Jeremy Lin posted his response video to Stuy's Class of 2012's invitation to speak at their graduation:
Eric
Sunday, 29 April 2012
Sunday, 22 April 2012
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
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
Thursday, 19 April 2012
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
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
Friday, 13 April 2012
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.
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
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
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
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 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
Sunday, 1 April 2012
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)