Wow. The only reaction that seems to come out of my mouth is Wow. Within a week, two (formerly) beloved stars of their respective sports have been embroiled in preposterous and staggering lies; their stories erupting in a volcano of deceit and moral depravity. There have been many famous sports scandals from the 1919 Black Sox to Penn St. and Jerry Sandusky. However, what sets these two apart, more so than others, is the nature in which their stories (and ultimately their lies) were used to further the mythological stature each of these two men shared. The lies became part of their narrative: Lance Armstrong as the Cancer survivor resisting the use of performance enhancing drugs, becoming a beacon of light in a darkened sport; Manti Te'o as the All American Linebacker overcoming unspeakable tragedy to lead "America's" Team to a perfect regular season. Both men created an intricate and inexhaustible web, a web which ultimately left them trapped in their own hand-spun artifices. In the end, lies can only last so long.
Yet, there is something that strikes you with Armstrong and Te'o, in different ways. For Lance it is the astonishing length at which he clouded the world's view of him, disparaging others (a list so large there was no one left to defend him) and even filing lawsuits, and winning, against those who had the courage to speak the truth. Lance went on camera time and time again, to reassure the world that the newest teammate or competitor claiming he used PEDs was a manipulative liar, bent on destroying him and his sterling reputation solely out of some form of retribution (he was actually talking about himself). We wanted to believe Lance Armstrong. We wanted to believe that his incredible story was pure and true; it was too perfect, too inspirational, too amazing, too unbelievable. What about those yellow bracelets? And the Foundation which he founded that has raised nearly 500 Million Dollars for Cancer research? What it is so mind-boggling about Lance is that, in the end, the steroid use won't be what spawns our hatred of him. It is the incessant lying to our face over and over and over again. Not for days or weeks, months or a couple years, but for a decade. The vitriol directed at the likes of Mark McGwire or Alex Rodriguez for their steroid use will pale in comparison to the hatred that will follow Lance in the years ahead. In a world where nothing is what it seems, Lance Armstrong embodied the best the human spirit had to offer. And in one fell swoop he has shown us the worst. Or so we thought. Enter: Manti Te'o.
Te'o is less cut and dry at this moment. He has not confessed to orchestrating an elaborate hoax. In fact, he released a statement claiming he was the victim. His Athletic Director, Jack Swarbrick, was teary-eyed at a press conference defending the star linebacker. Yet, I find little comfort in his claim that he is a victim. Maybe, just maybe, he could plead ignorance. Maybe he can claim that he didn't know; that he actually thought he was in love with this imaginary person. Maybe he can tell us how it would be nonsensical to devise such an elaborate scheme, and maybe, like Lance Armstrong, he will buttress his claim with the sterling reputation that precedes him. I simply do not believe him. It is eerily reminiscent of college football titan, Joe Paterno, who owned a similarly impeccable reputation as Te'o does. Paterno claimed he didn't know what was happening for so many years. Paterno claimed no viable information was presented to him to warrant taking real action (other than telling his superior), such as telling the police or ensuring Sandusky never set foot on the Penn St. campus again. T'eo will find himself in a similar predicament. Either he was complicit or simply kept his eyes shut. Might I ask why after "her" death, he didn't meet with "her" family or attend any funeral services? Yes, he claims that "she" told him not to attend the funeral, but why not travel after the funeral and mourn with the family? Why not visit "her" grave after the funeral? Why do absolutely nothing following "her" death? Did "she" issue a directive that Te'o could not meet "her" family after the death? Did I mention "her" funeral supposedly took place in Carson, California, which is an astonishing twenty minutes driving from USC, where Te'o played about a month after "her" death? Would Brian Kelly have said "no" if Te'o asked for a couple hours to spend with his "girlfriend's" family? I think not. And what about the fact that he claimed he met "her"? Or that his father, Brian, claimed they would meet in Hawaii? Did someone really take the incalculable time and effort to create and perpetuate a lie of this magnitude, which would include paying a girl to talk every night with Te'o? Am I to believe Manti Te'o, who is smart enough to play middle linebacker (the play caller on defense) at Notre Dame, as well as graduating in 3.5 years with a major in Design and a 3.3 GPA, is not smart enough to figure out something may be a little fishy? Just as Lance used his lies to perpetuate his narrative, Te'o did the same. Te'o grabbed our hearts and put them in a choke hold. We became captivated by the story of a young man, overcoming unbelievable tragedy to lead Notre Dame back to its former glory. He had a sterling reputation not just as a football player, but as a man.
Lance will go on Oprah today and confess his sins and admit wrongdoing. But don't let him fool you. This was not some noble gesture by Lance acting out of the goodness of his heart. When the damning report from USADA was presented a few months ago, Lance was defiant. His lawyer attacked the credibility of the report (there were 26 sworn statements, including 15 from cyclists, against Lance) claiming it was a "tabloid piece". When the Tour de France stripped him of his titles, he tweeted a picture of himself lounging on a couch with the seven yellow jerseys he won with the caption, "Back in Austin and just layin' around..." The arrogance is palpable, coming from a man who actively lied for a decade about his steroid use. It takes a special breed to come back from Cancer and win the Tour de France seven times. It also takes a special breed to lie in such a manipulative fashion while still being able to rest your head at night; I'm not sure which is more remarkable.
The true story of Manti Te'o will come to the forefront, as it did with Lance Armstrong. Secrets, in this information age, only stay secrets for so long. When the whole story comes out, a very different picture of Manti Te'o will emerge, and I can guarantee the negative feelings we harbor toward Lance will permeate our thoughts of Manti Te'o. In the end, we are left to ponder if there is ever any truth in this world. There may be none, except for one thing: nothing is ever what it seems.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A Second Look at the Second Amendment
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if an alien, from another world with the same general intellectual capacity as humans, were to come to Earth to stay at my house. How would it react to the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. What would that alien think about our gun laws? Or the incessant violence as a result of our guns laws? Or the reaction by politicians and pundits on both sides? What would a completely blank slate, not swayed by the rhetoric coming from every angle of our society about guns, think about the proper way to take action after this tragedy? I think we can all be certain that the answer would not be more guns; unfortunately we don't have aliens making decisions in our country, although we might be better off if that were the case. The closest we have to aliens are every other developed, industrialized country in the world whose deaths from gun violence are morphed by the great United States. Yet, even with all of the information we have gleaned from European countries which includes, but is not limited to, our entire legal system, automobiles, art, science, and mathematics, it seems information on gun control from Europe need not apply.
There is something fundamentally wrong with our society when many consider the upcoming battle for gun control an uphill one, which will be met with powerful, passionate, and fierce opposition. How can you not favor, after such a brutal slaughter of innocence, a complete overhaul or at least a drastic change in our current system? How can some people, even elected representatives, claim that more guns are needed to keep our children safe? In the wake of these frighteningly common shootings, the answers which seem so simple and common-sense, become more evasive and implausible.
What is so disheartening and downright mind boggling at times, is the logic of those proponents of expansive interpretations of the Second Amendment, like the one held by the NRA. The Second Amendment is very subjective; in fact the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a new phenomenon, which only began a few decades ago. The NRA essentially turned guns into a political fight. A fight against less government, which has allowed for private citizens to buy and own some of the deadliest weapons on Earth, at ease. The common theme among those in this group, is that guns are used to prevent crime, and if someone had possessed a gun during the tragic shooting, deaths could have been prevented. In other words, more armed citizens will help to prevent crime. It suffices to say this logic is absurd, but it isn't the reasoning that is most problematic, but rather the underlying belief behind the reasoning. The disturbing aspect is that those who make such outrageous comments, make a subtle admission that these events are unavoidable. In essence, they are saying that shootings are going to happen, and we must arm ourselves so that in the event something like this occurs, we can protect ourselves. Bad people do bad things, and there is nothing we can do about it. This acceptance of the consequences of the Second Amendment, are consequences I am unwilling to accept. Why should I? Why don't we simply eliminate the threat all together, by doing what every other developed country has already done; placing severe restrictions on private gun ownership. Why should I accept that shootings at schools will invariably occur, and the only way to prevent more casualties is to have the teachers armed? Why not enact laws that make it so the guns can't be acquired in the first place? This, of course, would render the Second Amendment a shell of its current from. But if that saved someone's life, like the life of a child, wouldn't you do it in a heartbeat?
This goes to the core of the fight over gun control. It is an issue of framing the argument, and those who favor gun control have done an extremely poor job. The NRA is very wealthy and very well organized. They have done a tremendous job at advancing their views of the Second Amendment; using politicians to ensure gun legislation is not passed. There is no organization on the other side that even compares in scope and effectiveness to the NRA. What gun-control advocates must come to terms with is that the changes that are being proposed should be the starting point, not the end. Banning assault rifles, tightening regulations, and providing better access to mental health facilities will help, but will not cure the problem. There must be an understanding that the modern day Second Amendment interpretation has failed. It doesn't work. More guns does not mean more safety. If we want to save lives, allowing unfettered access to any gun must be abolished. We must rid ourselves of this notion that every law-abiding citizen has the right to privately own a gun. If you don't want mass shootings then that is the truth we must accept. Providing more guns to law-abiding citizens, on a rare occasion, may save someone's life, but it will never fix the bigger issue. There is a clear choice to be made. If the NRA wishes to continue its quest for a nation of bountiful guns, they must also accept that there will shootings in malls, houses of worship, and in schools. The two go hand in hand. It will be impossible to drastically reduce our gun fatalities if the system doesn't change. If the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms, don't children, who are not allowed to possess a gun, have rights too? Children are at the mercy of the adults who make decisions. We are the ones who determine the life we want our kids to live; it is a grave duty we hold. Thus we must choose: guns or our children. The two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have both. It is a solemn promise, but if gun laws do not undergo a drastic change and overhaul, more children will be killed by guns.
Imagine that the alien who came to Earth to stay with you was curious about America and started asking questions about guns. Imagine you told the alien that Sandy Hook was not the first time, or even the second time something like this had happened. Imagine if you told the alien that in the past 6 months alone, there was a shooting at a mall that killed two people, a shooting a Sikh temple that killed 6 people, and a shooting a movie theater that killed 12. Imagine the alien's shock and disbelief. Then you can tell it that in 1999, 13 people were murdered in a school shooting and that in 2007, 32 people were murdered in a school shooting. And then you can mention that 6 people, including a nine year old girl, were killed outside a grocery store; an attack which left a United States congresswoman with a bullet wound to her head. Imagine the alien's reaction when you told the alien that the gun used to kill 20 children was the civilian version of the M-16, a gun used by soldiers in war zones. You can describe to the alien that the bullets in the gun fragment inside the body and cause devastating internal injuries, which is why they are used by soldiers to kill enemy combatants. The next day the alien is gone. You wonder where he went and you find a note he has left for you. "I have left the United States and returned to my planet. I feel much safer there."
What is so disheartening and downright mind boggling at times, is the logic of those proponents of expansive interpretations of the Second Amendment, like the one held by the NRA. The Second Amendment is very subjective; in fact the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a new phenomenon, which only began a few decades ago. The NRA essentially turned guns into a political fight. A fight against less government, which has allowed for private citizens to buy and own some of the deadliest weapons on Earth, at ease. The common theme among those in this group, is that guns are used to prevent crime, and if someone had possessed a gun during the tragic shooting, deaths could have been prevented. In other words, more armed citizens will help to prevent crime. It suffices to say this logic is absurd, but it isn't the reasoning that is most problematic, but rather the underlying belief behind the reasoning. The disturbing aspect is that those who make such outrageous comments, make a subtle admission that these events are unavoidable. In essence, they are saying that shootings are going to happen, and we must arm ourselves so that in the event something like this occurs, we can protect ourselves. Bad people do bad things, and there is nothing we can do about it. This acceptance of the consequences of the Second Amendment, are consequences I am unwilling to accept. Why should I? Why don't we simply eliminate the threat all together, by doing what every other developed country has already done; placing severe restrictions on private gun ownership. Why should I accept that shootings at schools will invariably occur, and the only way to prevent more casualties is to have the teachers armed? Why not enact laws that make it so the guns can't be acquired in the first place? This, of course, would render the Second Amendment a shell of its current from. But if that saved someone's life, like the life of a child, wouldn't you do it in a heartbeat?
This goes to the core of the fight over gun control. It is an issue of framing the argument, and those who favor gun control have done an extremely poor job. The NRA is very wealthy and very well organized. They have done a tremendous job at advancing their views of the Second Amendment; using politicians to ensure gun legislation is not passed. There is no organization on the other side that even compares in scope and effectiveness to the NRA. What gun-control advocates must come to terms with is that the changes that are being proposed should be the starting point, not the end. Banning assault rifles, tightening regulations, and providing better access to mental health facilities will help, but will not cure the problem. There must be an understanding that the modern day Second Amendment interpretation has failed. It doesn't work. More guns does not mean more safety. If we want to save lives, allowing unfettered access to any gun must be abolished. We must rid ourselves of this notion that every law-abiding citizen has the right to privately own a gun. If you don't want mass shootings then that is the truth we must accept. Providing more guns to law-abiding citizens, on a rare occasion, may save someone's life, but it will never fix the bigger issue. There is a clear choice to be made. If the NRA wishes to continue its quest for a nation of bountiful guns, they must also accept that there will shootings in malls, houses of worship, and in schools. The two go hand in hand. It will be impossible to drastically reduce our gun fatalities if the system doesn't change. If the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms, don't children, who are not allowed to possess a gun, have rights too? Children are at the mercy of the adults who make decisions. We are the ones who determine the life we want our kids to live; it is a grave duty we hold. Thus we must choose: guns or our children. The two are mutually exclusive. We cannot have both. It is a solemn promise, but if gun laws do not undergo a drastic change and overhaul, more children will be killed by guns.
Imagine that the alien who came to Earth to stay with you was curious about America and started asking questions about guns. Imagine you told the alien that Sandy Hook was not the first time, or even the second time something like this had happened. Imagine if you told the alien that in the past 6 months alone, there was a shooting at a mall that killed two people, a shooting a Sikh temple that killed 6 people, and a shooting a movie theater that killed 12. Imagine the alien's shock and disbelief. Then you can tell it that in 1999, 13 people were murdered in a school shooting and that in 2007, 32 people were murdered in a school shooting. And then you can mention that 6 people, including a nine year old girl, were killed outside a grocery store; an attack which left a United States congresswoman with a bullet wound to her head. Imagine the alien's reaction when you told the alien that the gun used to kill 20 children was the civilian version of the M-16, a gun used by soldiers in war zones. You can describe to the alien that the bullets in the gun fragment inside the body and cause devastating internal injuries, which is why they are used by soldiers to kill enemy combatants. The next day the alien is gone. You wonder where he went and you find a note he has left for you. "I have left the United States and returned to my planet. I feel much safer there."
