Quarterback Tom Brady and wide receivers Wes Welker and Randy Moss are the core of the New England Patriots offense (and, by extension) the whole darn team and the crowd paid close attention to everything they did the Sunday morning training camp practice I attended on August 1, 2010. The spectators cheered Welker’s catches in particular since his comeback from the knee-injury he suffered late in 2009 has been remarkably quick.

Brady, Welker and Moss all looked sharp, although Moss seemed to be, shall we say, pacing himself. Unsurprisingly, he was involved in a light-hearted moment during the practice. After Brady and he failed to connect on a deep pass down the left sideline a security guard attempted to throw the ball underhandedly to Moss. The pass was mildly off which prompted Moss to run over to the crowd and throw the ball to a kid wearing a Brady jersey. Moss then asked the kid to throw him and underhanded pass which the young Brady successfully did, provoking a crowd-pleasing celebration by Moss.

I believe the photo below is of Welker’s first catch in pads at the 2010 camp.

Here a few pictures from the first weekend of the New England Patriots 2010 training camp. Most of the photos are from the Sunday morning practice.

Wide receiver Darnell Jenkins strecthed out to make a leaping catch along the sideline.

(Compare to a similar catch by Bam Childress in 2007.)

Last year’s rookie sensation Julian Edelman, who played quarterback at Kent State but switched to wide receiver for the Patriots.

Tom Brady looked sharp throwing ins, outs, posts and what looked like post-corner patterns.

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady gives backup wider receiver Sam Aiken a few pointers.

A picture of Matt Light at the walk-through practice on Saturday morning.

The Saturday morning crowd.

Mass Inc.’s magazine CommonWealth has a terrific interview with Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. You should absolutely read the interview. I’ll include just this one brief quote in which he addresses Massachusetts’s jaw-droppingly weak job creation performance over the past two decades:

We put too many of our eggs in too small a number of baskets, and what you’ve got is an overdependence on health care and social services.

That is, an over reliance on the tax privileged non-profit sector.

Many, many more gems - including lots of hard data - can be found in the interview so go read it.

There was on accident on the westbound I-90/Massachusetts Turnpike about a mile east of the Natick exit/Route 30 on Friday July 2, 2010.

We were first alerted that something was going on when a couple of unmarked State police cruisers came flying down the left lane (where they were naturally slowed down by Massholes who paid zero attention to what was going on behind them) on the eastbound side. At the drive through at the McDonald’s restaurant at the Natick rest stop we saw the Natick Fire Department cut through the rest stop to get to the accident as quickly as possible. Eventually we meandered are way to the actual accident scene. Here are some photos of the whole thing:

What was Boston’s population in 2005? That depends on when you asked the question.

Last week the United States Census Bureau released its latest population estimate for cities and towns with at least 100,000 people. The estimate for Boston was 645,000, crowning a rather spectacular turnaround for the estimate of the city’s population size. The table below shows how the estimates for the city’s population size has changed over the past decade, going from showing a loss of 30,000 people to a gain of 55,000.

The row for 2000 how the city’s population according to the 2000 census.

The red cells indicate estimates that were lower than the city’s population in 2000.

There is a certain ebb and flow in the debate over whether U.S.-style capitalism is better than Europe’s welfare economies or vice versa. Most of the time the U.S. has the upper hand while Europeans and their American advocates play defense, but every now and then Europe enjoys a stretch of faster of faster growth and seemingly brighter future, and by extension, playground bragging rights

Naturally, neither place can solve its problems by somehow outperforming - or out debating - the other, and both Europe and America may very well end up in the same place that Greece is finding itself these days: Bankruptcy.

New York Times reporter David Leonhardt notes that as comical as the fiscal follies of the Greeks may seem, there’s no particular reason to believe that America is immune from the illness that is besetting Greek society:

The numbers on our federal debt are becoming frighteningly familiar. The debt is projected to equal 140 percent of gross domestic product within two decades. Add in the budget troubles of state governments, and the true shortfall grows even larger. Greece’s debt, by comparison, equals about 115 percent of its G.D.P. today.

