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
Friday, January 13, 2012
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
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
March Madness+Labor Unrest
Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, Children of all ages, the greatest time of the year is upon us: March Madness. And it appears as though this could be one of the more hectic and crazy tournaments in recent years. While the sports world is abuzz with the NFL lockout and the NBA has gained huge amounts of popularity, there is not one sports fan who will deny their love for the next month. This year is especially great because of the influx of parody into the sport. Anyone can beat anyone (except maybe UAB who proved on Tuesday that the selection committee messed up big time) which makes this tournament unpredictable, which makes it great. We already got a slight glimpse when UNC Asheville and Arkansas Little Rock started the tournament off with a thrilling overtime game (OK, fine, maybe not "thrilling" since no one gave two shits but cut me some slack). Either way the Madness is underway and I can guarantee at least one of my six brackets could possibly be good.
Anyone that tells you, especially this year, that they are confident in their picks is full of poopy and lots of it. I have loads of confidence (no PUN intended) and I'm confident I may not get an elite eight team. Let me just say, right off the bat, that I picked Kansas. I do every year because of my love for the Jayhawks as a team and there is absolutely no emotional connection, strictly business. Chances are they'll lose to UNLV in the second round but thank god they're not playing Bucknell (check out the link). That pleasure goes to Uconn. Don't be suprised to see an upset or Kemba to score 80 points and Bucknell to lose by thirty but should be fun either way.
Lets also talk about the selection committee because they deserve some credit for being lichreally moronic. I think Jay Bilas may have hit the nail on the head like twenty times during his rant but it's important to note how ridiculous these decisions were. To be honest it seemed as though Colorado (three wins over Kansas State as well as wins over Texas and Missouri) was penalized for being in a good conference. It appeared as though the committee felt Colorado shouldn't be rewarded because their wins came in-conference. Did Colorado have a weak non-conference schedule? Yes, Absolutely. But simply put, look at their wins! Is it an advantage to play in the Big 12 as opposed to Conference USA? Probably. Colorado gets more chances at beating tournament teams than UAB. But that does not mean they should be penalized for doing so? No. UAB lost to Arizona State and Georgia, got blown out by Duke, and lost twice to Memphis. Their best wins? Arkansas (who just fired their coach) and VCU. The bottom line is that UAB should not have made it over Virginia Tech and Colorado but it should also be noted that the latter teams can heap part of the blame. Colorado lost to San Fransisco and New Mexico and VA Tech, after beating Duke, lost to fellow bubble teams Clemson and Boston College in back to back games. Easily one of the softest, if not the softest in tournament history.
So let's look at the bracket starting with the Southeast. This part of the bracket terrifies me. Pittsburgh may advance simply because of a lack of competition. I see a Florida team at the two seed who just lost to Kentucky (a 4 seed, WTF) and essentially beat no one in the non conference and was the beneficiary of a very weak SEC. Florida was blown out by Ohio St, lost to Jacksonville and UCF, and their two "good" wins were Kansas St (before they started streaking) and Xavier (before they started streaking). BYU is also a team that looks a lot worse since the suspension of Brandon Davies after he shockingly had sex with his girlfriend (that sentence is not a joke).http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/mwest/2011-03-03-byu-davies-honor-code_N.htm The results are telling. We'll give them a break for losing to New Mexico directly after hearing the news but this team is different and substantially worse. They beat San Diego St twice in the regular season and then lost without Davies in MWC tournament final. Don't be surprised by a quick exit. Also, the four and five seeds, Wisconsin and Kansas State respectively, have very tough matchups and both teams are, for lack of a better word, mediocre. Both teams face opponents with 30 win seasons and Utah State is horribly underseeded at 12. All i have to say about Wisconsin is they scored 33 points in a game. An entire game. Definitely not a team I'm picking.http://www.gopsusports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/031111aac.html. St. Johns lost their best player and I certainly don't see UCLA making a run. Michigan St, even though they were pretty bad this year, may still have some magic at a ten seed. Either way Pittsburgh seems like the only legitimate contender in this part.
