Miami face-eating victim is a Stuyvesant graduate

The homeless man who had his face eaten in Miami by a younger homeless man has been identified as Ronald Poppo, Stuyvesant class of 1964. More here and here.

The downfall of a Stuy grad brings to mind the tragic, albeit very different, story of another Stuy grad, Eric Bellucci.

Eric

A problem of definition in the Iraq controversy: Was the issue Saddam's regime or Iraq's demonstrable WMD?

By the late 1990s, the Iraq mission was opposed by UNSC members Russia, China, and France, who may have been influenced by their desire for Iraqi favor and the Oil-for-Food scandal, their dedication to a realist as opposed to liberal world order, and/or the desire to avoid brinkmanship with Iraq while accepting Iraq would remain noncompliant with the UNSC resolutions. They wanted to negotiate a settlement with Saddam Hussein to allow Iraq to reintegrate into the international community in spite of its continued noncompliance, while the US continued to conduct the post-Gulf War mission of disarming and rehabilitating Iraq to a high standard.

The obvious and known stocks of Iraqi WMD (NBC plus associated technology) had been eliminated within the 1st years after the Gulf War, but after 2 successive wars instigated by Iraq and the continued malfeasant behavior of Saddam Hussein, the ceasefire following the Gulf War was conditioned upon Iraq rehabilitating its behavior to a high standard in order to satisfy the international community led by the US and UN.

With Saddam in charge, we had to be sure.

Despite the elimination of the obvious and known stocks of Iraqi WMD, the continued Iraqi deception and resistance to the inspections meant Iraq failed to comply to the standards imposed by the US and UN. The threat of Iraq wasn't what we knew, but what we didn't know about Iraq's weapons and intentions. In addition, repression within Iraq following the Gulf War generated more UNSC resolutions and expanded the standard of compliance imposed on Iraq to prove its rehabilitation.

Then in 1995, WMD stocks Iraq had hidden from inspectors were uncovered due to a defector. While the defector (Saddam's son-in-law, General Hussein Kamel al-Majid) claimed they were the last stockpiles, the hitherto successful deception by itself increased the burden of proof imposed on Iraq. Whether or not Iraq was actually cleansed of WMD after the 1995 revelation, Iraq had demonstrated the intent to harbor NBC capability and resist the verification and compliance process necessary to validate Iraq's rehabilitation. With the focus on the behavior of Saddam's regime rather than its demonstrable possession of weapons, the trigger that justified military enforcement was Iraq's failure to meet the standard of compliance, which qualified as proof that Saddam's regime continued to be a "clear and present" danger. In December 1998, President Clinton defined the standard for military intervention in Iraq:

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

President Clinton linked the "clear and present danger" label to the behavior of Saddam's regime and only indirectly to Iraq's weapons, and carried his argument for military intervention in Iraq from Operation Desert Fox through his support of Bush's decisions on Iraq, before his public support for Bush became politically untenable. The casus belli for Operation Desert Fox wasn't based on what we knew Iraq possessed, but rather based on what we didn't know about Iraq as a result of Iraq's efforts to disallow us from knowing. The regime change strategy in the Iraq Liberation Act was based on the premise that the primary threat was the behavior and intentions of the unreformed regime regarding WMD and other matters, not Iraq's actual possession of WMD. Therefore, the standard for Iraq's rehabilitation was based not on American and UN demonstration of Iraqi WMD, which was impossible to do reliably due to Iraqi resistance to the inspections and foreign intelligence efforts to counter that Iraqi resistance, but instead on the behavior of the regime according to the standards imposed upon Iraq by the US and UN.

In December 1998, UNSCOM ended, the US and UK bombed suspected weapons sites in Iraq, while Iraq remained noncompliant. In 1999, UNMOVIC replaced UNSCOM, and in 2002, the US and UN aggressively moved to reintroduce weapons inspectors into Iraq under UNMOVIC. However, by 2002, there was a profound split in how the US and UN's Iraq mission was interpreted. Opponents of the sanctioning and military-enforced containment of Iraq abandoned the harsh duties, burdens, and standards for rehabilitation imposed on Iraq since the 1990s, the standards by which President Clinton had defined the casus belli of Operation Desert Fox. They believed that negotiating a settlement with Saddam to end the sanctions and containment mission was the way to peace, whereas the introduction of ground troops into Iraq to enforce the UNSC resolutions was unacceptable short of 'smoking gun' proof of an imminent threat by Iraq. To disarm the confrontation with Iraq, opponents argued Iraq should no longer be required to prove compliance by the 1990s standards, but only satisfactorily demonstrate the absence of WMD stockpiles. They eliminated both Iraq's burden to 'prove a negative' (ie, prove WMD programs were permanently ended) and the presumption of guilt for Iraq that was the foundation of the Gulf War ceasefire and subsequent UNSC resolutions. UNMOVIC director Hans Blix even explicitly rejected the presumption of guilt against Iraq in his leadership of UNMOVIC and framed the US and Iraq positions as equivalent, even implicitly accepting the Iraqi argument that foreign intelligence efforts to aid the thwarted inspections were a violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Opponents of the US-led UN mission blamed the US, not Iraq, for the continued sanctioning and containment of Iraq. To make their case against war match the situation on the ground in Iraq as shaped by Saddam, they pushed for a standard that was fundamentally revised from the standard of compliance and rehabilitation that had been imposed on Iraq in 1990s. In the public discourse, opponents downplayed the humanitarian grounds and shifted the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance to the US proving Iraqi WMD. In effect, according to the revised standards championed by Operation Iraqi Freedom's opponents, Iraq had satisfied its burdens and obligations to the UN by 1994.

In contrast, President Bush continued to use the same standard of compliance in 2002-03 that President Clinton had used in 1998, based not on what the US could prove about Iraqi WMD stockpiles and programs, but rather the proscribed behavior of Saddam's regime and what we didn't know due to Iraq's noncompliance. However, where President Clinton's rhetoric had been carefully consistent with the policy standard for military intervention, President Bush fell into the opponents' rhetorical trap by making a claim of affirmative knowledge of Iraqi WMD stockpiles and programs (ie, what we knew) despite that he approved Operation Iraqi Freedom following the same standard used by President Clinton for Operation Desert Fox (ie, Iraqi behavior and the failure of Iraq to cure what we did not know).

President Bush should be faulted for making a public argument that deviated from the controlling policy on Iraq. However, the primary cause for the vitriolic disagreements over Operation Iraqi Freedom was opponents who sought to negotiate a peace with Saddam by revising the standards to fit with Saddam's strategy to defeat the UNSC resolutions. Meanwhile, the US under President Bush stayed the same course with Iraq that had progressed from the 1991 Gulf War. In 2002-03, President Bush held Iraq to the same standard of compliance and rehabilitation that President Clinton had applied in 1998 and used the same trigger for military intervention.

Eric

Can Jeremy Lin make the senior national team for the London Olympics?

It's finally official that Jeremy Lin will be a member of the select team that scrimmages against the senior national USA basketball team to help them prepare for the London Olympics. It's an honor and at the least, inclusion on the select team places Lin in the system to possibly one day join the senior team. The experience training with the best American players at the highest level of USA basketball should help Lin especially after his NBA season was cut short by injury.

While unlikely, I don't think it's implausible that Lin makes the senior national team for the London Olympics, provided he shines during the practices and some roster decisions that are out of his control fall his way.

First, Mike D'Antoni is Team USA's main offensive assistant coach and he's a Lin fan. I suspect his input played a role in Lin's inclusion on the select team.

Second, Lin's game as a bigger versatile playmaking scoring PG fits the international game.

Third, the PG candidates for the senior team are Paul, Billups, Rose, Westbrook, and Williams. Pencil in Williams and probably Westbrook. After Williams and Westbrook, though, Billups and Rose are out, and Paul was playing hurt in the play-offs. Paul may opt out of the Olympics. If that happens, Lin will have an opening. Westbrook was a very dynamic and effective Barbosa-type for Team USA in the WCs, but he doesn't have a PG mentality. For the 3rd PG, the coaches - especially D'Antoni - may want a more versatile, reliable, and coachable guard, a role which suits Lin.

Of course, if Paul opts out, Lin would still have to stand out in the practices by outplaying Irving and Wall with the select team while showing off the specific skills the coaches are looking for in the 3rd PG. Irving is stiff competition and Wall may see Team USA as his opportunity to wash off the Wizards losing stench.

