't advance further in the playoffs last year. This year the Thunder have made the Western Conference Finals. So they seem to be recovering fairly well.
After Westbrook's untimely knee injury ruined their 2013 playoff chances, you could hear the Thunder's window creaking for the first time.
I could? And here I thought that was just the wind.
KD threw up a 34-7-6 every night with 51-38-87% shooting splits. Even better, he started carrying himself like a Liam Neeson character — unfriendly, cold-blooded, blessed with a specific set of skills unique to him and only him.
Boy, this reference feels really forced.
As for Westbrook, it took 11 months and three surgeries before he finally looked like Force Of Nature Westbrook again. He'll always be polarizing — the point guard who shoots 20-plus times a game, the creator who creates mostly for himself, the leader who rarely makes teammates better, the ultimate 90/10 guy,
"90/10" will not become a "thing" Bill. I will not allow it to happen.
I was fortunate enough to watch Jordan and Pippen in person during their collective apex, when they were ripping through overmatched teams like varsity studs whupping on the JV.
Bill watched Pippen and Jordan. "We" didn't watch Pippen and Jordan, but Bill watched them. Not like "we" watched them, but he WATCHED them in the mid-90's when they were unstoppable. On the other hand "we" were wrong that the Shaq-Penny combination wouldn't lead to multiple titles. See how that works? "We" were wrong about the Magic in the mid-90's, but Bill watched the Bulls tear up the NBA in the mid-90's.
That doesn't stop the general public from picking them apart. Following the NBA has become a 24/7 thing thanks to social media, YouTube, Instagram and everything else; we never leave these guys alone. They're constantly accessible.
Oh yeah, it's the general public's fault for sure. The general public is always on pregame shows, debate shows and talk radio bashing Westbrook or giving hot sports takes in small soundbites about Westbrook and Durant that gets published nationally. That's always what the general public is doing, because the general public and not behemoth sports organizations like ESPN set out the talking points for athletes like Durant and Westbrook. Blame the people because it sure as hell ain't the fault of Bill's employer.
I hate how the general public are such monsters don't you? The same general public that has elevated Bill to what he is and gives him the traffic at Grantland that makes him so much money. The same general public that Bill looks down on with such disdain high upon his pedestal as he talks on an NBA pregame show handing out soundbites and hot takes all while blaming the general public for what's coming out of his mouth. If there was ever any doubt Bill has cognitive dissonance on how he became what he is today and how he was at one point similar to the blogs and the public he has such a distaste for that "Rolling Stone" feature removed all of that doubt.
Shaq and Kobe never would have survived life together in 2014 — they would have imploded well before that third title. Scottie Pippen never would have survived the Migraine Game in 1990 or the Self-Benching in 1994; he would have been skewered and reskewered and rereskewered,
So who would have skewered and reskewered Pippen again? Is it the general public or is it the 24/7 coverage and hot takes handed out by the brainless trolls at ESPN, when Pippen's migraine situation would end up being discussed on all of ESPN's daily news/opinion shows and every "SportsCenter" at length? I think I know the answer to this long question, but does Bill? He needs to be more self-aware.
That's why there wasn't a snippier, angrier, more hostile contender than OKC during the regular season. They hated hearing about Harden, hated falling short, hated the Westbrook microscope, hated the constant scrutiny. Everything about them oozed the words "Leave us alone, let us play basketball."
Who should leave them alone? The general public or Skip Bayless? Does Bill think that Westbrook and Durant hear the criticism from the public or the criticism from the talking heads at ESPN more? Again, I know the answer and I'm not surprised that Bill doesn't.
When Jackson saved Game 4 in Memphis, Durant and Westbrook bear-hugged him for unusually long times. You could feel the relief pouring out of them. This wasn't just about escaping a threatening playoff moment. It was bigger than that.
And I didn't totally understand until Durant's incredible MVP speech, which was simply one of the greatest off-the-floor moments in NBA history.
It was a really good speech. The inability for Bill to understand the criticism of Durant and Westbrook is partly (mostly?) coming from his fellow co-workers at ESPN is baffling to me. I get that he can't just call out Skip Bayless or other ESPN employees, but the mention of "the general public picking them apart" is infuriating to me.
To me, it shows his dislike for the public and those people who have made him the person he is. He's Bill Simmons, fuck you, he's not like the general public and apparently thinks the general public don't take their cues from ESPN at all...despite ESPN being the most popular sports/entertainment organization around. ESPN creates stories out of soundbites by their employees and then runs the story through the ESPN vacuum to get as much mileage out of the story as possible. "Colin Kaepernick could be the best QB ever," "LeBron/Durant aren't clutch," or "I see bust written all over Johnny Manziel," there's no story created by ESPN that ESPN won't beat into the ground. I just take offense to the idea the general public are the ones who are picking Durant/Westbrook apart. That talks from the public is just noise to those guys, but they pay attention when their name is on "SportsCenter" because Skip Bayless is crying for attention again. Durant/Westbrook aren't bothered by guys they don't know giving an opinion on their performance, but when they see themselves being discussed on the national stage in a negative way, these are the types of comments that gets their attention.
He remembered every obstacle he overcame, every moment that mattered, everyone who helped him along the way. He didn't read from anything. It was unclear how much he even prepared.
"We" were shocked that Durant didn't seem prepared.
Bill won't mention this moment because he's too busy talking about Westbrook/Durant, but the best moment was that one shared between Durant and Butler. Butler hasn't been on the Thunder team long but it's clear he has made an impact on Durant by leaving a note in his locker (yeah, it does sound juvenile) calling him the MVP. It was obvious it all meant something to Durant.
But enough about that, Bill wants to pick apart the Westbrook/Durant dynamic that the general public likes to pick apart so much. Bill is only writing about this dynamic because the general public, not the media, likes to pick this relationship apart.
I mean, can you even compare it to anything? Could even the great Bill Russell have pulled this off?
Bill is essentially a parody of himself at this point. "Could even the great Bill Russell have pulled this off?" I don't remember when Bill Russell became the go-to reference for good speeches, but he was a Celtic and that's all that matters to Bill.
"I know you guys think I forgot Russ," he joked as everyone laughed nervously. "I could speak all night about Russell. An emotional guy who would run through a wall for me. I don't take it for granted. There's days where I just want to tackle you and tell you to snap out of it sometimes. I know there's days you want to do the same thing with me. I love you, man. I love you."
Stop there.
You are the one writing the column. You can stop at any point you want.
No way Jordan would ever describe Pippen that way. No way LeBron describes Wade that way. No way Kobe describes ANYONE that way. Durant's best quality was always Duncan's best quality — he doesn't care how his team wins, just that they do. He's one of the best teammates ever. And just with those eight sentences, he squashed even the most remote possibility of an Avon-Stringer ending.
Well, that's it then. The Thunder's championship window isn't closed and they still have time to win championships. I mean, isn't that what this column is about? Or was about? More importantly, remember how Bill talks about those who pick apart the Westbrook/Durant relationship? What's Bill doing now? The exact same thing. As we learned in the "Rolling Stone" article Bill has rules for others that don't apply to him. He's tired of the general public picking them apart, but it's fine for him to do so.
So much for trading Russell Westbrook.
Bill has now decreed it...RUSSELL WESTBROOK WILL NEVER BE TRADED! WHO SAYS "NO" TO THIS?
I have been following sports for something like 40 years — I can't remember a teammate sticking up for another teammate better than that. Not ever.
NEVER! EVER! Not even the great Bill Russell could have stuck up for a teammate like this.
Terrell Owens crying about Romo being his quarterback was him sort of sticking up for a teammate. I'm sure there are other examples of a player sticking up for his teammate, but it's pointless for me to try to remember them because Durant just did it better than any other player ever.
Kevin Durant flipped the script on the "journey," just like that, in less than 50 seconds. Either KD sticks around like Duncan stuck around in San Antonio, or he's a greater actor than Daniel Day-Lewis. I'm betting on the former. You can't fake that stuff. You just can't.
