Category: Patrick Jakeway

Hero Aaron Feis, the Disarmed School Guard


Aaron Feis was the right man in the right place at the right time but was legally prevented from using the right, constitutionally protected tool to do the job.  Mr. Feis was shot on Feb. 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, shielding students from a killer with his own body. Ultimately though, he and 16 other people, mainly students, died. Mr. Feis was truly a remarkable and courageous man. 

Most media reports have focused on his after school job as a Stoneman Douglas High football coach  (here, here, here, here and here); but, on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Feis was doing his day job as a school guard.  Mr. Feis was legally disarmed by the federal government in his attempt to save potentially dozens of children from murder. 

It is necessary to consider this in light of the emotional trauma roiling the nation and the desperate calls “to do something.” Your author agrees something should be done. It should also be a solution today that in practical terms could save lives tomorrow.

Aaron Feis, husband, father, school guard and football coach, rushed towards the fire and, by all accounts, engaged the shooter Nikolas Cruz soon after Cruz started shooting.  The Sun-Sentinel reported that Feis “was one of the first to respond.” When the “Code Red” went off, Head football coach Willis May asked over the walkie-talkie whether the sounds were firecrackers, Feis retorted: “those aren’t firecrackers. I’m going in.”

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel informed the public at his press conference on Feb. 14 that the suspect entered the east stairwell of the school in Building 12 on the first floor at 2:19 P.M.  At 2:21 P.M. Cruz began walking down the corridor and shot into four classrooms along the first floor before entering the west stairwell and walking up to 2nd floor.  He shot one victim on the 2nd floor before taking the east stairwell to the 3rd floor.

Per Sheriff Scott Israel, Cruz then dropped his rifle and backpack and walked back down the stairs and exited the building.  It is not 100% clear exactly when and where Aaron Feis made contact with Nikolaus Cruz and we will not know for sure until the Sheriff’s office releases more crime scene data; but, we can make some reasonable inferences with the information which is available.

Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie is reported to have stated at a Feb. 15 press conference: “We had an athletic director, a campus monitor who responded immediately when there was signs of trouble in the school.”  Dave Hyde of the Sun-Sentinel wrote that “Athletic Director Chris Hixon and Aaron Feis died in the same hallway.” Per the graphic in this Washington Post article, the four classrooms on the first floor in which Cruz shot people were all next to each other and close to the east stairwell. Only one person was shot on the 2nd floor.  This same article shows that Building 12 was adjacent to the school parking lot. It is logical to believe that Feis was in the parking lot ready to direct traffic as school was about to let out.  As it has been reported that Feis died while shielding multiple students and only one victim was shot on the 2nd floor, we can infer that Feis engaged the shooter on the first floor sometime soon after the shooting began.  Aaron Feis likely was in the right place at the right time to save lives.

So why was Aaron Feis disarmed?  Lisa Maxwell of the Broward County Principals and Assistants Association stated to the Sun-Sentinel:

“The only person trained and armed to fight back against an assailant at Stoneman Douglas is its one school resource officer, a Broward Sheriff’s deputy funded by the city of Parkland. But Maxwell said she doesn’t think he was on campus when the shooting happened.


‘I have been told by a couple of sources that the SRO was either called off campus responding to something happening or it could have been his day off,” she said. “They are stretched very thin.’”

This raises the question of why only one person was trained and armed to fight back against an assailant.  One reason is that the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990,” originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 1990, bars school personnel from arming themselves.  18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) states:

“It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A) states:

“Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.”

Supposedly, these laws are to protect us from ourselves while assuring us that the government will do its job. And yet, neighbors called the police dozens of times on Nikolaus Cruz yet no one connected any dots.  To be fair, the family which took Cruz in after his mother died last fall apparently did not notice anything out of the ordinary (armchair psychiatrists beware).  The FBI, however,  ignored two tips that Nikolaus Cruz was an imminent threat.  Precisely in order to protect us against evil men and government incompetence and malfeasance, the following words were written in 1789 into the 2nd Amendment by men who had pledged their lives and honor in pursuit of life and liberty:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[author’s emphasis]

“Shall not be infringed” is an unequivocal command. It is a travesty of justice that Mr. Feis’ Constitutional right to protect himself and those innocent children was infringed.  Based on Coach May’s testimonial, Mr. Feis wittingly charged into the fray knowing that he would face powerful gunfire and that he was disarmed.  What would have happened if Aaron Feis had had a a Glock on his hip when the Code Red went off?  Two cases from the last several years serve as pertinent compare/contrast examples.