Update: The Team USA Olympics roster must be finalized by July 7. The select team will get together for the first time on July 5, which will give Lin only 2 days to make an extraordinary impression on the coaches. That means it's more unlikely Lin makes it to the Olympics this year, but still not impossible. Late extended senior team roster addition James Harden, who's the next Manu Ginobili, may also be in the running to be Team USA's 3rd PG, especially if the coaches believe a larger backcourt can make up for a smaller frontcourt. Another likely option is that Lebron James will carry back-up PG duties so that an extra big man or shooter can be added.

Eric

Brooklyn Nets logo is sad

Brooklyn is one of the most vibrant, diverse, artistic and colorful communities in the country. Brooklynites have a strong borough-identity, love sports, and I expect they will eventually embrace the Nets. The new flat, plain, black-and-white logo, however, really missed an opportunity to represent Brooklyn with a fresh representative look. I don't see anything about it that reminds me of Brooklyn except the name itself. Maybe, hopefully, the uniform is nicer than the logo.



I still think Jeremy Lin would be a perfect face of the franchise for the Brooklyn Nets, but I'm less enthusiastic about Lin wearing a Brooklyn Nets uniform that looks xeroxed.

Off-topic add: Video taken in the players lounge by a Taiwanese celebrity and family friend after the January 31 game against the Pistons at MSG and Lin's 1st minutes played at home, days before Linsanity blew up.

Eric

Regime Change in Iraq from Clinton to Bush

Below the 'fold' is my term paper for my National Security Law seminar and my final assignment in law school. I sought to address the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom under American law, specifically the case and precedent for Operation Iraqi Freedom established by President Clinton and inherited by President Bush. My paper does not address the international legal controversy (ie, an episodic view that demanded UNSC authorization for each military action while erasing any presumption against Iraq versus a progressive view of a continuous military enforcement of UNSC resolutions from the Gulf War to the ceasefire terms and post-war resolutions that carried over the 1991 UNSC resolutions as a priori and de facto authority) nor the conduct of the nation-building occupation over the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Enjoy:

From: Eric
To: [REDACTED]
Re: Regime Change in Iraq from Clinton to Bush
Date: May 11, 2012

“We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody.”
-- Saddam Husayn [sic], January 1991

PROLOGUE:

President Bush erred by deviating from President Clinton’s carefully hewn strategy on Iraq. Substantively, Bush’s Iraq policy was grounded in the same legal bases for military action that had been developed and utilized by Clinton. Indeed, the circumstances within Iraq that had compelled President Clinton to green-light Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 were not substantially different than the circumstances that compelled President Bush to green-light Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003. Iraq defied the ultimatums of both American presidents in the same manner, thus twice failing its “final chance” to comply with multiple United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions with verification by UNSCOM inspectors in 1998 and UNMOVIC inspectors in 2002-03.

The Duelfer report findings of 2004, largely ignored within a toxic political discourse, corroborated President Clinton's contentions that Saddam Hussein intended to rebuild his proscribed weapons programs once the sanctions had been defeated, retained his long-term interest in a nuclear program in order to make Iraq a great regional power and to protect Iraq’s interests from foreign interference, and had continued to develop long-range delivery systems.

However, President Bush, while relying on the same legal framework for military action used by President Clinton, presented to the public a different case for military action against Iraq than President Clinton had used in 1998. President Clinton, notwithstanding his failure to resolve the Iraq problem, deserves credit for resting his public case for military action on Iraq’s failure to meet its burden of proof, irrespective of Iraq’s store of weaponry, thus ensuring his Iraq policy matched the legal framework of the UNSC resolutions and the matching Congressional acts. Under President Clinton, the burden of proof stayed with the intended and proper party: Iraq.

The foundational premises of the UNSC resolutions were Iraq’s unconditional cooperation and the burden of proof belonged solely to Iraq - not to the United Nations, nor to the United States and her allies. Iraq’s regular failure to cooperate unconditionally was, by itself, an ongoing material breach of the UNSC resolutions. President Bush, however, shifted the burden of proof in the political discourse to the United States with his warnings about existing stockpiles and active programs in Iraq when he should have followed President Clinton’s lead and rested his case for military action on Iraq’s demonstrated noncompliance with the UNSC resolutions.

President Bush may have believed the argument was politically necessary to rally the international community (for example, since the late 1990s, UNSC permanent members France, Russia, and China, possibly influenced by the Oil-for-Food scandal, had protested the U.S.-led enforcement of the UNSC resolutions) , and he may have sincerely believed Iraq had used the unsupervised years in between inspections to rebuild its proscribed weapons programs, but Bush’s decision was legally imprudent.

In the political discourse, President Bush’s claim of affirmative knowledge of stockpiles and active programs allowed critics to relieve Iraq’s burden to prove compliance and shifted the burden onto the United States to prove the existence of those stockpiles and active programs in Iraq.

If President Bush had simply followed President Clinton's case for military action and added the weight of the broad mandate provided by the Authorization of the Use of Military Forces of September 25, 2001 (Public Law 107-40), Bush could have achieved the same result without losing the essential thread of the legal case for military action. President Bush’s historic error in judgment notwithstanding, the legal tripwire to start Operation Iraqi Freedom remained unchanged from the trigger for President Clinton to order Operation Desert Fox: Iraq’s material breach of the UNSC resolutions on multiple fronts.

CLINTON:

Excerpts from the Statement by the President from the Oval Office, December 16, 1998:

I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what "unconditional cooperation" meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments.
. . .
Now, over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's Chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary
General Annan. The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate.
. . .
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
. . .
[T]he inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.
. . .
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
. . .
We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisors, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse forces and protect his weapons.
. . .
[W]e must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq, or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force and, when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
. . .
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.
. . .
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
. . .
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past -- but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

President Clinton established that the failure of Iraq to cooperate with the weapons inspectors and meet its burden of proof, irrespective of Iraq’s actual possession of proscribed weapons, compelled military action due to “a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.” Moreover, President Clinton defined the continued existence of Saddam Hussein’s regime, irrespective of its compliance with the UNSC resolutions or actual possession of proscribed weapons, as a humanitarian crisis and collective security threat.

President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox from the Oval Office is the best statement of authority for the deployment of the nation’s strongest military option against Iraq in December 1998, short of introducing ground forces or deploying a nuclear weapon, because Clinton did not seek additional authorization from Congress or the UNSC. His view was that the legal authority to conduct military action against Iraq was fully vested in his office.

In a comprehensive letter informing Congress of the situation in Iraq on November 5, 1998, President Clinton clarified both his legal authority and the limit of his duty to Congress with the first sentence following the salutation: “Consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and as part of my effort to keep the Congress fully informed, I am reporting on the status of efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).”

P.L. 102-1, passed on January 12, 1991, stated, “The President is authorized, subject to subsection (b), to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.”

UNSC Resolution 678, adopted on November 29, 1990, stated, “[a]cting under Chapter VII of the Charter . . . [a]uthorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

Finally, Article 42 of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter states, “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

In other words, President Clinton recognized that the legal authority to deploy the United States military to enforce the UNSC resolutions on Iraq had been bestowed on his office by statute before he had been elected the President of the United States.

President Clinton’s November 5 letter and, indeed, his December 16 speech from the Oval Office seemed deliberately calculated to convey in wording and imagery that the authority for enforcing the UNSC resolutions and confronting Iraq belonged entirely to the office of the President. The letter to Congress merely fulfilled the reporting requirement in P.L. 102-1. No additional permission was requested or needed by the President to order Operation Desert Fox’s extensive bombing of Iraq.

Unfortunately, Operation Desert Fox’s exclusive reliance on airpower, the penultimate enforcement measure before deploying ground forces, utterly failed to convince Saddam Hussein to acquiesce to the UNSC resolutions or cause permanent damage to Iraq’s military infrastructure.

According to a New York Times report from August 13, 1999, “the Iraqis have proved more resilient than expected. They have quickly repaired damage done to air-defense weapons, forcing the Americans to bomb some targets over and over. They have even rebuilt some of the factories, barracks and other sites destroyed in December's raids, including buildings at the Al Taji missile complex, one of the critical targets, according to Defense officials.”

Perhaps sensing the limit of American resolve, Saddam Hussein’s belligerence increased after Operation Desert Fox. According to a Congressional issue brief on October 16, 2002, “[o]fficial Iraqi media reported on January 3, 1999 that President Saddam Hussein condemned the no-fly zones and said his people would resist them with “bravery and courage.” The Iraqi President followed up by offering a $14,000 bounty to any unit that shot down an allied plane and an additional $2,800 reward for capturing an allied pilot.”

