The Rise of America’s Secret Government: The Deadly Legacy of Ex-CIA Director Allen Dulles

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/10/13/the_rise_of_americas_secret_government

David Talbot, author of the new book The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. He is the founder and former CEO and editor-in-chief of Salon. He is also author of the best-seller, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.
Related

It’s been more than 50 years since Allen Dulles resigned as director of the CIA, but his legacy lives on. Between 1953 and 1961, under his watch, the CIA overthrew the governments of Iran and Guatemala, invaded Cuba, and was tied to the killing of Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first democratically elected leader. We speak with David Talbot, author of “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government,” about how Dulles’ time at the CIA helped shape the current national security state.
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s been over half a century since Allen Dulles resigned as director of the CIA, but his legacy lives on. Between 1953 and ’61, under his watch, the CIA overthrew the governments of Iran and Guatemala, invaded Cuba, was tied to the killing of Patrice Lumumba, Congo’s first democratically elected leader.

A new biography of Allen Dulles looks at how his time at the CIA helped shape the current national security state. Biographer David Talbot writes, quote, “The Allen Dulles story continues to haunt the country. Many of the practices that still provoke bouts of American soul-searching originated during Dulles’s formative rule at the CIA.” Talbot goes on to write, “Mind control experimentation, torture, political assassination, extraordinary rendition, mass surveillance of U.S. citizens and foreign allies—these were all widely used tools of the Dulles reign.”

Well, David Talbot joins us now to talk about his new book, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. He’s the founder and former CEO and editor-in-chief of Salon. David Talbot is also author of the best-seller, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.

It’s great to have you with us, David.

DAVID TALBOT: Great to be here, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: What an astounding book. Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden—how do they relate to Allen Dulles, the longest-reigning CIA director?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, as I write in the book and as you just pointed out, all the practices that we are wrestling with as a country now, the intelligence and security measures—including, I might add, the legacy of the killing fields in Central America that your guest was just discussing, in Guatemala and so on—that all had its roots, not after 9/11, but during the Dulles era and the Cold War. He was a man who felt he was above the law. He felt that democracy was something that should not be left in the hands of the American people or its representatives. He was part of what the famous sociologist from the 1950s, C. Wright Mills, called the power elite. And he felt that he and his brother and those types of people should be running the country.

AMY GOODMAN: John Foster Dulles, secretary of state.

DAVID TALBOT: Exactly. They were a dynamic duo, of course: His brother, Foster, as he was known, was secretary of state, as you say, under Eisenhower; he was the head of the CIA. It was a one-two punch.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to Allen Dulles in his own words, speaking in 1965, defending the actions of the CIA.

ALLEN DULLES: The idea that it is necessarily nefarious, it’s always engaged in overthrowing governments, that’s false. That’s for the birds. Now, there are times—there are times when the United States government feels that the developments in another government, such as in the Vietnam situation, is of a nature to imperil the—the safety and the security and the peace of the world, and asks the Central Intelligence Agency to be its agent in that particular situation. … At no time has the CIA engaged in any political activity or any intelligence activity that was not approved at the highest level.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Allen Dulles in 1965. “At no time,” he says. So, talk about the history, that is so intimately connected to us today. Often countries that have been—their leaders have been overthrown, know this history in a way that Americans don’t know.

DAVID TALBOT: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: ’53, ’54, go through it.

DAVID TALBOT: And, of course, Allen Dulles was a consummate liar and was, you know, very adept at manipulating the media, the American media. That particular interview was one of the ones that actually he got posed some of the tougher questions, by John Chancellor of NBC News. And he actually went on to say, “You know, I try to let the Congress know what I’m doing,” when Chancellor asked him, “Is there any political oversight of the CIA?” “But whenever I go to Congress,” he says, and he starts to tell the secrets of the CIA, members of Congress would say, “No, no, no, we don’t want to know. We don’t want to talk in our sleep.” So that, of course, was his cover.

Yes, overthrowing governments at will—I think one of the more tragic stories I tell in the book is the story of Patrice Lumumba, who was this young, charismatic leader, the hope of African nationalism in the Congo. And he was overthrown by a CIA-backed military coup in the Congo and later captured and brutally assassinated. The CIA’s story before the Church Committee in the 1970s: “Oh, we tried to kill him, we tried to poison him, but we’re the gang that can’t shoot straight. We’re not very good at assassinations.” Well, they were far too modest. In fact, we now know that the people who beat Patrice Lumumba to death, once he was captured, were on the payroll of the CIA.

Now, Allen Dulles kept that fact from John F. Kennedy for over a month. John Kennedy, when he was running for president, was known as the advocate, a supporter of African nationalism. They knew that once John Kennedy was inaugurated—the CIA—and was in office, that he would help Lumumba, who was in captivity at that point. And I believe that his execution, his murder, was rushed before Kennedy could get in the White House. They then withheld that information from the president for over a month. So the CIA was defying presidents all the time, and particularly in the case of Kennedy, who they felt was young, they could manipulate, and they didn’t need to really bring into their confidence.

AMY GOODMAN: So you have the CIA running international intelligence, and they’re keeping—well, you say keeping from. What makes you believe that Kennedy didn’t know?

DAVID TALBOT: That he didn’t know about the murder? Well, there’s a famous picture that was taken of him in the White House as he’s getting the phone call from—not from the CIA, but from U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, who finally tells him, a month after Lumumba has been buried and dead, about this terrible murder. And his face, as you see from this famous photograph by Jacques Lowe, the White House photographer, is crumpled in agony. I think this shows all the terrible sorrow that’s to come in the Kennedy presidency. And, you know, a lot of people think that the war between Kennedy and the CIA began after the Bay of Pigs invasion, the CIA’s disastrous operation in Cuba. That is true, it became particularly, I think, aggravated after that. But you can see from this, from day one, even before he was inaugurated, the CIA was defying him.

AMY GOODMAN: 1953, go back a few years. What is the relevance of what the Dulles brothers did in Iran with what we are seeing today in U.S.-Iranian relations?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, again, these terrible historical ripples continue from the Dulles era. Iran was trying to throw off the yoke of British colonialism. Britain, through British Petroleum, the company now known as British Petroleum, controlled all of Iran’s oil resources. And under the leadership of Mosaddegh, this popular leader who was elected by his people, he began to push back against British control and, as a result, antagonized Western oil interests, including the Dulles brothers. The Dulles brothers’ power originally came from their law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, the most powerful law firm on Wall Street, and they represented a number of oil companies. So, once the Western oil interests were antagonized by Mosaddegh’s attempt to reclaim sovereignty over these oil resources, his days were numbered.

And so, the task of overthrowing him was given to the CIA, given to Allen Dulles. There was a very volatile situation, people supporting Mosaddegh in the streets versus the CIA-supported forces. The Shah, who was the puppet, of course, ruler of Iran on the Peacock Throne, flees, because he’s not a particularly brave man. He flees to Rome. Dulles flies to Rome. He’s busy shopping, the Shah, enjoying his exile with his glamorous wife. And Dulles is given the job of putting a little lead in his spine and getting the Shah to return to Iran after they finally succeed, the CIA, in overthrowing the popular leader, Mosaddegh.

Well, after that, that begins a reign of horror then in Iran. Democratic elements, the left, Communist Party are rounded up, tortured. And the Shah is installed in this terrible autocratic regime, that, of course, we know, had a terrible downfall during the Carter administration. And we’re still paying the price for the bitterness that the Iranian people feel towards the United States for intervening in their sovereign interests.

AMY GOODMAN: And the U.S. would go on—the Dulles brothers would go on to do the very same thing the next year, 1954, in Guatemala?

DAVID TALBOT: That’s right. They were on a roll. They thought they could do anything, exert their will anywhere in the world. Jacobo Árbenz, again, a popular, democratic leader, elected in Guatemala—

AMY GOODMAN: We only have 10 seconds in this portion.

DAVID TALBOT: The Kennedy of Guatemala is overthrown, again, by the Dulles brothers, partly because they were representatives of United Fruit. United Fruit was a major power player in Guatemala.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there, but we’re going to do Part 2, and we’re going to post it online. David Talbot is author of the new book, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. David Talbot is founder and editor-in-chief at Salon.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Our guest is David Talbot. His book is The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. He’s the founder and former CEO and editor-in-chief of Salon. Let’s start with the title, The Devil’s Chessboard. Why did you call it that, David?

DAVID TALBOT: The Devil’s Chessboard refers to the fact that the Dulles brothers—John Foster Dulles, who’s secretary of state under Eisenhower, and his brother, Allen Dulles, who I focus on, head of the CIA—they loved to play chess with each other. They would go at it for hours, even when Allen Dulles was about to be married. He kept his wife-to-be waiting around while the two brothers went at it. And they tended to look at the world as their chessboard. People were pawns to be manipulated. So I felt that was a—you know, an apt metaphor.