Friday, June 8, 2012
Hating LeBron
Why Game 6 Validated Our Hatred
LeBron James has been under more scrutiny than any other athlete in the history of American sports. Since James has been able to drive, he has endured an inhumane level of scrutiny that has left an indelible mark on him. Imagine how difficult it must be (in fact there is no need to imagine since it is impossible) to live a normal life with that level of scrutiny. At 18, when he was in High School he was actually suspended for receiving two free jerseys. In High School! How big must the microscope have been, for an 18 year old to be suspended for not saying no when he was offered two sports jerseys? How insane is that?
There are a couple of reasons why the scrutiny has been so great. The first and most obvious reason is that basketball is more individualized than any other major sport. Football is the ultimate team sport, and stars play on only side of the ball, so you may only see them half of the game. In addition, every play is dependent on another. During any given play, so many factors must be perfectly in place or the play breaks down. If the receiver runs the wrong route that quarterback cannot thrown him the ball and if he does run the right route, and the left tackle misses his assignment, the play breaks down anyways. Baseball players, depending on position are involved intermittently. Starting pitchers pitch once every five games, and relievers you may only see for one inning. Position players will likely bat 4-5 times a game, 1 out of every 9 total at bats. However, in basketball the factors don't change. The weather is always the same as is the ball, and the hoop never moves. You don't need to worry about receivers or offensive linemen. Players play offense and defense, and can theoretically play an entire game. LeBron can hold the fate of the game directly in his hands. He can single-handedly do more to effect the outcome than in any other sport (See Game 6). The control lies solely with that individual player on a daily basis in basketball, more so than any other sport.
The other reason, unfortunately has nothing to with sports, but rather with the world LeBron grew up in. There are two major factors, both of which, are in some fashion related to each other. The Internet and Television News. Technological advances were sweeping the country in the early 2000s, and soon the world would become more connected than ever before. The advent of social media, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube coincided almost directly with his emergence as a young NBA star. Now, when something occurs, regardless of how inconsequential it may be, the video is on YouTube. Everyone is talking about it on Facebook. Everyone is Tweeting about it. And every blog is writing about it. And that is all within a few minutes. And You can access the information regardless of where you are. You don't need to wait for your dial-up on your home computer to boot up. Instead, you can just look at your IPhone or IPad or MacBook, which can all be accessed at any location. So, you can be at a wedding in Texas, and know instantaneously what happened in Boston 10 minutes earlier, just by looking at your phone. Amazing.
There is also the 24 hour news cycle, where grabbing the attention of a viewer became the main focus, rather than substantive reporting. News had always had sensationalist aspects, but because news is everywhere, all the time, so is the sensationalism. At one point, many years ago, you had the news in the morning, and then would wait until the next morning for more news. Now, you get the news every hour, on the hour. Now, many news organizations have simply abandoned being balanced. If they can appeal to a base, just like any other commercial product, why report both sides, when reporting to one side is more profitable? News is about catching your eye, not holding your attention, where every movement and every word becomes overly and unnecessarily scrutinized. These two aspects of our world are now constantly intertwined, enlarging the microscope LeBron has been under since 16. In essence, LeBron has been caught up in a perfect storm. A storm that the other greats of the NBA never went through. Larry and Magic never had to deal with anything close and Jordan got out right before it started. This is a new phenomenon, a giant social experiment, and LeBron has been our guinea pig.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been many child prodigies throughout the years. Some pan out, others do not. LeBron was one of them. He was a magnificent High School basketball star. His perfectly chiseled body seemed to have been constructed by Michaelangelo himself. His stunning athleticism brought competitors to their knees, and fans into shock. He became a mythical figure, playing among mere mortals, effortlessly gliding along while everyone else was trying to stay two steps behind. And this was all when he was 18. His games were shown on ESPN and dissected by experts. During his senior year, against the #1 team in the country, Oak Hill, he scored 31, added 13 rebounds, and had 6 assists. The game was on ESPN, announced by Dan Shulman, Dick Vitale, and Bill Walton. The post game interview was conducted by Jay Bilas. It was a spectacle and a circus at the same time. An outrageous display of exploitation, but we loved it nonetheless. Yet at that time he was only another High School prodigy. A possible superstar. Someone with a chance to be great. We would soon find out, when he entered the NBA draft in 2003, directly out if High School, and was subsequently drafted #1 by the Cleveland Cavaliers.
While it is important to understand his High School years, 2003 was the beginning of his real career, the one which would ultimately define him. He did it in High School, but lots of players had; the real test was in the NBA. And there were many doubters, many who said an 18 year old couldn't compete at a high level, with NBA players. LeBron did not disappoint. In his first NBA game he had 25 points, 9 assists, 6 rebounds, and 4 steals, while shooting 60% from the field. The Cavs would improve by 18 games that season, fueled solely by LeBron considering the next four high scorers were Zydrunas Ilgauskas, young Carlos Boozer, Jeff McInnis and Eric Williams. He would win Rookie of the Year, averaging 20.9 points, 5.9 assists, and 5.5 rebounds a game. He lived up to impossible expectations, and made us believe that we were witnessing greatness. He made us believe that we were witnessing the future, greatest of all time.
LeBron would continue to improve, culminating in the transcendent performance in the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons during Game 5, where he scored 48 points, including the final 25 for the Cavs. And he was only 23. This would be a turning point. Following this performance we saw greatness. We saw a player that was the best, and that at his best, was simply better than everyone else. He gave us a glimpse of what the greatest player of all time could possibly look like. In a twisted sense, he spoiled us. If he can be that good, why not be that good all the time? We love seeing greatness, and this young man embodied it. We wanted more. And he gave us more. In game 7 of the 2008 Eastern Conference Semi-finals, he scored 45 points, had 6 rebounds, and 5 assists, yet still lost to the eventual champion Boston Celtics. The Cavaliers roster was so atrocious though that there was sympathy for LeBron. The starting five that year for the Cavaliers, was LeBron James, old Ben Wallace, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Wally Sczerbiak, and Delonte West. Ouch. He was still well-liked by NBA fans and losing was simply a product of his team, rather than his performance. The next season LeBron would win the MVP, having arguably his best season to date, but would lose to the Orlando Magic in the Conference Finals, leading him into the season, and the game, that would alter his career forever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2009-10 season Cleveland made a last ditch effort to help LeBron with a supporting cast. There were rumors flying that he would depart in free agency after the season and there was an effort to give him an inside presence, which arrived in the form of 37 year old Shaquille O'Neal. LeBron would win another MVP and lead the Cavs to the leagues best regular season record. The Cavaliers would face the Boston Celtics again in the Conference Semi-Finals; a series which altered every thought we ever had about LeBron James.
With the series tied 2-2, the Cavs were in a must-win. They were at home and the stage was set for LeBron to put up another transcendent performance. With free agency looming, there was a chance that this could be his last game in a Cavaliers uniform at home. In a best of seven series, the team that wins game 5, wins the series over 80% of the time. Everything was on the line.
LeBron shot 3-14, scoring 15 points. He was terrible. He seemed timid and scared, and worse than that he seemed indifferent. He appeared to act as if it was just another game, a pick-up game with friends, not a game with such important implications, implications that could alter and ultimately did alter, his career. The criticism was enormous. For someone who had almost everything right his whole career, he was torn apart for one poorly played game. But many forget, he would have a triple double in game 6 scoring 27, grabbing 19 boards, and dishing 10 assists, and they still lost.
That spoiled attitude came out after that series. The greatness we had witnessed against the Pistons in 2007 was long forgotten. We wanted it back, and we didn't get it and we turned on him. We turned on him because he couldn't live up, for the first time, to our impossible expectations. Want to know what he averaged in the series in 2010, the final one in his career for the Cavaliers? 26.8 points. 7 assists. 9 rebounds. Not bad, huh? But because he wasn't the greatest player ever, he was not just a failure, but a complete failure. He was nothing. And things went from bad to worse.
We all know what happened next. While we were mad at LeBron for his game 5 performance, that anger would soon turn to hate. His basketball play was always questioned but his character wasn't. The Decision changed that. We went from being disappointed to actively hating him. Everyone hated him. If you weren't a Heat fan, you hated him. If you were an asshole and proud of it, you hated him, because he made even assholes look good. It was repugnant, vile, and despicable; effectively tearing the hearts out from every Cavaliers fan, and then stomping on them afterwards for good measure. LeBron was their Jesus. He had come down to save the most tortured sports city in America. Cleveland would finally find salvation, and LeBron would bring it. Imagine, then if actual Jesus arrived as the Messiah. Imagine the excitement for Christians. It would validate everything they've believed in and provide them with what they've been longing for. Imagine then, after a few years, Jesus made an announcement, saying he had actually made a wrong turn, and that he was in the wrong place, and he would actually be going to another planet. How would every Christian feel? Well, that is the feeling every Cavalier feeling had on the fateful day he departed for Miami.
But it didn't end there. Then, he had a welcome party. He acted as if the Heat had already been crowned. He promised championships, not one, not two, not three...He seemed like a genuinely bad person, and it had nothing to do with basketball. It was a haunting display of arrogance, reserved for the most egotistical people. And we, understandably so, hated him for it. And we hated him because he went to Miami. We wanted him to be different and special. We wanted to shape him and form him into the mythical creature we saw in High School. We were selfish. We wanted to make him into what we wanted to see, and for that reason we hated that he went to Miami. We felt it was the easy way out, that the greatest ever doesn't join forces with two superstars in a city more known for Cocaine than Basketball. At least go to New York or Chicago. Anything but Miami.
His Miami tenure has been marred by times where it appeared he shied away in big moments, especially in the Mavericks series in 2011, criticism which is certainly fair. He seemed to never want the last shot, and instead would hide in the corner. We hated it. We hated it because in addition to not living up to expectations on the court, he was now disliked for his "decision(s)" off it. But, most of all we hated it, because we saw wasted talent. We saw someone, who could take over games, and chose not to. We knew he could be better, and we knew he could score 40 a game, but we felt as if he decided not to. And we were hurt.
And Game 6 validated our feelings. The lead up was enormous. Many said this was a defining moment of his career. If he didn't come through, his legacy would be affected forever. The pressure was enormous and it was on the biggest stage. The performance was transcendent. 45 points, including 30 in the first half. He shot 19/26 and was unstoppable. Absolutely, unequivocally unstoppable. From the first minute, his facial expression did not change. He was stone faced. He meant business. He was going to score and score at will. And from the first minute everyone knew it. The Heat knew it, the Celtics knew it, the Garden knew it, the announcers knew it, and LeBron knew it. It was beautiful. And even though I was rooting for the Celtics, there is a certain type of excitement a fan gets, that is equal to your team winning, when you watch greatness unfold. It is a different type of excitement, but the excitement level is the same.
It was the LeBron we knew and loved, and the LeBron we wanted him to be. And while I loved watching the performance, I hated him for it. I hated him because there was this feeling that consumed me, that made me feel as if he could do that every single game. Every single game, he could go out there, with that stone faced look and dominate. Maybe not to the degree we saw in Game 6, but something that exuded the level of helplessness every Celtics player, coach and fan felt watching that game. On any given night, LeBron, can simply destroy an opposing team. Why don't you do that every game, LeBron? Why!?!?! Nobody else on planet Earth can come close to what LeBron did last night. Nobody. And he seemed to do it at will. He reminded us of what could have been, and what can be in the future. And maybe, just maybe, like his Rookie season, or the 2007 Pistons series, or The Decision, this game, can alter his career again. Maybe he'll dominate Game 7, lead the Heat to a championship and be the player we wanted him to be. Or maybe he'll shy away again and the Celtics will get the better of LeBron one more time. And that's why we hate him. We hate him because we don't know what he'll do next. We hate him because he can't do what he did in Game 6 every single night. Even when he wins, he loses. So what should he do next?
LeBron James has been under more scrutiny than any other athlete in the history of American sports. Since James has been able to drive, he has endured an inhumane level of scrutiny that has left an indelible mark on him. Imagine how difficult it must be (in fact there is no need to imagine since it is impossible) to live a normal life with that level of scrutiny. At 18, when he was in High School he was actually suspended for receiving two free jerseys. In High School! How big must the microscope have been, for an 18 year old to be suspended for not saying no when he was offered two sports jerseys? How insane is that?
There are a couple of reasons why the scrutiny has been so great. The first and most obvious reason is that basketball is more individualized than any other major sport. Football is the ultimate team sport, and stars play on only side of the ball, so you may only see them half of the game. In addition, every play is dependent on another. During any given play, so many factors must be perfectly in place or the play breaks down. If the receiver runs the wrong route that quarterback cannot thrown him the ball and if he does run the right route, and the left tackle misses his assignment, the play breaks down anyways. Baseball players, depending on position are involved intermittently. Starting pitchers pitch once every five games, and relievers you may only see for one inning. Position players will likely bat 4-5 times a game, 1 out of every 9 total at bats. However, in basketball the factors don't change. The weather is always the same as is the ball, and the hoop never moves. You don't need to worry about receivers or offensive linemen. Players play offense and defense, and can theoretically play an entire game. LeBron can hold the fate of the game directly in his hands. He can single-handedly do more to effect the outcome than in any other sport (See Game 6). The control lies solely with that individual player on a daily basis in basketball, more so than any other sport.
The other reason, unfortunately has nothing to with sports, but rather with the world LeBron grew up in. There are two major factors, both of which, are in some fashion related to each other. The Internet and Television News. Technological advances were sweeping the country in the early 2000s, and soon the world would become more connected than ever before. The advent of social media, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube coincided almost directly with his emergence as a young NBA star. Now, when something occurs, regardless of how inconsequential it may be, the video is on YouTube. Everyone is talking about it on Facebook. Everyone is Tweeting about it. And every blog is writing about it. And that is all within a few minutes. And You can access the information regardless of where you are. You don't need to wait for your dial-up on your home computer to boot up. Instead, you can just look at your IPhone or IPad or MacBook, which can all be accessed at any location. So, you can be at a wedding in Texas, and know instantaneously what happened in Boston 10 minutes earlier, just by looking at your phone. Amazing.
There is also the 24 hour news cycle, where grabbing the attention of a viewer became the main focus, rather than substantive reporting. News had always had sensationalist aspects, but because news is everywhere, all the time, so is the sensationalism. At one point, many years ago, you had the news in the morning, and then would wait until the next morning for more news. Now, you get the news every hour, on the hour. Now, many news organizations have simply abandoned being balanced. If they can appeal to a base, just like any other commercial product, why report both sides, when reporting to one side is more profitable? News is about catching your eye, not holding your attention, where every movement and every word becomes overly and unnecessarily scrutinized. These two aspects of our world are now constantly intertwined, enlarging the microscope LeBron has been under since 16. In essence, LeBron has been caught up in a perfect storm. A storm that the other greats of the NBA never went through. Larry and Magic never had to deal with anything close and Jordan got out right before it started. This is a new phenomenon, a giant social experiment, and LeBron has been our guinea pig.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been many child prodigies throughout the years. Some pan out, others do not. LeBron was one of them. He was a magnificent High School basketball star. His perfectly chiseled body seemed to have been constructed by Michaelangelo himself. His stunning athleticism brought competitors to their knees, and fans into shock. He became a mythical figure, playing among mere mortals, effortlessly gliding along while everyone else was trying to stay two steps behind. And this was all when he was 18. His games were shown on ESPN and dissected by experts. During his senior year, against the #1 team in the country, Oak Hill, he scored 31, added 13 rebounds, and had 6 assists. The game was on ESPN, announced by Dan Shulman, Dick Vitale, and Bill Walton. The post game interview was conducted by Jay Bilas. It was a spectacle and a circus at the same time. An outrageous display of exploitation, but we loved it nonetheless. Yet at that time he was only another High School prodigy. A possible superstar. Someone with a chance to be great. We would soon find out, when he entered the NBA draft in 2003, directly out if High School, and was subsequently drafted #1 by the Cleveland Cavaliers.