West: Duke looks very good and seems to have a pretty easy pass to the Elite Eight setting up a likely meeting with San Diego State. Side Note* After watching the "Fab Five" documentary on ESPN, I'm now a big fan of Steve Fischer (San Diego State Coach, former Michigan coach) and he is a great coach and don't be surprised to see them in the final four.* Obviously Connecticut is a threat with Kemba and don't sleep on Missouri. They're terrible on the road and great at home so maybe we'll get something in the middle on a neutral court, which may be good enough to win a couple games. If you're wondering about Texas, stop wondering. With Rick Barnes coaching this team don't expect much of anything. Possibly a first round upset.
East: After reading a Sports Illustrated article on Jared Sullinger I gained a lot more respect for him. He seems like a really good kid and more importantly (for my purposes) a great basketball player. They always seem to have flaws but somehow manage to squeeze out wins. I vividly remeber the Xavier v. Ohio State in 2007 (I picked Xavier) where they inexplicably won. Possible Divine Intervention but remains to be seen. This is a tough bracket with UNC and Syracuse as well as Xavier (don't sleep on the Musketeers!) at the bottom and SEC champs and 4 seed (inexplicably) Kentucky at the top. Kentucky has a really great chance at beating Ohio St and reaching the final four but with Cuse and UNC looming I see any one of the top four seeds getting through.
Southwest: This is the hardest to predict for me. I picked Kansas, obviously, but there is something about all the teams that is very mysterious. Notre Dame could easily lose early but if they are hitting there threes, could easily win the National Championship (They beat Pitt at Pitt) so they are very unpredictable. Purdue has been shaky of late but they did beat Ohio State and have two great players, Moore and Johnson. Louisville is also a tough one to read. They made it to the Big East Championship and have great athletes who could give Kansas trouble in the Sweet Sixteen, but they lost to Drexel and Providence, and with no seniors we could see an early exit. The other team to look out for is Georgetown. They were seeded low because they have played poorly as of late. But they were missing PG Chris Wright who is back and with him, they are easily a top 20 team, capable of beating anyone. Also, don't sleep on UNLV. If they can get by Illinois they could give Kansas trouble. Kansas did lose to Northern Iowa in the second round last year (check the video above).
Good Luck to everyone! and a little montage to get you pumped up for Gus Johnson yelling uncontrollably.
Labor Unrest:
I don't really have much to add to what everyone already knows. This sucks and the owners are greedy pigs who selfishly are destroying the most popular sports league in the country, by demanding they recieve billions more than what they already have, while refusing to show their books, and depriving fans of this beautiful sport while simultaneously helping to further dismantle an economy in shambles since a lockout will result in all facets of the economy related to the NFL (hotels, restaurants, bars, airlines, etc) as well as employees of the NFL to lose billions. But hey, no biggie. It's just peoples lives. So while the owners are sipping on their margaritas in the Caribbean on their yachts during the season, every day people will be wondering where their next paycheck will come from. Sorry for the tangent. Actually, I'm not sorry. On to the players.
Now the players are not free of guilt. I am on their side and believe the Owners are mostly to blame but don't go acting like you're some depraved victim that will have trouble putting food on the table. Also, don't tell prospects, as it has been reported, to not attend the NFL draft. That is a special moment and they have zero ties to the negotiations and should not be thrown in the fire. Also, and this really pissed my off, are Adrian Peterson's comments to Yahoo Sports comparing the lockout to "modern day slavery". Ummm, can you tell me what facet of football has anything to do with slavery? Hey Adrian, you get paid a lot of money to play sports for a living. If that's slavery then sign me up! Do you know how many Jews like me want to become professional sports players? We usually end up with arthritic knees by age 21 so the dream ends there, but I can assure you Adrian, the pain you're experiencing is nowhere close to slavery. You are scheduled to make almost 11 million dollars next season, not including endorsements, which is sure to be several million more. Now you just sound like an arrogant, spoiled, idiot, something the NFLPA doesnt need right now. Next time think before you speak.
Here are a couple articles you should read that spell out the issue very well.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
NBA Trade Deadline, Perk and Melo
Starting a couple weeks ago, the basketball world embarked on a journey that will help to shape the landscape of the NBA for years to come. This NBA trade deadline was one of the most bizarre, wacky, but nonetheless important deadlines in recent memory. There was a lot that happened but lets take a look at the 'Melo and Perk deals.