Right, because athletes haven't said things they later take back or have sworn dedication to a team/teammate publicly and then reneged on this dedication later. If Westbrook decides he's not sticking around when he hits free agency, then maybe Durant decides he'll test free agency. There's still a lot of time. And wasn't this column supposed to be about the Thunder's championship window and whether it was closing or not?
And you know what else? Even if they drive us bonkers sometimes,
Yes, "us" are driven crazy by Durant and Westbrook. "Us" are.
Would LeBron have ever dumped Cleveland if he had Westbrook there?
Bill is tapping into his inner Skip Bayless. This is what being a talking head on television does to a person.
And why would Durant leave OKC when he has Westbrook there?
But he may not always have Westbrook there. Therein lies the rub. Westbrook didn't seem all that touched by Durant's comments and he doesn't have a lifetime contract with the Thunder. Westbrook can become a free agent after Durant can. If he thinks Westbrook isn't staying, why would Durant stay?
It's the rarest of basketball partnerships — two alpha dogs coexisting and complementing each other (for the most part, anyway), with their friendship transcending every conceivable landmine. Why would you break THAT up? Keep that window pried open, baby. For as long as you can.
So what if this is the Thunder's last shot? That was the question in the title and it remains unanswered, though Bill did a great job of rambling around for a few hundred words until he could lazily talk about the Westbrook/Durant relationship, which has been done a thousand times before (mostly by the general public of course).
So was last night's remarkable comeback something of a watershed moment for the Durant-Westbrook "journey"? Can they extend their window for 10 years, or 12, or maybe even 15?
15 years seems a bit much. Simmer down a little.
Or will some Thunder employee be wondering What if that was it? What if that was our shot? next month and end up looking like Nostradamus? I don't know, I don't know, and I don't know.
Glad you wrote this column then. NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING, EXCEPT NO ONE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING AS MUCH AS THE GREAT BILL RUSSELL KNEW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING.
Just remember to keep enjoying the ride. Even when it's a roller coaster.
If Bill doesn't want to write columns anymore, I just wish he would stop. It's clear his heart isn't in it anymore. I'm assuming Bill still has a heart and didn't leave it in Boston as he headed out to California to become a talking head and hopefully a pop culture celebrity.
4 comments:
Bill really has become a caricature of himself. Beyond the "we" thing you pointed out so well Ben, it's amazing that he thinks OKC fans are wandering around confused as to how this team may not win multiple titles.
Not a title mind you, multiple titles. Those OKC fans have really high expectations!
How a man who supposedly loves sports as much as Bill says he does seems perpetually baffled by the fact that it's hard to win a fucking championship is beyond me.
Bill, who "follows" a baseball team that went a century without a title, a hockey team that went almost 50 years without one, a basketball team that had a five year window resulting in a championship and a football team that had a brief flash of brilliance and then sucked for 20 years.
The Thunder have made the conference finals three times in the past five seasons. but does that mean that they'll win a title? Nope. Does it mean their window is closing if they don't win this year? Nope.
They could easily get bounced this year, watch SA and Miami get a year older and win next year. They could also be like the McNabb era Eagles, constantly good enough to compete, but never good enough to win.
Dr. J struggled to win a title despite having several chances at one and it's not like Moses was the fist good player Dr. J played with. However, and this is where I think Bill is acting like a douchecanoe, no Sixers fan talks about all the titles Dr. J didn't win. Why? We're too busy talking about the one he did win.
No matter how talented a team is and no matter how big the team's "window" is, not winning sucks and if you have the chance to see a winner, you should enjoy every minute of it because it's hard to win.
It's also amazing how in all this discussing of "windows" and "titles," Bill never brings up the Dallas Mavericks. Honestly, how long was that team's window? And they managed to hold off the Heat for an additional year.
Bill points to the fact Durant is a good teammate, that he has a good thing going with Westbrook and that Durant's all about winning, but also discusses how random winning is. So he makes the obvious point and then overlooks it.
Why would Durant leave? Because after almost a decade of not winning with Westbrook, why wouldn't he consider going somewhere else if he thinks it'll help his odds of winning?
- May 22, 2014 at 10:08 PM
- Bengoodfella said...
Rich, if it's so hard to win a championship THEN HOW COME THE CELTICS HAVE SO MANY?
If anything has set the Thunder back it's what Bill didn't really mention much at all, which is injuries. They have had Westbrook and Ibaka go down in the playoffs over the last two seasons. That's not easy to recover from.
See Bill wouldn't talk about the titles the Sixers didn't win, but talk about all the ones they lost. He loves misery and his favorite song is probably Misery by Soul Asylum.
I think Durant could leave if he thinks Westbrook would leave. Bill completely misses the idea that a team's "window" can open randomly and close randomly, like you said. I think Westbrook could decide he wants to test the FA market and if Durant gets that feeling why wouldn't he test the market in 2016?
I hate his use of "we" all the time. It's annoying.
- May 23, 2014 at 8:30 AM
This column would have been a lot more interesting if it had been about team-building rather than some long-winded Durant/Westbrook pop psychologist thing. With Ibaka out, the Thunder are routinely putting out a lineup with Sefolosha-Perkins-Collison, which is three non-entities on offense at one time. What could the Thunder have done differently to better absorb the loss of Ibaka? That's a much more interesting question to me.
I'm also calling bullshit on the idea that the Thunder could have EASILY afford Durant, Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka. I'm not an NBA capologist, but I don't think you can afford 4 expensive players like that without going way over the luxury tax, which the Thunder can't pay.
This has nothing to do with this post, but I've been reading some of the Book of Basketball recently, and that Russell vs. Chamberlain chapter really infuriates me. It's basically just an excuse for Bill to blow Russell in print. So I did a little research, and it turns out Bill Russell for his career was a 44% field goal shooter. I'm pretty sure most of his shots were near the basket, and the league wasn't fully integrated yet so I don't think he was being guarded by Roy Hibbert or even Kendrick Perkins, and yet he only hit 44% of them. That seems atrocious to me. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Ben, how far away from sports do you suppose a topic has to be before Bill would stop referencing the Celtics? This column about OKC's window is littered with Celtics references. His playoff preview featured the Celtics a couple times, even though they weren't even close to being a playoff team. Do you suppose if he wrote a column about the missing girls in Nigeria that he'd still find a way to incorporate the Celtics?
- May 23, 2014 at 1:06 PM
- Bengoodfella said...
Anon, it would depend on the FG% of other players during that era on whether that's a low percentage or not. It doesn't seem very high.
And yes, if he were discussing the girls from Nigeria then he would make a reference to the Celtics at least twice. He probably would refer to the girls being kidnapped like the way "Doc Rivers kidnapped Player X to the bench" followed by whining.
- May 27, 2014 at 8:17 AM


text:
2009 Parade of Homes Grand Winner
1920 Espanola Dr, Orlando, FL 32804
$ 4 beds 4 baths 5,624 sqft
Meticulously renovated and expanded by Victor Farina. Spacious and inviting entry foyer leads in to dining room with 18' ceiling and French doors opening out to brick patio. Excellent floor plan - with downstairs master suite boasting his and hers walk-in closets; commanding office with "wormy chestnut" panelling including built-ins. Beautiful family/kitchen combination with beamed ceiling and gas burning fireplace, well-equiped bar area as well as "coffee station". A cook's dream, the kitchen is equipped with 6 burner gas range, 2 dishwashers, double-oven and warming oven, butcher block island with prep sink and walk-in pantry. In addition, there is a smaller office and laundry room on the first floor. The three upstairs ensuite bedrooms (one is the original master) have entry foyers and storage closets in addition to clothes closets. Overlooking the dining room are two Juliet balconies with wrought iron railings that match the stair railing. Huge bonus room with bar and mini-kitchen for movie watching, exercising or play room. Stunning architecture with clean lines accentuated by mature and lush landscaping. Outdoors you will find lovely brick covered patio as well as several outdoor seating areas and two fountains accented with cobalt blue porcelain. This home is simply stunning and must be seen to appreciate the attention to detail and quality features.