While it is important to understand his High School years, 2003 was the beginning of his real career, the one which would ultimately define him. He did it in High School, but lots of players had; the real test was in the NBA. And there were many doubters, many who said an 18 year old couldn't compete at a high level, with NBA players. LeBron did not disappoint. In his first NBA game he had 25 points, 9 assists, 6 rebounds, and 4 steals, while shooting 60% from the field. The Cavs would improve by 18 games that season, fueled solely by LeBron considering the next four high scorers were Zydrunas Ilgauskas, young Carlos Boozer, Jeff McInnis and Eric Williams. He would win Rookie of the Year, averaging 20.9 points, 5.9 assists, and 5.5 rebounds a game. He lived up to impossible expectations, and made us believe that we were witnessing greatness. He made us believe that we were witnessing the future, greatest of all time.
LeBron would continue to improve, culminating in the transcendent performance in the 2007 Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons during Game 5, where he scored 48 points, including the final 25 for the Cavs. And he was only 23. This would be a turning point. Following this performance we saw greatness. We saw a player that was the best, and that at his best, was simply better than everyone else. He gave us a glimpse of what the greatest player of all time could possibly look like. In a twisted sense, he spoiled us. If he can be that good, why not be that good all the time? We love seeing greatness, and this young man embodied it. We wanted more. And he gave us more. In game 7 of the 2008 Eastern Conference Semi-finals, he scored 45 points, had 6 rebounds, and 5 assists, yet still lost to the eventual champion Boston Celtics. The Cavaliers roster was so atrocious though that there was sympathy for LeBron. The starting five that year for the Cavaliers, was LeBron James, old Ben Wallace, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Wally Sczerbiak, and Delonte West. Ouch. He was still well-liked by NBA fans and losing was simply a product of his team, rather than his performance. The next season LeBron would win the MVP, having arguably his best season to date, but would lose to the Orlando Magic in the Conference Finals, leading him into the season, and the game, that would alter his career forever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2009-10 season Cleveland made a last ditch effort to help LeBron with a supporting cast. There were rumors flying that he would depart in free agency after the season and there was an effort to give him an inside presence, which arrived in the form of 37 year old Shaquille O'Neal. LeBron would win another MVP and lead the Cavs to the leagues best regular season record. The Cavaliers would face the Boston Celtics again in the Conference Semi-Finals; a series which altered every thought we ever had about LeBron James.
With the series tied 2-2, the Cavs were in a must-win. They were at home and the stage was set for LeBron to put up another transcendent performance. With free agency looming, there was a chance that this could be his last game in a Cavaliers uniform at home. In a best of seven series, the team that wins game 5, wins the series over 80% of the time. Everything was on the line.
LeBron shot 3-14, scoring 15 points. He was terrible. He seemed timid and scared, and worse than that he seemed indifferent. He appeared to act as if it was just another game, a pick-up game with friends, not a game with such important implications, implications that could alter and ultimately did alter, his career. The criticism was enormous. For someone who had almost everything right his whole career, he was torn apart for one poorly played game. But many forget, he would have a triple double in game 6 scoring 27, grabbing 19 boards, and dishing 10 assists, and they still lost.
That spoiled attitude came out after that series. The greatness we had witnessed against the Pistons in 2007 was long forgotten. We wanted it back, and we didn't get it and we turned on him. We turned on him because he couldn't live up, for the first time, to our impossible expectations. Want to know what he averaged in the series in 2010, the final one in his career for the Cavaliers? 26.8 points. 7 assists. 9 rebounds. Not bad, huh? But because he wasn't the greatest player ever, he was not just a failure, but a complete failure. He was nothing. And things went from bad to worse.
We all know what happened next. While we were mad at LeBron for his game 5 performance, that anger would soon turn to hate. His basketball play was always questioned but his character wasn't. The Decision changed that. We went from being disappointed to actively hating him. Everyone hated him. If you weren't a Heat fan, you hated him. If you were an asshole and proud of it, you hated him, because he made even assholes look good. It was repugnant, vile, and despicable; effectively tearing the hearts out from every Cavaliers fan, and then stomping on them afterwards for good measure. LeBron was their Jesus. He had come down to save the most tortured sports city in America. Cleveland would finally find salvation, and LeBron would bring it. Imagine, then if actual Jesus arrived as the Messiah. Imagine the excitement for Christians. It would validate everything they've believed in and provide them with what they've been longing for. Imagine then, after a few years, Jesus made an announcement, saying he had actually made a wrong turn, and that he was in the wrong place, and he would actually be going to another planet. How would every Christian feel? Well, that is the feeling every Cavalier feeling had on the fateful day he departed for Miami.
But it didn't end there. Then, he had a welcome party. He acted as if the Heat had already been crowned. He promised championships, not one, not two, not three...He seemed like a genuinely bad person, and it had nothing to do with basketball. It was a haunting display of arrogance, reserved for the most egotistical people. And we, understandably so, hated him for it. And we hated him because he went to Miami. We wanted him to be different and special. We wanted to shape him and form him into the mythical creature we saw in High School. We were selfish. We wanted to make him into what we wanted to see, and for that reason we hated that he went to Miami. We felt it was the easy way out, that the greatest ever doesn't join forces with two superstars in a city more known for Cocaine than Basketball. At least go to New York or Chicago. Anything but Miami.
His Miami tenure has been marred by times where it appeared he shied away in big moments, especially in the Mavericks series in 2011, criticism which is certainly fair. He seemed to never want the last shot, and instead would hide in the corner. We hated it. We hated it because in addition to not living up to expectations on the court, he was now disliked for his "decision(s)" off it. But, most of all we hated it, because we saw wasted talent. We saw someone, who could take over games, and chose not to. We knew he could be better, and we knew he could score 40 a game, but we felt as if he decided not to. And we were hurt.
And Game 6 validated our feelings. The lead up was enormous. Many said this was a defining moment of his career. If he didn't come through, his legacy would be affected forever. The pressure was enormous and it was on the biggest stage. The performance was transcendent. 45 points, including 30 in the first half. He shot 19/26 and was unstoppable. Absolutely, unequivocally unstoppable. From the first minute, his facial expression did not change. He was stone faced. He meant business. He was going to score and score at will. And from the first minute everyone knew it. The Heat knew it, the Celtics knew it, the Garden knew it, the announcers knew it, and LeBron knew it. It was beautiful. And even though I was rooting for the Celtics, there is a certain type of excitement a fan gets, that is equal to your team winning, when you watch greatness unfold. It is a different type of excitement, but the excitement level is the same.
It was the LeBron we knew and loved, and the LeBron we wanted him to be. And while I loved watching the performance, I hated him for it. I hated him because there was this feeling that consumed me, that made me feel as if he could do that every single game. Every single game, he could go out there, with that stone faced look and dominate. Maybe not to the degree we saw in Game 6, but something that exuded the level of helplessness every Celtics player, coach and fan felt watching that game. On any given night, LeBron, can simply destroy an opposing team. Why don't you do that every game, LeBron? Why!?!?! Nobody else on planet Earth can come close to what LeBron did last night. Nobody. And he seemed to do it at will. He reminded us of what could have been, and what can be in the future. And maybe, just maybe, like his Rookie season, or the 2007 Pistons series, or The Decision, this game, can alter his career again. Maybe he'll dominate Game 7, lead the Heat to a championship and be the player we wanted him to be. Or maybe he'll shy away again and the Celtics will get the better of LeBron one more time. And that's why we hate him. We hate him because we don't know what he'll do next. We hate him because he can't do what he did in Game 6 every single night. Even when he wins, he loses. So what should he do next?
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Patriots Heartache: The last 9:24...
It was Deja Vu. And it was remarkably similar. A final drive, an amazing catch by a receiver most (including Bill Belichick) people overlooked, and a game that Patriots fans feel they gave away. This wasn't 2008 but the feeling is the same, except the reaction has been more vitriolic, more painful, especially for those who have watched this team since 2001, when they shocked the St. Louis Rams, catapulting Tom Brady to superstardom. Why has the reaction been so overwhelming for Patriots fans? Why have people attacked Belichick and Brady so relentlessly, while being even harsher on Wes Welker, who has been nothing short of spectacular since becoming a Patriot? It is a mysterious and unknown feeling for us right now here in Boston. We are used to being the losers, enduring the heartbreak, but this particular loss hit a vein in everybody's heart and caused an uproar, reminiscent of a Tahrir Square, not Boston, MA.
I'll start about three weeks ago today.
It is Sunday morning, actually afternoon here in Israel, just a few hours before the AFC Championship. I begin to read a few pieces about the potential matchups for the Super Bowl. The Patriots, heavily favored, after throttling the Broncos, are supposedly ripe and ready for a rematch with the Giants. Many will say that Pats fans want the Giants, in order to avenge the loss in 2008. I disagree. I believe in looking at things with a pragmatic, objective approach. The Giants terrify me. I'd much rather play Alex Smith and the inexperienced 49ers. A Super Bowl ring is a Super Bowl ring. I didn't care if we beat the Giants. I wanted a 4th championship and the 49ers were the easiest route. Plain and simple. And sure enough, it was Pats v. Giants in Super Bowl XLVI.
I began the longest two weeks of my life fretting about the outcomes for Super Bowl XLVI. Could David Tyree come back for the final drive and snag a football pinning it against his left knee setting up a game-winning touchdown? I had nightmares for those 14 days almost every night. I began to have indigestion and heart palpitations. I couldn't hold a conversation without spacing out and peering into the distance, as if I spotted a field goal post. I was terrified because this was all or nothing. It wouldn't have been the case with the 49ers, but with the Giants it was a different story. Brady and Belichick would be 0-2 against Coughlin and Eli. Eli would cement his legacy while Brady would be take a step back. It was New York v. Boston. Everything on the line.
In Israel there are two major differences that made watching Super Bowl XLVI even more treacherous. First, the weekend is Friday and Saturday and the first day of work is Sunday, rather than Monday. So, I had to endure a full day of work on Sunday, rather than waking up late, watching a few hours of pre-game and getting right into the game. Second, is the time difference. Israel is 7 hours ahead so the start time was 1:30am. So, not only did I have a day of work, I also had to wait pretty much all night, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the game to start. As the hours wore on Sunday, I felt an uneasiness I had never felt before. I couldn't think straight. I couldn't eat or move. I was a vegetable more or less. I started chain smoking, hoping it could calm my nerves. It didn't, but I kept trying.
At around 1:28am, two minutes before start time, I took my seat in a crowded Tel Aviv apartment, to watch the spectacle. It should also be noted that Israeli's don't care about the Super Bowl. Everyone is pretty much asleep, and the only people who were up were Americans.
And we're off! And...safety. Are you fuckin kidding me? Safety? In all fairness, it was a good call, and Brady is surely to blame but could it have started any worse? Then touchdown Giants. 9-0. Okay, now I'm unable to control my bodily functions. Solid drive and a field goal. Then, a tremendous drive to end the half. 10-9. Okay. Feeling better. I need a cigarette. Touchdown to start the drive. 17-9. Two field goals by the Giants. 17-15.
And now lets go into a little more detail. 9:24 remaining. Up by two, starting on the New England 8 yard line. We can ice the game right here. This is where Brady makes his money. Best in the world. Every New England fan is thinking the same thing. Don't give that ball back to Eli with a chance to win. End it right now. This is the drive of all drives. At the same time, we're all sweating profusely, thinking about every possible scenario that could occur over the next 9 minutes and 24 seconds. David Tyree, I see you on the sideline. Don't fuckin do anything stupid. This was where everything always seemed to go right for the Patriots. From the Snow Bowl game, to the two game winning drives in 2002 and 2004, to Philadelphia using terrible clock management, we always found a way to win. Bring back the magic Tom. Please, we're begging you.
3rd and 5. Danny Woodhead 19 yards. HUGE play. Keep moving that football. 2nd and 7. Wes Welker for 11 yards to the New England 46 yard line. Don't be too confident, we're close, but not there yet. 3rd and 3. Time ticking away. 4 yards to Aaron Hernandez to the Giants 43 yard line. Time dipping under 5 minutes. 2nd and 11. The Giants look disheveled and confused. Snap comes with 4:06 to play. Brady immediately looks to his left. Solid pocket. He appears decisive, looping a tight spiral about 20 yards down the field, a few yards from the sideline. He's open. Holy Shit. He's open. And...Fuck. My eyes become big and I wait for the replay. He dropped it. It was right in his hands and he dropped it. My stomach drops and then turns and then explodes and falls out of my body. I feel like we lost, and that this will come back and bite us. There is an eerie silence in the apartment, combined with incoherent mumbling, and whispering. Nobody knows what to say next. The game moves on. 3rd and 11. Convert and all is forgotten. Under 4 minutes. Brady drops back. Plenty of time. Too much time. Great pocket. A laser over the middle to Deion Branch. Broken up. 4th down. The uneasiness has returned. 2008 all over again. We had it and we lost it. This can't be happening. The doubt creeps in and stays in. I started praying to things I know don't exist. The world is falling before my eyes. First play from the 11, 3:46 to play. The first fuckin play. Manningham for 38. It's over. I know it. Deep down I know it, but I'm praying for a miracle. Manningham reels off 16 more on 2nd and 10 from the 50. Nicks for another 14 yards to the 18. Back breaker. Field goal range. They'll run out the clock and the hours on my life. Bradshaw falls into the endzone. A small break. A sign maybe? God, you there? 57 seconds. Drop by Branch, with room to run. Drop by Hernandez. Sack. Fuck. 4th and 16. It's over. I'm preparing my escape. The heart is barely flickering. First down Branch! Out of bounds. First down Hernandez. Two incomplete passes, and a too many men on the field penalty. One heave to the end zone. A prayer from essentially mid-field. A Hail-Mary. Listen, God. If you're still there. I know I'm a Jew, but I'm perfectly okay with the Virgin Mary. I'll convert to Catholicism. Anything. Just complete this pass for me. Brady drops back, ducks a man, gets some time, and heaves it. The ball is paralyzed in mid-air. Frozen as if the sky had suddenly turned to ice. I see Gronk and Hernandez down there. Please God. Please. My heart jumps and then sputters. Did he catch it? Incomplete. Game over. Shut off the TV. I head to the door and rest my head on it. It happened again. Utter and complete devastation. I aged 30 years in 3 hours.