Carmelo to the Knicks:
Well this was certainly the blockbuster deal, with ESPN becoming more like Perez Hilton than a reputable sports news broadcaster during its coverage of the trade. They had their silly "MeloDrama" slogan and every ten minutes we heard Chris Broussard telling us a new rumor. Then we had Mikhail Prokhorov telling the world about the sentimental moments Carmelo and him had during their face to face meeting. Through all of that nonsense, it was clear that Carmelo wanted to play for the Knicks and was going to end up in Madison Square Garden. Period. So why did New York give up half their team when they could have signed him in free agency? Well thats a good question. The most obvious answer would seem that the Knicks (and nobody really knows whos calling the shots since rumors are speculating that Isiah had a role, God Forbid) were trying to ensure that the Nets or some other team didnt sneak in and steal Melo off their hands. Either way he's a Knick and now New York suddenly has a core nucleus that is good enough to win a championship. Lets look at the trade.
Knicks Recieve: Carmelo Anthony, Chauncey Billups, Anthony Carter, Renaldo Balkman, Shelden Williams
Nuggets Recieve: Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Raymond Felton, Timofey Mozgov, three draft picks
-The Knicks also traded Eddy Curry and Anthony Randolph to Minnesota for Corey Brewer
Some people don't like the trade and say that the Knicks gave up too much young talent. Blah Blah Blah. Carmelo is a superstar. A long, relentless, physically imposing small forward who, since arriving in 2003 has averaged over 20 PPG every season and helped to lead a Nuggets franchise that was a complete mess, to relevance including a trip to the Western Conference Finals. The reason this trade is great for New York is that Carmelo is not someone you can find or replace. He is one of a handful of elite players in this league. Every single player the Knicks gave up can be replaced through free agency or the draft. The same cannot be said about Carmelo. Will New York contend for an NBA championship this year? No. But with some patching up after this season I absolutely believe the Knicks are good enough to win a championship next year. Lets not forget about Chauncey Billups either. People forget that he was an NBA finals MVP, who routinely hits big shots (evidenced by the Miami game http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=310227014) and is good enough to help this team win a championship. His option is expected to be picked up for next year and when his contract is up, the Knicks could theoretically sign Deron Williams or Chris Paul. While this is over a year away, many have speculated that Paul will almost certainly sign with the Knicks, creating a trio of Amare, Anthony, and Paul (kind of scary). Others have concerns about defense for the Knicks since it is widely known that Amare and Carmelo don't know what defense is (but they probably know what the Hebrew translation is thanks to Ron Artest http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/03/ron-artest-goes-all-dennis-rodman-with-new-hairstyle/) but frankly I'm not concerned. Defense is something that can be taught and installed. It can be turned on and off, unlike offensive skill. Dantoni chooses not to emphasize defense, but that is strictly a choice. Any way you add it up, the Knicks are a much better team after this trade and will be a much better team in the future. It is a great trade and as a Celtics fan, frankly I'm terrified.
There is another side to the trade which is the Nuggets. They did pretty darn well if you ask me. They were going to lose Carmelo anyways yet they still got a good chunk of talent for him. Felton is a really good point guard, with a reasonable salary, and paired with Lawson can create problems for opposing defenses. Chandler and Gallinari are solid scorers who, with their length are tough to guard. All I have to say about Mozgov is that I have no idea why he spells his first name with a "f" (which may tell you how I feel about him as a basketball player). The Nuggets have a solid core of 8-9 really good players, which is good enough to make the playoffs and possibly win a series. Unfortunately, Denver is not really a haven for free agents, and it is unlikely that any impending free agent stars, Paul, Howard, Williams, would choose to come to Denver. Carmelo was acquired in the draft, and if Denver wants to make a Finals run that is probably the place the building will have to occur.
Perkins to the Thunder:
Ouch. This one hurt and hurt bad. But the worst may have come emotionally. For any Celtics fan, who has followed the team since 2003, when Perk was drafted, it is tough to swallow watching him leave like this. Maybe if he left in free agency after the season it would have felt right. Doc kept talking about this starting five (with Perk) getting another chance and all of Boston wanted another chance. Perk could ride or slowly limp off into the sunset, after the season, with his big contract to another team and that would have felt right. Anything but this. This feels like the Simon and Garfunkel hit "Cecilia" except it involves a big black man and no bed. I turn away for one second and he's gone, and Jeff Green and Nenad Kristic are there. So the emotions are there and they're raw and they will be evident until the end of the season. But professional sports is a business and Perkins is an employee and that is how the trade should be evaluated. Many prominent sports writers dislike this trade including Bill Simmons whose opinion I value greatly. The only name I heard that liked the trade was Scottie Pippen and of course Ben Lichtman. I don't love it yet, but I really really like it and I think this made the Celts a better team.