Wrong Location? FIND ME

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Writer-director Jon Favreau stars in this delicious comedy as chef Carl Casper, whose efforts to launch a restaurant in Los Angeles crash and burn. Returning to his native Miami, Carl hopes to bury the hatchet with his ex-wife (Sofía Vergara) and reclaim his spatula as proprietor of El Jefe Cubanos - a food truck he is determined to drive back to L.A. Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Dustin Hoffman and John Leguizamo are among the all-star cast.
more info
General Admission$12.00(unless otherwise noted)
Cinematheque Members $8.00
Seniors 65+ andStudents with valid ID


text:
HIV 'Treatment as Prevention' Agenda Can't Effectively Move Forward Without a Major Focus on Human Rights
Human Rights and HIV/AIDS has posted a new blog by Julio Montaner: HIV 'Treatment as Prevention' Agenda Can't Effectively Move Forward Without a Major Focus on Human Rights
Over the next week, world leaders, delegates and community advocates from around the world will meet in Washington D.C. for the XIX International AIDS Conference. There, they'll define and create a roadmap that will determine the direction of the global AIDS response over the next two years. We know that the strategy of Treatment as Prevention (TasP) will play a key role in conference discussions — with over 8 million people around the world now accessing HIV treatment, there's no question that the rapid expansion of treatment coverage can play a critical role in further decreasing morbidity and mortality, as well as in markedly curbing the spread of HIV.
How? Well, while a vaccine and a cure remain elusive, HIV treatment plays an essential role in reducing AIDS incidence and HIV and AIDS related deaths. Given that treatment markedly decreases HIV presence in biological fluids, it also lowers the likelihood of HIV transmission. This means that for people living with HIV, HIV treatments stop the virus from eroding their immune system and stop disease progression to AIDS, therefore extending their life expectancy, and decreasing the likelihood of HIV transmission.
Since 1996 in British Columbia, we have been able to carefully document the impact of progressive expansions of HIV treatment coverage. Our experience serves as a witness of the power of TasP in preventing morbidity, mortality and transmission. In brief, we have found that by expanding access to HIV testing and treatment we have driven new AIDS diagnoses to a record low, currently over 85% lower than in 1996. Similarly, all cause mortality among people living with HIV has decreased by over 90% over the same period. And, new HIV diagnoses have also gone down by over 60%. In the early 90's we used to have about 900 new HIV cases diagnosed every year. Since then the numbers have decreased steadily until in 2011, when we documented less than 300 new HIV cases diagnosed, despite expanded HIV testing efforts and increasing rates of other STIs.
Despite these promising outcomes, it's imperative to recognize that we can't expect to effectively move the TasP agenda forward without strong protection against HIV-related criminalization, stigma and discrimination, and human rights protections for people living with HIV and the key populations most affected by it.
One of the reasons why TasP has been so successful in British Columbia is because it's part of a larger provincial strategy based on a wealth of peer-reviewed research, that has also included the expansion of services for hard-to-reach populations, including opioid substitution therapy, needle exchange, supervised injection sites, and tolerant policies towards sex workers. These initiatives play a critical role in facilitating access to health services by the most vulnerable. As a result, we have shown a marked decrease in HIV and AIDS related morbidity and mortality, as well as HIV transmission, also within people who inject drugs in B.C.
Similar gains are starting to accrue in other jurisdictions that have also embraced TasP as part of the standard of care. Most notably in San Francisco, expanded testing — followed by the immediate offer of HIV treatment — has been associated with noteworthy decreases in community viral load, and declining number of new HIV diagnoses. Other jurisdictions in North America have taken steps in this direction, including initiatives in The Bronx, New York, in Washington, D.C., and more recently in the State of Georgia.
However, we are failing to fully realize the promise of an AIDS-free generation that TasP has to offer because we continue to embrace — even in my own country, Canada, — failing policies, and laws based on ideology, not evidence — a fatal mistake.
We continue to see the criminalization of high-risk populations, including people who use drugs and sex workers. We are seeing an increase in barriers to implementing life-saving harm reduction strategies, like needle exchange and opiate substitution therapies. And we are still seeing firm opposition to an end to the "war on drugs," despite scientific evidence that it has failed on every level. Without addressing these human rights issues, we are hindering our own progress, and worsening the harm done to populations who need our help the most.
I firmly believe that governments around the world can deliver on an AIDS-free generation. However, in order to do so we need to stop the hypocrisy: world leaders continually promising universal access to HIV treatment, care and prevention, but refuse to fund the very agencies that are responsible for delivering on their promise. Furthermore, we should all recognize that our investment will be fruitless if we fail to support strong human rights protections for people living with HIV and marginalized populations, to ensure that stigma, discrimination and criminalization don't preclude those with the greatest need from accessing our services, for their individual benefit and for the collective benefit of our societies.
The global AIDS response is at a tipping point. We know what needs to be done, and The Washington D.C. Declaration provides the road map. I urge world leaders, the scientific community, those living with HIV, and the society at large, to sign on to this important document. If we implement The Washington D.C. Declaration, this could be the beginning of the end of HIV. Failing to do so would be unforgivable.
As thousands gather in Washington, the question will be heard again and again: What needs to be done to move the TasP agenda forward and curb the HIV pandemic? The answer is simple: We need to support the implementation of evidence-based health policy and effectively address the needs of communities infected and affected by HIV. We need to fully embrace the Washington DC declaration. Only then can we truly turn the tide together.
Dr. Julio Montaner is the Director of the British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Chair in AIDS Research and Head of Division of AIDS in the Faculty of Medicine at UBC, and the Past-President of the International AIDS Society (IAS).
Keep up-to-date with drug policy developments by subscribing to the IDPC Monthly Alert.


text: By Associated Press Kia Motors sent yet another major signal Wednesday that its fast-paced growth at its mammoth auto assembly plant in West Point, Ga., is here for the long term. The company, along with several agencies in Troup County and Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal's office, said it will be investing $1.6 billion in machinery and other equipment over the ...Read More »


text:
Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Framework for Hearing God in Scripture
By Craig Bartholomew
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015
640 pp. | $44.99
The first time I heard Craig Bartholomew speak I was taken aback. He has a commanding presence in front of a room, and a magnetic pull to him. With his South African accent and European garb, he speaks as if he has read just about everything. Still, his demeanor is neither arid nor condescending. Instead, it is both passionate and pastoral.
Considering this, along with the fact that Bartholomew interacts well with the interrelated fields of philosophy, theology, and biblical studies, I was eager to crack the binding on his newest work, Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics. In this volume, Bartholomew offers his take on a biblical hermeneutics textbook, penned from a perspective that sits squarely in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) camp.
Bartholomew divides his book into five parts.
- Approaching Biblical Interpretation
- Biblical Interpretation and Biblical Theology
- The Story of Biblical Interpretation
- Biblical Interpretation and the Academic Discipline
- The Goal of Biblical Interpretation
Part 1 begins by outlining a trinitarian hermeneutic. Here, Bartholomew is forthright with his confessional stance, and he urges others to do likewise. A trinitarian hermeneutic approaches the Bible as: (1) authoritative Scripture, (2) a whole, (3) for the church, (4) exalting and humbling academic interpretation, (5), attending to the discrete witness of the Testaments, (6) rightly discerning the goal (obedience) of reading the Bible, (7) not closing down but opening up interpretation of the Bible, and (8) taking God's address for all of life seriously.
Following this, and rounding out Part 1, is one of my favorite portions of the book. Here, Bartholomew asserts that we do not approach the text to master it, but to humbly listen: "There is no method to learn listening; it requires careful attentiveness" (p. 20). He helpfully employs the Shema in this section, showing that the replacement of listening with seeing turns Deuteronomy 6 (and Christian tradition) on its head.
After the above foundation is laid in Part 1, the following sections of the book proceed to build upon this groundwork. In Part 2, Bartholomew ties hermeneutics to biblical theology (BT) arguing that we need to view Scripture as a whole, and therefore BT becomes a foundational part of the hermeneutical endeavor. In Part 3, he walks through the history of biblical interpretation explaining that we are all reading within a tradition. Bartholomew begins with the church fathers and works his way up to modernity and postmodernity. Part 4 deals with the academic disciplines of philosophy, history, literature, theology, and Christian scholarship. Part 5 gives a practical example attempting to tie all that Bartholomew has advocated in an interpretation of Hebrews.