Since the no-fly zones had been established in 1991 to enforce UNSC resolution 688, which demanded an immediate to the repression of the Iraqi civilian population, Iraq had not stopped firing on the allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. However, as the threat to allied aircraft increased after Operation Desert Fox, including radar locks and surface-to-air missiles, the allied counter-fire also increased against Iraqi anti-aircraft defenses. In response, the allied rules of engagement were relaxed to include all Iraqi anti-aircraft defenses, not only the specific unit that had fired at an allied plane. Saddam Hussein took advantage of the heightened allied self-defense measures by co-locating his anti-aircraft systems with civilian populations in order to produce casualties for international propaganda use.

President Clinton continued bombing in Iraq after Operation Desert Fox in order to enforce the no-fly zone. The airpower operation in Iraq carried over into the Bush administration. In the waning months of the Clinton administration, it seemed that the United States had played its trump card, failed, and the endgame favored Saddam Hussein’s brinkmanship.

The New York Times report of August 13, 1999 captured the Clinton administration’s frustration over the drifting and ineffective, yet also destructive, costly in funding and military commitment, and vilified enforcement mission in Iraq, and its concern over the greater danger that would result from failing to contain Saddam Hussein:

Of greater concern is Iraq's ability to rebuild its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, programs that Saddam pledged to halt as part of the cease-fire that ended the Persian Gulf war in 1991. In their letter, the lawmakers said there was "considerable evidence" that Iraq continued to pursue those weapons, though neither they nor their aides elaborated. The administration and Pentagon officials maintain there is no evidence of that, but without international inspections, some acknowledged, there is little to stop Saddam's government from doing so.
. . .
"I've very concerned," Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, who served as the chief American representative at the United Nations during last year's confrontation, told reporters on Wednesday. "My experience with the Iraqis is if you give them an inch, they take a mile."
With the increase in tempo, the fighting over the zones is costing upwards of $1 billion a year, though Pentagon officials say it is difficult to fix an exact cost. More than 200 aircraft, 19 warships and 22,000 American troops are devoted to the effort.
The officials acknowledge that the strikes alone will not topple Saddam, even though the White House has openly called for the overthrow of his government and promised nominal support to opposition figures. That has led to frustration.
"He has been kept in check," one Defense official said. "But the question is: Have you met any of your long-term goals? I don't think so."
A senior administration official said that until a change in government occurs, containment was the only viable policy at this time, politically and diplomatically.
"Neither this administration, nor this Congress, nor any other country is prepared to take the measures that would be truly necessary to ensure there was a change of regime," the official said. "If you want to go beyond containment, you have to put your money where your mouth is. And that means ground troops."

The Clinton White House had more than “openly called for the overthrow of [Saddam Hussein’s] government.” Under President Clinton, the objective of regime change in Iraq had become American law.

On October 31, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-338, known as the Iraq Liberation Act. The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act was to “establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.” The law also stated that the “sense of the Congress regarding United States policy toward Iraq” is “[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

On the same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law, he issued a statement expanding upon the new legal mandate for regime change in Iraq:

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and lawabiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian makeup. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone
else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

Furthermore, although the Iraq Liberation Act stated, “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces,” also embedded in the law was the finding that “[o]n August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'.”

P.L. 105-235, called Iraqi Breach of International Obligations, detailed the long history of Iraq’s resistance to the UNSC resolutions and reinforced the Congressional mandate for the President to bring Iraq into compliance. Where the UNSC had stopped formally declaring Iraq in material breach in 1993 despite continued provocations by Iraq, Congress set the judgment condition necessary for the President to deploy the military against Iraq. While the law did not explicitly define “appropriate action” as military action, “relevant laws” included P.L. 102-1, which authorized use of the military to bring about Iraq’s compliance with international obligations.

President Bush relied on the Iraq Liberation Act to form his Iraq policy.

BUSH:

President Bush took office in January 2001 and inherited from President Clinton an unresolved Iraq problem in which Saddam Hussein’s noncompliance presented a clear and present danger, sanctions were failing, and the United States was bombing Iraq. The choice President Clinton passed onto President Bush was bearing indefinitely the onerous burden of a provocative sanctions and containment regimen that was viewed as eroding, or ending the costly mission and risking the greater danger of a triumphant Saddam Hussein. President Bush also inherited his predecessor’s unwillingness to move beyond bombing and containment in order to press Iraq with the only remaining option to escalate enforcement: the deployment of ground troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda was using the American mission in Iraq as a founding reason and rallying cry.

The attacks of 9/11 caused a seismic shift in American foreign policy in the Middle East and forced President Bush to assess America’s most threatening engagement in the region, Iraq.

While Saddam Hussein was not linked to the 9/11 attacks, it had been established during the Clinton administration that Saddam Hussein’s regime constituted a clear and present danger, U.S. and Iraqi military forces were engaged in hostile military action, Iraq had relations with terrorist groups if not Al Qaeda, an assassination attempt on former President Bush in 1993 had demonstrated Iraq’s willingness to use its own capability to unconventionally attack the U.S., and the material breach of the UNSC resolutions amounted to Iraq’s implied intent to use nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

At the point of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, President Clinton had established the legal conditions, reasons, and precedent to use military action in Iraq, and made into law the objective of regime change in Iraq. The attacks of 9/11 only supplied the political will for President Bush to finally resolve America’s intractable Iraq problem. President Bush’s foreign-policy outlook after 9/11 can be summarized as follows:

Among the momentous effects of Al-Qaeda's violent strikes against the United States on September 11, 2001, was a re-orientation of American policy toward the Middle East. The new paradigm adopted in Washington viewed much of the world as being divided into opponents versus supporters of terrorism. Furthermore, the roots of terrorism were ascribed to Mideast regimes that caused social and economic failures while pursuing the interests of small groups of ruling elites.

At the Air Force Academy commencement in 2004, President Bush described the liberal underpinnings of the War on Terror:

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy.

President Bush chose to seek new authorizations on Iraq from Congress and the UNSC rather than rely on the UNSC resolutions and American laws used by President Clinton. UNSC resolution 1441 and Public Law 107-243 summarized and restated the existing resolutions and policies on Iraq with firmer language and provided Iraq with a (second) final chance to correct its material breach of multiple UNSC resolutions.

UNSC resolution 1441 and P.L. 107-243 established Iraq’s guilt of material breach and, as with previous resolutions and statutes, placed the burden on Iraq to prove its rehabilitation. Iraq’s rehabilitation depended on unconditionally, completely, and immediately cooperating with the weapons inspectors and fulfilling all the obligations imposed by the UNSC resolutions, including humanitarian conditions. Once again, the legal burden was not placed on the United Nations nor the United States to prove Iraq possessed stockpiles or active programs.

In December 1998, President Clinton had given Iraq three weeks to forestall Operation Desert Fox in its first “final chance.” President Bush’s second final chance for Iraq stretched to four months before he ordered Operation Iraqi Freedom. From November 22, 2002 until March 18, 2003, UNMOVIC provided ample opportunity for Iraq to rehabilitate itself under the UNSC resolutions and Iraq failed again to comply. The reasons President Clinton gave for Operation Desert Fox in 1998 applied equally well to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

In a July 22, 2003 interview on CNN, President Clinton cited his presidential experience with Iraq to justify President Bush’s decisions on Iraq:

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.
. . .
I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there. And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea? We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq.

CARTER DOCTRINE and REAGAN COROLLARY:

By taking military action in Iraq, President Clinton and President Bush moved to honor not only international obligations but also defend a longstanding principal national security interest. Before the Clinton and Bush administrations deployed the military in Iraq, the need to maintain security and stability in the vital oil-producing region had compelled Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush (the father) to take an active role in Middle Eastern affairs. As President Carter stated in his 1980 State of the Union Address, “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

President Reagan expanded President Carter’s security guarantee from repelling outside forces to also include internal regional stability when Reagan extended a security guarantee to Saudi Arabia due to concern over the Iran-Iraq war. The Reagan corollary to the Carter doctrine paved the way for President Bush to intervene when Iraq occupied Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in 1990.

Some Constitutional scholars, such as Professor Frank Askin of Rutgers School of Law-Newark, have argued that P.L. 107-243 did not rise to a declaration of war by Congress or that Congress improperly delegated the power to declare war to President Bush.

Unless the Executive's foreign powers and obligations are rolled back to the 19th century and the need and form of a legislative declaration of war are far more narrowly defined, any attempt to have Operation Iraqi Freedom declared unconstitutional has little hope of succeeding. Under President Clinton, Congress had made clear the President was authorized to use military action to bring Iraq into compliance with the UNSC resolutions. Operation Iraqi Freedom was well grounded in the national interest, multiple statutes, as well as modern foreign-policy precedent. For example, P.L. 107-243 and UNSC resolution 1441 included strong humanitarian grounds. In 1999, while still bombing Iraq in the wake of Operation Desert Fox, President Clinton used humanitarian grounds to bypass Congress and the UNSC altogether when he deployed airpower and ground forces against Serbia.