But, Amy, I wanted to go back to what you were talking about—alternative media—before this. I think—I just want to underline what you were saying about how essential it is to have countervoices. They are the lifeblood of democracy. And shows like yours and public radio are just essential. You know, my book is having a hard time getting through the media gatekeepers. They don’t want to hear about this, and in part because the CIA, particularly under Allen Dulles, but even today, are masters at manipulating the media. I’ve been on shows and been bumped. I was scheduled to be on shows at the last minute, strangely. I was supposed to write something for Politico magazine. Someone there called the book a “masterpiece.” They wanted the book to be, you know, showcased there. Instead, I was bumped from Politico. And an article based on recently leaked CIA documents—conveniently leaked—was written by a former New York Times reporter, Phil Shenon, and what he did was to basically accuse Fidel Castro of assassinating President Kennedy. This has been a CIA disinformation line for years. So the CIA is still manipulating the media, and it’s essential that independent media exists, like this.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the relationship between The New York Times publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, and Allen Dulles?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, the Sulzberger family had a long relationship with Dulles. When he was inaugurated as CIA director, one of the Sulzbergers wrote to him, saying, “This is the best news I’ve heard in years.” In another letter, he calls him affectionately “Ally.” They were on a first name basis. They belonged to the same clubs. They were masters at—the Dulles brothers, particularly Allen—at manipulating the media. After the Warren Report comes out, the official investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, one of the top editors at Newsweek writes to Allen Dulles. And I’m getting all this from Allen Dulles’s own files; he was very proud of the fact that he could—he had the media in the palm of his hand. But this Newsweek editor writes to him, “Thank you so much for basically directing our coverage of the Warren Report. We couldn’t have done it without you.” So, you know, this was the kind of cozy relationship that existed between the CIA and the media in those years. CBS, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, they were all in the palm of the CIA’s hands. They all lived together in Georgetown. They had cocktail parties together. It was a very cozy set.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, in Guatemala today, there has been a popular uprising. It has been quite astounding. Otto Pérez Molina, OPM, the president, was thrown out, is in jail right now. I wanted to go to Allan Nairn, longtime investigative reporter, who was in Guatemala during this period. And this also goes back to 1954. But Allan Nairn has been covering Guatemala since the 1980s.

ALLAN NAIRN: This is an oligarchy in Guatemala which kills its own unionists, which kills peasants who try to organize the plantations, which works hand in glove with Washington and is now trying to hold onto their power, because, for the first time, it’s under threat. I mean, this is a historic moment. It all began in 1954, when the CIA invaded Guatemala, overthrew a democratically elected government and put the army in power. And now, the people have risen.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Allan Nairn talking about this most recent uprising. But, David Talbot, can you go back to 1954, where we left off in Part 1 of our conversation, and talk about what actually happened? Who was Allen Dulles, the CIA director, and his brother, John Foster Dulles, the state—the secretary of state, working for?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, of course, their original power goes back to Sullivan & Cromwell, this very powerful Wall Street law firm that John Foster Dulles ran and where Allen Dulles worked. And among their clients was United Fruit. United Fruit, of course, was this colossus, this corporate colossus, that ruled much of Latin America, owned, you know, vast acreage in Guatemala and many other countries. They weren’t just a banana company. They were a multinational real estate company. They owned often the utilities. And they owned the local political elites in those countries.

In the early ’50s, Jacobo Árbenz, this young military officer, a reform officer, starts to emerge as a potential leader. He runs for president and is elected by his people on a reform campaign. And one of the first things he does, of course, in this country that’s basically a medieval country ruled by land barons, is to begin to nationalize some of the land, that’s not being even used by United [Fruit], and give it to the people themselves, the farmers, to work. And this provokes a major backlash from United Fruit, from the local political elites, the oligarchs, and from the CIA. Allen Dulles, working for Eisenhower as CIA director, portrays Jacobo Árbenz as a dangerous communist—he wasn’t—and prepares to overthrow him in a military coup, which does occur.

What I tell the story of, mostly I focus on, is the tragic aftermath of that coup, because not only for the Árbenz family, which, in some ways, were the Kennedys of Guatemala—glamorous, young couple, Jacobo and María Árbenz, their children, very good-looking, wealthy, but very committed to uplifting the poor in that country. And after the coup, they’re sent into a terrible exile. No country will touch them, because CIA pressure. The CIA and the State Department pressure every country, from Mexico throughout Latin America, not to take the Árbenz family in. They’re finally forced to go behind the Iron Curtain to Czechoslovakia to seek exile. They’re not happy there. They finally end up back in Mexico, but they’re under tight supervision. The family is haunted. It’s stalked wherever it goes. One of his daughters commits suicide. And Jacobo Árbenz himself ends up dead under mysterious circumstances—scalded to death in a bathtub in a Mexico City hotel. His family today believes that he was assassinated. And given the fact that the CIA had a death list of left-wing figures, journalists, political leaders, after the coup that were to be eliminated, that, you know, is a distinct possibility.

So, these ripples of tragedy, after these coups, go on and on. You know, the CIA and Allen Dulles told Eisenhower after the Guatemala coup, “Oh, it was a clean coup. You know, hardly anyone died.” But the fact is, tens of thousands of people died in the killing fields of Guatemala as a result of that coup, and that violence continues today.

AMY GOODMAN: And wasn’t it also a precursor to what happened with the Bay of Pigs? Move forward like, what, six years, and explain what happened.

DAVID TALBOT: Right. Well, emboldened by how easy it was to do a regime change in Guatemala, yes, when Fidel Castro comes to power in Cuba, he again antagonizes the same corporate interests that the Dulles brothers represent—oil companies, like the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil, and others, agribusiness firms. So they believe that Fidel has to be eliminated, and they begin plotting, under the Eisenhower administration, with Eisenhower’s approval, to kill, to assassinate Fidel Castro. And, in fact, at one point, Fidel Castro, who was beloved in this country after the revolution—he had overthrown a thug, a Mafia-backed thug, Batista, a very corrupt and violent dictatorship. He was seen as the future, and very glamorous, he and Che Guevara and so on. They would come to New York and would be mobbed by people in the streets. When they came to New York for a U.N. meeting in 1960, though, the Eisenhower administration was already pushing back, and no hotel would take them. Finally, a hotel in Midtown did take them, but there was—they asked for so much money as security, they were basically blackmailing Fidel. He was outraged, and he ended up staying in a hotel in Harlem that took him in.

AMY GOODMAN: Hotel Theresa.

DAVID TALBOT: Hotel Theresa. And they stood up to this Washington pressure, the manager of that hotel, who was African-American. He had grown up in Jim Crow South. And he said, “You know, I know what it’s like to be denied a roof over your head. This Cuban delegation can stay here.” So it was a very—

AMY GOODMAN: Did he meet Malcolm X there?

DAVID TALBOT: He did. It was a very dramatic moment. Malcolm X makes a visit to the Hotel Theresa. He squeezes into his suite, where there’s dozens of people crammed. They have a very interesting encounter, Fidel and Malcolm. And it really changed their lives and had a big impact on both of those men for years afterwards. In fact, Malcolm said he was one of the few white men that he learned to respect and appreciate. And, by the way, there was an FBI guy taking notes the whole time in that hotel room, so we know some of what happened there and the dialogue, because of the FBI report on this.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was it?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, his name was not revealed, but there was an agent surveilling him. But meanwhile, while Fidel is there, meeting with Khrushchev from the Soviet Union and Nasser from Egypt and the world leaders and embarrassing the Eisenhower administration, because here he’s gone to Harlem, and, you know, no one else would take him in, in Midtown Manhattan—meanwhile, the Mafia is meeting with CIA agents at the Plaza Hotel, just blocks away, plotting his assassination. So, a lot of intrigue in 1960 going on in New York. And then, to make it even more interesting, a young JFK, who’s campaigning for president, after Fidel has left, shows up at the Hotel Theresa and basically says, “This is revolutionary ground I’m standing on. And we should welcome the winds of change and the revolution, the future. We shouldn’t be afraid of it.” So, very end—and begins to talk about the mortality rate of black infants in Harlem and many of the issues that are still current.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, look at what President Kennedy, then President Kennedy, did, when it came to Cuba—

DAVID TALBOT: Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: —what happened under his reign, from the Bay of Pigs to the endless assassination attempts of Fidel Castro.

DAVID TALBOT: Kennedy did do a flip-flop, to an extent, after that. He came in as president. He was young. He was untested, under a lot of pressure from the national security people in his administration. He inherited the Bay of Pigs operation, the plans for that. He was basically told, “Look, if you pull the plug on this thing, it’s so far along now, there will be a major political backlash against you.” So he was kind of sandbagged by the CIA. He did go through with it, but he had no intention of widening it into an all-out U.S. military assault on the island, on Cuba. But that’s what the CIA had in mind. They knew that this motley crew of Cuban exiles they put together to invade the island wasn’t sufficient to unseat Castro. But what they hoped and what they planned was that a young President Kennedy, as this invasion was bogged down on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs, would be forced then to send in the Marines and the U.S. Air Force to topple Castro.

AMY GOODMAN: And then, of course, the Cuban missile crisis, the closest we ever came to a nuclear war.

