Why do they even play the game?

In mathematics, when you’re convinced of some eternal truth but can’t quite prove it, you offer it as a hypothesis (with a portentous capital H) and invite the world, future generations if need be, to prove you right or wrong. Often, a cash prize is attached.

In that spirit, but without the cash, I offer the Krauthammer Conjecture: In sports, the pleasure of winning is less than the pain of losing. By any Benthamite pleasure/pain calculation, the sum is less than zero. A net negative of suffering. Which makes you wonder why anybody plays at all.

Winning is great. You get to hoot and holler, hoist the trophy, shower in champagne, ride the open parade car and boycott the White House victory ceremony (choose your cause).

But, as most who have engaged in competitive sports know, there’s nothing to match the amplitude of emotion brought by losing. When the Cleveland Cavaliers lost the 2015 NBA Finals to Golden State, LeBron James sat motionless in the locker room, staring straight ahead, still wearing his game jersey, for 45 minutes after the final buzzer.

Here was a guy immensely wealthy, widely admired, at the peak of his powers — yet stricken, inconsolable. So it was for Ralph Branca, who gave up Bobby Thomson’s shot heard ’round the world in 1951. So too for Royals shortstop Freddie Patek, a (literal) picture of dejection sitting alone in the dugout with his head down after his team lost the 1977 pennant to the New York Yankees.

In 1986, the “Today Show” commemorated the 30th anniversary of Don Larsen pitching the only perfect game in World Series history. They invited Larsen and his battery mate, Yogi Berra. And Dale Mitchell, the man who made the last out. Mitchell was not amused. “I ain’t flying 2,000 miles to talk about striking out,” he fumed. And anyway, the called third strike was high and outside. It had been 30 years and Mitchell was still mad. (Justly so. Even the Yankee fielders acknowledged that the final pitch was outside the strike zone.)

For every moment of triumph, there is an unequal and opposite feeling of despair. Take that iconic photograph of Muhammad Ali standing triumphantly over the prostrate, semiconscious wreckage of Sonny Liston. Great photo. Now think of Liston. Do the pleasure/pain calculus.

And we are talking here about professional athletes — not even the legions of Little Leaguers, freshly eliminated from the playoffs, sobbing and sniffling their way home, assuaged only by gallons of Baskin-Robbins.

Any parent can attest to the Krauthammer Conjecture. What surprises is how often it applies to battle-hardened professionals making millions.

I don’t feel sorry for them. They can drown their sorrows in the Olympic-sized infinity pool that graces their Florida estate. (No state income tax.) I am merely fascinated that, despite their other substantial compensations, some of them really do care. Most interestingly, often the very best.

Max Scherzer, ace pitcher for the Washington Nationals, makes $30 million a year. On the mound, forget the money. His will to win is scary. Every time he registers a strikeout, he stalks off the mound, circling, head down, as if he’s just brought down a mastodon.

On June 6, tiring as he approached victory, he began growling — yes, like a hungry tiger — at Chase Utley as he came to the plate. “It was beautiful,” was the headline of the blog entry by The Washington Post’s Scott Allen.

When Scherzer gets like that, managers are actually afraid to go out and tell him he’s done. He goes Mad Max. In one such instance last year, as Scherzer labored, manager Dusty Baker came out to the mound. Scherzer glared.

“He asked me how I was feeling,” Scherzer recounted, “and I said I still feel strong … I still got one more hitter in me.”

Asked Baker, demanding visual confirmation: “Which eye should I look at?”

Scherzer, who famously has one blue and one brown eye, shot back: “Look in the [expletive] brown eye!”

“That’s the pitching one,” he jokingly told reporters after the game.

Baker left him in.

After losing her first ever UFC match, mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey confessed that she was in the corner of the medical room, “literally sitting there thinking about killing myself. In that exact second, I’m like, ‘I’m nothing.’” It doesn’t get lower than that.

Said Vince Lombardi, “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.” To which I add — conjecture — yes, but losing is worse.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post.