CLOSING THOUGHTS:

When the cease-fire ended the 1991 Gulf War, the United Nations mission in Iraq was designed to be a strictly enforced and quickly achieved disarmament mission. It was not intended to be an indefinitely prolonged sanctions and containment regimen that cast the U.N. and U.S. as villains, severely undermined American credibility around the world and in a region with a vital national security interest, and made the U.S. complicit with Saddam Hussein’s oppression of the Iraqi people.

The attacks of 9/11 forced the United States to evaluate its relationships with the Muslim world, with the Iraq problem at the top of the list. President Bush faced the same three options on Iraq faced by President Clinton:

A. Head-line and maintain indefinitely the provocative, harmful, and failing sanctions and containment regimen.

B. End the mission and release Saddam from constraint, in power and triumphant.

C. Offer Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with the UNSC resolutions, and if Iraq triggered the ultimate enforcement measure, then move ahead with regime change.

President Bush started his presidency where President Clinton had ended his presidency: following Option-A. However, President Clinton had set the stage for Option-C by deploying the military in Iraq (and the Balkans) without applying for additional authorization, making the objective of regime change a legal mandate, and moving the United States to the brink of the ultimate enforcement measure in Iraq.

In 2002-03, with the political will to resolve the Iraq problem thrust upon him by the 9/11 attacks, President Bush followed President Clinton by offering Iraq its final chance to comply with the UNSC resolutions, thus placing the United States on the path to finally conclude the long, damaging American mission in Iraq.

“In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past -- but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace. Tonight, the United States is doing just that.”
-- President William J. Clinton announcing Operation Iraqi Freedom, December 16, 1998

Rise of the Planet of the Apes?

Real-life chimpanzee, Santino, uses sophisticated tactics to attack zoo visitors, reminding of Caesar from 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Eric

US Military Veterans of Columbia University (MilVets) star rising

On Sunday, retired Army Chief of Staff George Casey spoke at GS's 2012 commencement day to honor the 95 milvets graduating this year, the largest number since the World War 2 veterans came through.

The coverage has been impressive. I'm proud. Columbia's official news has a fantastic article and video, NY Daily News' article, Columbia Spectator article by milvet Stephen Snowder, and an AmVets article.

The pipeline of veterans into Columbia is becoming comfortably secure and stable. The next step is to organize the pipeline of milvets graduates into civil society to harness alumni.

Eric

Rumor: Jeremy Lin added to US Select Team

Jeremy Lin was added is rumored to be added to Team USA's select team, which will scrimmage against the senior team starting on July 6 before they defend their Redeem Team Beijing games gold medal in the London Olympics. The other PGs on the select team are Kyrie Irving and John Wall.

The entire rumored select team roster:
DeMarcus Cousins — Kings
Jeremy Lin — Knicks
Klay Thompson — Warriors
Kyrie Irving — Cavaliers
John Wall — Wizards
DeMar DeRozan — Toronto
Paul George — Pacers
Gordon Hayward — Jazz
Kawhi Leonard — Spurs
DeJuan Blair — Spurs
Ryan Anderson — Magic
Taj Gibson — Bulls
Derrick Favors — Jazz

If true, this opportunity will be good for Lin. While not play-off experience, competing with the select team against Team USA will give Lin high-level practice to catch up on some of the season and post-season he missed with his knee injury. Joining the select team is the first step to joining the senior national team.

Eric

Knicks win Game 4, Baron Davis hurt

The Knicks pulled out the Game 4 win today against the Heat. Game 5 is on Wednesday, May 9, in Miami, which will be 37 days or 5 weeks and 2 days since Jeremy Lin's knee surgery. The projected recovery time for Lin has been, of course, 6 weeks. The Knicks lost Baron Davis to a dislocated knee in the 3rd quarter and it looks like he's done for the season.

With Shumpert and Davis now out, and Lin close to his projected return date, the pressure is on Lin to suit up. Bibby will start, but he's an older guard like Davis and can't be overextended. Smith is erratic and will have his hands full matching up with Wade and James at SG and SF. Toney Douglas has played as many minutes as Lin has in the series. The Knicks need a PG. Will he or won't he return for Game 5? Lin's team needs him.

Update: Lin didn't come back for emergency duty in Game 5. I'm disappointed. Lin's leadership reputation took a hit, and his absence in Game 5 raised concerns that his knee injury is more serious than the team revealed.

Eric

RIP MCA

The Beastie Boys' Adam Yauch AKA MCA died today. He had cancer. Rest In Peace. 1964-2012.



Eric

Jeremy Lin responds to Stuyvesant Class of 2012

Jeremy Lin posted his response video to Stuy's Class of 2012's invitation to speak at their graduation:

 

 Eric

We're not young

A sad funny age-30s spoof of Fun's We Are Young:



The most depressing part of an already sad video is that the 30-somethings in the spoof have romantic relationships and kids, which places them far ahead of me in life milestones. On the other hand, I wonder, they have lovers and children, so what the hell more do they want from life? Those are the things that really count, not the rat race and the paper chase.

Add: We Are Young virginity video.

Add: Ouch.

Eric

My e-mail response to anti-JAG e-mail

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: JAG RECRUITING
From: "Eric"
Date: Fri, September 24, 2010 6:32 pm
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colleagues,

Chris inspires me to voice the opinion of another "student/veteran,
[former] citizen/soldier" at Rutgers Law.

I applaud Rutgers' decision to support JAG recruitment on campus despite
opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" federal law. I believe DADT
federal law should change and sexual orientation is not justified as a
federally mandated basis to deter military service. And I support the
current efforts by our government to reform the law so honorable gay
soldiers will no longer have to bear the unfair burden of DADT.

I also believe as a former enlisted soldier that it would be tragic should
Rutgers Law ever discourage us from serving the highly deserving
population of America's military community. In my time wearing the
uniform, JAG was a critical resource relied upon by my fellow soldiers in
addressing a myriad of issues. In light of the tasks delegated by our
nation to soldiers today, I would venture that JAG attorneys are more
important than ever for soldiers who must deal with legal issues
compounded by and related to extraordinarily trying deployments. In
today's world especially, to deter the finest attorneys our nation - and
Rutgers Law - can produce from military service would be unconscionable,
and I'm grateful we does not take part in that sordid practice. Moreover,
the influence of JAG attorneys goes beyond their soldier clients. JAG has
key roles wherever our military is engaged, from judiciary and government
building, to shaping important organizational relationships, to
interpreting law of war for commanders in the heat of combat. As such, it
is not an exaggeration that JAG attorneys are a critical component of
shaping our future.

I'm proud that Rutgers Law, by supporting JAG recruitment on campus,
chooses to be a constructive force in our children's history and provide
the legal support our soldiers need and deserve.