DAVID TALBOT: Well, but Kennedy stood his ground, and he didn’t do that. And that was the beginning of his break, at the Bay of Pigs, between the CIA and Cuba—and President Kennedy. And then, yes, that became even more severe with the Cuban missile crisis the following year. Again, the military in this country and the CIA thought that we could take, you know, Castro out. During the Cuban missile crisis, they were prepared to go to a nuclear war to do that. President Kennedy thought people like Curtis LeMay, who was head of the Air Force, General Curtis LeMay, was half-mad. He said, “I don’t even see this man in my—you know, in my sight,” because he was pushing for a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union. And even years later, Curtis LeMay, after years after Kennedy is dead, in an interview that I quote from in the book, bitterly complains that Kennedy didn’t take this opportunity to go nuclear over Cuba. So, President Kennedy basically, I think, saved my life—I was 12 years old at the time—saved a lot of our lives, because he did stand his ground. He took a hard line against the national security people and said, “No, we’re going to peacefully resolve the Cuban missile crisis.”

AMY GOODMAN: And then President Kennedy, on November 22nd, 1963, was assassinated.

DAVID TALBOT: That’s right.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to David Talbot, who is author of The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government. What did you find when it came to Kennedy’s assassination?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, first of all, after Kennedy did fire Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs, Dulles didn’t get the memo. He went home to Georgetown and continued to operate from his home as if he were still running the CIA. His top deputies came on a regular basis to meet with him. He—

AMY GOODMAN: You had notes of his wife and his mistress.

DAVID TALBOT: That’s right. I found his daybook, who he was meeting with. I read his—the correspondence. I read his mistress’s diaries and journals.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was his mistress?

DAVID TALBOT: A woman named Mary Bancroft, a very interesting woman, related to the gentleman who started or was the top editor at The Wall Street Journal. She had aspirations of her own. She became a spy for Allen Dulles in Switzerland during World War II when they started their affair. And curiously, then, when his wife shows up in Switzerland at the end of the war, Clover Dulles, the two women become friends. Clover Dulles figures out what’s been going on. She kind of gives it a pass. And the two women then form a tight bond throughout the rest of their lives. And their correspondence is fascinating. They both were patients of Carl Jung, one of the founding fathers of psychiatry in Switzerland.

And they called Allen Dulles “The Shark,” these two women, because they both knew the kind of man they were dealing with—full of surface charm and, you know, a very popular party guest on the Washington circuit, but underneath a very cold man, a man who was capable of sending people to their death with the blink of an eye, a man who was capable of putting his own child, Allen Jr., in the hands of an experimental doctor who was working for the CIA in the notorious MKULTRA program, which Naomi Klein and others have written about.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain it very briefly, and what happened to Allen Jr.?

DAVID TALBOT: MKULTRA was—they called it the Manhattan Project of the mind. It was an attempt by the CIA, funding—millions of dollars—funding scientists and doctors around the country, major institutions, to see if we could program people for whatever purpose. It was a mind control program. His son, Allen Jr., came back from the war, Korean War, with a piece of shrapnel in his brain. He was brain-damaged, and the family had difficulty with him. He was trying to find his way. And at one point, Allen Dulles put him in the hands of this scientist here in New York who did unspeakable sort of experiments on him involving insulin overdose therapy, which is a very traumatic therapy—convulsions, sometimes resulting in death. His sister was appalled—Allen Dulles’s daughter—when she went to visit him in the hospital. And it was from her that I got this story.

Joan Dulles is a very amazing woman—Joan Talley, as she’s known today, a retired Jungian therapist in New Mexico, drives a Prius with an Obama sticker on it. I’m sure her father is spinning in his grave. But she, herself, like many of us, at the age of 90 when I interviewed her, was grappling with this dark legacy in America, that played out within her own family. You know, she’s looking back on this now and is appalled, in some way, that she—it was a part of her life. But she’s reading the books—and I hope she reads mine—and is coming to some kind of determination about her father.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what MKULTRA was used for.

DAVID TALBOT: Well, MKULTRA, among other things, they were seeing if they could program a Manchurian candidate, assassins who would act in a robotic-like fashion to kill on CIA command. They were also using it as enhanced interrogation, as we call it today. Soviet prisoners who would fall into our hands, they were—

AMY GOODMAN: And the drug is actually?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, many different drugs, psychedelic—LSD was one of the drugs. They subjected—there was a particular place in Canada at the Allan Institute and McGill University in Canada, where one of these doctors, Dr. Ewen Cameron, he operated something called the sleep room, where women, many—mostly women, and patients of his would be put. These were people who were suffering from common neurotic disorders, postpartum depression and so on. And they were put in this sleep room and, through massive doses of various psychedelic drugs, were put into a sleep state, and then tape loops were played over and over again in an attempt to erase their bad patterns of thinking, and often wiping out their memory. They would come out of these experiments not knowing their family, who they were. In one case, a woman was reduced to an infantile state. She couldn’t use a toilet. And this was the wife of a Canadian—a member of the Canadian Parliament. So this was all CIA-funded research during the Cold War, and it was, you know, basically the most inhumane sort of methods being used on people.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to David Talbot, and we digressed from the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

DAVID TALBOT: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about what you learned in writing The Devil’s Chessboard.

DAVID TALBOT: Well, as I was saying, after he was fired by Kennedy, Dulles went to his home. He continued—

AMY GOODMAN: And why was he fired?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, he was fired after the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy realized he shouldn’t have kept Dulles on from the Eisenhower years. They were philosophically too different. And the Bay of Pigs was the final straw for him. So he was pushed out after that.

And—but Dulles, as I say, continued to sort of set up an anti-Kennedy government in exile in his home in Georgetown. Many of the people he was meeting with, several of the people, including Howard Hunt and others, later became figures of suspicion during the House Select Committee on Assassination hearings in Washington in the 1970s. You know, most Americans don’t know that that was the last official statement, the last official report, on the Kennedy assassination, not the Warren Report back in 1964. But the Congress reopened the investigation into John Kennedy’s assassination, and they did determine he was killed as the result of a conspiracy.

So a number of the people who came up during this investigation by Congress were figures of interest who were meeting with Allen Dulles. They had no, you know, obvious reason to be meeting with a “retired” CIA official. The weekend of Kennedy’s assassination, Allen Dulles is not at home watching television like the rest of America. He’s at a remote CIA facility, two years after being pushed out of the agency by Kennedy, called The Farm, in northern Virginia, that he used when he was director of the CIA as a kind of an alternate command post. Well, he’s there while Kennedy is killed, after Kennedy is killed, when Jack Ruby then kills Lee Harvey Oswald. That whole fateful weekend, he’s hunkered down in a CIA command post. So, there are many odd circumstances like this.

I also found out from interviewing the children of another former CIA official that one of the key figures of interest in the Kennedy assassination, a guy named William Harvey, who was head of the CIA-Mafia plot against Castro and hated the Kennedys, thought that they were weak and so on, he was seen leaving his Rome station and flying to Dallas, by his own deputy, on an airplane early in November 1963. This is a remarkable sighting, because to place someone like William Harvey, the head of the CIA’s assassination unit, put there by Allen Dulles, in Dallas in November of ’63 before the assassination is a very important fact. The CIA, by the way, refuses, even at this late date, to release the travel vouchers for people like William Harvey. Under the JFK Records Act, that was passed back in the 1990s, they are compelled by federal law to release all documents related to the Kennedy assassination, but they’re still withholding over 1,100 of these documents, including—and I—

AMY GOODMAN: Fifteen seconds.

DAVID TALBOT: I used the Freedom of Information Act to try and get the travel vouchers for William Harvey. They’re still holding onto them.

AMY GOODMAN: How many calls are you getting in the mainstream media to do interviews?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, thank God, I was saying earlier, for alternative media, like this, Amy, because there is resistance to this book. First of all, I call out the mainstream media. I say that New York Times, CBS, Washington Post, Newsweek, they were all under his thumb. They did his bidding.

AMY GOODMAN: Whose thumb?

DAVID TALBOT: Allen Dulles’s thumb. So, when the Warren Report came out, I was saying that one of the editors, top editors, at Newsweek wrote to him and said, “Thank you so much, Mr. Dulles, for helping shape our coverage of the Warren Report.” Well, of course, Allen Dulles was on the Warren Commission. In fact, some people thought it should have been called the Dulles Commission, because he dominated it so much. So, you know, it’s way too cozy, the relationship between Washington power and the media. And—

AMY GOODMAN: What was the relationship between Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, and Allen Dulles, the head of the CIA?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, they were social friends, not just him, but other members of the Sulzberger family. I found, you know, cozy correspondence between them, congratulating him when he was inaugurated, Dulles, as CIA director. They called him “Ally,” one of the Sulzberger families, in one letter. They would get together, you know, every year. Dulles would hold these media sort of drink fests for New Year’s. And these were, you know, top reporters, top editors, would get together with the CIA guys and rub elbows and get a little drunk. And, you know, when Allen Dulles didn’t want a reporter, because he felt he was being overly aggressive, covering, say, Guatemala—Sydney Gruson, the reporter—in the run-up to the coup there in 1954, he had—he made a call to The New York Times and had him removed. That was because of his relationship with Sulzberger, the publisher. So, that was the kind of pull that Allen Dulles had.