On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX where a free speech event was being held with about 150 people in attendance. Simpson and Soofi were armed with three pistols and three semi-automatic assault rifles.   Despite being heavily outmatched in firepower, a single police officer working as a security guard at the event armed only with a .45 caliber Glock pistol shot and wounded the attackers and stopped the attack without any loss of life.  Contrast this to the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine office in Paris on January 7, 2015.  Heavily armed men attacked Charlie Hebdo where they shot and killed 11 people and wounded many others. The first responder was a bicycle cop named Ahmed Merabet. As with Aaron Feis, Merabet had been disarmed by his government as France has some the strictest gun control laws in the world, much stricter than those now being emotionally advocated in the United States. Merabet was shot and wounded and lay helpless to defend himself against his AK-47 wielding attackers who then calmly walked over and shot him dead in the street.

If Aaron Feis had had a .45 caliber Glock in his hand and had been given the proper training he needed to do his job as school guard, I am convinced that he would have saved many lives after he bravely called out “I’m going in.” Rudyard Kipling once wrote: “Every so often, a few evil men must die so that weaponless dreamers may live in peace.” 

The delusional Left believes in the perfectibility of man, that inherent evil does not exist and that crime may be eliminated through social policy.  History since time immemorial proves, however, that evil men always have and always will be among us.  So, we must be prepared to protect ourselves and our loved ones against them.

Aaron Feis was ready but he had been unconstitutionally disarmed.  How often must we watch innocent children die before we realize that the illusions of weaponless dreamers aid evil men?

Aaron Feis was the right man in the right place at the right time but was legally prevented from using the right, constitutionally protected tool to do the job.  Mr. Feis was shot on Feb. 14 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, shielding students from a killer with his own body. Ultimately though, he and 16 other people, mainly students, died. Mr. Feis was truly a remarkable and courageous man. 

Most media reports have focused on his after school job as a Stoneman Douglas High football coach  (here, here, here, here and here); but, on Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Feis was doing his day job as a school guard.  Mr. Feis was legally disarmed by the federal government in his attempt to save potentially dozens of children from murder. 

It is necessary to consider this in light of the emotional trauma roiling the nation and the desperate calls “to do something.” Your author agrees something should be done. It should also be a solution today that in practical terms could save lives tomorrow.

Aaron Feis, husband, father, school guard and football coach, rushed towards the fire and, by all accounts, engaged the shooter Nikolas Cruz soon after Cruz started shooting.  The Sun-Sentinel reported that Feis “was one of the first to respond.” When the “Code Red” went off, Head football coach Willis May asked over the walkie-talkie whether the sounds were firecrackers, Feis retorted: “those aren’t firecrackers. I’m going in.”

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel informed the public at his press conference on Feb. 14 that the suspect entered the east stairwell of the school in Building 12 on the first floor at 2:19 P.M.  At 2:21 P.M. Cruz began walking down the corridor and shot into four classrooms along the first floor before entering the west stairwell and walking up to 2nd floor.  He shot one victim on the 2nd floor before taking the east stairwell to the 3rd floor.

Per Sheriff Scott Israel, Cruz then dropped his rifle and backpack and walked back down the stairs and exited the building.  It is not 100% clear exactly when and where Aaron Feis made contact with Nikolaus Cruz and we will not know for sure until the Sheriff’s office releases more crime scene data; but, we can make some reasonable inferences with the information which is available.

Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie is reported to have stated at a Feb. 15 press conference: “We had an athletic director, a campus monitor who responded immediately when there was signs of trouble in the school.”  Dave Hyde of the Sun-Sentinel wrote that “Athletic Director Chris Hixon and Aaron Feis died in the same hallway.” Per the graphic in this Washington Post article, the four classrooms on the first floor in which Cruz shot people were all next to each other and close to the east stairwell. Only one person was shot on the 2nd floor.  This same article shows that Building 12 was adjacent to the school parking lot. It is logical to believe that Feis was in the parking lot ready to direct traffic as school was about to let out.  As it has been reported that Feis died while shielding multiple students and only one victim was shot on the 2nd floor, we can infer that Feis engaged the shooter on the first floor sometime soon after the shooting began.  Aaron Feis likely was in the right place at the right time to save lives.

So why was Aaron Feis disarmed?  Lisa Maxwell of the Broward County Principals and Assistants Association stated to the Sun-Sentinel:

“The only person trained and armed to fight back against an assailant at Stoneman Douglas is its one school resource officer, a Broward Sheriff’s deputy funded by the city of Parkland. But Maxwell said she doesn’t think he was on campus when the shooting happened.


‘I have been told by a couple of sources that the SRO was either called off campus responding to something happening or it could have been his day off,” she said. “They are stretched very thin.’”

This raises the question of why only one person was trained and armed to fight back against an assailant.  One reason is that the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990,” originally passed as part of the Budget Control Act of 1990, bars school personnel from arming themselves.  18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A) states:

“It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A) states:

“Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.”

Supposedly, these laws are to protect us from ourselves while assuring us that the government will do its job. And yet, neighbors called the police dozens of times on Nikolaus Cruz yet no one connected any dots.  To be fair, the family which took Cruz in after his mother died last fall apparently did not notice anything out of the ordinary (armchair psychiatrists beware).  The FBI, however,  ignored two tips that Nikolaus Cruz was an imminent threat.  Precisely in order to protect us against evil men and government incompetence and malfeasance, the following words were written in 1789 into the 2nd Amendment by men who had pledged their lives and honor in pursuit of life and liberty:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[author’s emphasis]

“Shall not be infringed” is an unequivocal command. It is a travesty of justice that Mr. Feis’ Constitutional right to protect himself and those innocent children was infringed.  Based on Coach May’s testimonial, Mr. Feis wittingly charged into the fray knowing that he would face powerful gunfire and that he was disarmed.  What would have happened if Aaron Feis had had a a Glock on his hip when the Code Red went off?  Two cases from the last several years serve as pertinent compare/contrast examples.

On May 3, 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi attacked the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX where a free speech event was being held with about 150 people in attendance. Simpson and Soofi were armed with three pistols and three semi-automatic assault rifles.   Despite being heavily outmatched in firepower, a single police officer working as a security guard at the event armed only with a .45 caliber Glock pistol shot and wounded the attackers and stopped the attack without any loss of life.  Contrast this to the attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine office in Paris on January 7, 2015.  Heavily armed men attacked Charlie Hebdo where they shot and killed 11 people and wounded many others. The first responder was a bicycle cop named Ahmed Merabet. As with Aaron Feis, Merabet had been disarmed by his government as France has some the strictest gun control laws in the world, much stricter than those now being emotionally advocated in the United States. Merabet was shot and wounded and lay helpless to defend himself against his AK-47 wielding attackers who then calmly walked over and shot him dead in the street.

If Aaron Feis had had a .45 caliber Glock in his hand and had been given the proper training he needed to do his job as school guard, I am convinced that he would have saved many lives after he bravely called out “I’m going in.” Rudyard Kipling once wrote: “Every so often, a few evil men must die so that weaponless dreamers may live in peace.” 

The delusional Left believes in the perfectibility of man, that inherent evil does not exist and that crime may be eliminated through social policy.  History since time immemorial proves, however, that evil men always have and always will be among us.  So, we must be prepared to protect ourselves and our loved ones against them.

Aaron Feis was ready but he had been unconstitutionally disarmed.  How often must we watch innocent children die before we realize that the illusions of weaponless dreamers aid evil men?



Source link

In Defense of Football


Last week at a roundtable discussion, Bob Costas opened another front by making the provocative prediction that parents will not allow their sons to play football because it “destroys people’s brains” and that “if I had an athletically gifted twelve-year-old son, I would certainly not allow him to play football.”

Is football truly destroying the brains of boys across America?  The gauntlet has been thrown.