I've been watching Perk this season and he looks fit and in good shape but he also appears to be unable to jump, a slight issue. Perk is good and he's tough. He fits the Boston reputation of physical play and "no easy buckets" but lets not get ahead of ourselves. The key word here is fits. He is not the catalyst or the leader. He fits into a scheme. The real catalyst is Kevin Garnett. He is the leader and the one who brought the defensive toughness to Boston. I can assure you the toughness and intensity will not be lost with the departure of Kendrick Perkins. Another criticism involves Dwight Howard and that the Celtics will not be able to handle Howard and the Magic now that Perk is gone. With all due respect to Ron Jeremy and that hapless organization, the Magic cannot beat a healthy Celtics team in the playoffs. Even without Perk, Howard and the Magic are simply not good enough. Another issue for some people is the Lakers. I will admit that their length is problematic but lets also not forget the reason we lost games 6 and 7. We scored 67 and 79 points respectively. Our problem was not our defense. It was our offense. In Game 7 Ray and Paul were a combined 8/29 (27.5%). We simply could not put the ball in the bucket. With the addition of Jeff Green (who I'll get to in a moment) we now have a legitimate bench scorer who can spell minutes for Ray and/or Paul. Our depth in the frontcourt may be problematic at the moment but if Shaq is healthy, Shaq is simply better than Perkins. No one can see into the future, except me, and determine whether Shaq will be healthy for the playoffs, but if he is (and he will be) this team is nearly unbeatable. Some other issues that have been brought up are chemistry or hangoverness (new word) but Doc and our veterans will never let that happen. Guarantee. Throw that problem away. This may seem like I'm bashing Perk so let me say unequivocally that Perk is a good basketball player whom I really like and an integral part of this team but he is replacable and the players we recieved in return make the Celtics a better team.
In return for Perk and Nate we recieved Center Nenad Kristic and Swingman Jeff Green. Green is dynamic. A real physical specimen who can score and play defense. He is young with fresh legs and as I stated earlier can spell legitimate minutes for Ray and Paul. Once he settles in he will be an important addition. He provides immense depth and if Delonte is healthy, the two can provide quite a punch off the bench, something that was really lacking in the finals last year. Kristic is also no slouch. He is a good offensive player who can hit 15-18 footers. He can stretch the floor and provide a scoring option that Perk never could, and when he plays, he creates a lineup that allows the C's to spread the floor and feature five legitimate scoring options. If Shaq is healthy Kristic becomes a really good #2 center and a vast improvement over last year, Rasheed Wallace (ew).
Danny Ainge, and I'll give him credit, really went out on a limb here. This was a truly an "all in" move. If we win the championship he's a genius, if we don't he's the goat. And in a town like Boston life could be pretty tough if banner number 18 isn't hanging next season. But I'm confident that it will be. Quote me, copy and paste this (I'll be happy if you just read it) but the Celtics will win the championship this year. This trade made them better and it will be very evident over the next month and beyond.
In the meantime we wish Perk all the best. He just signed a contract extension (4 years and 34 mill) so Mazal Tov on that. Basketball is tough sometimes and for any true Celtics fan, this trade really touches deep in your sports heart. But once you get past the heart part and you wander up to the brain this trade makes basketball sense and is good for this team, this year. The only thing left to do is wait and see. Should be a pretty fun playoff season.
Other notes:
The Nets are also major winners picking up top three point guard, Deron Williams. If they can resign him, that becomes a huge piece, and if they complete their move to Brooklyn, they become a legitimate destination. Cudos to Prokhorov.
Poor Baron Davis. As much as being a professional athlete is awesome, since you get to play basketball and make millions, I kind of feel bad that he was traded to Cleveland. Actually no I don't. Maybe if he played harder he would still be in L.A. Davis was a legitimate talent who has flashes of brilliance, but his lack of commitment and inability to get in basketball shape means the only person to blame is himself. If you don't think he could have done better, take a look below.