AMY GOODMAN: How did that work?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, they just took him out. They removed Gruson. They transferred him, I think to Mexico, at that point.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you compare Smedley Butler, the general, who was—called himself, what? A racketeer for capitalism, when he was asked to overthrow countries and said no—

DAVID TALBOT: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —to Allen Dulles?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, one’s a hero, and one’s a villain, to put it pure and simple. Smedley Darlington Butler, who I’ve also written about—I wrote an illustrated history, for readers of all ages, called Devil Dog. Smedley was an American hero. He was a guy who joined the Marines at 16, didn’t know any better, ran off all around the world fighting America’s imperial wars from China to throughout Latin America, ended up in France during World War I. And by the time he was a middle-aged man, he had seen the kind of dirty work that was done by America’s soldiers in the name of American business interests. And he said he was like Al Capone. He said, “We marines were like Al Capone, except that Al Capone couldn’t even measure up to us, the kind of thuggery that we were capable of, that we committed in America’s name throughout Latin America, particularly.”

AMY GOODMAN: And wasn’t it just not through Latin America, like overthrowing Árbenz, but wasn’t the Pitcairn family in the United States involved with attempting a coup against FDR and wanted to recruit Smedley Butler to do it?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, that’s what—as I write in my book, that it was his great moment of heroism, because he was a hero to soldiers, to the rank and file. He had spoken to the famous Bonus Army March, where World War I veterans were demanding pay for the time they had lost when they were overseas. He spoke before them. It was a very controversial thing he did as a retired officer, retired general from the Marines. And so, because he was so popular with the rank and file, when a number of corporate families like the DuPonts and others became furious at FDR for being a class traitor, as they called him, and pushing through these Wall Street reforms and other things that were infuriating them, they went to—representatives of theirs went to Smedley Butler and said, “Would you lead a march again, like the Bonus Army March on Washington? But this time we want them to be armed, the soldiers to be armed.” Essentially, “Will you lead a coup against Franklin Roosevelt?” And instead of going along with this, he went before Congress and outed this plot.

AMY GOODMAN: And who were the families? Who were the—

DAVID TALBOT: Well, DuPonts were one of them. The family that owned Remington, the arms factory, was also involved. A number of these people were clients of the Dulleses. Foster Dulles, by the way, John Foster Dulles, who later became secretary of state, ran the Wall Street firm Sullivan & Cromwell. When FDR starts to push through some of these reforms, like the Security Exchange Commission and others, Glass-Steagall, he convenes all his wealthy clients in his office on Wall Street and says, “Just ignore this. We’ll resist this. We won’t go along with these reforms.”

AMY GOODMAN: The Nazis? Very quickly.

DAVID TALBOT: The Nazis, well, they have a very tight relationship, many Nazi businessmen, with the Dulles brothers. And when Allen Dulles was in Switzerland, supposedly working for our side, the OSS, during the war, he was actually using that to meet with a lot of Nazis and to cut separate deals with them. He did indeed finally cut a separate peace deal with the Nazi forces in Italy against FDR’s wishes. FDR had a policy of unconditional surrender. Don’t—

AMY GOODMAN: This was Operation Paperclip?

DAVID TALBOT: This was Operation Sunrise, was this deal that he made. And then he set up these rat-lines, so-called, where Nazis, leading Nazi war criminals, escaped after the war through the Alps in Switzerland, down into Italy and then overseas to Latin America and even in the United States. One of the key Nazis he saved was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s former chief of intelligence, who he installed, Dulles, as head of West German intelligence after the war, a man who should have stood trial at Nuremberg.

AMY GOODMAN: Who turned you down?

DAVID TALBOT: You know, well, Politico was one. Politico, you know, one of the leading publications, online publications and a print publication, you know, had—I was supposed to write something for them there. Instead, they went with a piece by, as I say, a former New York Times guy named Phil Shenon, based on leaked CIA documents that basically pin the Kennedy assassination on Fidel Castro. This is absurd. Fidel Castro, when he heard about Kennedy’s assassination, crumpled. He knew that Kennedy was trying to open back channels with him to establish peace between Cuba and the United States, years before Obama finally did. In fact, Jean Daniel, who was a French reporter, was with Fidel, at Kennedy’s behest, in Havana, basically carrying this olive branch to Fidel from Kennedy, when they got the terrible news from Dallas.

AMY GOODMAN: Who do you think killed John Kennedy?

DAVID TALBOT: Well, I believe what Robert Kennedy believed. Robert Kennedy, as I showed in my book earlier, Brothers, and in this book, looked immediately at the killing team that was put together by the CIA to kill Fidel Castro. That CIA killing team, I think, was responsible for killing President Kennedy, as well. That team that was killing foreign leaders, that was targeting foreign leaders, that Dulles had assembled, including men like William Harvey, Howard Hunt, David Morales—these were all key figures of suspicion by Congress during the House Assassinations Committee investigation in the ’70s. That was the team that was brought to Dallas. I now identify those men. A couple of them admitted—Howard Hunt, on his death bed, admitted that he was involved in the Kennedy assassination, and the mainstream media completely overlooked this shocking—

AMY GOODMAN: Howard Hunt, who was Watergate.

DAVID TALBOT: He was the leader of the Watergate break-in and a legendary CIA action officer, and very close to Allen Dulles, revered Allen Dulles. On his death bed, he revealed that he was part of that plot. Again, 60 Minutes looked at it and then walked away. I know a lot about this story. But the media has been, I think, shockingly remiss in not looking into this investigation. It’s a taboo subject. But it’s clear—I think I present overwhelming evidence that Allen Dulles was complicit in this, in the assassination of the president. And he conveniently ran the investigation into the president’s murder, because he strong-armed President Johnson into appointing him to the Warren Commission, where he became the dominant figure.

AMY GOODMAN: David Talbot, author of the new book, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Governmen

URL = http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

In the years since Columbine, school shootings changed; they became ritualized.

In the years since Columbine, school shootings changed; they became ritualized.
Credit Illustration by Oliver Munday

On the evening of April 29th last year, in the southern Minnesota town of Waseca, a woman was doing the dishes when she looked out her kitchen window and saw a young man walking through her back yard. He was wearing a backpack and carrying a fast-food bag and was headed in the direction of the MiniMax Storage facility next to her house. Something about him didn’t seem right. Why was he going through her yard instead of using the sidewalk? He walked through puddles, not around them. He fiddled with the lock of Unit 129 as if he were trying to break in. She called the police. A group of three officers arrived and rolled up the unit’s door. The young man was standing in the center. He was slight of build, with short-cropped brown hair and pale skin. Scattered around his feet was an assortment of boxes and containers: motor oil, roof cement, several Styrofoam coolers, a can of ammunition, a camouflage bag, and cardboard boxes labeled “red iron oxide,” filled with a red powder. His name was John LaDue. He was seventeen years old.

One of the officers started to pat LaDue down. According to the police report, “LaDue immediately became defensive, stating that it is his storage unit and asked what I was doing and pulling away.” The officers asked him to explain what he was up to. LaDue told them to guess. Another of the officers, Tim Schroeder, said he thought LaDue was making bombs. LaDue admitted that he was, but said that he didn’t want to talk about it in the storage locker. The four went back to the Waseca police station, and LaDue and Schroeder sat down together with a tape recorder between them. “What’s going on today, John?” Schroeder asked. LaDue replied, “It’s going to be hard for me to talk about.” The interview began at 7:49 P.M. It continued for almost three hours.

He was making Molotov cocktails, LaDue said, but a deadlier variant of the traditional kind, using motor oil and tar instead of gasoline. From there, he intended to move on to bigger and more elaborate pressure-cooker bombs, of the sort used by the Tsarnaev brothers at the Boston Marathon bombing. “There are far more things out in that unit than meet the eye,” he told Schroeder, listing various kinds of explosive powder, thousands of ball bearings, pipes for pipe bombs, fifteen pounds of potassium perchlorate, nine pounds of aluminum powder, and “magnesium ribbon and rust which I use to make thermite, which burns at five thousand degrees Celsius.”

Schroeder asked him what his intentions were.
“I have a notebook under my bed that explains it,” LaDue replied.
Schroeder: “O.K. Can you talk to me about those intentions that are in the notebook?”
LaDue: “O.K. Sometime before the end of the school year, my plan was to steal a recycling bin from the school and take one of the pressure cookers I made and put it in the hallway and blow it up during passing period time. . . . I would detonate when people were fleeing, just like the Boston bombings, and blow them up too. Then my plans were to enter and throw Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs and destroy everyone and then when the SWAT comes I would destroy myself.”

In his bedroom, he had an SKS assault rifle with sixty rounds of ammunition, a Beretta 9-mm. handgun, a gun safe with an additional firearm, and three ready-made explosive devices. On the day of the attack, he would start with a .22-calibre rifle and move on to a shotgun, in order to prove that high-capacity assault-style rifles were unnecessary for an effective school attack.

