Where in the world is Nick?

Hey readers! I have taken the semester off from writing my political and sports columns.  I'm currently in Copenhagen, Denmark studying with the Danish Institute of Study Abroad!  It's been an eye-opening experience so far.  For photos, posts, and other interesting information, you can check out my study abroad blog HERE.

Have a fantastic semester!

Remember the Good Guys in Sports

Sports are often dirty. There is a lot of tension on the field, and we relish the aggressiveness and chaos of the competitive culture. Lately, though, this has unfortunately led to scandal, controversy and foul play. Frankly, I am tired of all the negativity.  

Thankfully, a story from last week changed my spirits, as NYPD Officer Larry DePrimo became synonymous with the proverbial “spirit of Christmas.” While on patrol, the 25-year-old cop bought a pair of boots for a homeless man lying on the street near Times Square. A picture of the act was posted on the NYPD Facebook page, where it has been viewed over 1.6 million times.

It is an inspiring and heartwarming story, as well as the kind of moment that makes you wonder whether you would do the same. Sometimes it takes a Facebook post capturing a spontaneous moment of goodwill to change our minds and direct our sympathy. Of course, it is not only figures like DePrimo that we can look up to these days. 

While children everywhere idolize athletes for their performances on the field, court or ice, it is important to remember that many are on the front lines of philanthropy as well. You already hear about the big names quite a lot: Lance Armstrong, who has raised more than $400 million to fight against cancer; Magic Johnson, who founded a highly successful HIV-awareness program; Doug Flutie, who is one of the strongest advocates for autistic children. Derek Jeter, Muhammad Ali, Cal Ripken Jr., Jeff Gordon and many others have created their own charities and foundations. There are deep, personal connections to the communities involved, as many athletes have suffered from disease or injury and want to help others experiencing the same problems.

Some do it to make amends for past transgressions. After running a dog-fighting ring for several years, Michael Vick now performs charity work with animal rights groups, even appearing at speaking events to promote the cause. Penn State, meanwhile, participates in children’s charities after going through a horrendous child abuse scandal this year. After such serious falls from grace, the road to redemption is indeed a steep hill to climb. But one way or another, they have resolved to pay back the debt they feel they owe to society. 

Although there is such goodwill in sports, it is often pushed aside by the headlines. There are drug busts, dirty hits, money laundering, nasty fights, foul language and sex scandals. When our supposed role models betray our trust in these ways, it is often a struggle to relate. At other times, the opposite is true, and the heroes in facemasks and eye-black seem too famous and too popular to know what it is like to live down on our level. 

Yet this stipulation is not quite accurate. For every coach or player that does something completely asinine, there are many more who make positive contributions to society. Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I firmly believe that campaigns like “NBA Cares” and partnerships like the NFL and United Way of America are more than just public-relations stunts. That they are genuine. That players do care.

With all of their flashy plays and fabulous contracts, athletes could easily just soak it all in and live in their own bubbles. Some certainly do, and you hear about them a lot in the media. The guys that do not get covered as much are the ones that perform those humble acts of service. You are more likely to hear about Ndamukong Suh kicking a quarterback in the groin than Larry Foote paying for the funeral of a complete stranger. 

Unfortunately, the good side of people does not sell as many papers. But there is a good side. You can see it in a $400 million charity, a $75 pair of boots or a priceless smile on the street. It does not have to get reported, but at the very least it should be recognized.

Giving Thanks in the World of Sports

Finally, Thanksgiving has come. It is my favorite holiday of the year, for three simple reasons: family, food and football — cliché, I know, but I still think we should take some time now to sit back, relax and realize how much we have to be thankful for in the world of sports.

With hundreds of teams and thousands of games every year, it can get a bit overwhelming. Just think of how many hours you spent watching, playing, and reading about sports this year, and you’ll realize how big of an impact it has on your daily life.

This Thanksgiving, let’s start off by giving thanks for Grinnell College’s Jack Taylor, a sophomore guard who put up 138 points in a 179-104 victory on Tuesday night. Who was guarding this kid? He scored 77% of his team’s points and shot the ball 108 times, approximately every 20 seconds on average. The statistics are absolutely mind numbing. Thank you, Jack, for reminding us that amazing things can happen anywhere, even in a tiny, little-known Division III school.

Let’s give thanks for Otto Porter and Greg Whittington, the stars of our talented, deep sophomore class.Nerlens Noel can go sell his soul to Kentucky, and Georgetown will keep chugging along. I’m proud to say that we are not a school of the “one-and-done” sellout. Thank you for treating our school as an actual school, and not like an NBA-prep program.

Let’s next give thanks for Lance Armstrong, hard as it may be for some. Do the titles even matter at this point? He has done more for charity than any athlete I can think of — and as his book says, “It’s not about the bike.” Yes, it has been a frustrating, humbling year. But thank you for rising above it all. 

Let’s give thanks for the Washington Nationals. After 79 seasons, D.C. finally got to experience postseason baseball. Although they broke our hearts in Game 5 of the NLDS, they had an inspiring run. Thank you for making D.C. a baseball-relevant city, as well as for helping me realize that I could actually lose my voice at a baseball game.

Let’s give thanks, too, for our referees. Although we may constantly criticize them, the first few weeks of this year’s NFL season showed us how much we need them, and the botched touchdown call at the end of the Seahawks-Packers game solidified our love-hate relationship. Thank you for coming back and for ending the kangaroo court that threatened to defile the game that we love so dearly.

Let’s give thanks for the Europeans. Our neighbors across the pond organized a spectacular Summer Olympics, and Poland and Ukraine hosted a wildly exciting European Football Championship. Thank you for rekindling our interest in a sport that is often underappreciated in the United States.

Finally, let’s give thanks for the law, which cracked down on some disturbing scandals in sports this year. Jerry Sandusky, Melky Cabrera, Bobby Petrino, Sean Payton and Greg Williams all deserved the punishments that were handed down to them. Thank you for holding our coaches and athletes to a high moral standard.

The list goes on. We are thankful for all of those players, stories and games that kept us entertained, tugged at our hearts and gave us some peace of mind over the past year. 

Of course, we should not need a holiday to remind us to give thanks, but it sure is convenient.  Let’s be real — we should be doing this sort of thing every day, without a special day off from school to commemorate it. The turkey and football is all just fluff. 

Still, the fluff tastes good. Dig in, and have a happy Thanksgiving, everybody.

The Case for Not Going Pro

Every student athlete wants to make it to the big show.  The benefits of going pro are tantalizing.  But sometimes they are a little too hasty, and Hollis Thompson is a case in point.  Forgoing his senior season at Georgetown, Thompson declared for the NBA draft last spring. 

So what has he been up to since he left the Hilltop?  And was it worth leaving for the NBA? 

After going undrafted in June, Hollis was picked up a month later by the Oklahoma City Thunder, a perennial title-contender.  He signed a three-year contract with the team.  Sounds sexy, right?

Not so fast.  Hollis was soon demoted to the Thunder’s Development League affiliate, the Tulsa 66ers.  On the bright side, he has his foot in the door, and there will be plenty of opportunities to climb up the ranks.  Last year, twenty-seven percent of NBA players had some D-League experience, including stand-out Jeremy Lin.  But success is far from guaranteed, and the last two years on his contract are conditional.  The D-League is no slouch.  It is filled with many second-tier college players like Kevin Jones and Darius Johnson-Odom, guys who have arguably better resumes than Hollis and will definitely give him a run for his money.

Still, it is the D-League.  The 66ers are one of sixteen teams that no one really pays much attention to, filled with handfuls of wanna-be NBA players whose names are forgotten unless they get called up to the big show.  For the time being, Hollis is one of those names.  

Sure, there is potential.  Next month or next year might be better.  But in evaluating the wisdom of Hollis’ decision to leave early, the only thing that matters is what he is doing right now. 