Carmelo to the Knicks:
Well this was certainly the blockbuster deal, with ESPN becoming more like Perez Hilton than a reputable sports news broadcaster during its coverage of the trade. They had their silly "MeloDrama" slogan and every ten minutes we heard Chris Broussard telling us a new rumor. Then we had Mikhail Prokhorov telling the world about the sentimental moments Carmelo and him had during their face to face meeting. Through all of that nonsense, it was clear that Carmelo wanted to play for the Knicks and was going to end up in Madison Square Garden. Period. So why did New York give up half their team when they could have signed him in free agency? Well thats a good question. The most obvious answer would seem that the Knicks (and nobody really knows whos calling the shots since rumors are speculating that Isiah had a role, God Forbid) were trying to ensure that the Nets or some other team didnt sneak in and steal Melo off their hands. Either way he's a Knick and now New York suddenly has a core nucleus that is good enough to win a championship. Lets look at the trade.
Knicks Recieve: Carmelo Anthony, Chauncey Billups, Anthony Carter, Renaldo Balkman, Shelden Williams
Nuggets Recieve: Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Raymond Felton, Timofey Mozgov, three draft picks
-The Knicks also traded Eddy Curry and Anthony Randolph to Minnesota for Corey Brewer
Some people don't like the trade and say that the Knicks gave up too much young talent. Blah Blah Blah. Carmelo is a superstar. A long, relentless, physically imposing small forward who, since arriving in 2003 has averaged over 20 PPG every season and helped to lead a Nuggets franchise that was a complete mess, to relevance including a trip to the Western Conference Finals. The reason this trade is great for New York is that Carmelo is not someone you can find or replace. He is one of a handful of elite players in this league. Every single player the Knicks gave up can be replaced through free agency or the draft. The same cannot be said about Carmelo. Will New York contend for an NBA championship this year? No. But with some patching up after this season I absolutely believe the Knicks are good enough to win a championship next year. Lets not forget about Chauncey Billups either. People forget that he was an NBA finals MVP, who routinely hits big shots (evidenced by the Miami game http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=310227014) and is good enough to help this team win a championship. His option is expected to be picked up for next year and when his contract is up, the Knicks could theoretically sign Deron Williams or Chris Paul. While this is over a year away, many have speculated that Paul will almost certainly sign with the Knicks, creating a trio of Amare, Anthony, and Paul (kind of scary). Others have concerns about defense for the Knicks since it is widely known that Amare and Carmelo don't know what defense is (but they probably know what the Hebrew translation is thanks to Ron Artest http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/03/ron-artest-goes-all-dennis-rodman-with-new-hairstyle/) but frankly I'm not concerned. Defense is something that can be taught and installed. It can be turned on and off, unlike offensive skill. Dantoni chooses not to emphasize defense, but that is strictly a choice. Any way you add it up, the Knicks are a much better team after this trade and will be a much better team in the future. It is a great trade and as a Celtics fan, frankly I'm terrified.
There is another side to the trade which is the Nuggets. They did pretty darn well if you ask me. They were going to lose Carmelo anyways yet they still got a good chunk of talent for him. Felton is a really good point guard, with a reasonable salary, and paired with Lawson can create problems for opposing defenses. Chandler and Gallinari are solid scorers who, with their length are tough to guard. All I have to say about Mozgov is that I have no idea why he spells his first name with a "f" (which may tell you how I feel about him as a basketball player). The Nuggets have a solid core of 8-9 really good players, which is good enough to make the playoffs and possibly win a series. Unfortunately, Denver is not really a haven for free agents, and it is unlikely that any impending free agent stars, Paul, Howard, Williams, would choose to come to Denver. Carmelo was acquired in the draft, and if Denver wants to make a Finals run that is probably the place the building will have to occur.
Perkins to the Thunder:
Ouch. This one hurt and hurt bad. But the worst may have come emotionally. For any Celtics fan, who has followed the team since 2003, when Perk was drafted, it is tough to swallow watching him leave like this. Maybe if he left in free agency after the season it would have felt right. Doc kept talking about this starting five (with Perk) getting another chance and all of Boston wanted another chance. Perk could ride or slowly limp off into the sunset, after the season, with his big contract to another team and that would have felt right. Anything but this. This feels like the Simon and Garfunkel hit "Cecilia" except it involves a big black man and no bed. I turn away for one second and he's gone, and Jeff Green and Nenad Kristic are there. So the emotions are there and they're raw and they will be evident until the end of the season. But professional sports is a business and Perkins is an employee and that is how the trade should be evaluated. Many prominent sports writers dislike this trade including Bill Simmons whose opinion I value greatly. The only name I heard that liked the trade was Scottie Pippen and of course Ben Lichtman. I don't love it yet, but I really really like it and I think this made the Celts a better team.