Schroeder: “Do you have brothers and sisters?”

LaDue: “Yes, I have a sister. She’s one year older than me.”

Schroeder: “O.K. She goes to school too?”

LaDue: “Yes.”

Schroeder: “She’s a senior?”

LaDue: “She is.”

Schroeder: “O.K. So you would have done this stuff while she was at school as well?”

LaDue: “I forgot to mention a detail. Before that day, I was planning to dispose of my family too.”

Schroeder: “Why would you dispose of your family? What, what have they done?”

LaDue: “They did nothing wrong. I just wanted as many victims as possible.”

On February 2, 1996, in Moses Lake, Washington, a fourteen-year-old named Barry Loukaitis walked into Frontier Middle School dressed in a black duster and carrying two handguns, seventy-eight rounds of ammunition, and a hunting rifle. He killed two students and wounded a third before shooting his algebra teacher in the back. In the next two years, there were six more major incidents, in quick succession: sixteen-year-old Evan Ramsey, in Bethel, Alaska; sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham, in Pearl, Mississippi; fourteen-year-old Michael Carneal, in West Paducah, Kentucky; thirteen-year-old Mitchell Johnson and eleven-year-old Andrew Golden, in Jonesboro, Arkansas; fourteen-year-old Andrew Wurst, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania; and fifteen-year-old Kip Kinkel, in Springfield, Oregon. In April of 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched their infamous attack on Columbine High, in Littleton, Colorado, and from there the slaughter has continued, through the thirty-two killed and seventeen wounded by Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, in 2007; the twenty-six killed by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in 2012; and the nine killed by Christopher Harper-Mercer earlier this month at Umpqua Community College, in Oregon. Since Sandy Hook, there have been more than a hundred and forty school shootings in the United States.

School shootings are a modern phenomenon. There were scattered instances of gunmen or bombers attacking schools in the years before Barry Loukaitis, but they were lower profile. School shootings mostly involve young white men. And, not surprisingly, given the ready availability of firearms in the United States, the phenomenon is overwhelmingly American. But, beyond those facts, the great puzzle is how little school shooters fit any kind of pattern.

Evan Ramsey, who killed his mother and then walked into his high school with a 12-gauge shotgun, had a chaotic home life. His mother was an alcoholic who lived with a series of violent men. In one two-year stretch, he lived in ten foster homes and was both sexually and physically abused. When Evan was six, his father sent an ad to the local newspaper which it declined to publish, so he packed two guns, chained the door of the newspaper, set off smoke grenades, and held the publisher at gunpoint.

But Kip Kinkel, who shot his parents, then killed two others and wounded twenty-five at his high school, had not been traumatized. He had a loving family. He was the child of schoolteachers so beloved that seventeen hundred people came to their memorial service. Kinkel was psychotic: he thought the Chinese were preparing to attack the United States, that Disney had plans for world domination, and that the government had placed a computer chip inside his head.

Meanwhile, the architect of the Columbine killings, Eric Harris, was a classic psychopath. He was charming and manipulative. He was a habitual lawbreaker: he stole, vandalized, bought guns illegally, set off homemade bombs, and at one point hacked into his school’s computer system. He wrote “Ich bin Gott”—German for “I am God”—in his school planner. His journals were filled with fantasies about rape and mutilation: “I want to tear a throat out with my own teeth like a pop can. I want to gut someone with my hand, to tear a head off and rip out the heart and lungs from the neck, to stab someone in the gut, shove it up to their heart.” A school shooter, it appears, could be someone who had been brutally abused by the world or someone who imagined that the world brutally abused him or someone who wanted to brutally abuse the world himself.

The LaDue case does not resolve this puzzle. LaDue doesn’t hear voices. He isn’t emotional or malicious or angry or vindictive. Schroeder asks him about violent games, and he says he hasn’t been playing them much recently. Then they talk about violent music, and LaDue says he’s been playing guitar for eight years and has little patience for the “retarded” music of “bands like Bullet for My Valentine or Asking Alexandria or some crap like that.” He likes Metallica: solid, normal, old-school heavy metal. “I was not bullied at all,” LaDue tells Schroeder. “I don’t think I have ever been bullied in my life. . . . I have good parents. I live in a good town.”

When the interview is concluded, the police drive over to see LaDue’s parents. They live a few minutes away, in a tidy two-story stucco house on a corner lot. The LaDues are frantic. It is 10:30 P.M., and their son is never out past nine on a school night. His mother is trying to track him down on her laptop through his cell-phone account. They are calling all the people he has most recently texted, trying to find him. Then the police arrive with the news that their son has threatened to kill his family and blow up Waseca High School—and the LaDues are forced to account for a fact entirely outside their imagining. No, his son has never been diagnosed with mental illness or depression, David LaDue, John’s father, tells the police. He isn’t taking any medication. He’s never expressed a desire to hurt anyone. He spends a lot of time in front of his computer looking at YouTube videos. He likes to experiment with what his father calls his “interesting devices.” He wears a lot of black. Isn’t that what teen-agers do? David LaDue is desperate to come up with something—anything—to make sense of what he has just been told. “David told me that after his son had stayed with his brother for a couple of months at the beginning of last summer, he had returned proclaiming to be an atheist, stating that he no longer believed in religion,” the police report says.

Then:
David LaDue also spoke of an incident when Austin Walters and John LaDue had gone deer hunting. John had reportedly shot a deer that had not died right away and had to be “finished off.” David LaDue stated that he heard that Austin’s cell phone was used to make a video of the deer that he felt was inappropriate, although he had never seen the video. David LaDue showed me a photo on his laptop of John LaDue leering, holding a semi-automatic rifle next to a deer that had been killed. David LaDue pointed to the picture stating that “this” was the facial expression he was talking about that he thought was concerning.

It is the best he can do.
It was the best anyone could do that night. Waseca is a community of some ten thousand people amid the cornfields of southern Minnesota: one high school, a Walmart, a beautiful lake just outside town. Minneapolis is well over an hour away. There was simply no room, in anyone’s cultural understanding, for the acts John LaDue was describing. By the end, a kind of fatigue seemed to set in, and the normal codes of Midwestern civility reasserted themselves. All that the interrogation or confession or conversation—whatever it was—between Schroeder and LaDue seems to have established is that we need a new way to make sense of the school-shooting phenomenon.

Schroeder: “Until we can figure out, ah, what exactly is where we are all at, we’re just going to take you up and, um, put you in a cell, or holding cell for the time being, until we can get it figured out.”

LaDue: “O.K.”

Schroeder: “O.K.”

LaDue: “Hmm, hmm.”

Cartoon

Buy the print »

Schroeder: “I’ll let you put your shoes on. Yah, I’ll hold on to your phone for now. . . . All right. Before we, I’ll let you put your shoes on.”

LaDue: “I’m wearing contacts by the way. What should I do with them?”

Schroeder: “You can keep them in.”

LaDue: “O.K. . . . Are you going to handcuff me?”

Schroeder: “I am going to cuff ya.”

LaDue: [inaudible]

Schroeder: “I’m going to double pat you down again.”

Then, almost apologetically, he adds, “I know I already did once.”

In a famous essay published four decades ago, the Stanford sociologist Mark Granovetter set out to explain a paradox: “situations where outcomes do not seem intuitively consistent with the underlying individual preferences.” What explains a person or a group of people doing things that seem at odds with who they are or what they think is right? Granovetter took riots as one of his main examples, because a riot is a case of destructive violence that involves a great number of otherwise quite normal people who would not usually be disposed to violence.

Most previous explanations had focussed on explaining how someone’s beliefs might be altered in the moment. An early theory was that a crowd cast a kind of intoxicating spell over its participants. Then the argument shifted to the idea that rioters might be rational actors: maybe at the moment a riot was beginning people changed their beliefs. They saw what was at stake and recalculated their estimations of the costs and benefits of taking part.

But Granovetter thought it was a mistake to focus on the decision-making processes of each rioter in isolation. In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.

Granovetter was most taken by the situations in which people did things for social reasons that went against everything they believed as individuals. “Most did not think it ‘right’ to commit illegal acts or even particularly want to do so,” he wrote, about the findings of a study of delinquent boys. “But group interaction was such that none could admit this without loss of status; in our terms, their threshold for stealing cars is low because daring masculine acts bring status, and reluctance to join, once others have, carries the high cost of being labeled a sissy.” You can’t just look at an individual’s norms and motives. You need to look at the group.

His argument has a second implication. We misleadingly use the word “copycat” to describe contagious behavior—implying that new participants in an epidemic act in a manner identical to the source of their infection. But rioters are not homogeneous. If a riot evolves as it spreads, starting with the hotheaded rock thrower and ending with the upstanding citizen, then rioters are a profoundly heterogeneous group.