At this exact moment, Hollis could be back at Georgetown.  Imagine what he sacrificed to play for the 66ers.  Imagine what could have been if he had stayed.  As the lone senior and leading outside shooter, Hollis would be the unquestioned leader of the Hoyas and the big man on campus.  Alongside Otto Porter, he would be the cornerstone of the Hoyas’ offense, with plenty of opportunities to improve his game after an underwhelming junior season.  Next year, he would have an even better shot at getting drafted and playing in the NBA. 

And did I forget to mention that Hollis would be back in college, some of the most fun and exciting years in life?  It is basically a theme-park over here.  In addition, he would be finishing his degree at Georgetown!  Does he not want to graduate?  For a guy who has no guarantee of playing basketball for the rest of his life, that education could pay huge dividends in the future.  It is difficult to put a price on something like that.

Of course, you cannot really blame him for leaving early.  Maybe he did not really like being at Georgetown, or was ready to start a new job and a new career.  Last year, Hollis had an outside chance of getting drafted, so why not roll the dice?  He had an even better chance of being signed as a free agent, so why not forgo his senior season? 

Hollis might end up in the NBA one way or another, maybe even this year.  But that’s not the point.  If he had stayed at Georgetown, he probably would have gotten to the big show anyway.  Unless he had a complete meltdown or a freak injury, an extra year in college would have boosted his basketball resume, not diminished it.

I wonder what Hollis is thinking now.  Did he make the right choice?  I do not think so.  He could be playing for a premiere college basketball program, living on the Hilltop and getting an education on a full scholarship worth much more than his current salary. 

Hollis gave up a lot when he left this school.  For what?  For playing with the 66ers.  For living in the middle of nowhere.  For making $20k.  Doesn’t really sound like the big show, at least not yet.

Next year, Otto Porter will have to make the same decision.  I wonder if he is willing to make the same sacrifices.

God and Football at Notre Dame

God and football.  I think it’s why I love Notre Dame. 

The relationship seems uncanny.  I do not go to school there.  I am not from the Midwest.  I am not Irish, nor am I a huge college football fan.  In fact, the team is eternally jinxed, always tripping over its own feet and choking in close games. 

But I somehow feel attached to the school.  Three years ago, I went on a campus tour in a February blizzard and it felt like home.  I remember walking past the Golden Dome, looking up at the gothic arches of the Basilica, posing in front of Touchdown Jesus, and standing in awe outside the massive iron gates of the football stadium.  The pageantry was overwhelming.  At the bookstore, I bought a bright green Notre Dame shirt with one of those boxing leprechauns on the front.  I was accepted Early Action, and it felt like a school of destiny. 

Alas, it was not meant to be.  I wisely turned to Georgetown for academic reasons, and my Dad turned my beautiful green shirt into a grease rag. 

But I still feel the emotion every Saturday.  I go through three-hour periods when I pretend to be one of the many students screaming wildly in the historic Notre Dame Stadium.  Anxiously standing in front of the TV with my fingers crossed, I cracked a huge smile this weekend as Notre Dame scored the game-winning touchdown over Pittsburgh.  In the most exciting game of the weekend, the Irish pulled off a stunning come-from-behind triple-overtime victory, despite a missed extra point and a goal line fumble.

Notre Dame continues its improbable run for the BCS Championship.  Winning by the skin of its teeth, this feels like a team of destiny.  Escaping tight games through goal-line stands and missed field goals, the cards seem to be in their favor.  No longer the dunce of college football, the close calls are going their way.  They score points despite being led by an inexperienced, jittery red-shirt freshman quarterback.  They win games even when they’re over-penalized and out-played. 

Notre Dame is finally relevant in the BCS rankings.  But this still does not explain why so many people, including me, love the school.  If it was all about success, fans would have jumped off the bandwagon years ago.  Since Lou Holtz retired in 1997, the Irish have been mediocre at best. 

It could be the tradition; the school is decorated with eleven national championships, and famous alumni like Joe Montana and Tim Brown certainly contribute to the prestige of the program.  But these legends are long gone, and many of us are too young to even remember watching them play.  A plastic signs that says “Play Like a Champion Today” means nothing unless the Irish actually fulfill their calling. 

There must be something more.

Notre Dame is not just about football.  It is about God.  It is about that Touchdown Jesus that casts its image over the stadium like a beacon of hope.  It is about the fifty-seven chapels scattered throughout the campus.  It is about the giant carving of the Last Supper in the dining hall.  It is about the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes that makes the school look like a pilgrimage site. 

You do not have to be Catholic to appreciate the religious culture at Notre Dame.  You do not have to share the faith to realize that, as the bastion of Catholic education in the United States, God is an integral part of the university’s identity.  While there are students at the school that are not Catholic, the drum that it beats is ultimately a religious one.  You can see it in the statues and monuments on campus, in the curfews and in the curriculum, in the demographics of the faculty and students.

Obviously, religion is a very polarizing issue, and it is one of the main reasons why South Bend attracts so much attention.  When it comes to the Irish, there is more love than like, more hate than indifference. 

On the surface, people hate on the football.  Haters envy their vaunted history, their gold helmets, and their giant contract with NBC.  They are sick of everyone always talking about the Irish, even when they have consistently underperformed in years past. 

But there is also love because of what Notre Dame stands for: the independent, religious institution that separates itself from the crowd.  Notre Dame is so different from the public, religiously-unaffiliated state schools that dominate college football.  It is the only Catholic school consistently in the BCS rankings, and it proudly wears its identity as a badge of honor.

So remember that when you root for Notre Dame, you are not just rooting for a football program.  You are rooting for a university culture, one that is passionately independent and uniquely religious.

Sure, it looks a lot like football on Saturdays in South Bend.  Just do not forget that Touchdown Jesus is always watching, looming over all.  

Violence Enhances, Threatens Football

It’s funny how we look at history.  We sneer at the barbarians and stick our noses up in the air as if the present moment in time is far superior.  How brutal those ancients were!  Naked wrestling matches?  Gladiators dueling in the Coliseum?  Fights to-the-death against lions and bears?  It is amazing how people actually found these gruesome competitions entertaining.

Or is it?

We think so highly of ourselves, proudly applauding the “progress” of the human race.  We call our society “civilized” and “cultured” without even knowing what these terms really mean or who exactly we are comparing ourselves to. We think we have tamed our society, overcoming the barbarism of the past.  Such foolish pride.

“Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose,” my high school English teacher used to say.  The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

This simple phrase reveals the grim reality of human sport.  Two thousand years after naked wrestling and gladiator duels, we remain captivated by the fierce, barbaric passions of athletic competition.  Admittedly, we no longer strangle each other with bare hands or stab opponents with swords.  With rulebooks, penalties, jerseys, and instituted leagues, our passionate desire for combat is more concealed than in the past.  We show occasional expressions of sportsmanship for the sake of civility.

Yet, these regulations remain nothing but a mask.  At the heart of athletics, a brutal viciousness dwells.  We scream for hard hits and filthy I-just-destroyed-you facials.  Even baseball, one of the most passive sports ever invented, is dominated by a superbly violent act: a ball whizzing through the air like a missile, flying at you at speeds up to one hundred miles per hour.  Talk about scary. 

But of all sports, nothing better demonstrates the dynamic of violence than football.  The players are today’s equivalent of gladiators.  They perform in giant coliseums in front of thousands of wild fans.  Jacked 250-pound giants run at each other at full speed, armed with metal helmets that transform the players themselves into weapons.  Their goal is a fiercely carnal one: to force the opponent onto the ground against his will, by any means necessary.  They tear at arms, trip legs, and smash into each other like battering rams for three straight hours. 

It is a brutal war of attrition.  There are no intermediaries; it is man against man, and his only instrument is himself. 

Physical trauma naturally follows.  They may not be fighting to the death, but they get awfully close.  Concussions, broken bones, torn ligaments, and even paralysis are the price that our gladiators pay.  All of this, for the sake of advancing a leather ball a few yards at a time. 