Eric
2L

> Dean [REDACTED],
>
> For the now five semesters I have received this e-mail and
> it has been disappointing each and every time. Having now had class
> with you I feel I can respond without feeling/appearing
> disrespectful.
>
> I am disheartened in the tone and manner of this note. I am
> conflicted, as someone who is obviously vested in the honor of
> serving our fine country and also as someone who does not
> particularly agree with the DADT policy. My issue is not with a
> protest of the policy, nor with a protest of the Solomon Amendment,
> but instead with the vehicle and the method.
> Particularly, I would note that both DADT and Solomon are
> legislative policies, not set by any of the branches of the military. They
> are set similarly to the regulations that the blood bank must follow in
> prohibiting the donation of blood by gays and lesbians. When you
> commented on that policy you noted "The Blood Bank is not the author
> of the regulations that require it to ask these questions, and I can
> think of no better means of protesting than to arm the Blood Bank
> with the stack of potential donors it had to turn away, as it lobbies
> for changes in the regulations." In contrast you note "The law
> school community is committed to fight JAG's discrimination through
> appropriate political and legal action" Sir, respectfully, it is not
> JAG's policy. It is a policy mandated to JAG through the legislature.
> You are correct if you assert the military is not lobbying for change to
> the regulation. Simply put, we cannot. The rules against political
> involvement of the military are longstanding in this country for good
> reason. Big powerful militaries with political agendas tend to lead down
> bad paths. However, In February of 2010, Secretary Gates directed not
> only a review of the policy by the Joint Chiefs, to provide
> recommendations for an alternative, but also review of the procedures by
> which it is implemented. I know this is happening because every time I
> sign on to the Army server to get my email I am prompted to participate in
> the study by the Army as to the effects of the DADT policy, it is quite
> literally the first screen that comes
> up.
>
> My fear is that the animus is directed at the wrong target. I
> support the schools push for change, but if we are to aim such a
> powerful weapon as this school is at a target, we need be sure we are
> aimed at the correct one. Just as blood donation is a crucial event
> worthy of encouragement, there are many who see military service
> similarly and I for one am disappointed by the tone set forth by this
> recurring e-mail.
>
> Again I mean no disrespect by this note. It is but one
> student/veteran, citizen/soldier perspective.
>
> Respectfully
> Chris
>
>
>> TO: ALL STUDENTS
>> CC: ALL FACULTY AND STAFF
>>
>> RE: ON-CAMPUS RECRUITING BY THE MILITARY
>>
>> Please take note that recruiters from the various branches of the
>> United States Military will be on our campus, recruiting law students
>> for JAG employment. The dates on which they will be here are as
>> follows:
>>
>> Army JAG - September 28 and 29, 2010
>> Navy General Counsel - October 15, 2010
>>
>> Please note further that it is the policy of the faculty of Rutgers Law
>> School, as well as the Association of American Law Schools, that
>> employment recruiters who discriminate on the basis of race, gender,
>> ethnicity, creed, handicap, age, or sexual orientation not be permitted
>> to use the facilities of the Career Services Office. The Faculty
>> strongly reaffirms its commitment to that policy. Due to the so-called
>> Solomon Amendment, however, which would withhold certain federal funds,
>> including student work-study and Perkins loan funds, from institutions
>> that deny access to military recruiters, the University has required the
>> law school to permit access to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General
>> Corps, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps and the U.S. Navy
>> Judge Advocate General Corps. The Faculty states strongly that the
>> so-called Solomon Amendment is morally wrong. Discrimination against
>> gay and lesbian people is completely unacceptable --as unacceptable as
>> any other discrimination. The law school community is committed to
>> fight JAG's discrimination through appropriate political and legal
>> action.
>>
>> [REDACTED], Esq.
>> Senior Assistant Dean of Student Affairs
>> [REDACTED]

Eric

My e-mail to a law clinic supervisor of a counter-recruiter project

Note that my e-mail is based on a young man's enlisted perspective.

From: Eric
Date: Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Professor *******,

I talked around this point in the team meeting, but it's a point worth highlighting - a strong intangible attraction of the military, specifically for young men, is the implied promise of a traditional masculine culture, a disciplined paternal structure, and the tutelage of authoritative father-figure role models.

Military service just makes sense to men in an intuitive hard-to-articulate way that's not explained by popular culture. I believe the notion of joining the military for a life-changing formative experience matches the typical yearning of young men to become men who can provide and protect, with a man's responsibilities and the respect of men. That socialization is structurally designed into the Army. Moreover, rites of passage are defining for men and there aren't so many traditional (warrior, tribal) rites of passage available to young men in modern society. Legal ones, anyway. The title of Soldier earned in Basic Training and subsequent rank come through rites of passage steeped in military traditions as old as civilization and validated by service to Nation and People.

So yes, the explicit recruiting pitch is heavy on some combination of job benefits, pay, skills, college money, travel, and adventure. But of deeper resonance on an intuitive level, specifically for young men, the military is about essential manhood. Explaining the dangers and risks of military service for an informed cost/benefit analysis may not put off a young man who feels driven to earn his manhood and place among men. Would a typical young man knowingly risk death in order to actualize his concept of virtuous manhood and earn a respected place among men? Historically, yes they (we) have. However abstract and lacking in real value, irrational, and anachronistic that seems in 2012 America, XY is still XY. And men are at their rawest XY when they're young men compared to any other period of their lives.

Army recruiters, based on my limited experience working with them, talk about pragmatic benefits and not philosophic notions about manhood. However, some things don't need to be communicated with words. The sergeant I assisted in Harlem was a fit and competent, confident, professional and proud black man. His impeccable uniform said the Army made him who he was. To the young men in Harlem who hardly registered anything I said to them, he communicated a powerful message to them just by showing who he was, as a man and a soldier.

To repeat a doubt I expressed at the team meeting, I don't believe young men who join the military are induced to do so by ignorance of alternative job/academic options in civil society. The pragmatic benefits and opportunities are just one, tangible part of the cost/benefit analysis. For the other, intangible part, especially for the young men who I presume to be the Con Lit Clinic military recruiting team's target demographic, you should ask, what options in civil society can compete both with the pragmatic opportunities of the military and the military's proving ground for traditional, respected manhood?

Eric

Add: I brought veterans advocacy to Rutgers Law.

Fashion tips for men

Here are 7 practical fashion tips for men. The rest of the blog looks interesting, too.

I am clueless about fashion. If anything, I'm more clueless about men's fashion than women's fashion since I started watching Project Runway. The only fashion sense I've ever had was the one issued to me by the Army. My excuse is that a fat guy will look like a fat guy whether or not he's dressed fashionably. Hiding behind my weight is an easy way out of spending time, care, learning, and money on fashion.

Eric

Argument for Jeremy Lin joining the Brooklyn Nets

I like the idea of Jeremy Lin signing a long-term contract with the Nets and rebuilding the glory of Linsanity in Brooklyn after 1, maybe 2 more years of seasoning with the Knicks, including a respectable play-off run or two. Grantland's Jay Kaspian Kang analyzed Jeremy Lin's contract situation and predicts Lin will sign a 1-year or 2-year contract for the mid-level exception with the Knicks, and then leave for his first big-money, long-term contract.

The historical comparison is Steve Nash leaving the Mavericks as a proven point guard, a good player but a co-star, to become the team leader and a league MVP with the Suns. The Nets can be for Lin what the Suns were for Nash. Dirk Nowitzki was the Mavericks' centerpiece when Nash was the Mavs PG, and Nash had to leave Nowitzki and a very good Mavs team in order to become a superstar in his own right. As long as Anthony is the featured Knick, Lin can win and improve as a player with the Knicks, but the Knicks won't be his team, not like the Knicks were Lin's team during Linsanity. (The counter-example is Marbury leaving budding superstar Kevin Garnett and a promising young Timberwolves team only to fail as the leader of the Nets.)

The Nets can be Lin's team. The New Jersey Nets will become the Brooklyn Nets starting next, the 2012-2013, season. The franchise will be in search of a new brand and identity in their new home. They had hoped the Brooklyn team would be built around Deron Williams and Dwight Howard, but with Howard staying with the Magic, it looks like Williams likely will leave the Nets for the Mavericks. There is no better identity for NYC's new NBA franchise than one defined by Jeremy Lin's leadership, swagger, and tough, clutch, gutsy play on the court, and his grounded humility, meta self-awareness, and savvy public relations off the court. (Lin is very comfortable with social media.) Brooklyn is diverse, proudly ethnic, and full of immigrant stock, and Lin is an ethnic, 1st generation American exemplar. With Lin as the face of the franchise, the Nets would become the heirs of the Brooklyn Dodgers in that regard. Even Lin's evangelical Christianity would play better in the outer boroughs, where traditional religiosity is respected, than secular Manhattan.

Assuming Deron Williams is leaving, Lin and the Nets should be a perfect marriage. One or two more good years on the Knicks with play-off experience would refine Lin's game and solidify his New York fan base. The Nets will have all the makings of a rebuilding team with decent talent in search of a franchise-defining leader. A hungry, ready now-veteran Lin would slot right in as the Nets centerpiece just like Nash was an instant fit with the Suns. With Linsanity reborn in Brooklyn, the Nets would quickly win over New York as a rising, exciting, lovable team.

From a business perspective, the Nets projected fan base of Brooklyn basketball fans are Knicks fans right now. While it's reasonable to expect many, maybe most, Brooklynites will eventually convert to become Nets fans, the team would first have to prove itself to fans who are already loyal to a long-established local team. Meanwhile, the Linsanity streak has been mythologized. Ironically, his knee injury has raised Lin's public image in NYC. Knicks fans lamenting his loss have classified Lin a star. While Lin's game would be furthered by the Knicks holding on to the 8th seed and Lin recovering in time to gain precious play-off experience, his 'Q rating' would actually go up if the Knicks missed the play-offs due to his absence. In short, Lin is already adored by the NYC basketball fans whom the Nets need to win over and adding Lin would establish an instant fan base for the Nets by bringing many New York fans with him to the Nets. Finally, a Knicks-Nets subway rivalry with a Lin-led Nets versus a Melo-led Knicks would immediately electrify the city. The Nets ownership couldn't ask for a better start to their Brooklyn franchise.