America has long been plagued by federal budget deficits and an international trade deficit, yet the nation’s appetite for both increased government spending and increased private consumption have grown relentlessly. As Leonhardt writes, Americans are, collectively, “in favor of Medicare, Social Security, good schools, wide highways, a strong military — and low taxes.”

This path will inevitably lead to ruin. Can America change its ways before it is too late and various economic and fiscal emergency measures are required in order to< accommodate foreign lenders? Maybe, maybe not. Most people, I dare say, are like the Greeks when it comes to austerity measures: They deem them necessary burdens that should be shouldered by others.

In that spirit I strongly oppose any increase in tax rates. However, there are sacrifices I think are quite tolerable given the situations we’re in and heading towards. So how about curtailing spending and saving with pre-tax or tax-exempted income? Let’s get rid of 401(k) and IRA, and let’s reduce the deductions for health care insurance, mortgage interest payments, and charitable donations. By reducing exemptions and deductions the tax base is increased even though nominal tax rates aren’t.

While Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain struggle with the over-expanded and under-funded public sectors most northern European countries, including Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, have taken steps to improve the long-term viability of their welfare states. The experiences in those countries suggest that drastic measures aren’t necessary if enough small steps are taken before economic apocalypse sets in.

But there will be pain and it should touch everyone, rich or poor, healthy or sick, young or old.

If yes, write some drivel for Boston.com/Boston Globe about immigration. Any junk will do as long as it is in favor of immigration and wildly distorts and omits facts.

The young whippersnapper matching wits with two seasoned and weary veterans with a company’s future on the line. Am I thinking of The Bug Kahuna, In Good Company or Up In The Air? All three actually, but it is Up In The Air that has the widest and deepest approval by the cinerati, including an Oscar nomination for Best Motion Picture.

All three movies have their flaws but the over wrought Kahuna more so than the other two. In Good Company is far more visual than the talkative Up In The Air (which at one stretch reminded me of Before Sunrise) but the mini Romeo and Juliette romance in it is a bit manufactured, and there’s also an almost bizarre workplace confrontation between the protagonist and the corporations globalist CEO.

Up In The Air earned most of its buzz and emotional punch from what really is a sideshow, namely the hardship caused by the mass layoffs during the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a middle aged workplace separation specialist whose job is to inform his clients’ employees that their positions are no longer available. Bingham describes himself as the man who does the job bosses are too scared to do themselves, but I suppose one can argue that he also helps companies right-size their workforces (to use a eupheism that was popular several years ago) without needlessly provoking lawsuits because of some middle manager’s emotional babbling. In other words, he’s compensating for incompetence as much as cowardice.

The kind of termination service that Bingham and his employees provide are mostly used by corporation since they are expensive. In addition to the actual termination they also provide so-called career transition or outplacement services. Wholly useless services, of course. I imagine companies use them in an attempt to distract the laid-off workers for a few months.

Having been laid-off twice I suppose I have gained some exposure to Bingham’s line of work, although in both cases the terminations were handled internally and only in one case did my severance package include outplacement services.

Layoffs create quite a bit of fear and anxiety and it’s common for the directly and indirectly affected to lash out against how the terminations happened.

I don’t think there is a good way to end a person’s career. Some ways are likely better than others, but in the end it is the end.

In my case it happened in similar ways but under different circumstances. The first time it was a long-anticipated day of figurative blood letting during which the culled were called in to their manager’s office one at a time. There was no bullshit or sugar coating, just the rueful passing of the news and matter-of-factly information about the severance package. I was given the opportunity to express my feelings, presumably meant as a catharsis for the terminated. I simply stated that I understood company’s situation, options and ultimate decision.