It's 5am Israel time and I'm not tired. I don't want to sleep. I can't help thinking of what could have been. The miscues and the missed fumbles. The lucky breaks for the Giants and the inability to convert for the Patriots. Fire everyone. Gut the organization. I hate them. They don't care. Emotions after a game like that, combined with zero sleep are fierce and unintelligible. I have work in a few hours. I call my Israeli cousins and ask to stay with them. I can't interact with anyone who knows anything about American football. I spend 48 hours reading and thinking, trying to forget about the game. I cannot. It sticks with me. I begin questioning my life. I wonder if I'll ever watch football again, and whether sports are healthy for me. Should I give them up? Maybe I should. Should I travel the world? There's so much I haven't seen. I hate Giants fans. I think I'll become a Rabbi. It is because I don't believe in you, God? Is this why you're punishing me? Is it because I had a bacon cheeseburger in Israel? Why! I finally return home Wednesday night, about 2 1/2 days following the conclusion of the game. I'm wearing the same clothes from the Super Bowl. I haven't shaved and I appear homeless. I don't leave my room except to pee, poop, or eat. I have new roomates, but I can't interact with them. Thursday is a little better. I feel refreshed. I go to work in the afternoon and begin to show signs of a smile. A small one, but a smile. Thursday night is also the biggest night to go out in Israel. I head into Tel Aviv to drown away my sorrows in 10 dollar Arak, a liquor found in the Middle East, that tastes one part licorice and one part armpit. I forget my sorrows and my night, and that brings us to today. Friday. 5 days removed from that fateful day. How can we evaluate, objectively, the outcome, and the reaction in Boston that followed. I'll try my best.
Immediately following the game, the blame poured out. There was no solace. No feeling of pride. Just agony. And after a game such as this, a scapegoat is needed. The initial target was Wes Welker. He was bombarded by many, who put the loss squarely on his small but sturdy shoulders. The drop, which occurred late in the 4th quarter and could have put the game away, became a symbol overnight of a failed victory. Wes Welker, who caught 122 balls amassing over 1,500 yards, while being the perfect symbol of "The Patriot Way" was all of a sudden a vilified failure. While his catch certainly could have sealed the game, why so much animosity towards a guy who has done nothing but good things since his arrival in 2007? This wasn't Bill Buckner in 1986. He dropped a pass, that was poorly thrown, with over 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Wes Welker was clearly and visibly distraught following the game. Nobody on this Earth feels worse than he does right now.
Some have blamed Brady, including Eric Wilbur, who heartlessly slandered Brady in an article in the Globe following the game. Some have blamed Belichick while others have blamed the organization. People are confused, and when an organization such as New England experiences turmoil such as this, there is a sense of heartfelt malice towards those responsible. The question is why.
There seemed to be an explosion after the Super Bowl. Pent-up anger boiling a the surface that poured over when that Hail Mary fell to the ground. It has been 7 seasons since our last Super Bowl with the ruined perfect season occurring in the middle. We have been tantalizingly close. We're good every single year. We're always in contention. Look how incredible we've been since 2001.
2001: 14-5 SB Champion
2002: 9-7
2003: 17-2 SB Champion
2004: 17-2 SB Champion
2005: 11-7 L Divisional Round
2006: 14-5 L AFC Championship
2007: 18-1 L SB
2008: 11-5
2009: 10-7 L WC Round
2010: 14-3 L Divisional Round
2011: 15-4 L SB
Total: 150-48, Winning Percentage of 75%.
That stretch is remarkable. For modern-day NFL standards it is a period that may never be matched, and there is reason to suspect that our success will only continue for at least a few more years. In comparison, here is the Giants totals since 2001: 103-85, Winning Percentage of 55% (rounded up), with 2 Super Bowl Championships. This helps to explain why we are so distraught right now. If you look at our progression, you would think that following 2004, we would only get better. Brady was still very young and with Belichick at the helm, and a solid organization in place, one would think there would be improvement. But 2005 was a disappointment. 2006 was the heartbreaking loss to Indy, where Belichick went for it on 4th and 2, a game which many felt we gave away. 2007 was the perfect season that wasn't. 2008 Matt Cassel was our QB. 2009 ended with the Ravens running on our faces. 2010 was the loss to the Jets. And 2011 the loss to the Giants again.
It hurts so much because we've been so good. Because we've been so dominant over this decade the losses are bewildering. When something goes wrong, we feel as if everything is wrong. We wonder if Belichick and Brady have lost their touch. We are in love with this team. And love always brings heartbreak, especially in sports. The Patriots before 2001 were eerily mediocre. One Super Bowl appearance in 1996 (a loss to Brett Favre), some good years, more bad years, and a shitty stadium. Then 2001 comes, and we're thrusted into a decade of dominance. The lovable losers of Boston all of sudden have a team and a franchise that are the model for the rest of the league. Everyone wants to copy us. Assistant Coaches are hired. Front office employees snatched away.
The magic we had in the early 2000s appears to be lost. It isn't gone. But lost. And we can't find it. The fumbles no longer land in the right place. Opposing teams make miraculous catches. We make crucial mistakes, like having too many men on the field. And we can no longer get that big play or the lucky break that always seemed to be there when we needed it. We're frustrated, that for these past 7 years we've been so good, but the trophy has been evasive. And undoubtedly that frustration boiled over. Are we spoiled? Maybe. But wouldn't anyone who's been this good, for this long, be spoiled? I think, after everyone calms down, which has already happened, we'll realize we are still at the top of the pyramid in the NFL. Nobody can put claim to the fact that we are still the team to beat. So as much as may hurt now, we'll get that feeling again. We'll get that trophy soon.
I'll start about three weeks ago today.
It is Sunday morning, actually afternoon here in Israel, just a few hours before the AFC Championship. I begin to read a few pieces about the potential matchups for the Super Bowl. The Patriots, heavily favored, after throttling the Broncos, are supposedly ripe and ready for a rematch with the Giants. Many will say that Pats fans want the Giants, in order to avenge the loss in 2008. I disagree. I believe in looking at things with a pragmatic, objective approach. The Giants terrify me. I'd much rather play Alex Smith and the inexperienced 49ers. A Super Bowl ring is a Super Bowl ring. I didn't care if we beat the Giants. I wanted a 4th championship and the 49ers were the easiest route. Plain and simple. And sure enough, it was Pats v. Giants in Super Bowl XLVI.
I began the longest two weeks of my life fretting about the outcomes for Super Bowl XLVI. Could David Tyree come back for the final drive and snag a football pinning it against his left knee setting up a game-winning touchdown? I had nightmares for those 14 days almost every night. I began to have indigestion and heart palpitations. I couldn't hold a conversation without spacing out and peering into the distance, as if I spotted a field goal post. I was terrified because this was all or nothing. It wouldn't have been the case with the 49ers, but with the Giants it was a different story. Brady and Belichick would be 0-2 against Coughlin and Eli. Eli would cement his legacy while Brady would be take a step back. It was New York v. Boston. Everything on the line.
In Israel there are two major differences that made watching Super Bowl XLVI even more treacherous. First, the weekend is Friday and Saturday and the first day of work is Sunday, rather than Monday. So, I had to endure a full day of work on Sunday, rather than waking up late, watching a few hours of pre-game and getting right into the game. Second, is the time difference. Israel is 7 hours ahead so the start time was 1:30am. So, not only did I have a day of work, I also had to wait pretty much all night, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the game to start. As the hours wore on Sunday, I felt an uneasiness I had never felt before. I couldn't think straight. I couldn't eat or move. I was a vegetable more or less. I started chain smoking, hoping it could calm my nerves. It didn't, but I kept trying.
At around 1:28am, two minutes before start time, I took my seat in a crowded Tel Aviv apartment, to watch the spectacle. It should also be noted that Israeli's don't care about the Super Bowl. Everyone is pretty much asleep, and the only people who were up were Americans.
And we're off! And...safety. Are you fuckin kidding me? Safety? In all fairness, it was a good call, and Brady is surely to blame but could it have started any worse? Then touchdown Giants. 9-0. Okay, now I'm unable to control my bodily functions. Solid drive and a field goal. Then, a tremendous drive to end the half. 10-9. Okay. Feeling better. I need a cigarette. Touchdown to start the drive. 17-9. Two field goals by the Giants. 17-15.
And now lets go into a little more detail. 9:24 remaining. Up by two, starting on the New England 8 yard line. We can ice the game right here. This is where Brady makes his money. Best in the world. Every New England fan is thinking the same thing. Don't give that ball back to Eli with a chance to win. End it right now. This is the drive of all drives. At the same time, we're all sweating profusely, thinking about every possible scenario that could occur over the next 9 minutes and 24 seconds. David Tyree, I see you on the sideline. Don't fuckin do anything stupid. This was where everything always seemed to go right for the Patriots. From the Snow Bowl game, to the two game winning drives in 2002 and 2004, to Philadelphia using terrible clock management, we always found a way to win. Bring back the magic Tom. Please, we're begging you.
3rd and 5. Danny Woodhead 19 yards. HUGE play. Keep moving that football. 2nd and 7. Wes Welker for 11 yards to the New England 46 yard line. Don't be too confident, we're close, but not there yet. 3rd and 3. Time ticking away. 4 yards to Aaron Hernandez to the Giants 43 yard line. Time dipping under 5 minutes. 2nd and 11. The Giants look disheveled and confused. Snap comes with 4:06 to play. Brady immediately looks to his left. Solid pocket. He appears decisive, looping a tight spiral about 20 yards down the field, a few yards from the sideline. He's open. Holy Shit. He's open. And...Fuck. My eyes become big and I wait for the replay. He dropped it. It was right in his hands and he dropped it. My stomach drops and then turns and then explodes and falls out of my body. I feel like we lost, and that this will come back and bite us. There is an eerie silence in the apartment, combined with incoherent mumbling, and whispering. Nobody knows what to say next. The game moves on. 3rd and 11. Convert and all is forgotten. Under 4 minutes. Brady drops back. Plenty of time. Too much time. Great pocket. A laser over the middle to Deion Branch. Broken up. 4th down. The uneasiness has returned. 2008 all over again. We had it and we lost it. This can't be happening. The doubt creeps in and stays in. I started praying to things I know don't exist. The world is falling before my eyes. First play from the 11, 3:46 to play. The first fuckin play. Manningham for 38. It's over. I know it. Deep down I know it, but I'm praying for a miracle. Manningham reels off 16 more on 2nd and 10 from the 50. Nicks for another 14 yards to the 18. Back breaker. Field goal range. They'll run out the clock and the hours on my life. Bradshaw falls into the endzone. A small break. A sign maybe? God, you there? 57 seconds. Drop by Branch, with room to run. Drop by Hernandez. Sack. Fuck. 4th and 16. It's over. I'm preparing my escape. The heart is barely flickering. First down Branch! Out of bounds. First down Hernandez. Two incomplete passes, and a too many men on the field penalty. One heave to the end zone. A prayer from essentially mid-field. A Hail-Mary. Listen, God. If you're still there. I know I'm a Jew, but I'm perfectly okay with the Virgin Mary. I'll convert to Catholicism. Anything. Just complete this pass for me. Brady drops back, ducks a man, gets some time, and heaves it. The ball is paralyzed in mid-air. Frozen as if the sky had suddenly turned to ice. I see Gronk and Hernandez down there. Please God. Please. My heart jumps and then sputters. Did he catch it? Incomplete. Game over. Shut off the TV. I head to the door and rest my head on it. It happened again. Utter and complete devastation. I aged 30 years in 3 hours.
It's 5am Israel time and I'm not tired. I don't want to sleep. I can't help thinking of what could have been. The miscues and the missed fumbles. The lucky breaks for the Giants and the inability to convert for the Patriots. Fire everyone. Gut the organization. I hate them. They don't care. Emotions after a game like that, combined with zero sleep are fierce and unintelligible. I have work in a few hours. I call my Israeli cousins and ask to stay with them. I can't interact with anyone who knows anything about American football. I spend 48 hours reading and thinking, trying to forget about the game. I cannot. It sticks with me. I begin questioning my life. I wonder if I'll ever watch football again, and whether sports are healthy for me. Should I give them up? Maybe I should. Should I travel the world? There's so much I haven't seen. I hate Giants fans. I think I'll become a Rabbi. It is because I don't believe in you, God? Is this why you're punishing me? Is it because I had a bacon cheeseburger in Israel? Why! I finally return home Wednesday night, about 2 1/2 days following the conclusion of the game. I'm wearing the same clothes from the Super Bowl. I haven't shaved and I appear homeless. I don't leave my room except to pee, poop, or eat. I have new roomates, but I can't interact with them. Thursday is a little better. I feel refreshed. I go to work in the afternoon and begin to show signs of a smile. A small one, but a smile. Thursday night is also the biggest night to go out in Israel. I head into Tel Aviv to drown away my sorrows in 10 dollar Arak, a liquor found in the Middle East, that tastes one part licorice and one part armpit. I forget my sorrows and my night, and that brings us to today. Friday. 5 days removed from that fateful day. How can we evaluate, objectively, the outcome, and the reaction in Boston that followed. I'll try my best.
Immediately following the game, the blame poured out. There was no solace. No feeling of pride. Just agony. And after a game such as this, a scapegoat is needed. The initial target was Wes Welker. He was bombarded by many, who put the loss squarely on his small but sturdy shoulders. The drop, which occurred late in the 4th quarter and could have put the game away, became a symbol overnight of a failed victory. Wes Welker, who caught 122 balls amassing over 1,500 yards, while being the perfect symbol of "The Patriot Way" was all of a sudden a vilified failure. While his catch certainly could have sealed the game, why so much animosity towards a guy who has done nothing but good things since his arrival in 2007? This wasn't Bill Buckner in 1986. He dropped a pass, that was poorly thrown, with over 4 minutes left in the 4th quarter. Wes Welker was clearly and visibly distraught following the game. Nobody on this Earth feels worse than he does right now.
Some have blamed Brady, including Eric Wilbur, who heartlessly slandered Brady in an article in the Globe following the game. Some have blamed Belichick while others have blamed the organization. People are confused, and when an organization such as New England experiences turmoil such as this, there is a sense of heartfelt malice towards those responsible. The question is why.
There seemed to be an explosion after the Super Bowl. Pent-up anger boiling a the surface that poured over when that Hail Mary fell to the ground. It has been 7 seasons since our last Super Bowl with the ruined perfect season occurring in the middle. We have been tantalizingly close. We're good every single year. We're always in contention. Look how incredible we've been since 2001.