Finally, Granovetter’s model suggests that riots are sometimes more than spontaneous outbursts. If they evolve, it means they have depth and length and a history. Granovetter thought that the threshold hypothesis could be used to describe everything from elections to strikes, and even matters as prosaic as how people decide it’s time to leave a party. He was writing in 1978, long before teen-age boys made a habit of wandering through their high schools with assault rifles. But what if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is to go back and use the Granovetterian model—to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?

The first seven major shooting cases—Loukaitis, Ramsey, Woodham, Carneal, Johnson and Golden, Wurst, and Kinkel—were disconnected and idiosyncratic. Loukaitis was obsessed with Stephen King’s novel “Rage” (written under King’s pseudonym Richard Bachman), about a high-school student who kills his algebra teacher with a handgun. Kip Kinkel, on the morning of his attack, played Wagner’s “Liebestod” aria over and over. Evan Ramsey’s father thought his son was under the influence of the video game Doom. The parents of several of Michael Carneal’s victims sued the makers and distributors of the movie “The Basketball Diaries.”

Then came Columbine. The sociologist Ralph Larkin argues that Harris and Klebold laid down the “cultural script” for the next generation of shooters. They had a Web site. They made home movies starring themselves as hit men. They wrote lengthy manifestos. They recorded their “basement tapes.” Their motivations were spelled out with grandiose specificity: Harris said he wanted to “kick-start a revolution.” Larkin looked at the twelve major school shootings in the United States in the eight years after Columbine, and he found that in eight of those subsequent cases the shooters made explicit reference to Harris and Klebold. Of the eleven school shootings outside the United States between 1999 and 2007, Larkin says six were plainly versions of Columbine; of the eleven cases of thwarted shootings in the same period, Larkin says all were Columbine-inspired.

Along the same lines, the sociologist Nathalie E. Paton has analyzed the online videos created by post-Columbine shooters and found a recurring set of stylized images: a moment where the killer points his gun at the camera, then at his own temple, and then spreads his arms wide with a gun in each hand; the closeup; the wave goodbye at the end. “School shooters explicitly name or represent each other,” she writes. She mentions one who “refers to Cho as a brother-in-arms”; another who “points out that his cultural tastes are like those of ‘Eric and Dylan’ ”; a third who “uses images from the Columbine shooting surveillance camera and devotes several videos to the Columbine killers.” And she notes, “This aspect underlines the fact that the boys actively take part in associating themselves to a group.”

Larkin and Paton are describing the dynamics of Granovetter’s threshold model of group behavior. Luke Woodham, the third in this progression, details in his journal how he and a friend tortured his dog, Sparkle: “I will never forget the howl she made. It sounded almost human. We laughed and hit her hard.” A low-threshold participant like Woodham didn’t need anyone to model his act of violence for him: his imagination was more than up to the task.

But compare him to a post-Columbine shooter like Darion Aguilar, the nineteen-year-old who last year killed two people in a skate shop in a Maryland shopping mall before killing himself. Aguilar wanted to be a chef. He had a passion for plant biology. He was quiet, but not marginalized or bullied. “He was a good person. He always believe[d] in inner peace,” a friend of his told the Washington Post. “He was just a really funny guy.” In the months before the shooting, he went to a doctor, complaining of hearing voices—but his voices were, according to police, “non-specific, non-violent and really not directing him to do anything.” The kid who wants to be a chef and hears “non-specific, non-violent” voices requires a finely elaborated script in order to carry out his attack. That’s what Paton and Larkin mean: the effect of Harris and Klebold’s example was to make it possible for people with far higher thresholds—boys who would ordinarily never think of firing a weapon at their classmates—to join in the riot. Aguilar dressed up like Eric Harris. He used the same weapons as Harris. He wore a backpack like Harris’s. He hid in the changing room of the store until 11:14 a.m.—the precise time when the Columbine incident began—and then came out shooting. A few months later, Aaron Ybarra walked onto the campus of Seattle Pacific University and shot three people, one fatally. Afterward, he told police that he could never have done it without “the guidance of, of Eric Harris and Seung-Hui Cho in my head. . . .Especially, Eric Harris, he was a, oh, man he was a master of all shooters.”

Between Columbine and Aaron Ybarra, the riot changed: it became more and more self-referential, more ritualized, more and more about identification with the school-shooting tradition. Eric Harris wanted to start a revolution. Aguilar and Ybarra wanted to join one. Harris saw himself as a hero. Aguilar and Ybarra were hero-worshippers.

Now imagine that the riot takes a big step further along the progression—to someone with an even higher threshold, for whom the group identification and immersion in the culture of school shooting are even more dominant considerations. That’s John LaDue. “There is one that you probably never heard of like back in 1927 and his name was Arthur Kehoe,” LaDue tells Schroeder. “He killed like forty-five with, like, dynamite and stuff.” Ybarra was a student of Virginia Tech and Columbine. LaDue is a scholar of the genre, who speaks of his influences the way a budding filmmaker might talk about Fellini or Bergman. “The other one was Charles Whitman. I don’t know if you knew who that was. He was who they called the sniper at the Austin Texas University. He was an ex-marine. He got like sixteen, quite impressive.”

LaDue had opinions. He didn’t like the “cowards” who would shoot themselves as soon as the police showed up. He disapproved of Adam Lanza, because he shot kindergartners at Sandy Hook instead of people his own age: “That’s just pathetic. Have some dignity, damn it.” He didn’t like some “shaking schizophrenic dude you’d look at in class and move away from.” He preferred a certain subtlety, “someone you’d say, I never knew he would do something like that. Someone you would not suspect.” One person fit the bill: “My number one idol is Eric Harris. . . . I think I just see myself in him. Like he would be the kind of guy I’d want to be with. Like, if I knew him, I just thought he was cool.”

John LaDue was charged with four counts of attempted murder, two counts of damage to property, and six counts of possession of explosives. It did not take long, however, for the case to run into difficulty. The first problem was that under Minnesota law telling a police officer of your plans to kill someone does not rise to the level of attempted murder, and the most serious of the charges against LaDue were dismissed.

The second problem was more complicated. The prosecution saw someone who wanted to be Eric Harris and plainly assumed that meant he must be like Eric Harris, that there must be a dark heart below LaDue’s benign exterior. But the lesson of the Granovetterian progression, of course, is that this isn’t necessarily true: the longer a riot goes on, the less the people who join it resemble the people who started it. As Granovetter writes, it is a mistake to assume “that if most members of a group make the same behavior decision—to join a riot, for example—we can infer from this that most ended up sharing the same norm or belief about the situation, whether or not they did at the beginning.” And this June, at a hearing where the results of LaDue’s psychiatric evaluation were presented, it became clear just how heterogeneous the riot had become.

Cartoon
“We do a lot of amazing work bringing the arts to people who don’t want the arts.”
Buy the print »

The day’s testimony began with the forensic psychologist Katheryn Cranbrook. She had interviewed LaDue for two and a half hours. She said she had examined many juveniles implicated in serious crimes, and they often had an escalating history of aggression, theft, fighting at school, and other antisocial behaviors. LaDue did not. He had, furthermore, been given the full battery of tests for someone in his position—the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), the youth version of the Psychopathy Checklists (PCL), and the Risk Sophistication Treatment Inventory (R.S.T.I.)—and the results didn’t raise any red flags. He wasn’t violent or mentally ill. His problem was something far more benign. He was simply a little off. “He has rather odd usage, somewhat overly formal language,” Cranbrook said. “He appears to lack typical relational capacity for family members. . . .He indicates that he would have completed the actions, but he doesn’t demonstrate any concern or empathy for the impact that that could have had on others.” The conclusion of all three of the psychologists who spoke at the hearing was that LaDue had a mild-to-moderate case of autism: he had an autism-spectrum disorder (A.S.D.), or what used to be called Asperger’s syndrome.

The revelation turned the case upside down. The fact that LaDue confessed to Schroeder so readily made him sound cold-blooded. But it turns out that this is typical of people on the autism spectrum in their encounters with police: their literal-mindedness leads them to answer questions directly. LaDue was fascinated—as many teen-age boys are—by guns and explosions. But he didn’t know the acceptable way to express those obsessions. “John has a tendency to say sort of jarring things without much ability to gauge their impact on people,” Mary Kenning, another of the psychologists who examined him, said at the hearing. He spoke without empathy when he discussed killing his family, which made him sound like a psychopath. But the empathy deficits of the people on the autism spectrum—which leaves them socially isolated and vulnerable to predation—are worlds apart from those of the psychopath, whose deficits are put to use in the cause of manipulation and exploitation.