After the brief meeting I was given 15 minutes to gather up my belongings and say goodbyes before another manager walked me out of the building to the parking lot. The company had hired two armed off-duty police officers in case things went awry but as far as I know their were like mine: not required.

I don’t know how the company could have done it better, but there were still tears spilled, and, surely mutterings of “I can’t believe they…”

The severance package was rather generous by industry standards and included, yes, several months of career transition assistance. What a load that was. It was basically an exercise in resume writing, the kind of inane stuff that you can find on countless so-called garbitrage web sites that display an astounding number of Google AdSense ads on each page. They also had a database with current job openings. Like Monster.com. What a waste of money (but maybe not time since I had to conduct my job search somewhere).

But it’s one thing be laid off when you’re 32 and work in an expanding industry. It surely must be a whole different kind of ball game when you’re in that precarious limbo after you’ve passed hireable age (50-55) but before Social Security and or pension eligibility, and you work in a declining industry that basically has no particular need for your skills, or, if it does, can acquire those skills for half the cost. It is rarely easy to recoup one’s earnings potential after getting the boot. It must be desperately difficult in that situation.

That desperation is what gives Up In The Air its gravitas. Most of the faces of laid off people in the movie are actually amateurs who themselves had been laid off. But it is a true professional - JK Simmons - who delivers the performance that allows Clooney to showcase Bingham’s brilliant con arstistry. Bingham manages to make the ageing, just terminated employee feel victimized not by his termination but by the preceding years of employment. Termination becomes liberation. At least for that fleeting moment and that’s all Bingham needs.

But Bingham is not only a professional corporate Grim Reaper, he is a also frequent flier-miles junky. He flies so much that his nominal home is a one bedroom apartment that means nothing to him. When asked during during a plane ride where he is from his answer is a plain “here.” His goal is to become a member of his chosen airline’s 10 million miles club, which has only six members. His journey to the milestone is aided by high-end rewards-club memberships he is already in possession of thanks to his nearly non-stop travelling.

Oddly, Bingham also fancies himself a motivational speaker. While the typical motivationbal speaker seeks to convince his listerners that they can become wealthy and popular, maybe even rich and famous, if they only unleash their inner awesomeness, Bingham tells his audiences get rid of their material belongings and cut loose from all personal relationship. That’s not motivational speaking, that’s the lunatic ravings of a cult leader.

The parallel between the detachment of Bingham’s personal life and the detachment he foists upon others in his professional life are painfully obvious yet hammered into the viewer over and over in tedious dialouges.

Much like the seasoned sales manager in In Good Company has his corporate existence threatened by a young go-getter Bingham has his world turned upside down by a young woman with a degree from Cornell.

The screenplay places their company’s headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, to where she moves to follow her boyfriend from college. Apparently unable to get a job with Warren Buffet or Jeremy Shoemaker she signs on with Bingham’s career transition company where she promptly sets out to make waves.

Her pitch is that the company should centralize its operations and fire people over the Internet, thus bringing an end to Bingham’s aero-nomadic lifestyle. Who will prevail?

You probably won’t care because the movie veers wildly off track after a strong start. The bluff upon which the movie’s hype is built is called. The whole business about getting axed from one’s job is just a sideshow. The real story is about loneliness, whether its Bingham’s self-elected solo-journey under the stars or his young colleague’s unsolicited loneliness after she’s dumped.

That’s not particularly interesting and that part of the movie isn’t particularly well made. It is a bit of a mystery to me how Up In The Air landed as much praise as it did.

The City of Boston wants more money from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In a report released on April 21 the city argues that it should get more state aid because:

1) Its share of the state’s population (9.5%, according to the report) exceeds its share “net state aid” (8.4%).

2) Its share of the state’s economy exceeds its share of the population.