Perhaps most importantly, I want Lin to stay in New York. If Lin signs long term with the Brooklyn Nets, I'd get to watch him all the time on a local broadcast. I don't mind if Lin leaves the Knicks, but only if he stays in NYC with the Nets.

Eric

The apex of Linsanity

With the sad news that Lin is most likely done for the season, I'll soften the blow by bringing us back to the apex of Linsanity - his game-winning 3 against the Raptors on Valentine's Day. Skip ahead to Knicks radio analyst John Andariese's delirious "Get out of his way! Let him just take Calderon himself!". The complete Dedes/Andariese call of the play. The TSN Raptors crew's call. A nice recap.

A great description of that shining moment (from March 2): When Jeremy Lin set up for the game-winning shot against Toronto two weeks ago, Knicks radio analyst John Andariese screamed, “Get out of his way! Let him just take Calderon himself!” The uncontained bliss with which Andariese screamed and the absolute trust he had in Lin in just his sixth start perfectly summed up these four weeks. When the shot dropped, the 74-year-old announcer was giddy, laughing like a little kid.

A fan video of the rare head-on view from behind the basket - you can sense the anticipation of a big moment building in the Toronto crowd:



Eric

Jeremy Lin will have surgery on his left knee meniscus; season likely over

The Knicks announced about an hour before today's Cavs game that Jeremy Lin has a small tear of the meniscus in his left knee (presumably the lateral, rather than medial, meniscus) and will undergo surgery early next week. The expected recovery time for Lin from the surgery is 6 weeks. Lin called the tear a chronic condition due to overuse.

According to a study on NBA meniscal injuries published before the 2011-12 season, "The number of days missed for lateral meniscal tears and medial meniscal tears was 43.8 ± 35.7 days and 40.9 ± 29.7 days, respectively, and was not statistically different."

In his pre-game press conference, Lin said an MRI on his left knee was performed on March 26, after his last game, the March 24 win over the Pistons. He knew surgery was inevitable, but hoped it could be postponed until after the season. He was hopeful when the swelling went down; however, the pain remained the same. The Knicks and Lin tried a week of treatment. Today, when Lin still couldn't cut or jump, the call for surgery was made. Given Lin's reliance on lift in his shooting, it's likely his knee injury contributed to his shaky shooting in the last few games he played.

With Davis playing hurt, Lin would have been the undisputed starting PG the rest of the season. Lin says he'll try to return early enough to help the team, but the regular season ends on April 26 or roughly 3.5 weeks. A 6 week recovery would mean Lin returning in the 2nd round of the play-offs. I hope Lin gets to play in the post-season just for the learning experience, but I also don't want him to rush back and risk a more serious injury. However, while holding onto the 8th seed is feasible, injuries have hurt the Knicks' hopes of making it out of the 1st round. Stoudamire may not return this season and, with his back injury, may not be able to help much if he does return. Jeffries has a chronic knee condition that has caused him to miss weeks at a time. Anthony, Davis, and Chandler are playing hurt. Toney Douglas may be restored as the back-up point guard. Douglas failed as a PG under D'Antoni, who asks a lot of his PGs, but he may be able to play the back-up role under Woodson, who gives less responsibility to his PGs.

An interesting PR benefit of Lin's season-ending injury is the media have framed the story as the Knicks losing a star and team leader. The Legend of Linsanity seems secure. It was a heck of a 2 month run.

Add: An explanation of Jeremy Lin's contract situation as a restricted free agent this off-season.

Eric

Jeremy Lin declines Stuy '12 invitation to speak at graduation

We Asian American men have projected onto Jeremy Lin the enormously weighty status of Asian American male cultural representative, pioneer, and hero. The viability of that assigned status depends both on Lin's success as an NBA guard and ability to be a role model tested by intense public and media scrutiny. So far, wondrously, Lin has lived up to the hero we want him to be. We're asking too much of a young man whose cultural power depends on a very precarious professional path. Aroused by Linsanity, though, we've coupled our egos and hopes to him.

The Stuyvesant High School class of 2012 invited Jeremy Lin via youtube to be their class speaker:



Interesting that this year's graduation is at the Palace Theater on Broadway. My class graduated at Avery Fisher Hall in Lincoln Center.

Jeremy declined via his twitter account:

Jeremy Lin
@JLin7
Stuyvesant High! Awesome video...so honored to have been invited. I cant make it BUT im making a response video and will visit if possible!

It should be easy for Jeremy to visit Stuy since he lives in the nearby W Downtown residences.


View Larger Map

Schedule-wise, the NBA season should be about at the end of the Finals on June 25. Perhaps NBA players are contractually obligated not to commit to any engagement that may conflict with a game, even during post-season rounds a player is unlikely to reach.

I hope Jeremy changes his mind. He has an opportunity to make history. For the Stuyvesant seniors - especially the young men - on the cusp of their journey to Asian American adulthood, Jeremy Lin is deeply personal. Jeremy is them. Jeremy's speech, broadcast by traditional and social media, would be bigger than a speech to Stuyvesant's graduating class. It would be the commencement address for an entire rising generation of Asian Americans.

Add: Stuff Jeremy Lin wrote for his HS newspaper.

Eric

Jeremy Lin on a hero's journey

A professional-quality fan tribute to Jeremy Lin with Michael Jordan speaking:



Another tribute to Lin by the same guy.

The arc of a hero's journey can be simplified to a rise from humble beginnings to the zenith of stardom, followed by a drop to the nadir of defeat or metaphorical death, then resurrection and the climb to the actualization of the hero.

Linsanity was born in 2 weeks and took about that long to die. 2 weeks ago, I said the next 2 weeks would likely determine Jeremy's role for the play-offs. A lot has happened since then. From the zenith of 7 straight wins and rising to a .500 record and 8th place under Linsanity, then alternating wins and losses, the Knicks fell to the nadir of 6 straight losses and dropping out of the play-offs. The good teams and top PGs adjusted to Lin. He looked out of his depth against the Heat and Celtics. Before that, Deron Williams had torched him in their rematch. The Celtics, Mavs, Spurs, 76ers, and Bulls made him look bad during the losing streak, though Lin had a quality outing in a loss against Brandon Jennings and the Bucks. Jason Kidd bullied him. Rondo and Rose severely outplayed him. Poor team defense made Lin look worse when he got no help. The team offense broke down as Anthony and D'Antoni clashed. The team struggled badly, Lin struggled and looked unconfident, and Coach D'Antoni resigned.

When assistant coach Mike Woodson took over as interim head coach before the Blazers game, we didn't know whether Lin would be a casualty along with D'Antoni. Whether he'd stay as the 1st string PG over Baron Davis, become Davis's back-up, or be dropped behind Mike Bibby in the rotation as 3rd string PG.

In Woodson's first game as Knicks head coach, the Knicks blew out a dysfunctional Blazers team by 42 points. Before the Pacers game at MSG, Woodson assured Lin would remain the starter. Davis outplayed Lin in the blowout win over the Pacers but strained his hamstring, thus settling the question of Lin's role given Davis's age and injury history. Even if Davis outplays Lin for the rest of the season, Davis's role and minutes need to be limited for his own protection.

The 2nd game on the back-to-back in Indianapolis promised to be a big test for the team and Lin in the new Woodson era. The Pacers are a proud, rising, young-veteran, mid-level play-off team with good chemistry, a quick PG, and good defense. The Pacers were determined to protect their home court after the blow-out loss at MSG. The Pacers came out focused. The Knicks and Lin passed the test.

Lin played tough against a physical team and his defense on Darren Collison was solid with improved help behind him. He was confident and made big plays to lead his team to the win. Lin filled the stat sheet with 19 points on 10 FGAs, 7 rebounds, 6 assists (should have had 10), a block, and a steal. The Pacers tried double-team traps, full court pressure, and switching the bigger Hill and George onto him in response to Lin's improved ball-handling. He showed a stronger left on his dribble, he attacked the double-team traps, and maintained his dribble in the half court. On several drives, he carried Collison on his hip. Lin's passing was still shaky in the half court, but hopefully his passing nuances will improve with experience.

Despite the speculation Lin's game would disappear with D'Antoni, Lin has looked more comfortable in Woodson's more-structured system. It looks like his strengths have been preserved by Woodson while his weaknesses have been mitigated. Lin's strong all-around performance in Indianapolis is the way, during Linsanity, Knicks fans had hoped Lin would adjust his game when Anthony returned. Lin played confidently and, though the ball returned to Anthony at the end of the game, Lin had his coach's green light to make plays down the stretch. Lin's defense looked better in large part because the help was back. Woodson's use of more set plays eased the pressure on Lin. Lin won't have as many touches under Woodson, but he can be more productive with his touches.