Does not sound very civilized, does it?  It is only a matter of time before someone is actually killed on the field of play.  Players are getting faster and stronger every year, and despite new rules that seek to prevent helmet-to-helmet contact and other dangerous plays, it is impossible to completely eliminate risk on the gridiron.  The sport is just too fast and unpredictable.  Some players get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The inherent danger of football is jeopardizing the future of the sport.  While we love watching players get “jacked up,” we also cringe at the rawness of the violence.  It becomes less entertaining and more revolting.  Parents are more hesitant about letting their children play football, encouraging relatively safer sports like baseball and basketball.  In addition, more than 2,000 former players filed a massive lawsuit against the league this summer, arguing that the NFL “exacerbated the health risk by promoting the game's violence” and misled players about the long-term effects of concussions.  Bad public relations threaten the reputability of the league.

Fearing a generational decrease in interest, the NFL recently launched an effort to rebuild interest in the sport from the bottom up.  Commissioner Roger Goodell visited a youth league practice this October to preach about changing the culture of the game.  He spoke to players and coaches about proper tackling techniques and safety concerns.  The NFL also released a thirty-second commercial featuring Tom Brady and Ray Lewis, in which they stress new on-the-field rules that encourage safety, as well as the off-the-field initiatives like new medical research and better equipment. 

However, there are questions about how effective the new initiatives will be.  The league can tweak how the game is played, but it can never change the nature of the sport itself.  It will always be physical and violent game, and the NFL can only do so much before football no longer resembles football.  It may suffer a decrease in popularity at the grass-roots level, but there will always be people crazy enough to pick up the brutal sport. 

Our gladiators march on, and we remain transfixed by our secret love of barbarity.  

Tailgating, Fans Make Football Better in Person

For a moment, I thought I was watching JTIII getting introduced at the Verizon Center.

“RG3! RG3! RG3!”  Fans were chanting the initials of Washington’s youngest hero, holding up three fingers in the air.  They were going crazy for Robert Griffin III, the Redskins’ rookie quarterback.  He just scampered down the sideline for a 76-yard touchdown run, sealing an incredible 38-26 win over the Vikings last weekend.  It was just one of many highlights of a perfect day at FedEx Field. 

It was my first football game in ten years.  The last time I went was at Ralph Wilson Stadium in Buffalo, a venue that is dwarfed by the Redskins’ complex.  FedEx Field regularly packs in almost 80,000 fans every home game, making it the third-largest stadium in the league. 

Being surrounded by so many people dressed in red and gold was an overwhelming and impressive sight.  I’m not even a Redskins fan, but it definitely felt like I was part of something so much greater than myself.  As long as you are not wearing the wrong colors, you fit in just fine.  People who you don’t even know will give you high fives and pats on the back.  When the home team is winning, everyone is feeling good. 

The only losers are the handful of Vikings fans and that random guy with the Cowboys’ jersey.  Lesson of the day: do not admit you are a Dallas fan unless you are prepared for a serious verbal beat-down.  But hey, I guess if you like the Cowboys you really have nothing to lose, anyway. 

While the game is the main event, the real fun begins in the shadows of the stadium.  Forget the field; the parking lot is the mecca of football fans.  Football is the only sport that worships the tailgate.  On Sundays, cars start filing into the parking lot over four hours before kickoff.  Fans line up side-by-side on the pavement, roll down their windows, turn on the radio, and fire up the grill.  They open up their coolers, unfold their lawns chairs, and unwrap the hotdogs and hamburgers.  They set up the corn-hole boards and toss around the football. 

On this sunny October day in Landover, MD, everyone has their own way of showing their fandom.  Most just wear Redskins jerseys, with Sean Taylor and Griffin III being the most popular.  Others get really intense.  An older fan in a wheelchair wears a full Native American costume, complete with war paint and a headpiece full of feathers. 

Some vehicles are works of art.  There is a “Fanbulance” a few cars down from ours – some crazy fans bought an ambulance, painted it red, installed a giant flat-screen TV and speakers, and planted a few flagpoles on the roof for good measure.  People are huddled around it watching the 1 p.m. games.  There are a few converted school buses nearby, and even a row of Redskins tents pitched in the back of the parking lot.  The tailgate has the atmosphere of a state fair.   

At the tailgate, people are completely in their element.  Dress-code is blue jeans, sneakers, and backwards caps.  No suits, no ties, no high heels.  You see nothing but pick-up trucks and SUVs, with a few ambulances and school buses here and there.  It feels so blue-collar, with Fords and Chevys dominating the pavement.  It is all casual on Sunday, and I have never seen so many people content with just eating, drinking, and watching football. 

The sport really is remarkable; it is the only one that turns a 3-hour game into a day-long event.  Tailgating is an amazing part of sports culture that often goes unnoticed by all those fans staying at home, who only see what goes on inside the stadium. 

Sure, you can buy a nice TV and a comfy couch and still have a good time.  But if you never bother tailgating, you miss something that is just as integral to the sport as the game itself. 

WNBA Making a Statement

After a grueling 34-game, 5-month regular season, the Minnesota Lynx are facing the Indiana Fever in the WNBA Finals.  If you like watching sports that will lull you to sleep, make sure you tune in to catch all of the excitement.  If you prefer watching sports that actually have more fans than players, then stick with football and playoff baseball.   

The WNBA is mired in irrelevance.  You have to go to the back page of the sports section, read the little box scores in fine print, and thumb through stories of offseason deals and NASCAR controversies before you even get to the WNBA.  Their regular-season games are about as popular as my high-school football games, and the attendance, TV ratings, and profit margins all attest to the sport’s unpopularity. 

Founded in 1996, the league barely made it through its first decade of existence.  During the mid-2000s, the NBA spent over $10 million per year to keep the WNBA financially solvent, and teams were losing money.  This year, league attendance is at a paltry 7,400 fans per game, a number that has been steadily declining since its peak at 11,000 in 1998.  Their main sponsor is the cellphone-midget Boost Mobile, and even with ESPN and ABC TV contracts, average viewership is only at 270,000 per game.  To put that in perspective, the NBA regularly eclipses 2 million viewers every night. 

The WNBA is hopelessly overshadowed by the behemoths of the industry.  The NBA, MLB and NFL all produce significantly better products than the WNBA.  With a season that overlaps each of these professional sports, women’s basketball does not stand a chance.  They are all competing for media attention and airtime, and the boys always win. 

Ladies, I am not a misogynist.  I support women’s athletics.  Some of my fondest memories are watching Abby Wambach – the pride of my hometown in Rochester, NY – strike headers into the back of the net, and witnessing the US women’s soccer team make thrilling runs in the Olympics and World Cup.  I enjoyed watching our female Olympians compete this summer, especially in gymnastics and swimming.  

So this is not a dis on women.  This is a dis on women’s professional basketball. 

Maybe I have a weird taste in sports.  I like action.  I like home-run swings and goal-line leaps.  I like diving headers and swift footwork.  I like 12-6 curveballs and 5-yard pounds up the middle.  I like it when dunks are the norm, not the exception, and I don’t see why people go crazy every time a 6-foot 8-inch woman with a 7-foot wingspan makes one (Brittney Griner). 

I also like tradition.  I honor legendary figures and respect the records of the past.  Excitement keeps us entertained in the short-term, but history keeps us loyal. 

The WNBA is neither exciting nor historical.

Despite the challenges, the WNBA keeps chugging along resiliently.  While it does not make much money, attract many fans, or make a lot of headlines, was being popular ever its purpose?  Perhaps the league was created not to profit, but to make a statement. 

Just as women are making advances in politics and education, they are also trying to break the status quo in an industry dominated by testosterone.  “ESPN W,” a new website dedicated entirely to women’s sports, mirrors this revolution against the status quo.  The website is run by women writers and analysts, who rarely appear on the parent website.  They are creating their own niche in sports journalism, filling it with stories like the resurgence of Baylor women’s soccer and the death of an LPGA official with West Nile Virus. 