Many articles reporting Mr. Costas’s comments cite the high-profile study conducted by Boston University published in July 2017 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  See examples here, here, here, here, and here.  This is Exhibit A in the mainstream media’s spin machine.  The B.U. JAMA study reports that 177 of 202 brains of former players at all levels exhibited some form of trauma known as CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).  This article will examine this study, unpack Costas’s and the other media distortions, and make a case in defense of football.

Full disclosure: your author played four years of Division 1-A football at Miami (OH) and suffered a major concussion while playing on kickoff against Michigan State in 1989.  Subsequently, he went on to have a successful career in industrial sales and marketing taking him across the world and back again.  The lessons learned on the gridiron were crucial to him both as a businessman and as a father.

The first problem with the B.U. JAMA study is that the sample is skewed.  The fact that the donors expressed interest in the program indicates self-selection bias in favor of those people who may have already exhibited symptoms related to CTE.  This is not a proper sampling methodology according the scientific method and certainly cannot be used as the basis for predictive claims.

In the “Conclusions and Relevance” section of the abstract, the researchers write: “In a convenience sample of deceased football players who donated their brains for research, a high proportion had neuropathological evidence of CTE, suggesting that CTE may be related to prior participation in football.”  “Suggests” and “may” are legalistic, CYA weasel words that protect the researchers from accusations of scientific malpractice while implying the desired result that advances the left’s narrative: “football destroys brains.”

A different Boston University study from some of the same researchers published in Sept. 2017 in the journal Nature was cited by Time magazine with the explosive headline, “New study links playing youth football to later brain injury.”  This B.U. study from Nature explicitly admits to self-selection bias while also burying in second-to-last paragraph that “[w]e found no association between AFE (Age of Exposure) to football and cognition” in the only objective cognition tests they performed.  All other results were subjectively self-reported by the participants.  Do note that 68 of the 214 participants were former NFL players and did not exhibit significant cognitive impairment on these objective tests.

Second, the BU JAMA study’s abstract and Costas’s and the media’s reporting distort and conflate the results reported on the former NFL players (101 out of 110 NFL players’ brains exhibited severe CTE) as pertaining to all players to justify the claim that “parents won’t let their kids play because their brains are getting destroyed.”  There were, however, significant CTE differences between the brains of former NFL versus college versus high school players in this study.  Neither Costas nor any of the other media outlets reported these facts.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  And yet the proof is just the opposite.

Per the B.U. JAMA reported results, of the self-selected 14 people studied who never played higher than high school, only three exhibited mild CTE.  This is the critical finding.  The results from the most relevant group of this (biased) study indicate that there is only a 21% that American boys who will never play college or pro football will develop any CTE injury whatsoever, and that this injury has a 100% chance of being mild.  These results align with the results of a different study also published in July 2017 by Dr. Dylan Small in JAMA Neurology.  It found that a group of men who played high school football in 1957 (and no higher) suffered no loss of cognition later in life.  Yes, indeed: the truth has only one side, and it does not comport with boys destroying their brains playing football.

This is significant because USA Football reports that 3.42 million children aged 6-18 played tackle football in 2015.  The NCAA reports that 73,660 men played college football in 2016, and 251 were drafted in the NFL.  Therefore, around 97.8% of all football players will never play at the college or NFL level.  

This puts the lie to Costas’s commentary as blatant, anti-football fear-mongering.  The left’s faux concern about children’s concussions is also belied by studies that indicate that high school female athletes suffer higher rates of concussion than high school male athletes.  Where is the outrage?

Third, of the self-selected 53 in the B.U. JAMA study who never played higher than college football, 48 indicated signs of CTE, but 21 of those 48 exhibited mild pathology.  So about 50% of the people in this sample did not develop severe symptoms of CTE.  This implies that your odds are 50-50 of developing CTE with “severe pathology” if you play college football.

What is not described is the definition of “severe pathology.”  Are there no differences in the level of “severity” of pathology between NFL players and college players?  No explanation is attempted in the abstract or identified as a topic requiring greater research.  I have former teammates who played in the NFL, and they tell me the intensity of hitting in the NFL compared to college is comparable to the ratio of college to high school.  In short, the hitting is much more intense.