Pundits writing off Lin as an inflated product of D'Antoni's system overlook that Lin is a converted PG who was a do-everything play-making scoring guard before the NBA. At this point of his development, Lin is still more SG/PG combo guard, with a combo guard's ball handling and (half-court) passing limitations, than NBA point guard. With the good teams having made defensive adjustments to Lin, the pared down PG role comes just in time for Lin. Lin no longer has to handle the ball as much, create everything, break down every defense, nor make every decision. Reducing his PG responsibilities in Woodson's more-structured system means less freedom for Lin, but it should also be a better fit for him at this early learning stage of his career. Lin's weaknesses as a PG will be less exposed and he can fall back on his strengths with more off-the-ball and match-up work when defenses shift their focus to Anthony.

During Linsanity, Lin played like the Suns MVP Steve Nash. He burned star-bright but we knew such an incredible run couldn't last forever. Lin rose and he fell. Lin now looks like he's settling into the long-term task of building up a stable foundation for his career, more like the Mavericks stage of Steve Nash's career. The 2nd Pacers game felt like the start of a sustainable developmental curve and the beginning of the actualization stage of Lin's career. Linsanity can come back someday on a stable long-term basis, if and when Lin convinces a team he's ready to be their centerpiece and leader on a Steve Nash or Chris Paul level. It's a realistic possibility - Lin has served notice to the NBA world of his potential to be that rare player. Steve Nash didn't become Suns MVP Steve Nash right away, either; Nash first became a full-time starter for the Mavs in his 3rd season. Lin is already an undisputed starter in his 2nd season.

As for the question of Lin's play-off role this season, the Knicks are now competing with the Ellis-Jennings run-and-gun Bucks for the 8th seed and Lin is secure as the Knicks starting PG. I hope the Knicks make the play-offs, even if it leads to a 1st round exit, so Lin can gain invaluable play-off experience. I'll end this post with a question reflecting my confidence in Jeremy: When will Jeremy Lin achieve his 1st triple double? This season or next season?

Eric

The next 2 weeks for Jeremy Lin may define his play-off role

Jeremy Lin went from almost cut to NBA star in 2 magical weeks in February. Starting with the win over the Nets on Feb 4 and culminating with the win over the Mavs on Feb 19, Lin led Knicks on a 8-1 run, including 7 in a row, to pull the Knicks' season record up to .500 and 8th place in the East.

The Knicks are a play-off team because of him. Lin has proven he can beat the non-contending teams and he excelled against contenders with older PGs, the Mavs (rematch tomorrow) and Lakers. But by making the Knicks a play-off team, Lin has raised the standard by which he's judged. Lin has to be compared to play-off PGs and judged against play-off teams. Lin played poorly against the Heat before the all-star break and played poorly again in today's loss to the Celtics. The next 2 weeks in March may well determine whether Lin is the Knicks' 1st team PG in the play-offs.

Sun, Mar 4 @Boston
Tue, Mar 6 @Dallas
Wed, Mar 7 @San Antonio
Fri, Mar 9 @Milwaukee
Sun, Mar 11 vs Philadelphia
Mon, Mar 12 @Chicago
Wed, Mar 14 vs Portland
Fri, Mar 16 vs Indiana
Sat, Mar 17 @Indiana

Lin hasn't adjusted yet to the top teams learning to attack him on offense and stop him on defense. His attacking style has also been dampened with Anthony and Stoudamire's return. Movement and spacing have been hurt by their return and the paint has become crowded (indicator: the disappearance of Landry Fields's movement and spacing dependent game). Chandler and Stoudamire, with their defenders, look like they're running into each other in the paint. The formerly attacking, swaggering, high-energy, clutch-shooting Lin has become deferential and passive, floating on the perimeter like Mike Bibby. The Knicks seem undecided whether Lin should be pass-first or creating off his own scoring. Lin looks more comfortable creating off his own scoring.

The most troubling aspects of Lin's play are his defense and dribble. Lin looked like a solid defender with quick hands and feet at the beginning of his February run, but his inability to stay in front of point guards or get over screens has forced the Knicks to overhelp, thus breaking down the defense. The subpar defense of Anthony and Stoudamire are culprits as well. Lin was also praised in February for maintaining his dribble and penetration, but as teams have refined their scouting report on Lin, he has reacted by backing out and picking up his dribble early. Lin is no longer controlling the tempo or creating. Worse than losing the games, Lin looked out of his depth at PG against the Heat and Celtics. Lin just doesn't look confident anymore, unlike the aggressive PG who took it to the Lakers and Mavs last month.

Against the Heat, Lin was -19 and Baron Davis was +5. Against the Celtics, Lin was -9 and Davis was +10. If Lin can't make the adjustment and struggles through the next 2 weeks, the Knicks will have to decide whether Davis should take over 1st team PG duties for the play-offs. Lin can answer the question by playing well the next 2 weeks.

To improve spacing and movement, add shooting and quickness to the 1st team, and open the floor to help Lin as a playmaker, I'd like to see Anthony moved to the Shawn Marion role at 4, Stoudamire come off the bench, and Smith start at the 3. The defense should actually improve because Anthony would not be worse defending PFs than Stoudamire and Smith is a better defender than Anthony at the 3.

Add: Good perspective article by Howard Beck in the NY Times that says what I've been saying: Lin has proven he's an NBA player, and with his hot streak over, and "Linsanity" deflated by some poor performances, Lin can now settle down and begin his NBA learning curve in earnest.

Eric

Thoughts on Jeremy Lin at the all star break

Jeremy is playing in the all star weekend rising stars (formerly rookie sophomore) game tonight after the Heat taught him a hard lesson last night. For the first time in his young NBA career, Jeremy did not rise to the challenge and was overwhelmed by the moment against the Heat. Nonetheless, during his inspirational ascent, Jeremy proved he belongs in the NBA. Jeremy has now competed against the NBA's best, knows his level, and can begin building his career in earnest.

How productively Jeremy and his teammates and coaches use the the next week and a half will make a big difference in the direction they take for the second half of the season. Due to a quirk in the Knicks schedule, starting with all star weekend, the Knicks will be off until the Cavs at home on Wednesday Feb 29 and then will be off again until a tough sequence of games beginning with the Celtics in Boston on Sunday March 4. After their all star weekend rest, the team should have five days around the Cavs game to digest everything they'e learned since Jeremy's rise and practice together - basically, put everything in order for the stretch run.

I wonder if now is the first time Jeremy has had to deal with the best basketball coaches and players targeting, planning for, and attacking him. He didn't seem ready for the Nets and Heat's game-planning and aggression that specifically targeted him. The narrative of Jeremy's high school, college, and NBDL careers is that he played in leagues below his talent level and was the best player on his team. Jeremy seems to get bored and careless when the competition is weak - I saw Jeremy get bored playing at Columbia when he did just enough for his Harvard team to win. He played bored against the Kings and Hawks, too. Before the NBA, Jeremy always dominated within his own league and was able to surprise the top players (eg, 2010 summer league and John Wall, UConn and Kemba Walker). In other words, he could coast in most games, punctuated by getting up for big opponents. Jeremy didn't regularly compete on even terms with his true basketball peers and when he faced them, he was always the aggressor. Now that he can't catch them by surprise anymore, the top players are expecting his talent and attacking him for the first time in his basketball life. How will Jeremy adjust? Not learning how to regularly compete with his peers on even terms is a consequence of coming out of the weaker Ivy League rather than a PAC-10 school like Stanford, Berkeley or UCLA. Jeremy now has to learn to compete nightly with his basketball peers at the highest level.

Jeremy dominated the ball and controlled his teams in high school, college, and the NBDL. During the winning streak when Anthony and Stoudamire were out, Jeremy dominated the ball, was aggressive as a scorer, and controlled the Knicks. Now Jeremy has to defer with all the Knicks stars back in the rotation. Can Jeremy, for the first time in his career, adjust his game to be equally or more productive while being less dominant with the ball and with less control?

I believe Jeremy is really a SG/PG combo guard. He reminds me a lot of SG/PG Jeff Hornacek, a well-regarded, smart, versatile "third" guard on the Suns who didn't succeed as the starting PG for the Sixers. Hornacek eventually flourished as the starting SG and part-time PG with the excellent Stockton-to-Malone 90s Jazz teams. In a 2010 interview, Lin compared his game to Goran Dragic, another SG/PG combo guard.