With about as many Facebook “likes” as my own column, they are not exactly grabbing a lot of attention.  But at least the website exists, right?  The importance of women’s sports transcends their entertainment or historical value.  They are here simply to challenge the boys. 

But that challenge is ultimately a weak one.  Ideology and identity statements make for a nice, fluffy story.  Yet, it has created a sport founded upon sand.  When you get down to the basics, sports are about entertainment, and women’s basketball will always be less spectacular and less appreciated than any show that the men put on. 

If you want real gender equality, you have to look somewhere else besides basketball.

Media Personalities Drive ESPN Culture

We make them, bet on them, switch them and swear by them.  The Giants will upset the Patriots.  The Nationals will win the World Series.  The world will end in 2012.  Some are reasonable, some are risky and some are obvious. 

We try to act smart and confident.  But let’s be honest: we have no idea what is really going to happen.  You can analyze all the statistics, read all of the history, invent genius mathematical formulas and you still will not get any closer to the truth.  We live in a world of chaos, and once the players hit the field it is completely up for grabs.  You never know when someone is going to get hurt, fumble the ball, or make a bad call – which happens more often than not these days.

Yet, we remain transfixed by the “experts.”  It is absolutely amazing how much time we spend watching analysts talk about the game and how little we spend actually watching it.  For every football game on Sunday, there are six days of reviews and previews of what happened and is going to happen.  The three hours of on-the-field action are stretched out into a week-long event.  The entire season feels like a seven-month marathon, extending from training camp in July to the Super Bowl in early February.  During the five months in between, reporters make up stories and controversies just to inject the airwaves with our weekly dose of football. 

Take Tim Tebow as an example.  This summer, hundreds of analysts predicted where Tim Tebow would be traded.  They predicted what role he would play, how he would respond to the media, what questions they would ask, and how he would respond when they asked those questions.  They predicted whether Tebow would ever start, how poorly the starter would have to play in order for this to happen, and when we could officially start calling it “Tebow time.”  SportsCenter even set up shop at the Jets’ training camp facility to get the ultimate coverage.   

What a terribly exciting story.  What could possibly be more worthy of on-the-scene coverage than a bunch of grown-up football players performing a soap opera?  We are holding our breath, anxiously waiting to see whose feet Rex Ryan tickles next. 

Let’s face it: we are addicted to 24-hour sports coverage.  So why do we keep coming back?  Perhaps it is not the stories themselves that are appealing.  In many ways, the “ESPN culture” is appealing in its own right.  We know all of the analysts by name, and there is enough star-studded talent to attract our attention.  On TV are Stephen A. Smith, Stuart Scott, Chris Berman and Skip Bayless.  On radio are Mike & Mike and Colin Cowherd.  Online are Rick Reilly and Matthew Berry.  These guys are giants in the journalism industry.

These giants are remarkably invigorating, but it is not their genius that keeps us coming back.  They are not analyzing anything we cannot understand for ourselves.  They are not predicting anything we cannot predict for ourselves.  Sports are not that complicated – we watch the games and react instinctively.  ESPN is more emotion that reason, more opinion than fact.

It must be the egos, witty comments, creative sound effects and oversized ties that keep us transfixed by the touted “experts.”  No matter what sport is being covered, fans grab the remote or computer and always tune into ESPN before CNN or FOX.  It is a habit instilled in our daily routine, one that holds true one hundred percent of the time for the ultimate sports fan.  It is our morning coffee, our half-hour lunch break, our 3 pm pick-me-up and our late-night study distraction. 

It is enough to keep us entertained for six days every week.  When Sunday finally arrives, we shift our attention from the desk to the field, barely noticing whether all those predictors and analysts turned out wrong. 

Monday rolls around, and we hop back on the hamster wheel.

Has Rory Eclipsed Tiger?

Dominance is a tricky thing.  In a sporting world that places so much emphasis on training, research, and meticulous athletic perfection, it is almost impossible to dominate a sport.  It is the best against the best.  Everyone has access to the same body-building supplements, advanced equipment, and personal trainers.  It is a level playing field, filled with hundreds of dedicated professionals whose life goal is to be better than you. 

I am not just talking about winning a bunch of games or setting records.  Dominance is so much more than that.  It is about controlling the pulse of the sport year after year, winning championship after championship until you become the standard manual for how the game should be played.  It is about defying the odds, achieving the unimaginable despite injury and controversy.  It is about being consistently better than the best in the world. 

Your name becomes synonymous with the sport itself. 

Babe Ruth was baseball; Michael Jordan was basketball; boxing had Ali; swimming, Phelps; tennis, Federer.  These guys all dominated their own segment of sports history.  Yet, as great as they all were, each is eventually replaced by a new generation of athletes.

Once in a while there is a changing of the guard, and some of the most iconic moments in sports occur when we witness the old usher in the new.  Back in 2003, Kobe and Jordan were dueling on the same court.  Nadal and Djokovic are challenging Federer’s monopoly on greatness.    Young rookies like Robert Griffin III are taking the NFL by storm.  Seventeen year-old Missy Franklin is the new darling of the US swimming team. 

Yet, no sport fully captures this seismic shift like golf, partly because no player has really dominated a sport like Tiger Woods.  For over a decade, Tiger was golf’s poster child, winning fourteen majors and over 100 million dollars in tournament earnings.  In every sense, Tiger literally was golf.  Many of us would turn on the TV not to watch golf, but to watch Tiger.  We wanted to see him crush drives down the middle of the fairway and sink puts on impossible greens.  We wanted to see that red Nike shirt on Sundays.  We wanted to hear his celebrations and see his glorious uppercuts swinging through the air.  I usually hate watching the same people win over and over, but Tiger was an exception.  He made me want to play golf.  He made me want to watch a sport that has less contact and lower scoring than soccer.

But the glory days are over.  Golf has changed, and Tiger is no longer the dominant, red-shirted clutch machine that he used to be.  While most of the news is still focused on Tiger, it is less about his victories and more about his challengers.  While the passage of time has slowly separated Tiger from the sex scandal of 2009, something is just not right.  He cannot control his temper; his putting is not what it used to be; he cannot pull away in the third and fourth rounds of tournaments. 

Meanwhile, everyone around him seems to be getting better.  After Greg Norman commented that Rory McIlroy – the curly-haired Irishman who has nine top-five finishes and four wins this year – “intimidates” Tiger, the reality of Tiger’s demise may be setting in.  Although Norman may have overstated Woods’ fears, he does make a good point.  Tiger is no longer untouchable.  He misses drives on the 18^th hole and pushes birdie putts wide of the mark.  He chokes, has mental lapses, and even misses the cut. 

And although it sounds sacrilegious to denigrate golf’s iconic player, why shouldn’t Tiger be intimidated by Rory?  At twenty-three years old, the kid reminds Tiger of everything that he used to be.  It is like playing with a flashback of your past.  Rory outdrives him, putts better than him, and plays without all the distractions and controversies that Tiger faces.

I’m not saying that Tiger is not good anymore.  He still finds himself near the top of the leaderboards, and at thirty-six years old, he even has a reasonable chance to break Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major wins.  But other golfers stand in the way.

So while he may not be intimidated by Rory, Tiger no longer intimidates everyone else.  He has been wrenched down from his tower and brought down to our level.  He has ceased to be dominant - it is anybody’s game now.  The Tiger era is coming to an end.

Fantasy Sports Have Real-Life Impact

Everyone has a Sunday routine.  We sleep-in late, go to Leo’s for an afternoon brunch, chain ourselves to a desk in Lau, and proceed to do the massive amounts of homework that we neglected for the past two days. 