As expected, a central strength of the book is its comprehensiveness. Too often, primers on hermeneutics become overly focused on historical backgrounds, exegetical skills, biblical theology, philosophy, or theology, depending on the interest(s) of the author. Rather than narrowly focus on one or two of these, Bartholomew seeks to address all of these foci, tying them to the matter of biblical interpretation.
Particularly evident in this book is Bartholomew's strong grasp of philosophy. Owing to his sensitivity to such matters, he continually emphasizes that every reader of Scripture has an implied philosophy and epistemology – even though most are unreflective about it. Intriguingly, Bartholomew does not always side with the majority in his assessment of those philosophers whose work he details. For example, he is not overly critical of Kierkegaard. Among the many gems of philosophical insight included in this book, one that stands out to me is a large section devoted to Kant's contemporary and friend, Johann Georg Hamann. Although Hamann is not a household name, he should be in Christian circles.
Another welcome contribution in this book is Bartholomew's tying in of BT to hermeneutics – although some might argue that BT comes after the hermeneutical process. Bartholomew rightly recognizes that most everyone already has a sense of the whole, and that it is better to acknowledge this and move forward, rather than trying to wipe the board clean. This section is vital for Bartholomew, as he believes we need to read the parts in light of the whole.
If I were to direct readers to three chapters to read off the bat, I would refer them to chapters 1, 2, and 13. Chapters one and two are unapologetic in their confessional and historic stand upon orthodox Christianity. Too many hermeneutics books begin tabula rasa. Bartholomew airs out his tradition, and contends that it will direct rather than distort his reading. Chapter 13 wraps the previous 12 chapters into a coherent whole, tying them together in a tight strand.
The breadth of the project, which has earlier been mentioned as a key strength, also turns out to be one of the volume's weaknesses. The book covers a wide array of many topics, figures, and eras. In the thick of exploring these diverse concerns, it is at times easy to lose track of how these individual components directly connect with the field of hermeneutics.
In addition to (and perhaps because of) this, the book does not flow as expected or desired. Each chapter seems as if is mostly self-contained, rather than explicitly connected to the surrounding chapters. The arrangement or ordering of the chapters feels somewhat arbitrary, and the effect is that there is little movement to the reading. When I look at the contents, I can see that Bartholomew was intentional in his ordering of the material. However, this does not show up overtly in the transitions within each chapter. Admittedly, he does attempt to tie the previous chapters together in chapter 13 but I was hoping that he would draw me along as he went.
While this book, on the whole, is a good primer on how someone in the TIS camp would approach hermeneutics, it seems that Bartholomew either toned down or disagrees with some of the more controversial issues of TIS. For example, though he is more negative towards postmodernism than I expected, he rarely refers to the rule of faith (except for tying it together with BT), and he does not do much with tradition (at least not explicitly).
An assortment of smaller disagreements came up as I was reading. I am increasingly speculative of the phrase "listen to the Old Testament on its own terms," which Bartholomew employs at the beginning of his book. With Bartholomew's inclinations toward BT and philosophy, he should be well aware that we cannot read the OT without the witness of the NT anymore. I am also surprised by his negative comments on allegory, and his portrayal of Antiochene vs. Alexandrian interpretation. This neat division is rapidly falling apart, and I was disappointed to see Bartholomew still purporting such a view, or at least not nuancing it.
I don't particularly like mentioning what is not in the book, but since the sub-title includes the word comprehensive, I think that assessing the book's comprehensiveness is fair. For a "comprehensive" view of biblical hermeneutics, I am dissatisfied with the lack of discussion of epistemology. While it is a topic that is always near at hand in this book, Bartholomew never really did much but dip his toe into this pond, and reference its importance. I would have liked a full immersion from Bartholomew on the subject, knowing that he has provided the foreword for one of Dru Johnson's books (on epistemology). Nor does Bartholomew spend much time on the NT use of the OT, which would have been a valuable addition.
One of the biggest astonishments for me is that Bartholomew upheld N. T. Wright's proposal in NTPG concerning method and history. This came somewhat as a shock to me, because those in the TIS camp have been foremost (though not alone) in critiquing Wright's view of the epistemological process. Hays, Rae, and Evans all critique Wright, and even label his method as being akin to methodological naturalism.
Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics is a good resource for those trying to figure out what TIS is all about, and how this camp would approach hermeneutics. It is not a book for an introductory class to hermeneutics, as it is too long and goes into too much depth (still, a few of the chapters could be copied as a reading supplement for an introductory class, and be a valuable addition in this sense). Rather this book would be best served as a textbook for an "Advanced Hermeneutics" course, or for the teacher or student who wants more depth than a typical introduction will give them.
In terms of how this book compares with other similar advanced hermeneutics textbooks, I would say that works well as a compliment to Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral, in that Bartholomew's primer does not focus on method as much as Osborne does. It differs from Kostenberger's work, in that it more searchingly addresses history of interpretation and philosophical issues. Likely the closest comparison might be Dan McCartney's book, Let the Reader Understand, but there are still significant differences. In other words, Bartholomew's book is not just new wine in old wineskins, but new wine in a new wineskin.
All in all, this book reveals a great deal of research and advanced reflection, and it was a pleasure for me to read. Although I wish the book had flowed better, it will nonetheless be a book that I will constantly return to for fine summaries of important subjects related to hermeneutics, and also to check the footnotes for further reading. Bartholomew is to be congratulated on this monumental achievement.
About Patrick Schreiner
Patrick Schreiner is Assistant Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Seminary. He completed his Master of Divinity and Doctor of Philosophy at The Southern Baptist Seminary. In addition to his pastoral ministry experience, Patrick also enjoys writing. You can follow Patrick's journey and his thinking online at his blog, Ad Fontes. You can also follow him on Twitter.
- Web |
- More Posts (16)


text:
|Soft blur
One of the pieces of art I created this weekend
Created in Moleskine Journal - click to enlarge to see details
c beepdoodles
Do you reboot your brain? Your psyche?
I wish I could say exactly what it was (or maybe I enjoy the mystery), but I've had success in rebooting myself. My brain, I mean.
It's elusive, and I can't do it on will, but I have learnt how to do this. I know that's an oxymoron, but that's exactly how it works. I know it's possible. I know some of the things that work. And I have learned to trust it. Though that took me a long time. It took awhile to trust my psyche.
|Soft blur before ~
the same image, as I first created it , before I started manipulating it
Created in Moleskine Journal - click to enlarge to see details
c beepdoodles
That sounds easier than is, to accomplish the outcome. Because I don't know how long it will take, or if I'll do something to sidestep myself, or if I'll end up needing to rejoin the world ~ as in human contact, getting back to things I need to do, going to work, the end of alone time ~ but if I trust it, until I feel it, then it's like magic.
The magic is that feeling I have when I awake feeling restored. Restored, alive, refreshed, happy, glad to be alive, bopping, optimistic, energetic, creative, myself. I am myself. MYSELF. And it is so exhilarating!
Exhilarating, because when I feel like this, everything is possible. I am in a good mood, I am at home in me, I have energy, and I am on fire! And it's SO EXCITING because I can never quite put my finger on what's different when this feeling is gone, and I can't even assume it will be back. But inside, I know. I just know what it takes to restore.
That's where the trust comes in.
Because it never works the same way twice.
|The girls
Created in Moleskine Journal - click to enlarge to see details
c beepdoodles
I know this has a lot to do with being an introvert, and that time alone is huge in restoring myself. But it's not only that ~ if so, I could have this feeling anytime I have 2 days alone. But I've never felt this way without being alone.
I think it's like a big time out.
I take time out to reboot. And I trust that, if I let myself relax into it, it will eventually happen.
I no longer want to understand the magic, but it fascinates me. It's always such as surprise when I wake up feeling this way, but I never feel more alive when I do. And I want to dance, giggle, grin, bop, celebrate... at the joy I feel in being alive, in being me. Being myself. I am HOME. Home inside myself.