Transparency is critical to balancing the public’s civil liberties with law enforcement’s ability to use new technologies to combat crime.

In 2015, California lawmakers approved Senate Bill 34 and Senate Bill 741 to require law enforcement agencies wishing to use automatic license plate readers or cell phone intercept devices to put in place privacy and use policies. Additionally, the bills required public notice be given before such intrusive technologies are deployed.

Both bills were introduced by Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and have been signed into law. Now, Hill is back with SB21, with the aim of expanding public notice requirements to all surveillance technologies.

Among other things, SB21 would require agencies to submit a surveillance use policy detailing the collection, use, maintenance, sharing and dissemination of information, making it public, and requiring local governing-body approval.

According to an American Civil Liberties Union survey of 127 cities and counties across California, 100 of them had at least one kind of surveillance technology. In addition to license plate readers, cell phone intercept technologies and body cameras, the ACLU also noted the presence of video and social media surveillance and facial recognition technologies.

All of these technologies were present in Southern California, the ACLU notes, without public debate and use policies being provided.

Many law enforcement groups oppose SB21. The Peace Officers Research Association of California argues law enforcement agencies “should not be forced to publicize their technology or the technology being used,” because doing so would make it easier to evade.

But, as Hill noted at an Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing, public notification and use policies don’t have to undermine the effectiveness of technologies. Law enforcement agencies routinely resort to wiretapping, for example, and still use license plate readers and cell phone intercept devices.

Hill concedes that further work must be done with SB21, which passed the Senate 21-15 on May 31 and cleared its first Assembly hearing, but the overall aims are clearly welcome.

The police work for the public and shouldn’t see public accountability as a threat. SB21 is an important step toward giving the public a say in how technologies are used by police.

Will your veggies give you cancer? Probably not, according to a Reuters investigative report which uncovered severe intellectual dishonesty in a decision to classify the popular weed killer glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen.”

Although the overwhelming majority of research indicates glyphosate is safe, the International Agency for Research on Cancer went against the grain in 2016, deciding that glyphosate “probably” causes cancer in humans.

The highly controversial decision inspired California to require Proposition 65 cancer warnings on goods containing or exposed to glyphosate, like produce and wheat products. But California didn’t know the researcher who led IARC’s glyphosate evaluation had concealed significant amounts of his own research that strongly upheld glyphosate’s safety.

According to Reuters, IARC researcher Dr. Aaron Blair may have intentionally neglected to publish a study following tens of thousands of farmworkers and their families that revealed no association between glyphosate and a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the disease it’s most often (incorrectly) blamed for causing. The data likely would’ve led IARC to give glyphosate a clean bill of health, Blair admitted in a sworn deposition.

Californians became victims of his actions. The state’s Proposition 65 list mandates warnings that coffee, high heels, and now — backed by Blair’s omission — the world’s most widely used weed killer “may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer” and in some cases, “birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

It’s a useful concept: Let consumers know when a product could damage their health. But one of Proposition 65’s many flaws requires it automatically list substances IARC thinks causes cancer. IARC is notoriously loose in issuing cancer classifications and claims things like red meat, cell phones, and working the night shift are all potential human carcinogens. And after digging in its heels for over 25 years, IARC recently admitted that coffee doesn’t actually cause cancer. Oops.

Glyphosate fell into Proposition 65’s tangle despite twice passing the EPA safety tests required of all weed killers and being exonerated by the European Food Safety Authority and United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization as “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”

Because of IARC, glyphosate joins more than 900 chemicals on Proposition 65’s list. The “offenders” are so numerous, researchers with Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government recently raised their own concern: The state’s barrage of warnings on seemingly harmless items may condition Californians not to take their warning seriously at all.

They seem to be correct. Although Proposition 65 is in its 30th year, California’s rate of mesothelioma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and cervical, liver, ovarian, stomach, and testicular cancers are either no different from or higher than national averages.