Unless, of course, we play fantasy football.  In this case, we chain ourselves to the living room couch and stare at the TV for hours, tracking stats from five different games on our computer and smartphone.  We watch anxiously as little horizontal bars stretch across the screen, following the drive chart to see if any of our favorite players have scored.  Every yard is 0.1 points.  Every field goal is 3.  Every touchdown is 6.  Each point is a little victory, bringing us one step closer to beating our opponent and earning bragging rights for the rest of the week. 

It is not a very productive way to spend a Sunday, but it sure is entertaining.  It makes every game and team interesting.  Once irrelevant, I suddenly care about the Cincinnati Bengals because I drafted BenJarvus Green-Ellis.  I now root for the Patriots because I have their starting running back, and I don’t hate the Cowboys as much because I want Dez Bryant to play well.  Owning fifteen players from fifteen different teams expands the breadth of my interest in the NFL.

Sunday becomes sacred – not for the sake of doing homework or going to church, but for watching football.  Being a team owner is very time-consuming, and reading Plato is extremely difficult when you are tracking several games at once on your computer screen.  There’s a real benefit to having an 11 p.m. Mass and no classes on Monday.

With four playoff appearances and one fantasy championship under my belt, I know the glory of winning it all.  But there are also many sacrifices along the way.  Listening to your friend scream every time Arian Foster scores a touchdown can get extremely annoying.  It is agonizing seeing your roommate pound his chest after beating you by the slimmest of margins.  Some guys in your league create weird nicknames and develop strange alternate egos.  Your heart is torn when your hometown team plays against your fantasy quarterback. 

Is it all worth it?  Although it seems like a mundane way to spend your weekend, there are actually a lot of important things on the line.  Despite its name, fantasy football has a lot of real-world implications.  Over the past few years, it has grown tremendously popular, with an estimated 27 million people participating last year.  Every major sports website – ESPN, Sports Illustrated, Yahoo, CBS, FOX – has its own team of fantasy writers and analysts offering week-to-week coverage of games, draft strategies, and player rankings.  Popular analysts have their own columns and radio shows devoted entirely to fantasy sports.

How did we get to this point?  How is it possible that Matthew Berry gets paid full-time to write about a silly game of stats and numbers?  Are we spending our Sundays in vain?  Sure, it is a lot of fun competing with friends and cheering for our favorite players, but fantasy football – and all fantasy sports in general – is corrupting the sport in many ways. 

Put simply, it has reduced football into its basic elements – points and yards.  We are enslaved by the numbers.  We cheer for players instead of teams and touchdowns instead of wins.  We betray our hometown teams.  We muddle our loyalties. 

It makes Sunday the busiest day of the week, for all the wrong reasons.  At the end of the season, the glory of a fantasy championship sure is sweet.  But it might not be worth all of the hair-pulling and screaming at the TV.  After all, it is just fantasy.  

Vacated Seasons: Erased But Always Remembered

The law is bizarre.  It’s amazing how many times it tries to bend the truth, demanding that we close our eyes as it manipulates the record books and crafts a new reality.  Technically speaking, Lance Armstrong never won seven Tour de France titles.  Joe Paterno never won 409 games.  Reggie Bush never won the Heisman. 

Seriously?  That’s not how my history is written.  I’m pretty sure I remember watching Lance Armstrong leave other riders in the dust, climbing to the top of the podium as a champion.  I remember Joe Paterno win game after game, paving a legacy as one of the most successful college coaches of all time.  I remember Reggie Bush dancing around defenders, striking the Heisman pose in the end zone.  Forget the side-stories.  Forget the scandals.  If you concentrate on pure sports, on the coaching genius and athletic talent, the records can never be diminished. 

Sure, the side-stories do matter.  Just like every other profession, sports is an industry with an ugly side.  Some athletes do bad things – really bad things.  Sex scandals, doping, and money laundering should be reprimanded.  There are panels of judges, advisory boards and strong-armed commissioners who carry out this duty, sometimes a little too severely.  We cringe at the barbarity of the Saints’ bounty-hunting scandal.  We berate Penn State for glazing over the horrific Sandusky disaster.  It’s hard to forgive athletes who kill dogs, use drugs, and cheat on their wives. 

But it’s not because they’re athletes.  Once the situation gets ugly, the sports part goes out the window.  When we see our superstars participate in unethical behavior, there’s a public outcry for justice – not because they’re athletes, but because they’re human beings.  Coaches and athletes are held to the same standard as every other person in every other profession.  We scoff at Barry Bonds and Bernie Madoff, Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford, that loud-mouth wide receiver and the ditsy spoiled bimbo.  The Penn State and USC scandals were not about football.  Tiger Woods’ scandal was not about golf.  Even the steroid era was not about baseball. 

It’s about us as a society, as we mull over what to do with those that don’t comply with our principles and values.  You’re not supposed to cheat or steal or play dirty.  You’re not supposed to bribe recruits with money and wild parties.  But it happens, and when people cross the line, it makes us look bad.  We become defensive, because sports are ultimately a reflection on us.  People love excitement and violence, cut in line, cheat on tests, break the law, act recklessly – and athletes do the same.  With all the cameras flashing, it’s just a little harder for them to keep it under wraps.  Are you really surprised to hear that the Patriots were secretly videotaping an opponent’s defensive signals?  Are you really shocked that baseball players took steroids to get bigger, stronger, faster, better?  Did you really not think that there were bounty-hunting programs in the NFL?  We live in a violent, greedy, exploitative world.  We’re all trying to get ahead, one way or another.  Sports are no exception. 

So if it’s not about sports, why do we punish the sport?  Why, when USC gave benefits to Reggie Bush and O.J. Mayo, did the NCAA wipe out the records on the field?  Why, when Sandusky and Paterno covered up a monstrosity, does Paterno’s stats page have a bunch of zeros in the win column?  Fine them, jail them, suspend them.  But what’s done on the field is done.  You can’t erase the fact that USC was the national champion in 2005.  You can’t erase all the yards and touchdowns that Reggie Bush scored.  You can’t erase the 111 games that Joe Paterno won since 1998. 

Of course, you can.  It’s a technicality.  Some judge or commissioner can sit in his office and decide to wipe the record clean. 

But in the end, the record prevails.  You can’t erase your memory as easily as you can erase a number on the computer screen.  The championship banner stays in your head.  Sure, unethical athletes or coaches might be tarnished by bad reputations.  But one hundred years from now, they’ll also be remembered for all that they accomplished on the field. 

Reconciliation takes time.  We’ll forgive these guys as surely as we forgive ourselves.  

Crackdown on Poker Misguided

Whenever we sit around our kitchen tables playing a game of poker, the legality of the sport may never even cross our minds.  Although our small get-togethers are certainly not enough to warrant a crackdown by federal authorities, the Illegal Gambling Business Act gives the government the right to prosecute gambling in some circumstances.  Online poker organizations have been the biggest culprits, as three of the largest poker websites – Full Tilt Poker, Poker Stars, and Absolute Poker – were shut down last year. 

The case making the most noise this year was that of Lawrence Dicristina, a New Jersey electronics dealer whose warehouse was raided after authorities suspected he was operating an illegal poker ring.  After hearing testimony from several statisticians and poker players, Judge Weinstein concluded that poker is a game of skill, ruling in favor of the defendant and rendering the card game exempt from gambling laws.

Legally speaking, gambling is a game “predominated by chance,” and while chance does play a role in poker, skill plays an even bigger role – and that makes all the difference.  Some players do get lucky sometimes, but no player can get lucky all of the time.  Professional poker players don’t make a living off of luck – that’s just not possible.  Have you ever heard of a professional roulette player?  Or someone who is really good at playing slots?  There is a reason why the same players end up in the final tables at the World Series of Poker year after year – they are consistently better at the game than the rest of us. 

Poker is not a fool’s game.  Fools trust their luck too much; they arrive overconfident and usually go home with empty pockets.  We have all fallen into this trap, blaming our losses on “bad luck.”  Chance is always there, but sometimes we give it too much credit.