I've been watching Perk this season and he looks fit and in good shape but he also appears to be unable to jump, a slight issue. Perk is good and he's tough. He fits the Boston reputation of physical play and "no easy buckets" but lets not get ahead of ourselves. The key word here is fits. He is not the catalyst or the leader. He fits into a scheme. The real catalyst is Kevin Garnett. He is the leader and the one who brought the defensive toughness to Boston. I can assure you the toughness and intensity will not be lost with the departure of Kendrick Perkins. Another criticism involves Dwight Howard and that the Celtics will not be able to handle Howard and the Magic now that Perk is gone. With all due respect to Ron Jeremy and that hapless organization, the Magic cannot beat a healthy Celtics team in the playoffs. Even without Perk, Howard and the Magic are simply not good enough. Another issue for some people is the Lakers. I will admit that their length is problematic but lets also not forget the reason we lost games 6 and 7. We scored 67 and 79 points respectively. Our problem was not our defense. It was our offense. In Game 7 Ray and Paul were a combined 8/29 (27.5%). We simply could not put the ball in the bucket. With the addition of Jeff Green (who I'll get to in a moment) we now have a legitimate bench scorer who can spell minutes for Ray and/or Paul. Our depth in the frontcourt may be problematic at the moment but if Shaq is healthy, Shaq is simply better than Perkins. No one can see into the future, except me, and determine whether Shaq will be healthy for the playoffs, but if he is (and he will be) this team is nearly unbeatable. Some other issues that have been brought up are chemistry or hangoverness (new word) but Doc and our veterans will never let that happen. Guarantee. Throw that problem away. This may seem like I'm bashing Perk so let me say unequivocally that Perk is a good basketball player whom I really like and an integral part of this team but he is replacable and the players we recieved in return make the Celtics a better team.
In return for Perk and Nate we recieved Center Nenad Kristic and Swingman Jeff Green. Green is dynamic. A real physical specimen who can score and play defense. He is young with fresh legs and as I stated earlier can spell legitimate minutes for Ray and Paul. Once he settles in he will be an important addition. He provides immense depth and if Delonte is healthy, the two can provide quite a punch off the bench, something that was really lacking in the finals last year. Kristic is also no slouch. He is a good offensive player who can hit 15-18 footers. He can stretch the floor and provide a scoring option that Perk never could, and when he plays, he creates a lineup that allows the C's to spread the floor and feature five legitimate scoring options. If Shaq is healthy Kristic becomes a really good #2 center and a vast improvement over last year, Rasheed Wallace (ew).
Danny Ainge, and I'll give him credit, really went out on a limb here. This was a truly an "all in" move. If we win the championship he's a genius, if we don't he's the goat. And in a town like Boston life could be pretty tough if banner number 18 isn't hanging next season. But I'm confident that it will be. Quote me, copy and paste this (I'll be happy if you just read it) but the Celtics will win the championship this year. This trade made them better and it will be very evident over the next month and beyond.
In the meantime we wish Perk all the best. He just signed a contract extension (4 years and 34 mill) so Mazal Tov on that. Basketball is tough sometimes and for any true Celtics fan, this trade really touches deep in your sports heart. But once you get past the heart part and you wander up to the brain this trade makes basketball sense and is good for this team, this year. The only thing left to do is wait and see. Should be a pretty fun playoff season.
Other notes:
The Nets are also major winners picking up top three point guard, Deron Williams. If they can resign him, that becomes a huge piece, and if they complete their move to Brooklyn, they become a legitimate destination. Cudos to Prokhorov.
Poor Baron Davis. As much as being a professional athlete is awesome, since you get to play basketball and make millions, I kind of feel bad that he was traded to Cleveland. Actually no I don't. Maybe if he played harder he would still be in L.A. Davis was a legitimate talent who has flashes of brilliance, but his lack of commitment and inability to get in basketball shape means the only person to blame is himself. If you don't think he could have done better, take a look below.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Update on Cleveland
So I just wrote an entire post about Cleveland being awful...I think they heard me...check out the link below
Lakers continue woes by losing to the woeful Cavs.