Another flaw of Proposition 65 is its unique “bounty hunter” provision, which allows activist groups to enforce it via lawsuit and collect a portion of the penalties businesses pay for not labeling a product. With fines for a single violation reaching up to $2,500 per day, there is a huge incentive to make easy money off those who unknowingly violate the law.

Anti-glyphosate groups like Center for Environmental Health and As You Sow both claim to champion environmental and public health. But public records indicate the groups earned a combined $5.5 million exploiting businesses with Proposition 65 since 2000.

Businesses owners whose products would never realistically cause cancer or reproductive harm faced 760 lawsuits and were shaken down for more than $30 million last year alone for Prop. 65 violations — numbers that have more than doubled in recent years. With the innocuous top-selling weed killer officially joining the fold next year, that number is sure to increase.

There’s cause for optimism, though. Recently, Assemblyman Ed Chau introduced a bill to limit meritless lawsuits filed under Proposition 65, but the provision languished in the state Senate. Unfortunately, although a California Appellate Court decided IARC conclusions can’t justify automatically listing “possible” carcinogens, no legislation has tried to separate Proposition 65 from IARC’s shoddy classifications entirely.

Until Californians realize what little effect the excessive warnings on their sunglasses, pancake mix, and parking lots have on public health, Proposition 65’s lawsuit-inducing legacy and false sense of security will endure.

Dr. Joseph Perrone is the Chief Science Officer at the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Accountability in Science, which provides a balanced look at the science behind sensational headlines, and seeks to debunk junk science and correct public misconceptions.

Republicans owe their congressional majority to a simple promise: Repeal and replace Obamacare.

Although not all right-of-center voters put that goal first, the GOP ran hard against the health care status quo and won in multiple election cycles.

But so far, on the Hill, the party has struggled to make good on that victory. In the Senate, where the controversial House bill didn’t catch fire, a new and supposedly improved piece of legislation has stalled.

There still aren’t enough votes lined up to ensure passage. Reflecting and compounding the problem, public support for the bill has fallen to noteworthy lows. Republicans need to do better, and time is running short.

The trouble is that Senate leaders have attracted fire from both sides. Support for the overhaul is in the single digits among Democrats, but several polls show independents and Republicans also remarkably uneasy, with total support among all respondents languishing somewhere between about 12 and 27 percent. In some cases, this is a weaker showing than the much-maligned House bill, the American Health Care Act.

While critics on the left howl that the Senate bill unfairly moves away Medicaid resources while working in upper-end tax relief, some conservatives and libertarians have derided the arrangement as “Obamacare lite” — or even “Obamacare plus.” It’s hard to see the political wisdom in pressing forward with such a bill.

Supporters, however, do have some counterarguments. First, they argue, the bill’s unpopularity reflects skepticism over a secretive and insular process mishandled first by the Obama administration and the then-majority Democrats in Congress who passed Obamacare to begin with, ultimately creating more problems for the American health care system. House Republicans have repeated these errors.

Whatever the chances of winning over voters, there’s no denying that the Senate bill is a creature of Washington’s now typically tortured legislative process. Complex, interlocking rules about what kinds of laws can prevail with what degree of majority support have helped to ensure that big bills take the messy path toward passage. For example, in order to facilitate passage of the health care bill (as well as the forthcoming tax reform bill), Congress is using budget “reconciliation” rules to limit debate and avoid the possibility of a filiibuster in the Senate, though the rules also require a nexus to the budget, which could limit options on some policy reforms.

For many Republicans, the ideal way to proceed against Obamacare is a clean break, followed by a fresh start — virtually the opposite of what’s under way now. Surely, the GOP would not want to wait until repeal to sit down to the hard work of replacement.

But if the Senate isn’t careful, the current bill will serve to remind too many Republicans and independents what they like least about Washington, even if some of its substance would pay off down the road.

As it stands, the Senate bill isn’t where it needs to be for Republicans to get excited and get it passed. The good news is, with discipline and forthrightness, the GOP can show it’s ready and willing to see the hard work of lawmaking through to a successful end.