Interesting that I am writing about this, as I actually am reluctant to share this part of myself. It's me at my essence. I can't even put my finger on exactly what makes me tick, and am a big guarded about peeling back the layers too much on a formula to get to this state. Because it cannot be forced. I have learned it cannot be forced. It only works if I let go, and trust. I even let go of waiting for it to happen. I let go of wanting, or even remembering, what "it" is. All I do is trust, and take time. And the miracle that is my brain, my psyche, my self, can do it's work. It's a little like I need to give my psyche room to breathe. And it will find it's way home, or back to life, or whatever.
Enough analysis.
Now I am going to go about enjoying this feeling that I woke up with.


text:
Rashōmon (short story)
"Rashōmon" (羅生門) is a short story by Ryūnosuke Akutagawa based on tales from the Konjaku Monogatarishū.
The story was first published in 1915 in Teikoku Bungaku. Akira Kurosawa's film Rashomon (1950) is in fact based primarily on another of Akutagawa's short stories, "In a Grove"; only the film's title and some of the material for the frame scenes, such as the theft of a kimono and the discussion of the moral ambiguity of thieving to survive, are borrowed from "Rashōmon".
Plot summary[edit]
The story recounts the encounter between a servant and an old woman in the dilapidated Rashōmon, the southern gate of the then-ruined city of Kyoto, where unclaimed corpses were sometimes dumped. The current name of the gate in the story, but not the plot, comes from the Noh play Rashōmon (c. 1420).
The man, a lowly servant recently fired, is contemplating whether to starve to death or to become a thief to survive in the barren times. He goes upstairs, after noticing some firelight there, and encounters a woman who is stealing hair from the dead bodies on the second floor. He is disgusted, and decides then that he would rather take the path of righteousness even if it meant starvation. He is furious with the woman.
But the old woman tells him that she steals hair to make wigs, so she can survive. In addition, the woman who she is currently robbing cheated people in her life by selling snake meat and claiming it was fish. The old woman says that this was not wrong because it allowed the woman to survive — and so in turn this entitles her to steal from the dead person, because if she doesn't, she too will starve. The man responds: "You won't blame me, then, for taking your clothes. That's what I have to do to keep from starving to death". He then brutally robs the woman of her robe and disappears into the night.
Popular culture[edit]
The book itself also plays a part in the 1999 movie Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, directed by Jim Jarmusch.
The book is the inspiration for an instrumental rock tune of the same name composed by Japanese instrumental guitarist Takeshi Terauchi and originally played by Japanese instrumental rock group Takeshi Terauchi & Blue Jeans on their 1972 album, Rashomon.[1]
The manga Bungo Stray Dogs features a character named after Akutagawa with heavy references to Rashōmon.
Further reading[edit]
- Murray, Giles (2003). Breaking into Japanese literature. Kodansha. ISBN 4-7700-2899-7. A bilingual book with "In a Grove" and "Rashōmon"
External links[edit]
|Japanese Wikisource has original text related to this article:
- A translation of "Rashōmon" into English by René Malenfant (archived)
- Rashōmon at Project Gutenberg (in Japanese)
- Text of "Rashōmon" at Aozora Bunko (in Japanese)
- MP3s of the story, read by a Japanese actress (in Japanese)


text:
Learn about and manage your OMERS defined benefit Pension Plan
The Plan
Learn about the OMERS Plan and the strategy that drives it.
About OMERS
Learn about our two boards, which represent our members, employers and sponsors.
Learn about how OMERS invests.
Sign In
Secure and convenient online access to your pension information.
By-Law No. 2 outlines the general guidelines relating to the conduct of the business and affairs of the SC. Last Approved: November 14, 2019
By-Law No. 3 outlines the borrowing, banking and investment requirements and procedures to be followed by the SC. Last Approved: December 13, 2017
By-Law No. 4 outlines the composition of the SC, including definitions of Employer Members, Employee Members and Member Groups, as well as terms of appointment, removal, resignation, and voting. Last Approved: December 11, 2019, Effective: January 1st, 2020
By-Law No. 6 outlines SC and OAC Board Member compensation and guidelines for reimbursement of expenses, and SC Board Member expense and education policies. Last Approved: November 14, 2019
By-Law No. 9 outlines the composition and charters of certain committees of the SC; including the Audit Committee, Corporate Governance Committee, Human Resources and Compensation Committee, Plan Design Committee and Risk Oversight Committee. Last Approved: November 14, 2019, Effective: January 1st, 2020
By-Law No. 12 outlines the protocol for proposing specified changes to the OMERS Plans, approval and rejection procedures, and mediation and arbitration guidelines. Last Approved: December 12, 2018
By-Law No. 13 outlines the composition of the OAC Board, including nominations, appointments, voting and removal. Last Approved: December 11, 2019, Effective January 1, 2020


text:
You may think that finding a new car and saving money at the same time is easier said than done, but National Dodge Chrysler Jeep RAM is here to help you find something that's going to satisfy all of your needs for a price you can afford, like a 2018 Jeep Cherokee or the 2018 RAM 1500. Along with the new car specials above, if you're looking to save even more on a quality vehicle, we also have specials on used cars in Jacksonville, NC. If you don't see just what you're looking for here, be sure to browse through our entire inventory of new cars near Wilmington, NC. If you have any questions or would like to set up a test drive, contact our car dealership near Havelock, NC today!
* The advertised price does not include sales tax, vehicle registration fees, other fees required by law, finance charges and any documentation charges. A negotiable administration fee, up to $115, may be added to the price of the vehicle.
* Images, prices, and options shown, including vehicle color, trim, options, pricing and other specifications are subject to availability, incentive offerings, current pricing and credit worthiness.
National Dodge Chrysler Jeep Ram
2223 N Marine Blvd
Directions Jacksonville, NC 28546-6916


text: You shall not forget - reminding about pull requests in VSTS #1 12. July 2017 Kamil Mrzygłód VSTS Comments (0) Code reviews are one of the best ways to make sure, that everyone is aligned with recent code changes and allow a team to actually keep the codebase clean and well-maintained. The is one "meh" however - they require a developer to take a look and review changes. This require time and many people tend to postpone and forget about PRs(which I consider a bad practice, which discourage people from selecting different team members as reviewers). I'll show you a really easy way to remind people about waiting pull requests using VSTS REST API and Azure Functions. Prerequisites I won't go into details regarding authenticating REST API in VSTS in this post. If you're not sure how can you query it, check my other posts from VSTS category or read VSTS REST API basics. Finding active pull requests We'll start from a very easy task - we'll find active pull requests, which might require our attention. To do so we can use following endpoint: / GET https://{instance}/DefaultCollection/{project}/_apis/git/repositories/{repository}/pullRequests?api-version={version}[&status={string}&creatorId={GUID}&reviewerId={GUID}&sourceRefName={string}&targetRefName={string}&$top={integer}&$skip={integer}] It's very flexible and allow you to specify many different parameters to return exactly what you wany. In our case we can simply use following version of this request: / https://{instance}.visualstudio.com/{project}/_apis/git/repositories/{repository}/pullRequests?api-version=3.0 It returns either an empty array of PRs(if none is active) or an array of active pull requests. In my case it returns a following result: / { "value": [{ "repository": { "id": "...", "name": "LicznikNET vNext", "url": "...", "project": { "id": "...", "name": "LicznikNET vNext", "state": "unchanged", "visibility": "unchanged" } }, "pullRequestId": 1, "codeReviewId": 1, "status": "active", "createdBy": { "id": "...", "displayName": "Kamil Mrzygłód", "uniqueName": "", "url": "...", "imageUrl": "..." }, "creationDate": "2017-07-12T07:18:36.1561898Z", "title": "Merge branch ", "description": "Merge branch 'feature/LNETVN-204-data-should-not-be-collected-for-non-existing-locations' into develop", "sourceRefName": "refs/heads/develop", "targetRefName": "refs/heads/feature/LNETVN-204-data-should-not-be-collected-for-non-existing-locations", "mergeStatus": "succeeded", "mergeId": "...", "lastMergeSourceCommit": { "commitId": "...", "url": "..." }, "lastMergeTargetCommit": { "commitId": "...", "url": "..." }, "lastMergeCommit": { "commitId": "...", "url": "..." }, "reviewers": [{ "reviewerUrl": "...", "vote": 0, "id": "...", "displayName": "[LicznikNET vNext]\\LicznikNET vNext Team", "uniqueName": "...", "url": "...", "imageUrl": "...", "isContainer": true }], "url": "...", "supportsIterations": true }], "count": 1 } It provides some information but there's no way to check how long we're waiting for reviewers. Let's try to find something, which will help us here. Checking votes Ok, let's try following approach - what if we go to our PR and try to actually mark it as Waiting for the author, as in real scenario? I changed my PR status to "Waiting for the author" Now let's query API once more and check results. This is what I got(I removed lines, which were not changed): / "reviewers": [{ "reviewerUrl": "...", "vote": -5, "id": "...", "displayName": "[LicznikNET vNext]\\LicznikNET vNext Team", "uniqueName": "...", "url": "...", "imageUrl": "...", "isContainer": true }, { "reviewerUrl": "...", "vote": -5, "votedFor": [{ "reviewerUrl": "...", "vote": 0, "id": "...", "displayName": "[LicznikNET vNext]\\LicznikNET vNext Team", "uniqueName": "...", "url": "...", "imageUrl": "...", "isContainer": true }], "id": "...", "displayName": "Kamil Mrzygłód", "uniqueName": "...", "url": "...", "imageUrl": "..." }], As you can see we got some additional values for reviewers property. What is more interesting here is the vote property, which has changed from 0 to -5. This is what will help us in the next post to make a working solution notifying team members about waiting pull requests - we'll try to find PRs with no votes, which are older than 24 hours and try to send a message to people involved in it, encouraging them to take a look at proposed changes.