2001: 14-5 SB Champion
2002: 9-7
2003: 17-2 SB Champion
2004: 17-2 SB Champion
2005: 11-7 L Divisional Round
2006: 14-5 L AFC Championship
2007: 18-1 L SB
2008: 11-5
2009: 10-7 L WC Round
2010: 14-3 L Divisional Round
2011: 15-4 L SB
Total: 150-48, Winning Percentage of 75%.
That stretch is remarkable. For modern-day NFL standards it is a period that may never be matched, and there is reason to suspect that our success will only continue for at least a few more years. In comparison, here is the Giants totals since 2001: 103-85, Winning Percentage of 55% (rounded up), with 2 Super Bowl Championships. This helps to explain why we are so distraught right now. If you look at our progression, you would think that following 2004, we would only get better. Brady was still very young and with Belichick at the helm, and a solid organization in place, one would think there would be improvement. But 2005 was a disappointment. 2006 was the heartbreaking loss to Indy, where Belichick went for it on 4th and 2, a game which many felt we gave away. 2007 was the perfect season that wasn't. 2008 Matt Cassel was our QB. 2009 ended with the Ravens running on our faces. 2010 was the loss to the Jets. And 2011 the loss to the Giants again.
It hurts so much because we've been so good. Because we've been so dominant over this decade the losses are bewildering. When something goes wrong, we feel as if everything is wrong. We wonder if Belichick and Brady have lost their touch. We are in love with this team. And love always brings heartbreak, especially in sports. The Patriots before 2001 were eerily mediocre. One Super Bowl appearance in 1996 (a loss to Brett Favre), some good years, more bad years, and a shitty stadium. Then 2001 comes, and we're thrusted into a decade of dominance. The lovable losers of Boston all of sudden have a team and a franchise that are the model for the rest of the league. Everyone wants to copy us. Assistant Coaches are hired. Front office employees snatched away.
The magic we had in the early 2000s appears to be lost. It isn't gone. But lost. And we can't find it. The fumbles no longer land in the right place. Opposing teams make miraculous catches. We make crucial mistakes, like having too many men on the field. And we can no longer get that big play or the lucky break that always seemed to be there when we needed it. We're frustrated, that for these past 7 years we've been so good, but the trophy has been evasive. And undoubtedly that frustration boiled over. Are we spoiled? Maybe. But wouldn't anyone who's been this good, for this long, be spoiled? I think, after everyone calms down, which has already happened, we'll realize we are still at the top of the pyramid in the NFL. Nobody can put claim to the fact that we are still the team to beat. So as much as may hurt now, we'll get that feeling again. We'll get that trophy soon.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Iraq continued
Since men have inhabited this Earth, war has been apart of its existence. War is intertwined with the existence of man and often defines cultures, time periods, or even whole civilizations. It is a harsh reality of the world we live in. As Cormac McCarthy said, “War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.”
In a tepid and small ceremony, The United States lowered the American flag in Iraq. This was no victory parade, just a recognition that it was over. In a sense, it was an awkward ceremony, because nobody really knows how to feel right now. The United States has effectively ended the war, crossing the border into Kuwait and removing all combat troops. The pullout signifies the beginning of the end to the military conflicts that commenced following the attacks on September 11.
Iraq will be debated for many years. There will be those who say it was a just war, one which toppled an oppressive dictator and freed the Iraqi people. There will be others who will say it was an illegal invasion, perpetrated by an incompetent administration, that decieved its people to in order to invade a soverign nation. You can be certain that those in the Bush Administration will defend their decision, as Dick Cheney has recently, while promoting a new book. And you can also be certain that blame from conservatives, if Iraq falls apart, will be heaped on President Obama, for pulling out too early, rather than President Bush for going in at all. The point here is that Iraq is subjective; not the decisions made during the war, which are always subjective, but the decision to go to war.
One could argue that war constitutes the ultimate subjectivity. There are two sides, both of whom have an opinion about an issue. Each side feels so strongly about their point of view, about their side, that a conflict arises between the parties. War is the culmination of that conflict. The two sides feel so strongly about their subjective point of view, they are willing to fight and kill one another simply for their point of view to be accepted. Objectivity comes after the war, when the winning side writes history, but even that history is usually subjective since it often neglects the views of the side that has just been defeated. It is a really violent version of, "I'm right. You're wrong."
Since World War 2, The United States has concluded four major wars. Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and Iraq. While the Persian Gulf War resulted in minimal U.S. casualties, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq have combined to kill around 100,000 Americans. There are many similarities between these wars, but there is one striking fact all of these conflicts have in common. None of the enemy combatants attacked, or really even posed a threat, to this country. In Korea, we aided our friends in South Korea. In Vietnam we aimed to stop the spread of communism. In The Gulf, we repelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. And in Iraq we toppled Saddam Hussein. But North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, and Iraq again, never attacked us, and there was never any real threat of such an action.
Since World War 2, the decision to go to war has changed dramatically. War is now based on self-interest, rather than necessity. It is no longer a decision that is a last resort; the final option on the table. It is now the first option on the table, with dialogue used as pre-cursor rather an alternative. War has become a discretional choice, to be used as a tool to advance American interests. It many respects it has replaced civil dialogue. Of course, civil dialogue still remains, but military conflict has become an available and willing replacement. But why?
World War 2 was a world-altering conflict. It was a conflict decades in the making that dramatically altered the United States. Unlike wars since, World War 2 possesses objectivity. The view, held now even by Germans, is that Hitler was a maniacal leader, who aimed to take over the world, and needed to be stopped. He was a man, at the helm of one of the most powerful military forces in the world, using his power to murder Jews and other undesirables, while sweeping through Europe en route to what he hoped would be world domination. Germany even has a law today, that prohibits any alteration or outright denying of the Holocaust. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed nearly three thousand Americans, there was no choice but to enter the war. Hitler was not going to stop willfully, the only option was force. The only argument could have been that FDR should have entered sooner.
Following World War 2, America began its great ascent to the top of the world, a title which we still hold today. We became militarized and scared, pouring huge sums of money into our defense budget. We produced the finest military force the world has ever seen, using weaponry today that yesterday seemed futuristic. We authorized The Patriot Act and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. In our view, the only way to prevent such major conflicts of arising once again, was to stop them before they started, hence our decisions to enter Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, although none of those countries posed the same threat Germany did. But our fear following World War 2 was trumped by something else, something that is nearly impossible to achieve. World War 2 gave us an addiction.
When you take a drug, your mind becomes altered. Mentally, your regular body becomes mundane and you can't stand life without the drug. You need that feeling, that euphoria that the drug brings. For America the drug wasn't the war, but rather its conclusion. When you feel great about something, you will often say, "I feel on top of the world." Following World War 2, this country literally was on top of the world. Germany had been defeated and Japan was pummeled with two atomic bombs soon after. That feeling is the drug, and today we still have not felt the same euphoria. Yet, we keep trying to achieve that feeling and the only gateway to the drug is through war.
Was there elation following Korea, Vietnam, or The Gulf? What is the closest we've been to that euphoria? The answer is Osama Bin Laden. And look how we celebrated following his demise! We danced on the streets. There were parties and celebrations. There was a feeling of victory, a tangible win in the War on Terror. That is how our minds have been programmed, and that is the nature of this country today. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, that drug manifested itself once again.
-------------------------------
When there is objectivity in a conflict, there is agreement. There is a set of accepted facts, that both sides agree on, which will lead to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But what happens when that is not possible? What happens when two sides are so diametrically opposed that they simply cannot agree on anything? What happens when one side is sworn to the destruction of another, and simply will not stop until they can accomplish that feat? What happens when that side, that will not stop, does not even have a sovereign country or an army for that matter? What happens, is the War on Terror. The first of its kind. A military war based solely on an ideology, not a specific group of people with a specific homeland.
If you look at the history of Wars in the United States they have all been against a tangible enemy. The British twice in 1776 and 1812, Mexico twice in 1836 and 1846, Each Other in 1865, Spain in 1898, two World Wars against multiple enemies, Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1960, Iraq in 1990, and Terror in 2001. How do you fight a war against something thats intangible? Terror doesnt have a headquarters. Terror doesnt have an army. Terror isnt even imperialistic. Its goal is disruption. Its goal is to consume the world with fear. Those who orchestrate terror know very well they cannot win a conventional war against The United States. It is an impossibility. But what they can do is force the United States to destroy itself. And Terror has accomplished just that.
My perspective regarding the Iraq War is an interesting one. I was 11 years old during the attacks on September 11 and have lived half of my whole life at War. I have grown up from an immature 7th Grader to a future Law School attendee in a time of War, and chances are our country will still be at War when I graduate in 2015. In fact, nearly all of my memories growing up have occurred during a time of War. I remember going on a plane just a few months before 9/11. We breezed through security. I didnt have to take off my shoes and the amount of shampoo I had seemed to make little difference. The cockpit door was open during the flight and there seemed to be little worry regarding safety. Then everything changed. I was thrust into a world of fear, where vigilance was paramount to our safety. I remember flying after 9/11 and seeing the dichotomy between the two periods of time, before and after 9/11. There were no smiles from aiport security. Logan Aiport, the location where two planes used in the attacks took off from, became a war zone. I was introduced to radical Islam, and I latched on to stereotypes of Muslims I saw in the media. I got a taste of a pre 9/11 world but not enough to quench my thirst, and I will surely live in our current environment for years to come, possibly for the duration of my life.
I remember going to a friends house and watching for the first time the Twin Towers being hit and crashing to the ground. The first thing I said out loud, after seeing the footage was, "Wow, this is for real." I dont think I quite understood what the ramifications would be at the time, but watching the planes, these magestic birds flying effortlessly through the air, used as bombs, aroused my senses. I didnt know such hate. I didnt know a problem if it hit me in the face. I knew things would be different.
This wasnt a world like we live in today. I still had dial-up. Nobody had lap-tops. America Online was still dominating the market. Cell phones were still primitive. I didnt have one, and internet on a cell phone was far away. MTV still played music. Monopoly was my favorite game, not FIFA. I grew up in an environment, more so than my parents but exponentially less than kids today, where technology was used but not obsessed over. I didnt spend hours on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube because they didnt exist. We were sheltered compared to today, where kids are bombarded and exposed to everything at young ages. On September 11 I was blindsided.
However, everyone seemed to be in a consensus. Al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden was responsible. I had no reason to think otherwise. I didnt watch the news. I wasnt up to date on current events and foreign affairs. All I knew is Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. But even that information was gathered from my parents, and not the news. The course of action, and I had turned 12 by this time, was to go after this group, Al-Qaeda, who were supposedly hiding in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We would be at war with Al-Qaeda. Simple enough. Yet, in October of 2002, Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, justifying the use of military force in Iraq. And now as a 13 year old, I was bewildered, about why we were all of a sudden at war with Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
This was a war we had never fought before. Al-Qaeda was en enemy that was unidentifiable. They were a bunch of rag tag soldiers living in caves. Besides the faces of Osama bin Laden and a few other members of the top echelon of leadership, there was nothing to target. When Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor, 70 years ago, we could put a face to the atrocities. They were an extension of Germany. An objective enemy. They had a flag, an army, cities, and a country. But that was simply not the case with Al-Qaeda. Iraq however had a face. Its face was Saddam Hussein. And inexplicably, at the subjective behest of George W. Bush, the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
---------------------------------------
I was sitting on my couch with my parents on March 20, 2003, the day war began. The War in Afghanistan provided no theater because there was no infrastructure to hit, but in Iraq there were explosions and fireballs, as cruise missiles rained down all over the country. The only thing missing was Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, which should have been playing in the background.
So why did we go to war? According to George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair the reason for the invasion was, "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Husseins alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."Just days before the invasion of Iraq on March 17, 2003, Bush would say, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Really? More deadly than the actual atomic stockpile the United States possessed? In his address to the nation on March 19, 2003, Bush would add that the invasion was "to defend the world from grave danger." Press secretary Ari Fleischer would say it was a fact there were WMDs in Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld even had the chutzpah to say he knew where they were. But in his address to the nation March 19, 2003, Bush would go even farther, spouting lies and half-truths; nothing short of propaganda. Bush said, "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly...The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now...so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters, and police and doctors on the streets of our cities." These statements are nothing short of outrageous for any person who values objective reasoning, or any person who values being rational. But more than that the statements are frightening because they came from The President as reasoning to justify his war. If there were any reluctance about entering Iraq it would have never happened, and to implicitly say that not invading Iraq would directly result in an attack on our cities is the definition of warmongering.
Yet if there is someone who most symbolized the Bush administration it is Colin Powell. On February 5, 2003 while presenting to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said, "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11 world." It is clear here what Powell is doing. He is using our fear following 9/11 to conjure up an excuse for entering Iraq, coupled with the usual lies about weapons of mass destruction. But most shocking is what Colin Powell said about Iraq before 9/11 on February 24, 2001. Powell said, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." You would hope that during internal discussions about entering Iraq that Powell brought this tidbit up. Guess not.
But there was another reason besides WMDs and imminent attacks on our country to invade Iraq: Al-Qaeda.The administration claimed that there not only was a link, but that the two were even connected. Powell said that a "sinister nexus" existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. He also said, "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al-Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." President Bush would try for many months leading up to the war to link the two saying, "He (Hussein) is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his Al-Qaeda connections..." They would continue looking for connections and would, unsurprisingly come up empty.
Yet, it is well know there were no WMDs in Iraq, a fact everyone knew, except for the Bush Administration. Bush would say at the end of 2008, mired in some of the worst approval ratings ever, and mounting criticism over his handling of just about every major issue he encountered, that, "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." For many that could be considered an excuse, a way to deflect attention and blame onto other parties, most notably not George W. Bush. I find this statement infuriating because it is an admittance he sent young men and women to war on a hunch. How can you go to war on shoddy intelligence? This wasn't a singular attack on a facility where there was an intelligence failure. This was an invasion of another country! How can you possibly mistake the reason you are going to war? It is comparable to the doomsday prophet Harold Camping. A man, who had proof the world was ending, including sources many find unreliable. I heard his claims and briefly looked into them. Yet, you didn't see me selling all my material possessions to await the Rapture.
There are only one of two possibilities. Rampant incompetence or ulterior motives. You can decide for yourself.
---------------------------------------------------
War is not some noble event, as seen on screen or on television. War is brutal and horrific. War is bloodshed. Men, women, and children. No one is spared. War pits two groups of people against each other, with the goal of killing one another. Think about the psychological toll that puts on a 20 year old? Think about how that young man's mind is while he is in Iraq, seeing his friends mangled by IED's. Do you think he cares about the Iraqi people? They become the enemy. They became "Hajis", a slang term soldiers used for the Iraqi people.