Lakers continue woes by losing to the woeful Cavs.
Cleveland and Lou Brown James
Yes, I know what you're thinking. Talking about Cleveland is the worst way to start off the blog. I'll be unemployed forever and lose my next 26 games of FIFA. But I guess thats a risk I'm willing to take. To be more specific this is actually about the Cavaliers/LeBron (Lou Brown) James, since a post about Cleveland could fill about three lines.
On December 18th the Cavaliers beat the New York Knicks 109-102, which would be their last win until last Friday when they beat the Clippers, snapping their NBA record 26 game losing streak. In fact, the woeful Cavs have lost a mind boggling 37 of their past 39 games. But lets rewind for a little bit so we can better understand how the Cavaliers got into the position they're in today.
The next season was a prime opportunity for the Cavs to win a championship. Here you have the greatest player in the world, in his prime, about to win the MVP and a number of opportunities to improve the team. This was also at the same time when the "countdown" for free agency began and you would expect the Cavs ownership to feel some pressure to get this team over the hump. So the Cavs traded for Mo Williams. But they didnt address their interior since of course that would make too much sense after the emergence of Dwight Howard, whom they would lose to in the Conference Finals. Their front line was, drumroll please..., Ilgauskas and Ben Wallace. And say by some miracle they did beat Orlando, would they have had a chance against Bynum, Gasol, and Odom? I think not.
The 2009-2010 season was the tipping point. It was James' last season before he could pursue free agency and the Cavs, to their credit, although it took them 7 years, upgraded their front court by adding ninety year old Shaquille O'Neal and Antawn Jamison. They proceeded to finish first in the East and frankly I thought they would get over the hump but sometimes unforseen events occur, i.e. Delonte West decides it would be a good idea to try and give his herpes to LeBron's mom. The Cavs lose to the Celts and I guess the rest is history, culminating in the "Decision" and Cleveland falling apart, although I'm not sure there was much there to begin with.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/calvin-murphy-lebron-jame_n_583135.html
So whats the moral of the story? The Cavs brought this on themselves. Now I'm not going to defend the way LeBron left since it was kind of a dick move, but frankly I don't mind it. If any of you do judge him for his actions I suggest you take a look at this movie and maybe you can better understand why he did what he did. http://www.morethanagamemovie.com/.
Now I should make sure to emphasize, this is in no way a representation of Cleveland as a city. I can assure the city is much worse. Before LeBron left 50% were unemployed and when LeBron took his talents away I guess he took all their business too? I have never seen a city more in ruins because an athlete left to go to another city. Stop your complaining, get back to work and build some shitty American cars. I think the only good thing about their city is the Kosher Subway to be honest. I'd die for one in Boston.
But before we get too far off topic, lets get back to the present day. Now, after actually being in prime position to become one of the most successful franchises of the decade, with one of the greatest players ever, the Cavs are mired in historic awfulness, never before seen.
And remember when people thought the Cavs could sneak into the playoffs because they beat the Celtics, and everyone was freaking out about the Heat? Wow, how things have changed... Now I dont intend to take credit for predicting it since you have to be an idiot not to but this is my facebook post from October after the Cavs beat the Celtics and the Heat were very mediocre:
So what about the future? Well the "future" is composed of JJ Hickson and, umm, uhh, Ya I think thats about it. Well at least there is the draft! The prize of course being umm, uhh. No one. If they had LeBron they could have added another superstar from the incredible class, maybe even Carlos Boozer (remember him?) who averaged a double double nearly every season in a Jazz uniform, and has helped Chicago become an elite team. But hey it's not the end of the world. At least they have this guy and this tourism video can certainly help bring some people to their beautiful city. Cheers!
On December 18th the Cavaliers beat the New York Knicks 109-102, which would be their last win until last Friday when they beat the Clippers, snapping their NBA record 26 game losing streak. In fact, the woeful Cavs have lost a mind boggling 37 of their past 39 games. But lets rewind for a little bit so we can better understand how the Cavaliers got into the position they're in today.