text:
Psychiatric Narratives Workshop
Glamorgan Archives, Cardiff, 23 November 2011, 13.00 – 17.00
Organized as part of CISSMI's "Off Sick" programme of events, the workshop explores the different types of illness narration through an examination of psychiatric narratives and the problems of uncovering the patient's voice in psychiatric institutions. Uncovering these voices has often proved problematic, and the workshop seeks to explore institutional psychiatric care from the inside out. The workshop features a series of papers by historians and clinicians on problems of evidence and the ways in which they have used psychiatric case notes and fiction to understand the experiences of psychiatric patients and the nature of psychiatric institutions.
13.00 – 14.00 Registration and Lunch
14.00 – 14.15 Introduction
14.15 – 15.00 Pamela Michael (Bangor): "Patients, Imagination and Welsh literature"
15.00 – 15.45 Peter Barham (Oxford): "In pursuit of the imperial lunatic, c.1860-1940: some problems of evidence"
15.45 – 16.15 Coffee
16.15 – 17.00 Rhys Thomas (Swansea): "Clinicians and case notes: the modern perspective"
17.00 – 17.15 Closing Discussion
Funded by the Wellcome Trust, the workshop will be held at the Glamorgan Archive (Cardiff) on Wednesday 23rd November 2011. Although a free event, to register please contact Dr Keir Waddington ([email protected])
Details of where to find the Glamorgan Archives can be found at: http://www.glamro.gov.uk/where%20are%20we.html
Further details can be found at: http://literatureandscience.research.glam.ac.uk/cissmi/offsick/
CISSMI is a research collaboration between the Universities of Glamorgan and Cardiff, founded in 2009 by members of the Glamorgan Research Centre for Literature, Arts and Science (RCLAS), Glamorgan's History Divison, and Cardiff's School of History and Archaeology. The research group is dedicated to the study of the history of science (particularly the medical sciences) and the imagination (literary and cultural). CISSMI is currently running "Off Sick" – which brings together literary scholars, historians, medical practitioners, social scientists, and artists to explore the experiences of people and families who have been affected by severe or long-term illness, and has a particular practitioner and community focus on Wales. In doing so, the project investigates 'illness narratives' from both past and present and how people turn those experiences into narratives or stories as a means of understanding them.


text:
Immediate need to improve the management of accumulated digital records, says Cabinet Office report Public bodies face "significant risks" from the legacy digital information they have accumulated but are often unable to obtain the benefits, according to a Cabinet Office report on the painfully drawn-out transition to a digital […]
Tag: digital information
CryptoTestament Launches Encrypted Technology Designed to Protect Digital Legacies
CryptoTestament's new Kickstarter campaign provides tools to safeguard important financial and digital information This press release was orginally distributed by SBWire Montreal, QC — ( SBWIRE ) — 01/19/2017 — CryptoTestament, developers of new encrypted technology tools to secure postmortem digital legacies — including credentials and passwords, Bitcoin accounts […]
Estate Planning Enters the Digital Age
Click here to view original web page at Estate Planning Enters the Digital Age
One reality of modern life is our increasing reliance on digital information and services. It's difficult to take and then order prints of photographs, accumulate travel rewards, book travel, sort through financial records, communicate with distant friends, and even keep abreast of breaking news without a computer and e-mail access. Most creditors and banks encourage customers to "go green" and receive bills and statements electronically. Medical records and histories are increasingly available to patients and caregivers via online systems. Many people use online rental sites to rent their under- or unused vacation property to offset carrying costs. Unfinished novels and other valuable content produced by authors and artists will likely be stored on a remote service in the cloud, instead of locally on a hard drive.
There are many crypto and digital currencies, such as Bitcoin. Domain names continue to garner seven- and eight-figure sales prices: the $35.6 million paid for "Insurance.com" in 2010 is an extreme example. Virtual gaming is enormously popular: one gamer named Jon Jacobs built, ran and ultimately sold $635,000 in digital assets (including a casino called "Club Neverdie" built on an asteroid) that only existed virtually in Entropia Universe, an online gaming platform.
Despite the increasing prevalence of digital assets in our lives, few online account custodians offer customers online tools allowing them to provide for access to or disposition of any property held in these accounts, or even the records associated with the accounts. Unfortunately, the law has not kept pace with modern life and technologies. Digital assets are treated the same as non-digital ones by the majority of state probate statutes. This has proven unworkable, as the custodians of many online accounts have refused to recognize fiduciaries' authority over digital assets.
In fairness, electronic communications and accounts are unlike traditional letters and accounts in several ways. As compared to paper letters, lost and even deleted e-mails might be easily located and retrieved from an e mail service provider. A decedent or incapable person might have opened an online account (to access embarrassing content, or a dating service such as Ashley Madison, for example) with the expectation that it would remain private and undiscoverable by anyone, including a fiduciary. Without evidence of the account holder's intent, it is impossible to know for certain whether the user intended the account to be accessible and not private.
If you become incapable or die, your fiduciaries will become responsible for handling your finances. They will inventory your assets, and they may need to manage or close your financial accounts or business, pay your debts, taxes, and expenses, and distribute your assets to your beneficiaries. In today's digital world, your fiduciaries need access to your digital assets to do their jobs and to monitor and close your online accounts, protecting them from cyber thieves. (In 2014, alone, $16 billion was stolen from 12.7 million identity fraud victims in the United States!)
In the past, fiduciaries responsible for managing assets of and for others could easily marshal, collect and manage the assets. Often, the biggest nuisance was convincing a recalcitrant financial institution to honor a power of attorney, and personal representatives and conservators, armed with court decrees, encountered few problems. That has changed, because digital assets can be encrypted, secured by passwords that die with you, or protected by federal and state data privacy and anti-hacking laws.
Even if the fiduciary can find a password, the account provider's terms-of-service agreement (TOSA) might forbid account access by anyone except the account holder—implicitly barring a fiduciary from access. Online TOSAs are frequently silent as to postmortem options, and often simply prohibit postmortem transfer. See the compendium of a myriad of TOSA provisions, maintained at https://www.mylennium.com/domaininfo.