Skill versus chance – it is funny how semantics can carry so much weight.  Weinstein’s ruling sets a legal precedent that can spark the resurgence of online poker play, which raked in over $20 billion at its peak in 2010.  Add that to the millions wagered annually at small casino tables and big televised tournaments, and you’ve got a giant pot of revenue that eclipses some of America’s largest professional sports. 

Isn’t it amazing how the law, as argued by a few attorneys and interpreted by a single judge, can hold such sway over us all?  How it can create a flood of opinions and news reports online, in the newspapers, and on the airwaves?  How it can open the gates to billions of dollars of revenue?  And all of this over a few words, over a simple card game that many probably don’t even consider a sport.  The weight seems disproportional. 

Why are we even having this debate?  The question is not whether poker is skill or luck, or even whether poker constitutes gambling.  The real question is, Why does gambling have a bad name in the first place?  How does the predominance of “chance” make a game worthy of social disrepute?  It doesn’t.  Sure, people stand to lose lots of money.  But that does not mean it’s a “bad” game, and certainly should not render it illegal.  The risk makes it more exciting.  It is engrained in our society, and you can see it in every sport we play.  It makes us sweat, cry, scream, and go crazy.  It gives us an adrenaline rush.  And we are not just risking an interception or a few “points,” we’re putting real money on the line.  Real dollars – you know, the stuff that we spend hours working for, the stuff that pays for life.  A poker hand feels so real, so significant. 

Poker is full of risk, and so is every sport we play.  So why should it be treated any differently?  If people like it, let them do it.  They can pay for the consequences.  Literally. 

Democracy survives in Senegal, but implications for rest of Africa unclear

Late last month, Senegal breathed a huge sigh of relief.  In what was the country’s fourth transfer of power since independence in 1960, incumbent president Abdoulaye Wade was defeated by former prime minister Macky Sall.  After Wade received only 32% in the first round of voting, several opposition candidates abandoned their own bids to support Sall, who prevailed with over 65% of the vote in the second round.  

While a peaceful, democratic transfer of power is taken for granted in America, it is anything but commonplace in many parts of Africa.  Just a few days before the Senegalese elections, Mali, its northern neighbor, was seized by a military coup.  To the south, an electoral dispute in Cote d’Ivoire led to civil war in 2011.  Although the Arab Spring usurped several authoritarian leaders in Egypt, Libya and other nations, the transitions were often violent, and questions remain as to whether democracy can ever be sustained.  Can the “democratic deficit” be overcome?

Senegal’s answer is an optimistic “yes.”  But all was not certain in the months preceding Sall’s resounding victory.  After being elected in 2001, Wade extended the length of his term by changing the constitution, and defied the two-term limit by declaring his candidacy for this year’s election.  He also attempted to guarantee his reelection by lowering the vote requirement from 50% to 25%.  When people began protesting in January and February, he deployed riot police and aggressively suppressed the demonstrators.  During his eleven years in office, he was also guilty of “mismanagement, corruption and fund embezzlement” and increasingly endowed power to his son, his potential political heir.     

On the verge of non-democracy, Wade’s tenuous hold on power came undone in a remarkably democratic way.  Although there were clashes with police and rioting in Dakar, the capital, in the months leading up to the elections, the elections themselves were spared from the violence.  For the most part, the military stood aside.  Voting was not rigged.  The results were not fixed.  Turnout was very high, with almost three million people – about 55% of registered voters – swamping the polls.  With defeat imminent, Wade publicly congratulated his opponent on the victory.    

The significance for Senegal is apparent.  Against what was the biggest threat to Senegalese democracy in the past several decades, democracy won.  Yet, for the rest of Africa, the reaction is perplexing.  Analysts rave about Senegal being the beacon of democratic hope for the rest of the continent.  Headlines surge with pan-African jubilation – “African Democracy 1, Big Men 0,” “Macky Sall Senegal election win 'example for Africa,’” “Victory for African democracy.” Are such statements warranted?  Besides giving the people something interesting to read in the morning paper, what does Sall’s victory really mean for the other 55 African nations?  Can Senegal be model for them to follow?

Such questions bring to light some important underlying assumptions – namely, that “Africa” is a legitimate subject of study.  Is this true?  What makes the African nations worthy of comparative analysis?  Why is Senegal a victory for “African democracy” and not simply “democracy?”  What is “African democracy” anyways?  There are some similarities – Africa is a one contiguous landmass and was historically subject to imperialist pressures and colonization.  Many African countries are struggling economically, with very few in the “developed” world.  Even so, the massive continent is incredibly diverse; each nation is religiously, politically, linguistically and ethnically unique.  Attempts at political consolidation, such as the African Union, have had limited success.

Thus, expectations following the Senegalese election must be tempered by reality.  While it is convenient, and certainly optimistic, to view Sall as a hope for all of Africa, it is much more prudent to examine political developments on a case-by-case basis. 

Senegal itself has not even finished the race; Sall has been in power for less than a month, and he too may be susceptible to the same corruption that plagued his predecessor.  After all, Wade was likewise supported with great enthusiasm, elected in 2001 on a platform of Sopi (“change”) and promises of liberation.  Only time will tell if Sall turns out any better.  And we’ll have to wait longer still to see if “African democracy” prevails, if such a thing even exists.

Socialism with Cuban Characteristics?

Since Fidel Castro and his revolutionaries landed on the shores of Cuba on December 2, 1956, the island has, in many ways, become a stronghold for the communist experiment.  In the years following the revolution, Fidel implemented sweeping social reforms, providing universal healthcare, education and pensions to his people.  While other developing countries suffered under volatile political conflict, Fidel’s strong leadership united and inspired his country.  Although Cubans sacrificed political liberties for the sake of the welfare state, many seemed satisfied with the fragile benefits of communist rule. 

Alas, utopia is a mirage.  When the Cold War sputtered to an end in the late 1980s, Cuba suddenly found itself economically severed from its Soviet lifeline.  From 1989 to 1993, the Cuban GDP declined by 35% due to a lack of Soviet aid, a tightened U.S. trade embargo, energy shortages and famine.  To resolve the crisis, Fidel was forced to open up to new foreign investment and legalize some private businesses.

While temporary, Fidel’s economic adjustments gave us a glimpse of something rarely seen in the fifty years of Cuban communism: capitalism.  With his brother Raul now President, Cuba is inching further down that path.  The administration itself is changing, as Raul has “quietly discarded nearly all of Fidel’s ministers and key aides.”  New personnel means new policy, and in April 2011, the Sixth Congress proposed 313 guidelines for innovative economic reforms.  The guidelines propose creating private property out of state-owned farmland, decreasing the amount of state workers, and encouraging investment by private enterprises.  In fact, economist Omar Everleny predicts that “some 35-40% of the workforce of 4.1m should end up in the private sector by 2015.”  Echoing the trend towards privatization, Raul called for a “decentralized system where planning will prevail” in his speech to the Congress, and admits that the “lesson taught by practical experience is that an excessive centralization inhibits the development of initiatives in society and in the entire production line…” Sounds a bit like “Socialism with Cuban Characteristics,” doesn’t it?

Wary of an influx of foreign corruption, the government is a little more hesitant in the international arena, where membership in the IMF or World Bank would ease its credit problems.  Unifying the two national currencies – the CUC (“convertible peso”) and the Cuban peso – is also an important measure that would greatly facilitate trade.  With great caution, Cuba is steadily opening itself up to the outside economy.  The evidence is in Miami, where Cuban émigrés maintain close relations with their homeland.  Unlike Fidel, who denounced them as gusanos (“worms”), Raul shows more hospitality to Cuban-Americans, who often travel to Havana to sell goods purchased in the U.S. 