Much of what is so disturbing about LaDue’s exchanges with Schroeder, in fact, is simply his version of the quintessential A.S.D. symptom of “restricted range of interests.” He’s obsessive. He insists on applying logic and analysis to things that most of us know we aren’t supposed to be logical and analytical about. What should he wear? The standard uniform for school shooters is a duster. But it didn’t make sense to wear a duster to school, LaDue explained, “because that’s a bit suspicious.” He’d store it in his locker. Where should the bombs go? Harris and Klebold had chosen the cafeteria. But LaDue felt that was too obvious—and, logistically, placing them in the hallway by the water fountains made more sense. When should he attack? April made the best sense, “because that’s the month that all the really bad tragedies happened like . . . Titanic, Columbine, Oklahoma City bombing, Boston bombing.” And what went wrong at Columbine, anyway? It was supposed to be a bomb attack. So why didn’t the devices planted by Harris and Klebold explode? “They were trying to create a circuit which would ignite some gasoline to hit the propane and cause a BLEVE—which is a boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion . . . which is basically the same thing as say a pipe bomb except with, like, gases,” LaDue patiently explained to Schroeder, before launching into a long technical digression on the relative merits of hydrazine, ammonium perchlorate, Cheddite, nitroglycerin, and flash powder. He was even more scathing about the Boston bombers’ use of pressure-cooker bombs. He thought they made a “crappy design of it.” They used nails and black powder from fireworks. It would have made far more sense to use flash powder and ball bearings, LaDue thought, because “spherical shrapnel” are “superior to nails in damage.” LaDue tells Schroeder that he has two YouTube channels devoted to his work. But anyone who watches the assembled videos expecting to see something macabre will be disappointed. They are home movies of LaDue testing whether tiny fuses will ignite when placed inside a plastic water bottle, or whether he can successfully blow a quarter-size hole in the side of a plastic playground slide. In the world before Columbine, people like LaDue played with chemistry sets in their basements and dreamed of being astronauts.

The idea that people with autism-spectrum disorders can stumble into patterns of serious criminality has a name: counterfeit deviance. It has long been an issue in cases involving A.S.D. teen-agers and child pornography. “They are intellectually intact people, with good computer skills but extraordinary brain-based naïveté, acting in social isolation, compulsively pursuing interests which often unknowingly take them into forbidden territory,” the lawyer Mark J. Mahoney writes in a recent paper. They come upon an online image that appeals to their immature sexuality and don’t understand its social and legal implications. The image might be “marked” for the rest of us, because the child is in some kind of distress. But those kinds of emotional signals are precisely what A.S.D. teen-agers struggle to understand. They start to obsessively collect similar images, not out of some twisted sexual urge but simply because that’s the way their curiosity is configured. What gets these young adults into trouble with the law “is not abnormal sexual desires,” Mahoney writes, “but their tendency to express or pursue normal interests in a manner outside social conventions.”

Was John LaDue’s deviance counterfeit? He told Cranbrook that he would have gone ahead with his plan had he not been stopped, and she believed him. The second of the psychologists to examine him, James Gilbertson, also felt that LaDue’s threat was real: his obsessive preparation had created a powerful momentum toward action. But at every turn his reluctance and ambivalence was apparent: he was the ninety-ninth person in, warily eying the rock. At one point, Schroeder asked him why, if April—as the month of Titanic, Waco, Oklahoma City, and Columbine—was so critical symbolically, he hadn’t attacked the school already. It was April 29th, after all. LaDue, who had been a model of lucidity throughout, was suddenly flustered. “Um, I wanted to do it around April, but I decided not to do it April 19th because I think, no, April 19th wouldn’t work, because that was a Saturday, I think April 14th was it, because, um, I figured I didn’t want to do it April 18th because I figured, because 4/20 was coming up”—4/20 being national marijuana day—“and I figured maybe they would have some dogs there, and find the stuff I had planted in the hallway. . . .But that’s not the case now, cause now it’s May and I just wanted to get it done before school was out.”

He had planned every aspect of the attack meticulously, except for the part where he actually launches the attack. He was uncomfortable. When Schroeder pressed him further, he came up with more excuses. “I had a cooker to buy,” he said, meaning he had yet to purchase the central component of his bombs. And then: “I had to steal a shotgun too.” He had been stalling, prolonging the planning, delaying the act. Then the two of them started talking about ammunition, and LaDue came up with a third excuse: he had bought twenty clips, but “they didn’t fit on the bolt because they were too wide and they had a feeding problem going in there.”

The low-threshold shooters were in the grip of powerful grievances. But LaDue doesn’t seem to have any real grievances. In his notebooks, instead, he seems to spend a good deal of effort trying to manufacture them from scratch. School-shooter protocol called for him to kill his parents. But he likes his parents. “He sees them as good people, loving him, caring about him,” Gilbertson said. “But he has to take their life, according to [his] manifesto, to prove that he’s up to the task, to prove he has no human feelings anymore, that he’s scrubbed out.” After he set off a minor explosion at a local playground, he wrote a letter to the police. “I guess you guys never found it,” he said of the letter. “Did you? I put it in someone’s mailbox and told them to give it to you guys, but they never did.” He seems well aware that his obsession has put him on a dangerous course. “O.K, um, first, I’d like a check from a psychiatrist or something,” he says at one point. And then again: “I just want to find out what’s wrong with me actually”; “I more just want a psychiatric test and that’s really it, though”; “I wanted to ask [for a psychologist] many times, but, obviously, I didn’t want my parents knowing about it, because I wanted to keep it under the radar.” When the three policemen showed up at his storage locker, it must have been a relief. “I figured you guys would be looking for me,” he later told police.

The John LaDue case took a final turn last month. The hearing was at the Waseca County Courthouse, a forbidding Gothic building on the main downtown strip. LaDue, dressed in an orange jumpsuit with “Waseca County Prison” stencilled on the back, was led by two marshals. He had spent the previous seventeen months in a few different juvenile facilities before being transferred, in July, to the local prison. His hair was longer. He wore thick black-framed glasses. He didn’t look at any of the spectators who had come to the hearing. The prosecutor and LaDue’s attorney announced that they had reached a new plea agreement. LaDue would plead guilty to explosives charges in exchange for an extended course of psychiatric treatment and five to ten years of probation. The judge walked him through the particulars of the plea deal, and he answered every question in a deep, oddly adult voice. He was respectful and polite, except when the prosecutor asked him if he understood the difference between an incendiary device and an explosive device. An explosive device, she added, as if she were talking to a child, was something that could “go boom.” When he answered (“Yep”), a brief flare of irritation entered his voice: Are you kidding me?

After the hearing, David LaDue stood on the sidewalk in front of the courthouse and answered questions. He is shorter and stockier than his son, forceful and direct. He said that in order to meet with John the previous evening—and discuss the plea deal—he had to work two sixteen-hour shifts in succession. He was exhausted. He was there, he said, “because I love him, I can’t let go and walk away and forget about it and put it out of my mind.” He wanted to remind the world that his son was human. “He had love,” LaDue said. “He liked affection like anybody else. I saw the expression on his face when he talked to his sister. I saw things in him that he would, certainly at that time, would have denied.” He talked about how difficult it was for men—and for teen-age boys in particular—to admit to vulnerability. “You know, he graduated at the top from Prairie Lake,” he continued, proudly, referring to the juvenile-detention facility where his son had finished his final year of high school. “He got an A in calculus. We were mailed his diploma. . . . There’s no way I could have done that.”
In the day of Eric Harris, we could try to console ourselves with the thought that there was nothing we could do, that no law or intervention or restrictions on guns could make a difference in the face of someone so evil. But the riot has now engulfed the boys who were once content to play with chemistry sets in the basement. The problem is not that there is an endless supply of deeply disturbed young men who are willing to contemplate horrific acts. It’s worse. It’s that young men no longer need to be deeply disturbed to contemplate horrific acts. ♦

Sign up for the daily newsletter: the best of The New Yorker every day

Run-first Rams’ struggle go beyond the basics

Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/21977/run-first-rams-struggles-go-beyond-the-basics

EARTH CITY, Mo. — The St. Louis Rams’ offseason left zero doubt about the offensive identity they were trying to forge.

In drafting running back Todd Gurley No. 10 overall and five offensive linemen, coach Jeff Fisher made it clear he wanted to get back to the type of dominant running game that was a hallmark of some of his Tennessee teams.

Even with a new coordinator, a new running back and three new starters on the offensive line, the Rams hoped they’d be able to adapt well enough to run the ball effectively early in the season. Run blocking in the NFL is widely believed an easier adjustment for young linemen.

But you wouldn’t know it from watching the Rams. Three weeks into the season, they are 30th in the league in rushing attempts. That would indicate that there’s not much of a commitment to the run but the reality is that the Rams haven’t run much because they haven’t had much success doing it.

So, what do you make of a run-first team that can’t run the ball?

“If we’re going to have this type of team be successful, we have to get the run game going,” guard Rodger Saffold said.

So far, the Rams have gained just 214 rushing yards (29th in the NFL) with an average of 3.75 yards per carry (21st). And while those numbers aren’t good enough in their own right, they’re actually buoyed by production from quarterback Nick Foles and receivers like Tavon Austin and Chris Givens.

The Rams’ primary running backs (not including Austin) are last in the NFL in attempts (42), yards (111), touchdowns (0), and yards before contact (54). They’re second to last in yards per carry (31st) and yards after contact per rush (1.09).

So how did the Rams end up in this spot? It’s not as simple as just blocking better and running harder.