To ensure your beneficiaries and fiduciaries can access your digital assets, either to preserve and distribute them, or to destroy them for you, your Power of Attorney and estate planning documents must indicate what you wish to happen to your digital assets. To that end, your estate planning attorney will ask you about your digital and online accounts and will include appropriate provisions in your will, trust and power of attorney documents. Without your express consent in your documents, your family and fiduciaries may be unable to access your accounts, even if you have used a password manager or shared your access information with them. If you use encryption to secure your data, wherever it is stored, you must assume that your fiduciary will be unable to break it, and plan accordingly.
Death in the Digital World
Click here to view original web page at Death in the Digital World
"I leave my MP3 collection, Apps library, e-books and Facebook content to…"
When we think about our assets, we usually think about our bank accounts, reals property, retirement accounts, and personal property and so on. But in this age of digital information, most people have sizable portfolio of digital assets. These can include our MP3 collections, iTunes and Apps libraries, e-books, photos as well as and other digital media. It may also include things like our Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram posts and online blogs. What happens to these things after we die? Who gets to access our emails and Twitter accounts? Can we leave our e-book and app collections to our family member or friend? These are not issues that we can really look to history and precedence for guidance. The idea of digital assets did not even exist until the last few years!
Most states and the federal government are still struggling with this issue. In July of this year, the Uniform Law Commission approved the draft of the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act. The Uniform Act is not a law, and it is up to states to decide if they wish to adopt the Uniform Act or their own version of it. The Uniform Act greatly increases access to a deceased person's digital assets, including emails, unless there are contrary instructions in the deceased person's will. Moreover the Uniform law supersedes any provisions contained the terms of service or other end-user agreement.
Recently, Delaware became the first state to pass legislation related to how digital assets are dealt with after a person's death. The Delaware Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets and Digital Accounts Act is modeled after the Uniform Act. It allows personal representatives of the estate of a deceased person the same access to the accounts and digital assets of the deceased account holder as the account holder had him/herself. While this statute may raise many privacy concerns, it does greatly increase access to the digital assets of a deceased person and increases ease of estate administration.
In Pennsylvania, a bill was introduced in 2012 that would allow the personal representative of an estate the power to "take control of, conduct, continue or terminate" a deceased person's social media account. This act was never passed and currently there is no guidance in the Pennsylvania legislature on how a person's digital assets can be effectively disposed of after their death.
In the absence of legislative guidance, user agreements will determine who may access to digital assets after the death of an account holder. This may prevent the family members and loved ones from being able to access valuable information held by the deceased. Moreover, there may also be confusion if a person will or other testamentary document leaves instructions that are contrary or in conflict with the end-user agreement with the service provider. This, in the absence of further guidance is received from lawmakers, it is very important to have estate plans that allow the personal representative of the estate to have fullest flexibility to communicate with the service providers and have access to your digital assets in the event of death or incapacity.
One Day, You're Going to Die. Here's How to Prepare for It
Click here to view original web page at One Day, You're Going to Die. Here's How to Prepare for It
It's a fact of life that we're all going to die at some point. While it's not something you probably want to think about, you can make things a lot easier on yourself (and your family) if you get everything in order now. Here's what you need to do.
Your inevitable demise is hopefully not on your mind too often, but it's still something you should think about long enough to get everything in order. Doing so ensures that everything in your life is organized so others can see what you want to happen after you're gone, what you own, and how to handle a variety of situations.
If this sounds daunting, don't worry too much: being unmarried, without children, and without a useful asset to speak of, I was able to get everything in order in about two hours (I still had a lawyer friend double-check everything to ensure I wasn't accidentally giving my dog medical power of attorney). The more you own the longer it'll take, but it's not nearly as time-consuming as it looks because most of this stuff you probably already have ready to go.
Note: You can do a lot of this stuff on your own, but it's a good idea to speak with a lawyer about your will, assets, and general estate planning. This guide is meant more to get you acquainted with terms, provide DIY options when applicable, and help you collect together what you need.
Decide What Happens After You Die
Planning for your death is actually two things: what happens after you die, and what happens if you're ill and unable to handle decisions yourself. Let's start with taking care of what happens after you die, starting with your last will and testament.
Write Your Last Will and Testament
Your last will and testament is a document that designates what happens with your property, guardianship of your children, and names the person (executor) who carries out your wishes after you die. If you don't own a lot of property, a simple will is likely all you need.
It's possible to draft up a simple will on your own, but it comes with its own set of pros and cons. These include problems with outdated information, specific state related tax issues, and how they handle specific trusts. As USNews notes, online wills are a one-size fits all solution, that can't always account for the complicated situations of real life. However, if you only need a very basic will SmartLegalForms, LegalZoom, or RocketLawyer all provide a simple template for doing so for between $15 and $80. These laws and requirements change often, and if you don't do it right you might unintentionally give someone more power over your estate then you want. Most simple wills have just a few sections where you can say what happens to your assets, and designate who gets any property you own.
When you're drafting up your will, you'll also name your executor. After you die, this is the person who handles your estate (all of your property), finances, debts, and everything else. It should go without saying this is a person you would trust to handle your estate when you're alive. Once you die, a probate court will officially give power to your executor to handle your affairs. They do not have control over your estate until after you die.
Finally, to make the will legally binding, you'll usually need to get signatures from at least two witnesses (who aren't beneficiaries listed somewhere on the will), and it's advisable to get it notarized by a notary public. You can usually find a notary public at your bank, and they act something like an official witness for legal forms.
If you have a lot of assets that you want to designate to multiple people, or to make sure your will is legally sound, you should speak with a lawyer about getting a more advanced will written up. Things start getting really tricky when finances are involved, and if you have a lot of assets it's worth at least consulting with a lawyer (if you need help finding a reputable lawyer here's our guide). I spoke with lawyer Elizabeth D Mitchell of Ambler & Keenan, LLC about the basics of what you can expect from an estate planning firm:
I usually start people out with a form and have them think about who they would name as their power of attorney. From there, we'd look at their assets and arrange for special circumstances. It's important to remember that estate planning isn't just what happens after death, it's also about what happens if you're incapacitated… What I always tell people is that it costs more to clean up a financial mess afterwards then it does to plan ahead.
Mitchell also adds that although it takes a little time to get everything in order, most estate planning lawyers offer some type of free consultation before they into your plan. This is because once they set up a plan with you, you'll be dealing with them for the rest of your life so it's important to know exactly what you're getting into. Mitchell also recommends people at least speak with a lawyer about writing up their will even if they don't own a lot of property because it's possible a single mistake could mess everything up. As the New York Times points out, the law is different in every state, and something as minor as not declaring the document a will out loud will make it invalid in certain states. A lawyer is also handy to set up trusts so your family gets paid out. According to the Wall Street Journal, trusts are increasingly important:
Rick Law, founder of estate-planning firm Law ElderLaw LLP in Aurora, Ill., says estate planners increasingly recommend revocable trusts in addition to wills, since they are more private and harder to dispute. "Every will is like a compass that points toward the closest courthouse," he says.
A revocable living trust can be changed anytime during your lifetime. After you transfer ownership of various assets to the trust, you can serve as the trustee on behalf of beneficiaries you designate. Provided you do so, there aren't any ongoing fees.
That said, if you don't own that much, or you don't mind leaving it all to one person, the whole process of writing out your own will takes about 20-30 minutes. Photo by Ken Mayer.
Outline the Funeral or Memorial Service
Obviously this step is optional, but if you want something specific to happen at your funeral or memorial service after you die it's a good idea to get it in writing, and let your family know your wishes. Doing so gets rid of the headache of planning for your family, and ensures you get what you want. You don't need to go in and plan everything out, but here are a few things worth considering:
- If you want a burial, you need to find a grave plot. You'll need to contact a local cemetery and purchase a plot if so. If you want a specific cemetery or plot, the earlier you do this step the better.
- If you want cremation, you'll work with a funeral director, so contact a local funeral home and arrange any details with them.
- Decide if you want to pre-pay for any arrangements so you don't have to worry about your family paying for anything while they wait to get access to your money. Since the average funeral is around $6,500, so it might be helpful to pay ahead of time.