How to overcome adversity by testing myself to my limits playing college football and graduating cum laude was a critical life lesson.  It is a tough sport and is not for everybody (only 2.1% of all players).  If you surveyed thousands of middle-aged ex-college football players and asked if they would do it all over again, I bet they would respond with an overwhelming “yes!”  College football may need more research on its effects, but the massive disparity in intensity of play between college and high school suggests that this research will have little or no bearing on youth football.

Finally, NFL players know what they’re signing up for.  It’s a brutally tough game, and they know it.  They are also rewarded with potentially millions of dollars of income.  Some of them come from extremely poor backgrounds.  Hall-of-Famer Shannon Sharpe has often spoken about growing up dirt-poor in rural Georgia.  Should he have been denied the opportunity to earn tens of millions of dollars?  On average, only 251 people per year are invited to play in the NFL.  They have the free choice to weigh those costs and benefits.  The consequences of their choices also have absolutely nothing to do with youth football.

In a book being published this month called The Secrets of Resilience, Dr. Meg Jay documents how the will to fight and overcome adversity was found to be healthy and has been the key to success and emotional and psychological happiness and stability for thousands of people.  Playing football is a great way for boys to learn to fight adversity and win.  It is also healthy.

Youth football can be done wrong.  I coached my own son for years.  The first league was poorly designed.  We switched to Pop Warner and had great experiences.  Today, he is a freshman at a high-caliber university where he isn’t playing football and has straight As.  Football helped teach him how to prepare to win.

As the largest high school sport by participation, high school and youth football is an important, effective, traditional way to teach young men self-discipline, teamwork, mental toughness, and the controlled use of aggression to fight and win.  This is healthy for young men and for the American Republic.

If you stand for traditional, healthy American values, you should stand for traditional football (as opposed to Roger Goodell’s kneeling version), because it is good for American boys and American culture.

Last week at a roundtable discussion, Bob Costas opened another front by making the provocative prediction that parents will not allow their sons to play football because it “destroys people’s brains” and that “if I had an athletically gifted twelve-year-old son, I would certainly not allow him to play football.”

Is football truly destroying the brains of boys across America?  The gauntlet has been thrown.

Many articles reporting Mr. Costas’s comments cite the high-profile study conducted by Boston University published in July 2017 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  See examples here, here, here, here, and here.  This is Exhibit A in the mainstream media’s spin machine.  The B.U. JAMA study reports that 177 of 202 brains of former players at all levels exhibited some form of trauma known as CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).  This article will examine this study, unpack Costas’s and the other media distortions, and make a case in defense of football.

Full disclosure: your author played four years of Division 1-A football at Miami (OH) and suffered a major concussion while playing on kickoff against Michigan State in 1989.  Subsequently, he went on to have a successful career in industrial sales and marketing taking him across the world and back again.  The lessons learned on the gridiron were crucial to him both as a businessman and as a father.

The first problem with the B.U. JAMA study is that the sample is skewed.  The fact that the donors expressed interest in the program indicates self-selection bias in favor of those people who may have already exhibited symptoms related to CTE.  This is not a proper sampling methodology according the scientific method and certainly cannot be used as the basis for predictive claims.

In the “Conclusions and Relevance” section of the abstract, the researchers write: “In a convenience sample of deceased football players who donated their brains for research, a high proportion had neuropathological evidence of CTE, suggesting that CTE may be related to prior participation in football.”  “Suggests” and “may” are legalistic, CYA weasel words that protect the researchers from accusations of scientific malpractice while implying the desired result that advances the left’s narrative: “football destroys brains.”

A different Boston University study from some of the same researchers published in Sept. 2017 in the journal Nature was cited by Time magazine with the explosive headline, “New study links playing youth football to later brain injury.”  This B.U. study from Nature explicitly admits to self-selection bias while also burying in second-to-last paragraph that “[w]e found no association between AFE (Age of Exposure) to football and cognition” in the only objective cognition tests they performed.  All other results were subjectively self-reported by the participants.  Do note that 68 of the 214 participants were former NFL players and did not exhibit significant cognitive impairment on these objective tests.