War turns boys into men and men into monsters. War is Abu Ghraib. A prison where detainees were urinated on, sodomized, raped, and murdered; the pictures now seen worldwide. War is Haditha, where 24 Iraqi civilians were slaughtered. War is the Mahmudiyah Killings, where a 14 year old girl was repeatedly raped by American soldiers. The girl, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was murdered, along with her 6 year old younger sister, mother and father. War is Mukaradeeb, where 42 civilians were murdered at a wedding party. War is Guantanamo Bay where many of the foundations of country, such as due process, became inconsequential. War is torture, or enhanced interrogation techniques, where Waterboarding, or simluated drowing took place. Another group that used such a technique was the Kmer Rouge. War is Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker, two American soldiers, whose combined age was 48, who were captured, tortured, and murdered by Iraqi insurgents; their bodies paraded through the streets. War is 4,500 American military service members killed and 32,000 American casualties. War is the unconscionable toll this has put on American families and the group of young men and women who will return from Iraq physically or emotionally scarred, or both. War is PTSD, a disorder that will affect 1/5 returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. War is the stain this will leave on our country, most likely for the duration of my life.
War is The Wounded Platoon, an eye opening PBS Frontline investigation about the 3rd platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Batallion, 506 Infantry. The investigation uncovers the devastation the war has had on a small group of soldiers. The soldiers tell of gross misconduct by army doctors, who allegedly prescribed sleeping pills, anti-depressants, and anti-anxiety medication while soldiers were on the battlefield. It also tells of the mental toll the war took on the soldiers, and how the military has done little or nothing to help; sometimes discharging soldiers not allowing them to receive medical care. The investigation also reports about alleged killing of Iraqi civilians, something that soldiers who were interviewed implicitly admit to. And it tells of murder by former soldiers, not on the battlefield, but on American soil. Jose Barco, a decorated veteran, who experienced symptoms of PTSD, is facing decades in prison for attempted murder. Kevin Shields was an Iraq veteran, but upon return to America he was murdered; by three other returning soldiers.
If we weren't at war with the Iraqi people, what happened following the fall of Saddam Hussein? If our war was against him and his regime, why did we continuing occupying Iraq for nearly a decade? Did we understand, to any degree, the cultural sensitivities of this part of the world? The vast majority of Iraqis despise the United States. Following our withdrawal the Iraqi people celebrated, marking a new holiday called "Iraq Day". Our goal was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. Sounds easy enough. Not so much in reality. To Americans war is over once our military has pulled out. Once we're finished it no longer becomes our problem. While Americans have suffered through this conflict, the extent does not compare to the plight of the Iraqi people. While the exact number is hard to verify, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict is believed to exceed well over 100,000. The total Iraqi deaths is believed to be over 150,000. The number of wounded is even harder to verify, and with limited medical facilities in the country severe injuries are nearly impossible to treat. Some other numbers include 5 million, the reported number of Iraqi orphans. Or 4.7 million, which is the estimated number of Iraqis who have been displaced. Or 40% of Iraq's middle class which has fled the country. Or 50,000, the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria who have been forced into prostitution. Or the humanitarian crisis that is currently enveloping the country. Over time, the media will turn its attention elsewhere and forget Iraq. Suicide bombings will take up a few seconds of a broadcast, during a quick update. Since the pullout of American forces, there have already been multiple bombings, killing dozens of Iraqis. The number will only continue to rise. Just numbers to us.
--------------------------------
As events unfold in the Arab world, I begin to think of what could have been Iraq. I think about whether this all could have been avoided, and whether Saddam Hussein would have met the same fate of other recently deposed dictators. Wouldn't the Arab Spring have reached Iraq? What country would have been a better candidate to see upheaval than Iraq? Iraq and its leadership stood for everything that the Arab Spring sought to uproot. An oil-rich country led by a maniacal dictator who had been in power for decades. Sound familiar? I'll continue. A delusional leader who lived a lavish lifestyle, purporting to be a man of the people, while his people lived in poverty, deprived of basic human rights while living in fear of torture and/or imprisonment for the smallest amount of dissent. I think I've heard that story before.
The results we currently see in Libya could very well have transpired in Iraq. We forced democracy on Iraq instead of waiting for it to come to its people. And right as we are pulling out of Iraq, the region is seeing democracy make its way in. Yet, this war in Iraq has systematically destroyed our standing in the world. All of the sympathy we had aroused after 9/11 was shattered following the invasion. We were seen as a victim following the attacks on 9/11, yet the moment we invaded Iraq we became the oil grabbing, imperialistic monster, as much of the Arab world sees us today. By invading Iraq we essentially created an enemy. The insurgency in Iraq was American made. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was American made. And they will remain in the country, hostile to any U.S. backed government, long after our troops pull out.
As long as Iraq is debated you will hear that President Obama pulled out too early. Many will say we should have stayed longer to stabilize Iraq, to ensure that its democracy becomes fully functioning. So did he pull out too early? Of course he did. Because, if your wish was to install a fully functioning democracy in Iraq, then you would need another 20 years, maybe more. To presume that Iraq could rid itself of sectarian violence, and establish a western democracy within the next 10 years is a fallacy. These types of seismic shifts don't happen overnight. They take decades and generations to establish, and sometimes entire lifetimes, if not longer. We do not have the resources at our present time to stay in Iraq for 2 more decades. If Iraq wants to establish democracy, Iraq will establish democracy, not The United States of America.
I don't know how George W. Bush feels about his decision to invade Iraq. I don't know whether he understands the magnitude his decision has had on an innumerable amount of lives, and will continue to have. War is not a simple board game, like Risk, where you can send cannons and horses into a country and simply by rolling the dice, can you conquer land. War involves blood. A lot of blood. So when I look back on this terrible war, many emotions permeate my body. I see it as a conflict that will define my generation. I see it it as a conflict that has destroyed so many lives, yet the architects will never be held responsible. Right now the anger is palpable. But over time it will subside. It has to. But as the anger slowly subsides, I'll be left with sadness. Immense amounts of sadness.
Some good follow up reads:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/Todd-Purdum-on-National-Security
In a tepid and small ceremony, The United States lowered the American flag in Iraq. This was no victory parade, just a recognition that it was over. In a sense, it was an awkward ceremony, because nobody really knows how to feel right now. The United States has effectively ended the war, crossing the border into Kuwait and removing all combat troops. The pullout signifies the beginning of the end to the military conflicts that commenced following the attacks on September 11.
Iraq will be debated for many years. There will be those who say it was a just war, one which toppled an oppressive dictator and freed the Iraqi people. There will be others who will say it was an illegal invasion, perpetrated by an incompetent administration, that decieved its people to in order to invade a soverign nation. You can be certain that those in the Bush Administration will defend their decision, as Dick Cheney has recently, while promoting a new book. And you can also be certain that blame from conservatives, if Iraq falls apart, will be heaped on President Obama, for pulling out too early, rather than President Bush for going in at all. The point here is that Iraq is subjective; not the decisions made during the war, which are always subjective, but the decision to go to war.
One could argue that war constitutes the ultimate subjectivity. There are two sides, both of whom have an opinion about an issue. Each side feels so strongly about their point of view, about their side, that a conflict arises between the parties. War is the culmination of that conflict. The two sides feel so strongly about their subjective point of view, they are willing to fight and kill one another simply for their point of view to be accepted. Objectivity comes after the war, when the winning side writes history, but even that history is usually subjective since it often neglects the views of the side that has just been defeated. It is a really violent version of, "I'm right. You're wrong."
Since World War 2, The United States has concluded four major wars. Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and Iraq. While the Persian Gulf War resulted in minimal U.S. casualties, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq have combined to kill around 100,000 Americans. There are many similarities between these wars, but there is one striking fact all of these conflicts have in common. None of the enemy combatants attacked, or really even posed a threat, to this country. In Korea, we aided our friends in South Korea. In Vietnam we aimed to stop the spread of communism. In The Gulf, we repelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. And in Iraq we toppled Saddam Hussein. But North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, and Iraq again, never attacked us, and there was never any real threat of such an action.
Since World War 2, the decision to go to war has changed dramatically. War is now based on self-interest, rather than necessity. It is no longer a decision that is a last resort; the final option on the table. It is now the first option on the table, with dialogue used as pre-cursor rather an alternative. War has become a discretional choice, to be used as a tool to advance American interests. It many respects it has replaced civil dialogue. Of course, civil dialogue still remains, but military conflict has become an available and willing replacement. But why?
World War 2 was a world-altering conflict. It was a conflict decades in the making that dramatically altered the United States. Unlike wars since, World War 2 possesses objectivity. The view, held now even by Germans, is that Hitler was a maniacal leader, who aimed to take over the world, and needed to be stopped. He was a man, at the helm of one of the most powerful military forces in the world, using his power to murder Jews and other undesirables, while sweeping through Europe en route to what he hoped would be world domination. Germany even has a law today, that prohibits any alteration or outright denying of the Holocaust. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, which killed nearly three thousand Americans, there was no choice but to enter the war. Hitler was not going to stop willfully, the only option was force. The only argument could have been that FDR should have entered sooner.
Following World War 2, America began its great ascent to the top of the world, a title which we still hold today. We became militarized and scared, pouring huge sums of money into our defense budget. We produced the finest military force the world has ever seen, using weaponry today that yesterday seemed futuristic. We authorized The Patriot Act and Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. In our view, the only way to prevent such major conflicts of arising once again, was to stop them before they started, hence our decisions to enter Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, although none of those countries posed the same threat Germany did. But our fear following World War 2 was trumped by something else, something that is nearly impossible to achieve. World War 2 gave us an addiction.
When you take a drug, your mind becomes altered. Mentally, your regular body becomes mundane and you can't stand life without the drug. You need that feeling, that euphoria that the drug brings. For America the drug wasn't the war, but rather its conclusion. When you feel great about something, you will often say, "I feel on top of the world." Following World War 2, this country literally was on top of the world. Germany had been defeated and Japan was pummeled with two atomic bombs soon after. That feeling is the drug, and today we still have not felt the same euphoria. Yet, we keep trying to achieve that feeling and the only gateway to the drug is through war.
Was there elation following Korea, Vietnam, or The Gulf? What is the closest we've been to that euphoria? The answer is Osama Bin Laden. And look how we celebrated following his demise! We danced on the streets. There were parties and celebrations. There was a feeling of victory, a tangible win in the War on Terror. That is how our minds have been programmed, and that is the nature of this country today. When Osama Bin Laden was killed, that drug manifested itself once again.
-------------------------------
When there is objectivity in a conflict, there is agreement. There is a set of accepted facts, that both sides agree on, which will lead to a peaceful resolution to the conflict. But what happens when that is not possible? What happens when two sides are so diametrically opposed that they simply cannot agree on anything? What happens when one side is sworn to the destruction of another, and simply will not stop until they can accomplish that feat? What happens when that side, that will not stop, does not even have a sovereign country or an army for that matter? What happens, is the War on Terror. The first of its kind. A military war based solely on an ideology, not a specific group of people with a specific homeland.
If you look at the history of Wars in the United States they have all been against a tangible enemy. The British twice in 1776 and 1812, Mexico twice in 1836 and 1846, Each Other in 1865, Spain in 1898, two World Wars against multiple enemies, Korea in 1950, Vietnam in 1960, Iraq in 1990, and Terror in 2001. How do you fight a war against something thats intangible? Terror doesnt have a headquarters. Terror doesnt have an army. Terror isnt even imperialistic. Its goal is disruption. Its goal is to consume the world with fear. Those who orchestrate terror know very well they cannot win a conventional war against The United States. It is an impossibility. But what they can do is force the United States to destroy itself. And Terror has accomplished just that.
My perspective regarding the Iraq War is an interesting one. I was 11 years old during the attacks on September 11 and have lived half of my whole life at War. I have grown up from an immature 7th Grader to a future Law School attendee in a time of War, and chances are our country will still be at War when I graduate in 2015. In fact, nearly all of my memories growing up have occurred during a time of War. I remember going on a plane just a few months before 9/11. We breezed through security. I didnt have to take off my shoes and the amount of shampoo I had seemed to make little difference. The cockpit door was open during the flight and there seemed to be little worry regarding safety. Then everything changed. I was thrust into a world of fear, where vigilance was paramount to our safety. I remember flying after 9/11 and seeing the dichotomy between the two periods of time, before and after 9/11. There were no smiles from aiport security. Logan Aiport, the location where two planes used in the attacks took off from, became a war zone. I was introduced to radical Islam, and I latched on to stereotypes of Muslims I saw in the media. I got a taste of a pre 9/11 world but not enough to quench my thirst, and I will surely live in our current environment for years to come, possibly for the duration of my life.
I remember going to a friends house and watching for the first time the Twin Towers being hit and crashing to the ground. The first thing I said out loud, after seeing the footage was, "Wow, this is for real." I dont think I quite understood what the ramifications would be at the time, but watching the planes, these magestic birds flying effortlessly through the air, used as bombs, aroused my senses. I didnt know such hate. I didnt know a problem if it hit me in the face. I knew things would be different.
This wasnt a world like we live in today. I still had dial-up. Nobody had lap-tops. America Online was still dominating the market. Cell phones were still primitive. I didnt have one, and internet on a cell phone was far away. MTV still played music. Monopoly was my favorite game, not FIFA. I grew up in an environment, more so than my parents but exponentially less than kids today, where technology was used but not obsessed over. I didnt spend hours on Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube because they didnt exist. We were sheltered compared to today, where kids are bombarded and exposed to everything at young ages. On September 11 I was blindsided.
However, everyone seemed to be in a consensus. Al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden was responsible. I had no reason to think otherwise. I didnt watch the news. I wasnt up to date on current events and foreign affairs. All I knew is Al Gore should have won the 2000 election. But even that information was gathered from my parents, and not the news. The course of action, and I had turned 12 by this time, was to go after this group, Al-Qaeda, who were supposedly hiding in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We would be at war with Al-Qaeda. Simple enough. Yet, in October of 2002, Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, justifying the use of military force in Iraq. And now as a 13 year old, I was bewildered, about why we were all of a sudden at war with Iraq. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?
This was a war we had never fought before. Al-Qaeda was en enemy that was unidentifiable. They were a bunch of rag tag soldiers living in caves. Besides the faces of Osama bin Laden and a few other members of the top echelon of leadership, there was nothing to target. When Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor, 70 years ago, we could put a face to the atrocities. They were an extension of Germany. An objective enemy. They had a flag, an army, cities, and a country. But that was simply not the case with Al-Qaeda. Iraq however had a face. Its face was Saddam Hussein. And inexplicably, at the subjective behest of George W. Bush, the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
---------------------------------------
I was sitting on my couch with my parents on March 20, 2003, the day war began. The War in Afghanistan provided no theater because there was no infrastructure to hit, but in Iraq there were explosions and fireballs, as cruise missiles rained down all over the country. The only thing missing was Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, which should have been playing in the background.