At this time, you can also decide if you want anything specific in a memorial service, how you want the wake handled, and everything else. It's also common to add these details to the will if you want to make sure your wishes are followed. Obviously this is a very personal event, and what you want depends a lot on your religious and social background. It's a good idea to make your wishes known to family members to take the pressure off them when the time comes.
Designate What Happens If You're Ill or Incapacitated
Just as important as what happens after you die is what happens if you're ill, incompetent, or incapacitated. For this you need a living will, a power of attorney, and a medical power of attorney. If it sounds a little scary, don't worry, it doesn't take a lot of time and by the end you'll know that you'll only get the medical support you want.
Designate a Power of Attorney
A power of attorney is the person who can attend to financial or legal matters if you fall ill or are unable to handle them for yourself. It's a good idea to choose a power of attorney so that they can attend to your financial and legal issues immediately after you fall ill. The power of attorney expires when you die, and the control of your finances typically shifts to the executor you named in your will. In some cases this is the same person.
You have a lot of choices for different types of power of attorney, but experts typically recommend is a durable power of attorney. This type of power of attorney goes into effect immediately after you sign the documents and lasts until you die. Essentially, when you sign it your power of attorney will have immediate access to your finances and legal matters the second you're declared incompetent or incapacitated.
The form to designate a power of attorney varies by state, but if you want to do it yourself you can get a document from the same services where you did your will (SmartLegalForms, LegalZoom, or RocketLawyer). If you're giving one person complete control over everything you can likely manage to fill this out yourself, but if you want to limit what they can do it's likely best to consult with a lawyer. Photo by Andy on Flickr.
Prepare a Living Will and Designate a Medical Power of Attorney
Your living will (aka advance health care directive) outlines your wishes for medical care if you're in an accident and can't speak for yourself. The information you provide ranges from resuscitation guidelines to whether or not you want dialysis.
Every state has different paperwork for your living will, and different guidelines (you can grab paperwork specific to your state here). Essentially, each form allows you to designate what type of medical care you want to receive if you can't speak for yourself, as well as designate if you want to donate any of your organs to science. Again, you'll usually need two witnesses when you sign, and it's wise to get it stamped by a notary. When you're finished, keep a copy for yourself, and give copies to your physician, a family member, and your healthcare agent (your lawyer will also keep one if you use one). Additionally, if you do not want CPR or ACLS, you want to fill out a Do Not Resuscitate order with your doctor.
Not every medical procedure known to man is covered in the living will, and for those unexpected occurrences you may also want to designate a medical power of attorney (also known as an agent, attorney-in-fact, health care proxy, or health care surrogate depending on where you live). This person can make medical choices for you if they're not included on your living will, or if you give them the power to override your previous choices if the circumstance warrants it. Additionally, they can also get the right to see your medical records (which is helpful if you choose anyone other than direct family), apply for Medicare on your behalf, and make choices about any medical procedures when you can't. Again, this differs by state, but you'll often name a medical power of attorney on your living will. Of course, before you give someone the power of attorney you'll want to go over what type of medical treatments you want and don't want, and make sure they agree to follow your wishes.
The living will and health care power of attorney forms are important for everyone to fill out. I did mine in about 10 minutes. With these completed, you'll have the peace of mind that you'll get the medical care you want (or don't want) in just about every circumstance. Again, a lawyer is helpful here if you're unclear about anything. If you're not sure what type of treatments you'd like when you're incapacitated you should speak with your doctor. Photo by Social Innovation Camp.
Organize Your Finances, Life Insurance, Bills, Debts, and Everything Else
While the bulk of your assets are distributed on your will, you still have a lot of financial obligations out in the world. Naming an executor on your will and a power of attorney is just one step. You've probably already done this, but it's also important to get all your finances organized so your heirs can actually find what they need. According to the National Association of Unclaimed Property, around $32.9 billion assets are currently unclaimed because the state took hold of them instead of the family. So, whether you decide to write up your will with an estate planner or not, you still need to get everything in order.
Two of the most important documents are your life insurance policy (especially policies from former employers) and retirement plans (as well as pensions and annuities), because both are easy to overlook. If your heirs don't know these accounts and policies exist, they can't claim them and the funds usually go to the state. So, gather up your various policies and keep them together.
If you don't have a life insurance policy, you might want to get one, and we've walked you through what you need before. A life insurance policy isn't just about covering your salary after you die, it's about helping your family pay for funeral costs, car loans, credit cards, mortgages, and everything else.
To make the process easier on your family when you pass away, it's also a good idea to gather together all your debts (especially big ones like your mortgage, car loans, or credit cards) in one place so your heirs can pay your bills for you while they figure everything else out. You likely already do this, but it's good to keep everything together so they don't have to search for it. To make the process even easier (and skip over any conflicts with power of attorney), you can add a family member to at least one of your bank accounts so they always have access to some of your funds.
If you have a lot of sources of income, it's a good idea to meet with a financial advisor to get everything organized. You can find one through The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors. With your financial advisor you can set up beneficiaries for retirement plans, make your accounts accessible, and create spending plans for your surviving family.
Secure Your Digital Life (and Pass the Keys onto Someone You Trust)
It's increasingly important to also hand over the keys to your digital life when you're preparing for your death. We have a guide for getting everything organized that's easy to follow.
The reason this is an important step is not just to give your heirs access to your bank accounts, it's also so they can shut down services you don't want around. For example, Facebook can memorialize your page if you want, but if you don't want that digital record sticking around, you might make a request to your heirs to delete it outright. Likewise, if an heir wants access to your Google account and you don't give them the password, they'll need to provide a name, address, photo ID, email, and death certificate. Which is to say, it's a lot easier for your family if you just give them your passwords.
So, when you're putting together your list of usernames and passwords, include instructions for how you want those accounts handled, including if you want them to do anything specific with your home computer. It might seem a little weird, but if you want a little control over how your digital life is handled after you die, this is the only option. If you're using a password manager like Lastpass then you can just look in your password vault for a full list of all your accounts and passwords. It only takes a couple of minutes to copy the ones that really matter.
Set Up a Master File of Everything
Once you have all your paperwork sorted, wills filled out, and everything else, it's time to pack that all into master file you share with a close family member or friend. Remember, this includes everything about your life, so keep it in a safe place (or in a safe deposit box), and share it's location with your family. After completing the steps above, you should have everything in order, but here's what you should include (List culled together from UC Berkeley, The Wall Street Journal, and our own "In-Case-of Emergency" document):
- Will
- Letter of instruction
- Birth certificates
- Marriage certificates
- Citizenship papers
- Divorce/separation papers
- Adoption papers
- Social security numbers/cards
- Passports (numbers and expiration dates)
- Driver's licenses (number, expiration dates)
- Military records
- Names/address/telephone numbers of healthcare professionals
- Healthcare proxies/living wills
- Medications (dosages, name of prescribing physicians, pharmacy, address/telephone
- Address and phone numbers of hospitals of choice
- Medicare numbers
- Medicaid numbers (caseworker numbers, address/telephone)
- Social worker or caseworker names and contact information
- Passwords, web sites, and other digital information
- Income sources (retirement and/or disability benefits, Social Security, etc.)
- Financial assets (institution names, account numbers, address/telephone, form of ownership, current value) of cash, bank accounts, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, money market funds, retirement and pension plans, IRAs, annuities, life insurance
- Real Estate (property addresses, location of deeds, form of ownership, current value)
- Other assets (location of items/titles/documents/form of ownership, current value) including automobiles, boats, inheritances, precious gems, collectibles, household items, hidden valuables/items in storage, loans to family members/friends
- Liabilities (Creditor institutions, address/telephone, approximate debt) of mortgages, personal loans, credit cards, notes, IOUs, other).
- Trust documents
While some of these records need to be physical copies (like your birth certificate), others, like contact info, a copy of your will, and property information can be digital, so use whatever system you're more comfortable with. Whatever you decide, keep everything organized in a folder together, and let a family member know where everything is.
If you need a little help getting everything organized, webapps Everplans, Get Your Shit Together, and CNN's guide to estate planning are great resources that guide you through more of the specifics. As always, if things get too complicated, don't hesitate to contact an estate planner for help—most will offer you a free consultation.