Second, the BU JAMA study’s abstract and Costas’s and the media’s reporting distort and conflate the results reported on the former NFL players (101 out of 110 NFL players’ brains exhibited severe CTE) as pertaining to all players to justify the claim that “parents won’t let their kids play because their brains are getting destroyed.”  There were, however, significant CTE differences between the brains of former NFL versus college versus high school players in this study.  Neither Costas nor any of the other media outlets reported these facts.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  And yet the proof is just the opposite.

Per the B.U. JAMA reported results, of the self-selected 14 people studied who never played higher than high school, only three exhibited mild CTE.  This is the critical finding.  The results from the most relevant group of this (biased) study indicate that there is only a 21% that American boys who will never play college or pro football will develop any CTE injury whatsoever, and that this injury has a 100% chance of being mild.  These results align with the results of a different study also published in July 2017 by Dr. Dylan Small in JAMA Neurology.  It found that a group of men who played high school football in 1957 (and no higher) suffered no loss of cognition later in life.  Yes, indeed: the truth has only one side, and it does not comport with boys destroying their brains playing football.

This is significant because USA Football reports that 3.42 million children aged 6-18 played tackle football in 2015.  The NCAA reports that 73,660 men played college football in 2016, and 251 were drafted in the NFL.  Therefore, around 97.8% of all football players will never play at the college or NFL level.  

This puts the lie to Costas’s commentary as blatant, anti-football fear-mongering.  The left’s faux concern about children’s concussions is also belied by studies that indicate that high school female athletes suffer higher rates of concussion than high school male athletes.  Where is the outrage?

Third, of the self-selected 53 in the B.U. JAMA study who never played higher than college football, 48 indicated signs of CTE, but 21 of those 48 exhibited mild pathology.  So about 50% of the people in this sample did not develop severe symptoms of CTE.  This implies that your odds are 50-50 of developing CTE with “severe pathology” if you play college football.

What is not described is the definition of “severe pathology.”  Are there no differences in the level of “severity” of pathology between NFL players and college players?  No explanation is attempted in the abstract or identified as a topic requiring greater research.  I have former teammates who played in the NFL, and they tell me the intensity of hitting in the NFL compared to college is comparable to the ratio of college to high school.  In short, the hitting is much more intense.

How to overcome adversity by testing myself to my limits playing college football and graduating cum laude was a critical life lesson.  It is a tough sport and is not for everybody (only 2.1% of all players).  If you surveyed thousands of middle-aged ex-college football players and asked if they would do it all over again, I bet they would respond with an overwhelming “yes!”  College football may need more research on its effects, but the massive disparity in intensity of play between college and high school suggests that this research will have little or no bearing on youth football.

Finally, NFL players know what they’re signing up for.  It’s a brutally tough game, and they know it.  They are also rewarded with potentially millions of dollars of income.  Some of them come from extremely poor backgrounds.  Hall-of-Famer Shannon Sharpe has often spoken about growing up dirt-poor in rural Georgia.  Should he have been denied the opportunity to earn tens of millions of dollars?  On average, only 251 people per year are invited to play in the NFL.  They have the free choice to weigh those costs and benefits.  The consequences of their choices also have absolutely nothing to do with youth football.

In a book being published this month called The Secrets of Resilience, Dr. Meg Jay documents how the will to fight and overcome adversity was found to be healthy and has been the key to success and emotional and psychological happiness and stability for thousands of people.  Playing football is a great way for boys to learn to fight adversity and win.  It is also healthy.

Youth football can be done wrong.  I coached my own son for years.  The first league was poorly designed.  We switched to Pop Warner and had great experiences.  Today, he is a freshman at a high-caliber university where he isn’t playing football and has straight As.  Football helped teach him how to prepare to win.

As the largest high school sport by participation, high school and youth football is an important, effective, traditional way to teach young men self-discipline, teamwork, mental toughness, and the controlled use of aggression to fight and win.  This is healthy for young men and for the American Republic.

If you stand for traditional, healthy American values, you should stand for traditional football (as opposed to Roger Goodell’s kneeling version), because it is good for American boys and American culture.



Source link