So why did we go to war? According to George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair the reason for the invasion was, "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Husseins alleged support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."Just days before the invasion of Iraq on March 17, 2003, Bush would say, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Really? More deadly than the actual atomic stockpile the United States possessed? In his address to the nation on March 19, 2003, Bush would add that the invasion was "to defend the world from grave danger." Press secretary Ari Fleischer would say it was a fact there were WMDs in Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld even had the chutzpah to say he knew where they were. But in his address to the nation March 19, 2003, Bush would go even farther, spouting lies and half-truths; nothing short of propaganda. Bush said, "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly...The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now...so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters, and police and doctors on the streets of our cities." These statements are nothing short of outrageous for any person who values objective reasoning, or any person who values being rational. But more than that the statements are frightening because they came from The President as reasoning to justify his war. If there were any reluctance about entering Iraq it would have never happened, and to implicitly say that not invading Iraq would directly result in an attack on our cities is the definition of warmongering.
Yet if there is someone who most symbolized the Bush administration it is Colin Powell. On February 5, 2003 while presenting to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said, "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post–September 11 world." It is clear here what Powell is doing. He is using our fear following 9/11 to conjure up an excuse for entering Iraq, coupled with the usual lies about weapons of mass destruction. But most shocking is what Colin Powell said about Iraq before 9/11 on February 24, 2001. Powell said, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." You would hope that during internal discussions about entering Iraq that Powell brought this tidbit up. Guess not.
But there was another reason besides WMDs and imminent attacks on our country to invade Iraq: Al-Qaeda.The administration claimed that there not only was a link, but that the two were even connected. Powell said that a "sinister nexus" existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. He also said, "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al-Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." President Bush would try for many months leading up to the war to link the two saying, "He (Hussein) is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his Al-Qaeda connections..." They would continue looking for connections and would, unsurprisingly come up empty.
Yet, it is well know there were no WMDs in Iraq, a fact everyone knew, except for the Bush Administration. Bush would say at the end of 2008, mired in some of the worst approval ratings ever, and mounting criticism over his handling of just about every major issue he encountered, that, "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." For many that could be considered an excuse, a way to deflect attention and blame onto other parties, most notably not George W. Bush. I find this statement infuriating because it is an admittance he sent young men and women to war on a hunch. How can you go to war on shoddy intelligence? This wasn't a singular attack on a facility where there was an intelligence failure. This was an invasion of another country! How can you possibly mistake the reason you are going to war? It is comparable to the doomsday prophet Harold Camping. A man, who had proof the world was ending, including sources many find unreliable. I heard his claims and briefly looked into them. Yet, you didn't see me selling all my material possessions to await the Rapture.
There are only one of two possibilities. Rampant incompetence or ulterior motives. You can decide for yourself.
---------------------------------------------------
War is not some noble event, as seen on screen or on television. War is brutal and horrific. War is bloodshed. Men, women, and children. No one is spared. War pits two groups of people against each other, with the goal of killing one another. Think about the psychological toll that puts on a 20 year old? Think about how that young man's mind is while he is in Iraq, seeing his friends mangled by IED's. Do you think he cares about the Iraqi people? They become the enemy. They became "Hajis", a slang term soldiers used for the Iraqi people.
War turns boys into men and men into monsters. War is Abu Ghraib. A prison where detainees were urinated on, sodomized, raped, and murdered; the pictures now seen worldwide. War is Haditha, where 24 Iraqi civilians were slaughtered. War is the Mahmudiyah Killings, where a 14 year old girl was repeatedly raped by American soldiers. The girl, Abeer Qasim Hamza, was murdered, along with her 6 year old younger sister, mother and father. War is Mukaradeeb, where 42 civilians were murdered at a wedding party. War is Guantanamo Bay where many of the foundations of country, such as due process, became inconsequential. War is torture, or enhanced interrogation techniques, where Waterboarding, or simluated drowing took place. Another group that used such a technique was the Kmer Rouge. War is Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Lowell Tucker, two American soldiers, whose combined age was 48, who were captured, tortured, and murdered by Iraqi insurgents; their bodies paraded through the streets. War is 4,500 American military service members killed and 32,000 American casualties. War is the unconscionable toll this has put on American families and the group of young men and women who will return from Iraq physically or emotionally scarred, or both. War is PTSD, a disorder that will affect 1/5 returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan. War is the stain this will leave on our country, most likely for the duration of my life.
War is The Wounded Platoon, an eye opening PBS Frontline investigation about the 3rd platoon, Charlie Company, 1st Batallion, 506 Infantry. The investigation uncovers the devastation the war has had on a small group of soldiers. The soldiers tell of gross misconduct by army doctors, who allegedly prescribed sleeping pills, anti-depressants, and anti-anxiety medication while soldiers were on the battlefield. It also tells of the mental toll the war took on the soldiers, and how the military has done little or nothing to help; sometimes discharging soldiers not allowing them to receive medical care. The investigation also reports about alleged killing of Iraqi civilians, something that soldiers who were interviewed implicitly admit to. And it tells of murder by former soldiers, not on the battlefield, but on American soil. Jose Barco, a decorated veteran, who experienced symptoms of PTSD, is facing decades in prison for attempted murder. Kevin Shields was an Iraq veteran, but upon return to America he was murdered; by three other returning soldiers.
If we weren't at war with the Iraqi people, what happened following the fall of Saddam Hussein? If our war was against him and his regime, why did we continuing occupying Iraq for nearly a decade? Did we understand, to any degree, the cultural sensitivities of this part of the world? The vast majority of Iraqis despise the United States. Following our withdrawal the Iraqi people celebrated, marking a new holiday called "Iraq Day". Our goal was to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. Sounds easy enough. Not so much in reality. To Americans war is over once our military has pulled out. Once we're finished it no longer becomes our problem. While Americans have suffered through this conflict, the extent does not compare to the plight of the Iraqi people. While the exact number is hard to verify, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in the conflict is believed to exceed well over 100,000. The total Iraqi deaths is believed to be over 150,000. The number of wounded is even harder to verify, and with limited medical facilities in the country severe injuries are nearly impossible to treat. Some other numbers include 5 million, the reported number of Iraqi orphans. Or 4.7 million, which is the estimated number of Iraqis who have been displaced. Or 40% of Iraq's middle class which has fled the country. Or 50,000, the number of Iraqi refugees in Syria who have been forced into prostitution. Or the humanitarian crisis that is currently enveloping the country. Over time, the media will turn its attention elsewhere and forget Iraq. Suicide bombings will take up a few seconds of a broadcast, during a quick update. Since the pullout of American forces, there have already been multiple bombings, killing dozens of Iraqis. The number will only continue to rise. Just numbers to us.
--------------------------------
As events unfold in the Arab world, I begin to think of what could have been Iraq. I think about whether this all could have been avoided, and whether Saddam Hussein would have met the same fate of other recently deposed dictators. Wouldn't the Arab Spring have reached Iraq? What country would have been a better candidate to see upheaval than Iraq? Iraq and its leadership stood for everything that the Arab Spring sought to uproot. An oil-rich country led by a maniacal dictator who had been in power for decades. Sound familiar? I'll continue. A delusional leader who lived a lavish lifestyle, purporting to be a man of the people, while his people lived in poverty, deprived of basic human rights while living in fear of torture and/or imprisonment for the smallest amount of dissent. I think I've heard that story before.
The results we currently see in Libya could very well have transpired in Iraq. We forced democracy on Iraq instead of waiting for it to come to its people. And right as we are pulling out of Iraq, the region is seeing democracy make its way in. Yet, this war in Iraq has systematically destroyed our standing in the world. All of the sympathy we had aroused after 9/11 was shattered following the invasion. We were seen as a victim following the attacks on 9/11, yet the moment we invaded Iraq we became the oil grabbing, imperialistic monster, as much of the Arab world sees us today. By invading Iraq we essentially created an enemy. The insurgency in Iraq was American made. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was American made. And they will remain in the country, hostile to any U.S. backed government, long after our troops pull out.
As long as Iraq is debated you will hear that President Obama pulled out too early. Many will say we should have stayed longer to stabilize Iraq, to ensure that its democracy becomes fully functioning. So did he pull out too early? Of course he did. Because, if your wish was to install a fully functioning democracy in Iraq, then you would need another 20 years, maybe more. To presume that Iraq could rid itself of sectarian violence, and establish a western democracy within the next 10 years is a fallacy. These types of seismic shifts don't happen overnight. They take decades and generations to establish, and sometimes entire lifetimes, if not longer. We do not have the resources at our present time to stay in Iraq for 2 more decades. If Iraq wants to establish democracy, Iraq will establish democracy, not The United States of America.
I don't know how George W. Bush feels about his decision to invade Iraq. I don't know whether he understands the magnitude his decision has had on an innumerable amount of lives, and will continue to have. War is not a simple board game, like Risk, where you can send cannons and horses into a country and simply by rolling the dice, can you conquer land. War involves blood. A lot of blood. So when I look back on this terrible war, many emotions permeate my body. I see it as a conflict that will define my generation. I see it it as a conflict that has destroyed so many lives, yet the architects will never be held responsible. Right now the anger is palpable. But over time it will subside. It has to. But as the anger slowly subsides, I'll be left with sadness. Immense amounts of sadness.
Some good follow up reads:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01/Todd-Purdum-on-National-Security
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Arab Spring and the War in Iraq
In just a few weeks time the War in Iraq will draw to a close. I'm not exactly sure how we should label this "War" since I am unable to pinpoint exactly who the "War" has been against, since the fall of Saddam Hussein nearly a decade ago. It is one war, and I am sad to live in a time where I describe a war so nonchalantly, that I am simply perplexed and bewildered by. I was only 11 years old when Al-Qaeda attacked this country, throwing the world into a tailspin. I remember sitting in my FACS class, which was similar to Home-Ec, in 7th grade listening to Mr. Berkowitz, my principal, tell the school over the loudspeaker there had been an attack in New York. I remember teachers hugging and crying, and I remember listening to the radio at lunch hearing that another plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Of course, I was completely unaware of the magnitude and it wasnt until I went to a friends house after school and saw those planes hitting the Towers that I realized my life would never be the same.
Yet as an 11 year old, it became clear to me who attacked us. It was Al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. It seemed there was unanimous recognition of this fact and I certainly had no reason to doubt it. The course of action, and I had turned 12 by this time, was to go after this group, who were supposedly hiding in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We would be at war with Al-Qaeda. Yet, in October of 2002, Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, justifying the use of military force in Iraq. And as a 12 year old, I was bewildered, similar to the feelings I harbor today, about why we were all of a sudden at war with Iraq.
This was a war we had never fought before. Al-Qaeda was en enemy that was unidentifiable. They were a bunch of rag tag soldiers living in caves. Besides the faces of Osama bin Laden and few other members of the top echelon of leadership, there was nothing to target. Al-Qaeda didn't even have a known headquarters. When Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor, 70 years ago today, we could put a face on the atrocities. They had a flag, an army, cities, and a country. But that was simply not the case with Al-Qaeda.
Iraq had a face. Its face was Saddam Hussein. And inexplicably, at the behest of George W. Bush, the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
And that leaves us with today. And my bewilderment and confusion turns to anger. I'm angry that nearly 4500 military service members have been killed in Iraq, mostly young men and women. I'm angry that there have been over 32,000 American casulaties during this war. I'm angry that we have spent huge sums of money in Iraq, somewhere around 1 Trillion, that wasn't paid for. I'm angry that somewhere around 100,000 Iraqi's have been killed in this war. A simply staggering number. I'm angry about the unconscionable toll this has put on American families. I'm angry about a group of young men and women who will return from Iraq physically or emotionally scarred, or both. And I'm angry that nearly all of it could have been avoided, while achieving the same result.
Enter: The Arab Spring.
Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya all saw their long standing dictators removed in an unprecedented period of upheaval. And Syria is sure to be next. Yet, one country never had their chance. Iraq.
What country would have been a better candidate to see upheaval than Iraq? Iraq and its leadership stood for everything that the Arab Spring sought to uproot. An oil-rich country led by a maniacal dictator who had been in power for decades. Sound familiar? Try Libya. I'll continue. A delusional leader who lived a lavish lifestyle, purporting to be a man of the people, while his people lived in poverty, deprived of basic human rights while living in fear of torture and/or imprisonment for the smallest amount of dissent. Not a mirror-image but pretty darn close.
The results we currently see in Libya could very well have transpired in Iraq. And I don't hesitate to say that the Arab Spring would have undoubtedly spread to Iraq. We forced democracy on Iraq instead of waiting for it to come to its people. And right as we are pulling out of Iraq, the region is seeing democracy make its way in. Yet, this war in Iraq has systematically destroyed our standing in the world. All of the sympathy we had aroused after 9/11 was shattered following the invasion. We were seen as a victim following the attacks on 9/11, yet the moment we invaded Iraq we became the oil grabbing, imperialistic monster, as much of the Arab world sees us today. By invading Iraq we essentially created an enemy. The insurgency in Iraq was American made. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was American made. And they will remain in the country, hostile to any U.S. backed government, long after our troops pull out.
The decision to invade Iraq, I believe, will haunt this country for many years to come. The damage we did to our own people, to the Iraqi people, to our standing in the world, to our economy, and to the current country of Iraq is simply incalculable. And what have we accomplished? We deposed Saddam Hussein but chances are he would have been gone in time. So I struggle to find anything positive about the "War" in Iraq.
I don't know how George W. Bush feels about his decision to invade Iraq. I dont know how he feels about signing a document that sent young men and women to their death for his own self-righteous pursuit. War is not a simple board game, like Risk, where you can send cannons and horses into a country and simply by rolling the dice, can you conquer land. War involves blood. A lot of blood. So when I look back on this terrible "War", many emotions permeate my body. The anger slowly subsides and I'm left with sadness. Immense amounts of sadness.
Yet as an 11 year old, it became clear to me who attacked us. It was Al-Qaeda, under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden. It seemed there was unanimous recognition of this fact and I certainly had no reason to doubt it. The course of action, and I had turned 12 by this time, was to go after this group, who were supposedly hiding in the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We would be at war with Al-Qaeda. Yet, in October of 2002, Congress passed the Iraq Resolution, justifying the use of military force in Iraq. And as a 12 year old, I was bewildered, similar to the feelings I harbor today, about why we were all of a sudden at war with Iraq.
This was a war we had never fought before. Al-Qaeda was en enemy that was unidentifiable. They were a bunch of rag tag soldiers living in caves. Besides the faces of Osama bin Laden and few other members of the top echelon of leadership, there was nothing to target. Al-Qaeda didn't even have a known headquarters. When Japan attacked us on Pearl Harbor, 70 years ago today, we could put a face on the atrocities. They had a flag, an army, cities, and a country. But that was simply not the case with Al-Qaeda.
Iraq had a face. Its face was Saddam Hussein. And inexplicably, at the behest of George W. Bush, the United States invaded Iraq in March of 2003.
And that leaves us with today. And my bewilderment and confusion turns to anger. I'm angry that nearly 4500 military service members have been killed in Iraq, mostly young men and women. I'm angry that there have been over 32,000 American casulaties during this war. I'm angry that we have spent huge sums of money in Iraq, somewhere around 1 Trillion, that wasn't paid for. I'm angry that somewhere around 100,000 Iraqi's have been killed in this war. A simply staggering number. I'm angry about the unconscionable toll this has put on American families. I'm angry about a group of young men and women who will return from Iraq physically or emotionally scarred, or both. And I'm angry that nearly all of it could have been avoided, while achieving the same result.