What the report doesn’t mention is that the city’s K-12 population is a mere (5.7% of the state’s K-12 population). One would think that students require a lot more government spending than do,say, 20-34 year olds:

In 2006-2008, approximately 30% of Boston’s population was 20-34 years old – the second highest percentage of that age group within the twenty-five largest U.S. cities– whereas the 20-34 age group made up less than 19% of the population in the remainder of the state.

Perhaps the city should demand that a larger share of Social Security disbursements be directed to the city’s key demographic group.

The economic case for Boston getting more state aid isn’t so strong either. As the report points out in an unfortunate moment of self-pity, a big chunk of the city’s economy is made up of tax privileged non-profit organizations. In other words, Boston’s economic fortunes are built on direct and indirect tax subsidies and therefore the city wants even more tax subsidies in the form of additional state aid.

It would be interesting to learn if Boston’s mayor Thomas M. Menino really wants “net state aid” to be distributed based on population share. I can’t say I would be against such a distribution system but I imagine that most of the mayor’s fellow democrats - especially his fellow Democratic mayors - would be rather upset if the Commonwealth adopted such a distribution formula.

(Via Universal Hub)

“This changes everything.”

That’s what one developer told me as he watched Apple’s Steve Jobs demonstrate iAds at a keynote speech introducing OS4 for iPhone.

iAds are ads displayed inside apps that run on iPhones and iPads. The supposed value-add of iAd ads is that they combine the emotional impact of TV commercials with the interactivity of the web. The market strength of iAds is that, according to Jobs, while search dominates desktop computer usage apps dominate the mobile experience. Hence, in Apple powered smartphones and other mobile devices, Apple will become the Google of ad revenue.

60% of iAd revenue will go to developers.

No doubt will there be success stories where one-man or few-man operations rake in big bucks through iAds by developing applications that become hugely popular among iPhone users.

For the vast majority of app developers i see iAds functioning as little more than yet another aggregation network, or, if you will, adgregation network, where thousands of developers will average a few dollars in iAd revenue while Apple will pocket that times the number of apps (strictly speaking 2/3 of that times the number of apps). As is usually the case, the aggregating network wins. The house wins, to use an analogy.

That’s not necessarily such a terrible thing. I imagine the churn among app developers will be huge as young men and boys put in a year or three to strike it rich on their own in Apple’s app world and then move on when it doesn’t pan out. Not an uncommon story in the development world and certainly not one Apple should be shamed for taking part in.

Will iAds work for advertisers? Unless Apple completely screws things up it will most certainly work for some set of advertisers. Perhaps the sweetspot will be a combination of impulse and location ads. I doubt it will be slick brand ads of the type Jobs demoed at the keynote (by the way, the fake ads Apple had created were for a children’s movie, a back-to-school campaign, and one for the perpetually immature Nike. No further comment necessary).

The value proposition for iAds put forth by Jobs - emotional pull plus interactivity - is probably not as strong as he argues. Smartphone users tend to be captivated by their phones when they engage in texting. It hardly follows that other forms of use - watching video, playing games, browsing reviews, sampling music or what have you - is as engaging. There will no doubt be campaigns that combine various aspects of the iPhone to create gimmicky hooks that will translate into substantial sales (imagine a campaign that combines app ads with QSR scanning and the iPhone shake) but by and large iAds advertising will be just like any other advertising, a hit-or-miss proposition. Periodically Apple will announce features or improvements that will address concerns voiced by advertisers unhappy with their iAds ROI.

There should be room for quite a bit of experimenting by advertisers since iPhone apps generate one billion impressions a day according to Jobs. That should result in really low CPM rates.

(But as John Gruber points out on Daring Fireball, Jobs wasn’t pitching advertisers as much as agency people who want to make splashy ads rather than craft AdWords copy that converts on mundane searches)

Robert Niles has thoughts at Online Journalism Review on what Apple needs to do to make iAds work. One key question is how easy iAds will be to use for small-scale advertisers. Jobs doesn’t strike me as a guy who cares about small scale, and, again, he seems to be speaking primarily to agencies. We’ll see.