On the Fourth of July, Americans will celebrate our country’s birthday with beachside barbecues and firework fiestas. Independence Day commemorates our freedom from a tyrannical monarchy thousands of miles away.

But, more than 240 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a different tyranny besieges our democracy. In union America, employees are often left without a voice, ruled by the same union leadership for decades with little opportunity to remove or replace it.

Less than 10 percent of union members ever voted for the union currently “representing” them. Labor unions represent six million workers under the National Labor Relations Act. Only 478,000 of them — six percent — voted for union representation at some point in their careers. In most cases, union leadership is grandfathered into the workplace by a previous workforce, leaving current employees locked into a dues-paying structure if they wish to stay employed.

These same employees are not guaranteed the right to a secret ballot union election. Under current labor law, union officials can bypass a private vote by pressuring employees into signing authorization cards to unionize a workplace. This public card signings process leaves employees vulnerable to well-documented intimidation, whereby the union can be certified without an election ever taking place. According to the most recent National Labor Relations Board data, roughly 40 percent of union recognitions are achieved with card signatures instead of private votes.

Once a union is recognized, the workplace often stays unionized for decades. Re-votes are rare. As it stands now, employees are unable to periodically reassess their union leadership through scheduled recertification elections — even after the workforce has experienced substantial turnover.

Of course, the status quo would be adequate if union members approved of their representatives. But they don’t. According to a Rasmussen polling, only 25 percent of current and former union employees approve of union leadership. Most (57 percent) believe that union officials are “out of touch with their members.” Yet they’re stuck with representatives unresponsive to their interests.

What can be done? The democratization of union America begins with labor reform. The House Education and Workforce Committee recently held a hearing on the Employee Rights Act, the most comprehensive update to American labor law since the 1940s. Supported by 170 House and Senate members last session, the ERA would democratize the workplace by guaranteeing secret ballot votes and scheduled recertification elections. Without impeding collective bargaining, the bill would reinforce employees’ right to join or leave a union without fear of intimidation.

While union elites have predictably attacked the legislation, national and regional polls show that the overwhelming majority of union household voters support the ERA’s key provisions. Guaranteed secret ballots enjoy 80 percent approval among union households. The same goes for scheduled recertification votes. The federal criminalization of union violence, another ERA provision, hovers around 90 percent approval.

As the 2016 election showed, working Americans are crying for change. Congress should answer their cries and reform American labor law.

Freedom from tyranny is impossible without freedom in the workplace.

Luka Ladan is the communications director at the Center for Union Facts.

PARIS — Louis Vuitton’s widely anticipated collaboration with cult New York skatewear brand Supreme finally lands today, but don’t go looking for it in Vuitton stores.
In Paris, it’s available in a pop-up store on Rue Boucher, a temporary space near Vuitton’s headquarters. The collection, unveiled at Paris Men’s Fashion Week in January, will be sold exclusively through seven additional pop-ups in London, Miami, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul and Sydney.
With the exception of the Miami pop-up, located in an exhibition space on the third floor of Vuitton’s Design District store, the stores have no prior connection with either brand. The Sydney pop-up is located at 95 Roscoe Street in Bondi Beach, while the Tokyo space opened in the Minami Aoyama district.
Most of them will continue to trade until July 13, provided stocks last.
The brand revealed the locations on Instagram on Thursday and in addition to local digital campaigns, it plans to place ads in a major newspaper in each country, and local newspapers in Miami and Los Angeles. Lines started to form immediately.
The tie-up is the most visible sign yet of how streetwear brands are challenging the dominance of luxury labels in the hearts and minds of younger consumers. By partnering