I'd like to see Lin play some minutes at SG with Baron Davis handling the point. I think playing off the ball would unleash Lin's true NBA position. I believe the best role for Jeremy Lin is playing off the ball and making plays from the wing, with limited minutes running the offense at PG. Though he's impressed with his court vision and floor game, Lin seems most comfortable and effective attacking and scoring. Jeremy played more as a lead guard than point guard in college, and what has become more and more apparent (or reinforced) during the last 11 games is that Jeremy Lin isn't a pure point guard. He's a smart, versatile combo guard with enough PG skills to run the point against bad defenses or back up the PG in limited minutes against good defenses. However, Jeremy's passing and ball-handling abilities simply aren't up to running the point full-time.

My advice to D'Antoni: give Jeremy time at SG with Baron at the point, get Lin moving off the ball and attacking, and let's see what happens. I'd also like to see more Anthony at the 4 in Shawn Marion's Suns role and less of Stoudamire and Chandler clogging up the same space in the paint, which means either more minutes for Stoudamire at the 5 or less playing time for Stoudamire in order to free up Chandler at the 5.

With the drubbing at the hands of the Heat, Chapter 1 in the rise of Jeremy Lin is complete. He's proven he belongs in the NBA and evaluated himself against the best. The rest of the NBA knows him, his strengths and weaknesses. After the all-star break, Jeremy can begin his NBA education and discover who he is as a career basketball professional.

On the media coverage, the expected pushback to the extended "Linsanity" hype is underway. After the build up, then the tear down, resentments, mocking, and controversies. It's how the media generates business. A lot of good articles about the Asian American aspect have been written. Good watchdogging on the racist responses. It's noticeable, however, that some media are more comfortable talking about Jeremy as an international (foreign) Asian phenomenon rather than an Asian American phenomenon.

Add: Ed Weiland of hoopsanalyst.com explains his precisely argued pre-draft prediction of NBA success for Jeremy Lin in 2010.

Eric

Jeremy Lin named Eastern Conference player of the week

It's official - Jeremy Lin is Eastern Conference player of the week for games played Monday, Feb 6 (so his breakthrough game off the bench against the Nets on Feb 4 isn't included), through Sunday, Feb 12.

The week couldn't have played out more perfectly for Lin. On Feb 4, the Knicks were dead in the water, rapidly losing sight of the play-offs, and being blown out by a bad team, the Nets. The rumor was Mike D'Antoni, who had no viable PG for his PG-centered system, was on the verge of being fired. Desperate, he sent Lin into the game off the end of the bench, and Lin single-handedly won the game while dazzling against all-star PG Deron Williams. D'Antoni then tried Lin as the starting PG against the Jazz, a good team unlike the Nets, and Lin did it again even though Stoudemire missed the game due to his brother's death and Anthony strained his groin early in the game. In his 2nd game as a starter, Lin matched up against John Wall, the PG drafted 1st over-all in the 2010 draft where Lin was undrafted. Besides running D'Antoni's offense impeccably against a very poor Wizards defense, Lin served notice to the NBA with a beautiful fake and cross-over that made John Wall jump to the side, concluded by an emphatic 'What's my name?' dunk.

Without the need to defer to his 2 superstar teammates last week, Lin was able to take ownership of the Knicks PG position, carry his team to 5 straight wins, make his teammates better, and become a team leader. After Kobe Bryant had dismissed him the night before, with skeptics predicting the end of Lin's run, Lin outdueled Bryant to lead the Knicks to victory over the Lakers on national TV. Finally, against Ricky Rubio and the Timberwolves, Lin showed off his steel by driving to the basket at the end of the game and absorbing a hard foul to score the game winning point, despite a poor 2nd half of the game. With the 5 wins, the Knicks are in 8th place and back in the play-off picture in the East. After the defensive grittiness and offensive style Lin established for the team last week, Stoudemire and Anthony will now be expected to adjust to Lin's Knicks when they return. That wouldn't have happened if they had been in the line-up last week. Stoudemire replacing Jared Jefferies and Anthony replacing Bill Walker in the starting line-up should be upgrades, and I believe Anthony and Stoudemire will adjust to playing with Lin.

The media is still buzzing about Lin's Roy-Hobbesian week, but it looks like the "Linsanity" hype is peaking - the memes are repeating ad nauseum at this point. Hopefully, the media attention will settle down soon so Lin can focus on his job, make adjustments, improve his game, and build himself a career. Lin has weaknesses to work on. There's a fine line between reckless and fearless. He dribbles into defenders at times and gets the ball stripped or tied up. At other times, he seems to lose sight of defenders behind him who either knock the ball away or jump his pass. Lin is a score-first point guard, and besides his shaky jump-shot, he gets into trouble at times with tunnel vision on his aggressive drives to the basket. At times, Lin has forced passes or shots in the crowded paint when a teammate on the perimeter must be open. His remarks about the Timberwolves defending the gray areas indicates his court vision has blind spots, and opponents may be diagnosing patterns in how he passes. Lin's legitimate excuse for shooting so much has been the absence of Anthony and Stoudemire. Now with their return, despite the worry over Anthony and Stoudemire adjusting to Lin's point guard play, a concern is that Lin will continue to call his own number first and become criticized for missing Anthony and Stoudemire when they're open in the half court. Hopefully, the need to feed the Knicks' 2 superstars will help Lin focus on orchestrating his teammates first and then scoring as needed, a balance that made Steve Nash a superstar.

Last week, Lin outplayed Deron Williams, Devin Harris and Earl Watson, John Wall, Derek Fisher and Steve Blake, and Ricky Rubio. Who will Lin face in his 2nd week as the starting PG of the Knicks?

On Tuesday, Feb 14, against the Raptors, Amare Stoudemire will be back on the floor after a week grieving his brother's death. Lin will match up against crafty Spanish PG Jose Calderon and lightning fast Leandro Barbosa.

On Wednesday, Feb 15, against the Kings, Lin will have 2 challenges: maintaining his lift and energy on the 2nd game of a back-to-back and a rematch with 2011 60th pick Isaiah Thomas, who embarrassed Lin during garbage-time in their 1st meeting.

On Friday, February 17, against the Hornets, Lin faces 6'6 Greivis Vasquez.

On Sunday, February 19, against the champion Mavericks, Lin takes on the venerable Jason Kidd.

Eric

WWJD means What Would Jeremy Do?

Can I say a young man over ten years my junior has become my hero? Jeremy Lin's victories these last 4 games as the Knicks point guard have pulled tears of bursting pride from my eyes. His game against the Lakers last night was inspiring. Fellow Taiwanese American men are weighing in with the same ethnic-national pride in Lin's ascendancy. See Bryan Chu's, Danny Chau's, and Wong Chow Mein's posts.

The runner-up title to this post: The Jeremy Lin Experience.

Thoughts:

Jeremy Lin was born in 1988 in the Year of the Dragon.

Is there enough time for Lin to play his way onto Team USA?

Lin is clutch. He always seems gassed by the middle of the fourth quarter, then closes out games with impeccable clutch play. The Knicks should give the ball to Anthony to close out games only when Lin is being trapped.

Lin rises to the moment with indomitable competitiveness. At the start of the Lakers game, you could see in his eyes the laser focus and iron determination to beat the Lakers in a game his skeptics were predicting his unmasking as a fluke. He started out draining jumpers and building a double-digit lead for the Knicks. When the Lakers played him physically and ran size at him, Lin responded by raising his level of play. He carried the undermanned Knicks to victory over an elite opponent on national TV.

Where between Harvard and the D-League did Lin develop such a complete and sophisticated game? Lin plays like a veteran, has all the tools, and marshals them with Jason Kidd type floor sense. He's constantly moving to the right spot on the floor in every situation ahead of the gameplay, whether he's positioning himself so a rebounder can make an easier outlet pass or beating an opposing ball handler to a spot on defense.

Lin plays with a very American sense of toughness, flair, style, and swagger.

Next up: Ricky Rubio and the Minnesota Timberwolves.

When I am anxious and unsure of myself, I will ask myself, WWJD? Jeremy is fearless. If he can attack and win on his terms, maybe I can, too.

Lin and we, his fans, are riding a high right now, but realistically, he won't keep playing at what would be an all-time Hall of Fame pace. He's accomplished the first step of carving out an NBA career by showing enough flashes to prove he can be a NBA rotation player. Over the past week, Lin has shown off brilliant ability. But as teams continue to adjust to him, especially as he is the key to the Knicks winning right now, I expect his performance level will drop off until he finds his long-term level. I expect the next test will be whether Lin can bring the ball up and run the Knicks half-court offense while athletic aggressive guards press him all over the court. I predict he will settle into 15 PPG, 4 RPG, 7 APG, 1.5 SPG.

Eric