So why is Cuba doing this?  Although the communists still clearly control the government, they are implementing reforms that seem antithetical to the creed of the Cuban Revolution.  Che must be rolling in his grave.  After over fifty years of communist rule, the Cubans are at a crossroads – how do they balance past political tradition with the present reality?  Surely, they have to compromise.  The economic pains are too severe.  The inefficiency is too palpable.  Consider state-owned farms, which account for 75% of all agricultural land.  In 2007, 45% of this land was not being cultivated, much of it covered in weeds.  Hammered by financial recession, defaults on debt and hurricane damage, reform seems inevitable.  There’s a reason why tens of thousands of Cubans emigrate every year. 

The economics are important, but ideology may play an even larger role.  In the current situation, the glory of the Cuban Revolution seems like a distant past.  Fidel, who in many ways is the symbol of that valiant struggle, is 85 years old and ill.  Raul is 80, and with his fellow comrades likewise ageing, it is a mystery who will be his successor.  The Castro brothers were popular because of their personality and nationalistic fervor.  How will the next generation of Cubans respond to their message?  Will they share the affection for the communist cause?  Can the torch be passed on? 

If one thing is certain, it is that true Cuban independence has failed.  Dominated imperially by Spain and the U.S., Cuba finally achieved freedom during Fidel’s revolution.  Shortly after, however, the Soviet Union stepped in, and the island was essentially a pawn during the Cold War.  Amidst economic struggles, Cuba has now turned to Venezuela. 

Perhaps current reforms – which vaguely resemble early free-market capitalism – are an escape from a long history of dependency.  It seems to be working fantastically for China, where Mao was once admired by Fidel and his comrades.  Leadership turnover, stale ideology and economic woes signal a future Cuban transformation.    

Catholic Power: Revisiting Jodok Troy

Read Troy’s original article here: The Catholic Church: An Underestimated and Necessary Actor in International Affairs

In the winter of 2008, Jodok Troy analyzed the role of the Catholic Church (“the Church”) in international affairs.  His argument is twofold.  First, he discusses the normative values of the Papacy, and claims that it is a powerful player on the world stage.  Second, he interprets the Church’s influence as a force for good, arguing that it is a “respectable promoter of human rights and freedom.”  Although recent developments lend credence to Troy’s claims, there are several detractions that must also be addressed. 

The author’s first point is certainly valid, as the Church has considerable weight on the international level.  Since the election of the late Pope John Paul II in 1978, the Holy See has greatly expanded its influence on the world stage.  John Paul II was a global activist, visiting 129 different countries during his time in office.  He instituted World Youth Day, played a significant role in the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and was instrumental in evangelizing the Catholic faith.  Current Pope Benedict XVI is trying his best to follow in his footsteps; he has already published several encyclicals, opened up to other religious groups, and expressed a strong stance on important social and political issues.  When the Pope speaks, people listen, even if they don’t always agree.

Troy’s second point – that the Church is a force for good – is a bit more controversial and attracts more opposition.  While supporters may point to the fall of communism, democratization, and social egalitarianism as pillars of Papal policy, dogmatic opponents may go as far back as the Crusades and the Inquisition, pointing fingers at historical atrocities.  At such extremes, Troy’s argument stands firm; today’s Church has been admirably reformed, hardly resembling its past monstrosity.  However, many question the Church’s opinion on a host of other issues, including contraceptives and homosexuality. 

This brings us to a few more problems with Troy’s article.  The first complication concerns the foundation of the Church’s international influence.  Troy argues that the Church is strong because of its “institutional stability and moral authority.”  Yet, both its institutions and moral authority are under intense pressure today.  A prime example is the United States health care mandate that will require private institutions, including Catholic ones, to provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans.  Sex abuse scandals and a struggling inter-religious dialogue make people question whether the Church is in the right.  Despite all of its greatness, the Church cannot enforce its doctrine upon its followers; it can only try to persuade them.  Ultimately, it is up to the individual believer to comply, and his choice cannot be judged in this world.  There are plenty of so-called “bad Catholics.” 

Globalization and technology, which Troy optimistically supports as a “fortunate development for the Church,” only further decentralizes the religious body.  The free and instantaneous spread of ideas makes it much more difficult to promote a universal Catholic doctrine.  Now more than ever, the strength of one’s individual beliefs is of the utmost importance to the perseverance of a Catholic identity.  Yet, Troy concludes his article by stressing the vital role of the Pope, arguing that it is “the Holy See’s turn to use its institutions and moral capabilities to become once more an ‘ethical reservoir’ in an age of a declared and believed ‘clash of civilizations.’” 

But what is the Pope without his one billion followers?  What is the Church without its people?  It is nothing.  How influential would the Holy See be in international affairs without citizens who respond to its call?  The Church is a powerful actor, but its heart is dispersed in individuals around the globe, not in the Vatican.  

Panel addresses religious freedom and contraceptives

The Georgetown University Knights of Columbus sponsored a panel Tuesday night in response to the controversy surrounding the Obama administration's new regulations governing contraception coverage.

The panelists expressed concern that the announcements from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services violate the freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment.

"The media tries to frame this issue in terms of birth control and sexual rights, but it's really much bigger than that. This is about the government failing in its duty to protect our freedom of conscience," said panelist Kellie Fiedorek, staff counsel for Americans United for Life and Advocates for Life.

Monsignor Charles Pope, the pastor of Holy Comforter-St. Cyprian Church in Washington, D.C., also a panelist, argued that the Catholic Church is being specifically targeted by the legislation. He and other panelists urged the Church's laity to resist the measure and voice their concerns to government representatives.

"We can't rely on the courts to keep saving us," Thomas Peters, the founder of Catholicvote.org, said. "Catholics have great social power because of our institutions, and we must do everything we can to protect them."

Timothy Shah, associate director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, agreed that religious freedom is a central topic in the discussion surrounding the federal policy.

"In many ways, religious freedom is the issue of our time. In the First Amendment, the first words of the Constitution, religious freedom is enshrined," he said.

Emile Doak (COL '14), the warden of Georgetown's chapter of the Knights of Columbus, said he thinks many students don't agree with the panel's opposition to the new policies, which require that all employers, including religiously affiliated institutions, provide health insurance cover contraceptives or offer an alternative insurance provider that will.

"I feel that there's a lot of opposition to our Catholic movement on college campuses," Doak said. "We've got to be more informed so that we can defend ourselves better and expose all sides of the issue."

In smoldering Athens, EU disunity becoming more evident

Riots, gas bombs, and arson – doesn’t really sound like unity, does it?  On Sunday, 100,000 protests filled the streets of Athens to challenge new austerity measures approved by Greek lawmakers.  The financial cuts, which were approved in a 199-74 vote, “will ax one in five civil service jobs and slash the minimum wage by more than a fifth.”  In return, Greece will receive another $170 billion bailout, coughed up by the IMF and other European contributors.

We’ve seen this before.  Protestors have been loud in the past few years, sparked by the financial crisis that surfaced in late 2009 with the downgrading of European government debt.  Greece, Ireland, and Portugal have been hit especially hard, and each has received bailouts to rescue their economies.  But this money is just a temporary band-aid, and without real structural change, the wounds are going to keep bleeding. 

Initially, the Eurozone stood firmly behind Greece, promising to lend financial support for the sake of saving the greater economy.  Greece happily accepted its first bailout gift in 2010, but failed to implement any long-term change.  It’s hard to create policies of austerity and responsibility when the people refuse to accept cuts.  The country explodes – literally.

Now the rest of Europe is getting ticked off.  Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, the leaders of the two largest economies in the Eurozone, chastised Greece verbally last month, and both are extremely hesitant to lend more support.  They are feeling pressure from their domestic constituents, who refuse to sacrifice their ‘hard-earned’ money for an irresponsible, misbehaving neighbor.  With Greece clamoring for more money, their cautious and conservative judgment has been well received.  In fact, Merkel’s approval rating in Germany has climbed to its “highest level since her 2009 reelection.”  Sarkozy is seeking reelection this spring.