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

PARIS — Among highlights in the jam-packed couture Paris Couture Week schedule, Chloé on July 2 will throw a housewarming party for its new multifunctional cultural space, Maison Chloé, kicking off with the inaugural temporary exhibition, “Femininities — Guy Bourdin.”
Located at 28 Rue de La Baume in the 8th arrondissement, a hop away from the brand’s headquarters on Avenue Percier, the lovingly restored, five-story, Haussmann-style building (think light herringbone parquet flooring and marble fireplaces) will have both a public and private function. It is home to the Chloé showrooms, VIP fitting rooms and working archives, but also boasts exhibition halls and events spaces, with a program of exhibitions designed to create a dialogue and provoke reflections around the subject of femininity and the story of the Chloé girl.
“Chloé girls now have a maison,” said Geoffroy de la Bourdonnaye, the brand’s chief executive officer. He described the site as being “open to all artistic expression [around femininity], a canvas of feminine freedom open to the world.”
“[House founder] Gaby Aghion dared to challenge the haute couture status. She hired haute couture talents to invent luxury ready-to-wear. She wanted to be independent, to work, but also look feminine and elegant therefore she injected

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

To say that logomania is back is a bit like declaring that shirts with two sleeves are having a moment. Since blatant branding as fashion statement swept into style in the Eighties, and then again in the Nineties and early Aughts, it’s ebbed and flowed as trends do without ever really disappearing.
“Oh, those things come and go,” says Tom Ford, who knows a thing or two about searing — or shaving — a logo into the public consciousness when he was the creative director of Gucci. “I mean, don’t you remember the season when everything was G-G-G-G-G and I shaved the G in the G-spot because logomania had hit a point where it was ridiculous?” Indeed, it’s difficult to forget the famous 2003 Gucci campaign for which he shaved Carmen Kass’ pubic hair into the shape of a Gucci G.
Two years into his tenure at Gucci, Alessandro Michele has yet to revive branded loins (one imagines his maximalist magpies might prefer a more au naturel grooming regimen), but he has certainly resuscitated the house logo in a phenomenal way. As have Michele’s fellow European luxury house creative heads including Maria Grazia Chiuri at Dior, Demna Gvasalia at Balenciaga and Jeremy

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

PARIS — Paris Couture Week kicks off Sunday with an extra day of shows on the schedule, signaling that the City of Light is regaining its luster following a year marred by the aftershocks of terrorist attacks.
France’s Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture has welcomed five brands as guest members on this season’s schedule.
Proenza Schouler, Rodarte, Azzaro, A.F. Vandevorst and Ronald van der Kemp will all show on the first day, which also features a busy schedule of parties, including the opening of Maison Chloé, the French house’s new exhibition space, and events hosted by jewelers Chaumet, Chopard and Tasaki.
Iris van Herpen will celebrate its 10th anniversary on Monday with a party and a new collaboration with Swarovski on crystals used for clothes and accessories.
The major event of the season will be the opening of “Christian Dior, Couturier du Rêve” (“Christian Dior, Dream Couturier” in English) at Les Arts Décoratifs, marking the 70th anniversary of the house. The Paris museum is billing the retrospective as its largest fashion exhibition to date in terms of size.
“I hope it will be a defining moment for Dior, a defining moment for couture week and a defining moment for Paris,” said Sidney Toledano, chief executive officer of

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…

AG is set to bring its premium denim to Houston.
The company on Friday opens its 14th store in the U.S. at The Galleria mall in Houston, marking the company’s second Texas location after Dallas NorthPark. AG also counts one store in Japan.
Sid Dey, AG’s director of retail, called the 2015 opening of the company’s Dallas store a “great success” that helped inform the decision to open the latest unit.
AG becomes a part of The Galleria’s major redevelopment. The mall’s owner, Simon Property Group Inc., plugged $250 million into a number of major improvements at the center, with work commencing in 2015. The revamp included the relocation of Saks Fifth Avenue to a new building. The department store’s former space at the mall was used to create 110,000 square feet of new retail dedicated to specialty stores.
The Houston AG store, totaling 1,800 square feet, is stocked with the same merchandise found at other AG locations with a design similar to the Newport Beach door that bowed in February. There are custom-made fixtures, Italian black tile floors and a digital wall.
“In general, we try to keep elevating the store designs with every store and you learn from previous stores and see how

Follow WWD on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook.

Read More…