It really all started in 2002-2003 when the Cavaliers finished 17-65, when their leading scorer was, drum roll please....the immortal Ricky Davis. They would proceed to win the lottery and of course selected a high schooler named LeBron James. LeBron immediately made a huge impact, winning Rookie of the Year, breaking numerous rookie records, and helping the Cavs improve by 18 wins. The Cavs actually had a nucleus, albeit very small, with Carlos Boozer, who averaged a double double the previous season. But then, inexplicably, they let him sign for 6 years with the Jazz at a very reasonable price. While the details surrounding his departure are hazy, and both sides have different accounts, the bottom line is that Boozer and James together (see Rose and Boozer circa 2011) could have won a championship together. After Boozer left, the Cavs would get no big man, who would come close to his production.
In the next three years James became a superstar and the Cavs did absolutely nothing to help him. The big signing was Larry Hughes. Yes that Larry Hughes, who sucked (what a surprise) as the team continued to develop high ceiling players such as Drew Gooden (Kansas Alum) and Zydrunas "I am the ugliest man in the NBA with no discernable talent besides being tall" Ilgauskas. But even with zero supporting cast in 2007 James led the team, by himself, to a finals appearance and of course the greatest single performance I have ever personally witnessed against Detroit in the conference finals.
By the 2007-2008 season the Cavs were a team to be reckoned with. But lets be honest, as much as what LeBron did was very special, the NBA during that time was very weak, especially the Eastern Conference. It wasn't until this year that the influx of incredible talent started to propel the NBA into the popularity it currently possesses. The Celtics added two guys you may have heard of, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, and the Cavs added, drumroll please... Wally Szczerbiak and Ben Wallace via trade. And the Celtics would go on to beat the Cavs in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals, surprise surprise.
The next season was a prime opportunity for the Cavs to win a championship. Here you have the greatest player in the world, in his prime, about to win the MVP and a number of opportunities to improve the team. This was also at the same time when the "countdown" for free agency began and you would expect the Cavs ownership to feel some pressure to get this team over the hump. So the Cavs traded for Mo Williams. But they didnt address their interior since of course that would make too much sense after the emergence of Dwight Howard, whom they would lose to in the Conference Finals. Their front line was, drumroll please..., Ilgauskas and Ben Wallace. And say by some miracle they did beat Orlando, would they have had a chance against Bynum, Gasol, and Odom? I think not.
The 2009-2010 season was the tipping point. It was James' last season before he could pursue free agency and the Cavs, to their credit, although it took them 7 years, upgraded their front court by adding ninety year old Shaquille O'Neal and Antawn Jamison. They proceeded to finish first in the East and frankly I thought they would get over the hump but sometimes unforseen events occur, i.e. Delonte West decides it would be a good idea to try and give his herpes to LeBron's mom. The Cavs lose to the Celts and I guess the rest is history, culminating in the "Decision" and Cleveland falling apart, although I'm not sure there was much there to begin with.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/20/calvin-murphy-lebron-jame_n_583135.html
So whats the moral of the story? The Cavs brought this on themselves. Now I'm not going to defend the way LeBron left since it was kind of a dick move, but frankly I don't mind it. If any of you do judge him for his actions I suggest you take a look at this movie and maybe you can better understand why he did what he did. http://www.morethanagamemovie.com/.
Now I should make sure to emphasize, this is in no way a representation of Cleveland as a city. I can assure the city is much worse. Before LeBron left 50% were unemployed and when LeBron took his talents away I guess he took all their business too? I have never seen a city more in ruins because an athlete left to go to another city. Stop your complaining, get back to work and build some shitty American cars. I think the only good thing about their city is the Kosher Subway to be honest. I'd die for one in Boston.
But before we get too far off topic, lets get back to the present day. Now, after actually being in prime position to become one of the most successful franchises of the decade, with one of the greatest players ever, the Cavs are mired in historic awfulness, never before seen.
And remember when people thought the Cavs could sneak into the playoffs because they beat the Celtics, and everyone was freaking out about the Heat? Wow, how things have changed... Now I dont intend to take credit for predicting it since you have to be an idiot not to but this is my facebook post from October after the Cavs beat the Celtics and the Heat were very mediocre:
So what about the future? Well the "future" is composed of JJ Hickson and, umm, uhh, Ya I think thats about it. Well at least there is the draft! The prize of course being umm, uhh. No one. If they had LeBron they could have added another superstar from the incredible class, maybe even Carlos Boozer (remember him?) who averaged a double double nearly every season in a Jazz uniform, and has helped Chicago become an elite team. But hey it's not the end of the world. At least they have this guy and this tourism video can certainly help bring some people to their beautiful city. Cheers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)