Euroskepticism is even stronger in the United Kingdom, where members of David Cameron’s own party demanded a referendum on EU membership last fall.  In a public poll, almost 50% of voters wanted to withdraw from the EU.  Although a vote in Parliament never took place, the idea that such a referendum was even proposed stands in sharp contrast to the perpetuity of union. 

Clearly, Europe is rife with tension.  The continent is being held together by a shoddy glue job.   Fiscally, things are not well, but it’s about more than just the money.  There are some fundamental, ideological problems that lie at the core of the EU, and it’s creating deep fissures that are now visible in the lovely cobblestone streets littered with bombs and fire. 

First, state sovereignty is threatened.  Domestic legislation must compete with, and often yield to, the decisions of the EU.  For example, members of the Eurozone have abandoned their own currencies in favor of the euro.  Further ceding their power, monetary policy is now controlled by European Central Bank. 

In many ways, the EU has become a sovereign body whose power precedes and overshadows the sovereignty of the states it represents.  It takes strong leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy to curb the overreaching arm in Brussels. And is it a coincidence that the United Kingdom, which threatened withdrawal, is one of the few states not part of the Eurozone?

Furthermore, at the heart of the EU is a consolidating, centralizing ideology.  Its Constitution states it plainly: “…the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny…”  I don’t think the current fiasco is the destiny that the people want to share, nor the utopia that the framers imagined.  Culturally and economically, the twenty-seven member states are too distinct to form a lasting partnership. 

If there was ever any sense of a proud, greater “Europe” that transcends national boundaries and identities, it’s not evident any more.

At GUROP, learning goes beyond the classroom

Every day, thousands of students pack into classrooms to learn how chemicals interact, what the human genome looks like, and how to assemble dozens of plastic molecular models.  When the textbooks are closed and the tests are distributed, their knowledge is put to the test – at least on paper.  They might do well on lab reports and get an A for memorizing some key concepts and definitions.  But are they really getting the full experience?  Are they really learning?

Founded in 1996, the Georgetown Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (GUROP) helps students take that extra step in their academic experience.  Created by current GUROP Director Sonia Jacobson and former Executive Vice President William Cooper, the program connects undergraduates and faculty members through innovative faculty-mentored research projects. 

170 students currently participate in GUROP this semester, which is now under the umbrella operation of the Georgetown Office of Fellowships, Awards, and Research (GOFAR) directed by Dr. John Glavin.  About half are science majors studying biology, chemistry, or physics in the College.  Other participants include history, public policy, and economics students, as well as an increasing number of social science majors, especially psychology.  Although most undergraduates are unpaid, they receive a special notation on their transcript designating that they participated in research.  However, some receive a monetary award based on financial aid, and there are even opportunities for full-time paid research positions in the summer.

Above all, GUROP serves as a gateway to valuable intellectual mentorship between students and professors.  “The best thing about our program is the strong student-faculty relationships that develop,” says Jacobson.  “Research often occurs over the course of more than one semester, which gives students an incredible opportunity to develop and learn through first-hand work.” 

Mathew Hoffmann (COL ’14), who is researching methanol fuel cells in his first semester with GUROP, believes that his experience has been very rewarding.  “Working in the lab helps me apply many of the techniques I learned in class,” says Hoffmann.  “We’re working with alternative energy sources and breaking new ground.  It’s very exciting to be a part of something so important and so new.”

For anxious upperclassmen worrying about finding a job, GUROP also has some practical benefits.  Lauren Tuckley, the Research Resource Coordinator of GOFAR, understands that the job market does not look too friendly right now.  “It’s a vital asset to have research experience that supplements your coursework,” Tuckley says.  “The skill set acquired from participating in scholarly research is invaluable in the marketplace.”  Graduate programs are also very difficult to get into.  For example, in 2010, George Washington University accepted just 5 out of 300 applicants into its psychology program. 

For many students, researching with GUROP adds a new dimension to their undergraduate experience.  However, both Jacobson and Tuckley believe that its full potential has not yet been realized.  In particular, they are working on a new searchable database that will streamline the application process.  GOFAR is also implementing a new outreach group, the Undergraduate Research Ambassadors, to gain more interest in research, as well as to increase the program’s visibility on campus. 

So what does the future hold for GUROP and other participants in research?  “We are trying to get students to consider careers that they would not have considered otherwise,” Jacobson says.  “Instead of moving on to the State Department or medical school, some students become convinced that pursuing a PhD and performing research is a more suitable career.”

While Hoffmann is still figuring out his future plans, other students are more certain.  Tyler White (COL ’14), a psychology major working at the Georgetown Autism and Communication Disorders Clinic, knows that research has affirmed his career aspirations within the mental health field.  “For the past few months, as I have been reading through dozens of clinical reports, I've been paging through documents that profoundly reflect and affect peoples' lives,” says White.  “The integration of research work with clinical practice is tremendously important; it is real in its implications, and playing a hand in the development of scientific knowledge is something I would love to spend the rest of my life doing."

Internet: the interest group of the century

Facebook, Youtube, Limewire – add the name Megaupload to the list of websites that feel “threatened” by a government crackdown.  Last month, Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom was arrested in New Zealand on “charges of racketeering, money laundering and copyright crimes.”  The popular sharing site for pirated materials was a multi-million dollar enterprise for Dotcom and his associates.

Senator Patrick Leahy and Congressman Lamar Smith must be rolling in their sleep.  As the authors of PIPA and SOPA, these are the kinds of internet crimes that give them nightmares. 

The question is: can they do anything about it?  The fall of Dotcom may just be a minor kink in the Internet giant.  Leahy and Smith are two people.  The Internet is two billion people.  The numbers are overwhelming.

And if the past few weeks have taught us anything, it’s that you don’t mess with the two billion.  In the days before a vote on the PIPA and SOPA bills, companies like Wikipedia and Google staged a silent protest on the web.  They restricted access, blacked-out logos, and released “educational” videos describing how Washington was threatening the everyday Internet user.  People listened, contacting their representatives and sharply tilting popular opinion against the two bills.  It’s time for a re-write.

Propaganda has a negative connotation nowadays, but the Internet’s own experiment with it was remarkably successful.  It epitomizes the transformation of the Internet into a political tool.  No longer is the web just a place for doing research and checking emails.  It’s now an interest group, and the most powerful one of its kind.  The Internet is a continuation of the project that Gutenberg started over 500 years ago, and it has the awesome power to change world-wide currents of thought and information.  It reaches every corner of the globe, and can aggregate data in ways that no other medium can ever achieve. 

But the internet is more than just data.  It’s people, and it’s their goals and ideas that make the Internet a medium for change.  Its influence has already been felt in certain parts of the world.  Social media helped facilitate political change during the Arab Spring, and protests in England and Chile are popularized online.  Now the wave has hit the United States, and it should hardly be a surprise. 

It will be interesting to see how the government responds to the rise of this interest group.  It’s unlike anything they’ve seen before.  There are no dressed-up lobbyists representing clients in headquarters with four walls and three-letter acronyms.  Instead, it’s CEOs in t-shirts and sneakers, gathering an army of students, soccer-moms, and that guy that lives in his mom’s basement.  It’s the revenge of the nerds, times one hundred. 

The game has changed.  There’s more pressure on Washington to not overstep its bounds.  Act aggressively, and the Internet will respond in kind.  But a balance must be found.  Crooks must be arrested.  Kim Dotcom cannot hide forever in his million-dollar mansion in New Zealand.  At the same time, politicians must carefully word their laws and regulations to make sure that the big guys on top of the cyber-world don’t feel violated. 

Even if the laws are pretty clear, Mark Zuckerberg and Jimmy Wales can easily mold words into weapons of political power.  The Internet is trying to protect its ideas, and websites are worth millions.  And let’s be honest – have interest groups ever been the most honest organizations in the first place?  They don’t take any chances. 

The odds are pretty good, too.  Real sharks like Dotcom will lose a battle once in a while.  But with a team of two billion followers, I don’t think the Internet can ever lose the war.