Enter: The Arab Spring.
Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya all saw their long standing dictators removed in an unprecedented period of upheaval. And Syria is sure to be next. Yet, one country never had their chance. Iraq.
What country would have been a better candidate to see upheaval than Iraq? Iraq and its leadership stood for everything that the Arab Spring sought to uproot. An oil-rich country led by a maniacal dictator who had been in power for decades. Sound familiar? Try Libya. I'll continue. A delusional leader who lived a lavish lifestyle, purporting to be a man of the people, while his people lived in poverty, deprived of basic human rights while living in fear of torture and/or imprisonment for the smallest amount of dissent. Not a mirror-image but pretty darn close.
The results we currently see in Libya could very well have transpired in Iraq. And I don't hesitate to say that the Arab Spring would have undoubtedly spread to Iraq. We forced democracy on Iraq instead of waiting for it to come to its people. And right as we are pulling out of Iraq, the region is seeing democracy make its way in. Yet, this war in Iraq has systematically destroyed our standing in the world. All of the sympathy we had aroused after 9/11 was shattered following the invasion. We were seen as a victim following the attacks on 9/11, yet the moment we invaded Iraq we became the oil grabbing, imperialistic monster, as much of the Arab world sees us today. By invading Iraq we essentially created an enemy. The insurgency in Iraq was American made. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was American made. And they will remain in the country, hostile to any U.S. backed government, long after our troops pull out.
The decision to invade Iraq, I believe, will haunt this country for many years to come. The damage we did to our own people, to the Iraqi people, to our standing in the world, to our economy, and to the current country of Iraq is simply incalculable. And what have we accomplished? We deposed Saddam Hussein but chances are he would have been gone in time. So I struggle to find anything positive about the "War" in Iraq.
I don't know how George W. Bush feels about his decision to invade Iraq. I dont know how he feels about signing a document that sent young men and women to their death for his own self-righteous pursuit. War is not a simple board game, like Risk, where you can send cannons and horses into a country and simply by rolling the dice, can you conquer land. War involves blood. A lot of blood. So when I look back on this terrible "War", many emotions permeate my body. The anger slowly subsides and I'm left with sadness. Immense amounts of sadness.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
The Rise and Fall of Joe Paterno
And the valiant return of the blog is back! My return is of course linked to the burgeoning scandal at Penn St. which recently claimed the job of the immortal Joe Paterno. It is a highly charged, emotional issue, evidenced by the rioting and complete lack of understanding and awareness of the scope of this scandal. I was outraged and anyone who is reading this should be as well, after seeing people claim that Joe Paterno was being victimized and unfairly treated. I was also outraged at Joe Paterno himself, after saying that he would retire at the end of the season, going out on his terms, which was one of the more selfish and grotesque actions such a revered person could take. Many have put the iconic rise and reputation of Penn St football, and the whole university for that matter squarely on the shoulders of Joe Paterno, and rightly so, but the truth is that none of it matters because while JoePa built this program, he is also responsible for tearing it down. In fact, whichever way you look at this situation JoePa will have left Penn St in a far worse position than when he arrived. They will undoubtedly have to start over and if JoePa is responsible bringing Penn St to the mountain top, then he sure as hell is responsible for letting them tumble down.
There are many who will defend Joe in the coming days, weeks, and even years. But as time goes on I have no doubt this will look much worse than what it looks like today. Let me be clear: In the coming months, the public will see the full scope of the atrocities that occurred, and the past few days will be the tip of the iceberg. This whole fiasco stinks. It reeks of cover ups and indifference; of men in authority caring more about money and the reputation of a program than the life of a child. This is about educators, or at least thats what the NCAA will call them, turning a blind eye because they felt it could hurt the reputation of their University or in other words it would hurt business.
Lets start from the beginning. Jerry Sandusky was, by all accounts, a brilliant coach. In 1977 he started the Second Mile, a charitable organization helping at-risk children, the same year he became Defensive Coordinator. As Defensive Coordinator he helped lead the Nittany Lions to national championships in 1982 and 1986 and was considered to be a possible replacement to JoePa. His final game occurred in 1999 when he led his defense to a shut-out of Texas A&M in the Alamo Bowl where he was ironically, hoisted and carried by his players to commemorate his final game. He remained at Penn St, holding an office and continuing to use the university facilities until his arrest November 5. Lets backtrack to his retirement. He retired in 1999 at the age of 55, which is suprisingly young, for someone thought to be the successor to one of the storied programs in college football. But it appears as though something was going on in the background. In 1998 Sandusky allegedly showered with an 11 year old, eerily labeled as "Victim 6" in the Grand Jury Report. This incident was brought to police who investigated the matter but no criminal charges were filed. Sandusky alleged said in regards to his interactions with "Victim 6", "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness...I wish I were dead." There is no doubt that administrators within the athletic department of Penn St knew of this egregious act yet they allowed Sandusky to maintain a presence at the University. While I am only speculating, it makes perfect sense that Sandusky was forced out the next season. More or less a cover up of titanic proportions.
Yet after the incident in 1998, he continued with his charity culminating in the now famous incident when in 2002 graduate assistant Mike Mcqueary allegedly witnessed Sandusky, late at night, anally raping a young boy, thought to be about 10 years old. He inexplicably did not tell the police and instead told his father and subsequently told Joe Paterno which is the moment where most of the current outrage at JoePa is focused. He told his superiors and left it at that. He didnt follow up. He didnt call the police. And instead let Sandusky continue on as if nothing had happened allowing Sandusky to allegedly molest more children.
I should note I am leaving out a number of instances detailed in the grand jury report. And although it is disturbing and graphic if you want to understand why JoePa's inaction is infuriating read the report. http://www.wgal.com/pdf/29737452/detail.html
It should also be noted that administrators Gary Schultz, who is Senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, who is Athletic Director were both arrested and charged with perjury for lying about what they knew about the allegations. Both have stepped down.
Now lets fast forward to the present. Sandusky is arrested and there is a firestorm of allegations and rumblings about the future of Paterno. This is the point where I lost any respect for the legendary coach. After cancelling his weekly press conference, Joe lets the public know he will retire at the end of the season, on his terms. Don't be fooled by this outrageous statement. It is not noble or commendable or pious. It is selfish. And worse it is denigrating to the victims in this case. Joe wanted to ride out on a high horse for the final three games and be cheered by the 100,000+ people that will attend Saturday's game. He wanted to go out on his terms. Hey Joe, did victim 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8 say their terms when Jerry Sandusky was molesting them? And especially the victims after 2002 when Joe knew that innappropriate acts occurred. What about them? The Board of Trustees made the right call by firing him. His inaction is unforgivable. Period. The University needed to levy a tangible punishment and frankly, it is very little compared to the trauma his decision making or lack thereof resulted in.
Many have decried the decision as wrong. And have said Joe deserves better. Many have also said they don't understand why some are still employed, notably the graduate assistant, Mike Mcqueary who witnessed the 2002 incident, while Joe is gone. They are looking at this the wrong way. Joe should not be allowed to coach because Mcqueary is still coaching. Both should be gone. Anyone involved should be gone immediately. So while the Board of Trustees fired Joe, they have not gone far enough and I hope they fire Mike Mcqueary and anyone else who knew of something and didnt speak up. Just because you didnt break the law doesnt mean you didnt commit wrongdoing. There is a moral threshold, which in an insitution that prides itself on honor and integrity should live up to. Systemically, Penn St destroyed that moral threshold.
I have also heard that Joe did what he was supposed to, that he told his superior, which was all that was required of him. This is once again and outrageous statement. I wanted to put into words my thoughts but Howard Bryant did an incredible job so I will let him speak for me. In an ESPN article he wrote,
"It is incongruous that any adult with basic common sense -- especially those who supposedly have worked with children and young adults for decades -- could conclude that there was no wrongdoing after a report that a grown man was inappropriately in a shower with a child. Being in a shower inappropriately with a child or adolescent is the finding of wrongdoing. Paterno, Schultz and Curley all appear to be using the same defense: that the graduate student who came forward did not detail specifically what he saw. Which begs the question: After being told that an adult, who to that point had worked with children for 25 years, was caught showering in your locker room with a child for any reason, just how much more specificity did Paterno, Schultz and Curley actually need?" Couldnt have said it better myself.
So how big and far does this go? Mark Madden, who reported the case many months ago, said that people are looking into rumors, and these are simply rumors right now, that kids were being pimped out to rich donors through the foundation. At this point, it wouldnt surprise me. Already a ninth victim has allegedly come forward and I do believe there are many more to come.
So what is JoePa's legacy? I'm not sure. He's done a lot of good for this university helping shape the lives of young men and that cannot be debated. Some will defend him. Some will call him a monster. I dont know what he is. But I know one thing he isn't: The honorable man we once thought he was.
There are many who will defend Joe in the coming days, weeks, and even years. But as time goes on I have no doubt this will look much worse than what it looks like today. Let me be clear: In the coming months, the public will see the full scope of the atrocities that occurred, and the past few days will be the tip of the iceberg. This whole fiasco stinks. It reeks of cover ups and indifference; of men in authority caring more about money and the reputation of a program than the life of a child. This is about educators, or at least thats what the NCAA will call them, turning a blind eye because they felt it could hurt the reputation of their University or in other words it would hurt business.
Lets start from the beginning. Jerry Sandusky was, by all accounts, a brilliant coach. In 1977 he started the Second Mile, a charitable organization helping at-risk children, the same year he became Defensive Coordinator. As Defensive Coordinator he helped lead the Nittany Lions to national championships in 1982 and 1986 and was considered to be a possible replacement to JoePa. His final game occurred in 1999 when he led his defense to a shut-out of Texas A&M in the Alamo Bowl where he was ironically, hoisted and carried by his players to commemorate his final game. He remained at Penn St, holding an office and continuing to use the university facilities until his arrest November 5. Lets backtrack to his retirement. He retired in 1999 at the age of 55, which is suprisingly young, for someone thought to be the successor to one of the storied programs in college football. But it appears as though something was going on in the background. In 1998 Sandusky allegedly showered with an 11 year old, eerily labeled as "Victim 6" in the Grand Jury Report. This incident was brought to police who investigated the matter but no criminal charges were filed. Sandusky alleged said in regards to his interactions with "Victim 6", "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness...I wish I were dead." There is no doubt that administrators within the athletic department of Penn St knew of this egregious act yet they allowed Sandusky to maintain a presence at the University. While I am only speculating, it makes perfect sense that Sandusky was forced out the next season. More or less a cover up of titanic proportions.
Yet after the incident in 1998, he continued with his charity culminating in the now famous incident when in 2002 graduate assistant Mike Mcqueary allegedly witnessed Sandusky, late at night, anally raping a young boy, thought to be about 10 years old. He inexplicably did not tell the police and instead told his father and subsequently told Joe Paterno which is the moment where most of the current outrage at JoePa is focused. He told his superiors and left it at that. He didnt follow up. He didnt call the police. And instead let Sandusky continue on as if nothing had happened allowing Sandusky to allegedly molest more children.
I should note I am leaving out a number of instances detailed in the grand jury report. And although it is disturbing and graphic if you want to understand why JoePa's inaction is infuriating read the report. http://www.wgal.com/pdf/29737452/detail.html
It should also be noted that administrators Gary Schultz, who is Senior vice president for finance and business, and Tim Curley, who is Athletic Director were both arrested and charged with perjury for lying about what they knew about the allegations. Both have stepped down.
Now lets fast forward to the present. Sandusky is arrested and there is a firestorm of allegations and rumblings about the future of Paterno. This is the point where I lost any respect for the legendary coach. After cancelling his weekly press conference, Joe lets the public know he will retire at the end of the season, on his terms. Don't be fooled by this outrageous statement. It is not noble or commendable or pious. It is selfish. And worse it is denigrating to the victims in this case. Joe wanted to ride out on a high horse for the final three games and be cheered by the 100,000+ people that will attend Saturday's game. He wanted to go out on his terms. Hey Joe, did victim 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, or 8 say their terms when Jerry Sandusky was molesting them? And especially the victims after 2002 when Joe knew that innappropriate acts occurred. What about them? The Board of Trustees made the right call by firing him. His inaction is unforgivable. Period. The University needed to levy a tangible punishment and frankly, it is very little compared to the trauma his decision making or lack thereof resulted in.
Many have decried the decision as wrong. And have said Joe deserves better. Many have also said they don't understand why some are still employed, notably the graduate assistant, Mike Mcqueary who witnessed the 2002 incident, while Joe is gone. They are looking at this the wrong way. Joe should not be allowed to coach because Mcqueary is still coaching. Both should be gone. Anyone involved should be gone immediately. So while the Board of Trustees fired Joe, they have not gone far enough and I hope they fire Mike Mcqueary and anyone else who knew of something and didnt speak up. Just because you didnt break the law doesnt mean you didnt commit wrongdoing. There is a moral threshold, which in an insitution that prides itself on honor and integrity should live up to. Systemically, Penn St destroyed that moral threshold.
I have also heard that Joe did what he was supposed to, that he told his superior, which was all that was required of him. This is once again and outrageous statement. I wanted to put into words my thoughts but Howard Bryant did an incredible job so I will let him speak for me. In an ESPN article he wrote,
"It is incongruous that any adult with basic common sense -- especially those who supposedly have worked with children and young adults for decades -- could conclude that there was no wrongdoing after a report that a grown man was inappropriately in a shower with a child. Being in a shower inappropriately with a child or adolescent is the finding of wrongdoing. Paterno, Schultz and Curley all appear to be using the same defense: that the graduate student who came forward did not detail specifically what he saw. Which begs the question: After being told that an adult, who to that point had worked with children for 25 years, was caught showering in your locker room with a child for any reason, just how much more specificity did Paterno, Schultz and Curley actually need?" Couldnt have said it better myself.
So how big and far does this go? Mark Madden, who reported the case many months ago, said that people are looking into rumors, and these are simply rumors right now, that kids were being pimped out to rich donors through the foundation. At this point, it wouldnt surprise me. Already a ninth victim has allegedly come forward and I do believe there are many more to come.
So what is JoePa's legacy? I'm not sure. He's done a lot of good for this university helping shape the lives of young men and that cannot be debated. Some will defend him. Some will call him a monster. I dont know what he is. But I know one thing he isn't: The honorable man we once thought he was.
Here is some further reading:
For Conspiracy Theorists: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/questions-on-sandusky-wrapped-in-2005-gricar-mystery.html?_r=1
For an Inside Perspective: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7205085/growing-penn-state
For someone who shares my opinion: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/10/joe-paterno-and-penn-state-s-code-of-omerta-in-the-sex-abuse-scandal.html
Howard Byrant article: http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/id/7208029/penn-state-joe-paterno-failure-power
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)