Earlier this week, I asked Fisher if he believed the change in offensive scheme under coordinator Frank Cignetti, particularly in the run game, has been a factor in the slow start.

“No, I mean, we’ve added a couple of things over last year,” Fisher said. “But I think in the long run we’re going to benefit from it. It’s going to help us.”

When Fisher says a “couple of things” he’s referring to the team’s added reliance on outside zone concepts. Saying “a couple of things” would indicate that the changes have been small but the Rams have leaned heavily on the use of outside zone. They’re still mixing in some man blocking plays but the zone seems to be where it’s all headed when (if?) everything comes together.

Outside zone run plays ask something different of each player. For offensive linemen, it’s about moving laterally and pushing defenders aside to create cutback lanes. It’s imperative for them to get to the second-level to block linebackers and there’s a premium placed on technique and taking proper angles.

For running backs, it’s about staying “on track” by remaining patient, waiting for the right hole to open up and then pressing it at the right time. A hole that might initially look like the right one isn’t necessarily going to be it as the back tries to get linebackers flowing in a certain direction before hitting one cut and taking off.

“It starts with their footwork, pressing their reads,” offensive coordinator Frank Cignetti said. “The line can do a great job, but if the running back’s not in sync, it won’t matter. It takes all 11 guys to function as one. We talk about it every day. So, in the running game, the running back has to have his core set right, trust what he sees and be a decisive one-cut runner.”

On the surface, it sounds simple enough but the Rams have a number of players who have never run the scheme. Chief among the newcomers is Gurley, who said Georgia has zone concepts but never really used them.

“It’s a new thing we put in,” Gurley said. “It just takes repetition and you just keep getting reps at it and looking at other teams’ outside zone schemes and learning from that and watching film with the O-line. We’ll get it down pat and get this thing rolling soon.

“[It] definitely [requires] patience and getting those backers to flow, stretching the D end, making sure you are pressing the track and making that cut at the heels of the line.”

When those plays don’t work, it can result in little or lost yardage which is why Rams running backs average just 1.29 yards per rush before contact. That number is put in better perspective when you see that they average 2.67 yards per attempt as a team. In other words, the running backs are often getting hit before they start running north and south while some of the jet sweeps and scrambles have yielded bigger gains before anyone gets touched.

Perhaps overlooked in the process is the fullback, Cory Harkey, who is often asked to set the “track” (the path for the runner to follow) for the tailback.

“In our offense, the fullback is considered the bus driver,” Harkey said. “We are kind of trying to see everything out and yes, there are times where you would like to see the running back follow the fullback but realistically in the outside zone, our job is to get those ‘backers flowing so that way the running backs can really stretch it and make one cut and go.”

The Rams believe they aren’t far away from the day when that one cut will lead to the back going for big gains. The belief is that they’ll then be multiple enough in the run game to keep defenses guessing and use the run game to open up everything else.

“If you can run and the sack numbers are down, everything goes hand in hand,” center Tim Barnes said. “We want to have that reputation as a good running offensive line.”

The Rams have learned the hard way the first three weeks that if they are going to be run-first, they must first run well.

http://www.rams-news.com/benfred-next-three-games-will-define-rams-defense/%5DBenFred: Next Three Games will Define Rams Defense
Gregg Williams was back in good spirits Friday, joking with William Hayes after the 6-3, 278-pound defensive end tiptoed behind a pop-up partition the team uses for interviews and mimicked the defensive coordinator’s comments to reporters.

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-practice-report-925-defending-the-leagues-best/%5DRams Practice Report 9/25: Defending the League’s Best
With Ben Roethlisberger, Antonio Brown, and Le’Veon Bell, the Steelers have arguably the best quarterback-wide receiver-running back trio in the league. And all three will be on display Sunday at the Edward Jones Dome when Pittsburgh comes to town.

http://www.rams-news.com/todd-gurley-i-definitely-want-to-be-out-there-video/%5DTodd Gurley: I Definitely Want to Be Out There –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/gregg-williams-its-going-to-be-fun-for-us-to-get-a-chance-to-stop-them-video/%5DGregg Williams: It’s Going to Be Fun For Us to Get A Chance to Stop Them –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/jeff-fisher-gurley-listed-as-questionable-5050-chance-of-playing-video/%5DJeff Fisher: Gurley Listed as Questionable, 50/50 Chance of Playing –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-vs-pittsburgh-steelers-rams-to-watch/%5DRams Vs. Pittsburgh Steelers: Rams To Watch
The St. Louis Rams will be hosting the Pittsburgh Steelers in what could be a surprising high scoring game. If the Rams are going to win, they need these players to have a good game.

http://www.rams-news.com/after-falling-flat-against-run-last-week-rams-now-must-face-leveon-bell-wagoner/%5DAfter Falling Flat Against Run Last Week, Rams Now Must Face Le’Veon Bell –Wagoner
Two weeks into the NFL season, Pittsburgh Steelers running back DeAngelo Williams is second in the NFL in carries (41) and rushing yards (204) and first in rushing touchdowns (three).

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-wr-brian-quick-remaining-patient-waiting-to-get-the-feel-back-wagoner/%5DRams WR Brian Quick remaining patient, waiting to get ‘the feel back’ –Wagoner
Noticeable only by his absence from the game-day roster in the first two weeks, St. Louis Rams receiver Brian Quick has been the subject of many questions as to his whereabouts.

http://www.rams-news.com/is-gurley-ready-to-go-jeff-fisher-wont-say-bernie/%5DIs Gurley Ready to Go? Jeff Fisher Won’t Say –Bernie
If the Rams are planning to give rookie running back Todd Gurley his NFL roll-out in Sunday’s home game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, don’t expect coach Jeff Fisher to blab about it.

http://www.rams-news.com/daily-bits-rams-defense-must-earn-respect-bernie/Daily Bits: Rams Defense Must Earn Respect –Bernie
In Week One, they wrestled Marshawn Lynch to the ground, prevented quarterback Russell Wilson from breaking off big plays, and held the Seattle Seahawks offense to one touchdown from scrimmage. And on the game’s final play, they stuffed Lynch for a 1-yard loss to lock down a 34-31 victory.

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-vs-steelers-shanes-select-7/%5DRams vs Steelers: Shane’s Select 7

http://www.rams-news.com/gurley-to-spark-rams-to-victory-over-steelers-video/%5DGurley to Spark Rams to Victory Over Steelers? –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/greg-cosell-rams-d-vs-steelers-o-most-fascinating-match-up-this-week-audio/%5DGreg Cosell: Rams’ D Vs. Steelers’ O Most Fascinating Match-Up This Week –Audio

http://www.rams-news.com/fisher-up-front-pittsburgh-preview-video/%5DFisher Up Front: Pittsburgh Preview–Video

http://www.rams-news.com/foles-wants-rams-fans-to-pack-edward-jones-dome-on-sunday-video/%5DFoles Wants Rams Fans to Pack Edward Jones Dome on Sunday –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/jim-thomas-strange-dynamic-surrounding-rams-lack-of-urgency-audio/%5DJim Thomas: Strange Dynamic Surrounding Rams’ Lack of Urgency –Audio

Quick working his way back into receiving mix for Rams

NORM SANDERS

http://www.bnd.com/sports/nfl/st-louis-rams/article36351174.html

When the media isn’t trying to pin St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher down on the debut of rookie running back Todd Gurley, another popular question is the status of wide receiver Brian Quick.

Quick, coming off shoulder surgery that shortened his 2014 season, has been inactive for each of the first two games. The Rams’ passing attack had much more success in the season-opening overtime win over Seattle than it did Sunday in the loss to Washington, but a healthy Quick would definitely provide another viable weapon.

“He just needs to keep practicing. Just be patient,” Fisher said Wednesday. “He understands that we have to go to 46 (players) and it’s a numbers game. He’s in much better shape right now than he was a few weeks ago, so it’s nothing structurally or physically to do with his shoulder at this point.”

Quick agreed, saying he has been at 100 percent for two months. The 2012 second-round pick out of Appalachian State was well on his way to a breakout season a year ago before suffering a shoulder injury Oct. 26 against Kansas City that required season-ending surgery.

Quick still set new career highs with 25 catches for 375 yards and three touchdowns and now is eager to work his way back into the lineup.

“It’s just being patient and preparing out there every day,” Quick said. “I’m going to be ready whenever the time comes.”

Rams rookie RB Todd Gurley pushing toward return

Fisher isn’t ready to put a timetable on when that will be.

“It’s like anybody that’s missed a significant part of the offseason program and was limited in training camp, you’re going to be a little bit behind,” Fisher said. “That’s his only issue. So I’d like to think he’s caught up by this point.”

Throughout training camp, Quick wore a yellow “no contact” hat over his helmet, another sign that he might be a not quite ready for prime-time player.

The current wide receiver group includes Kenny Britt (four catches, 81 yards, one TD), Stedman Bailey (four catches, 58 yards), Tavon Austin (three catches, four yards), Chris Givens (one catch seven yards) and special teams ace Bradley Marquez.

Rams quarterback Nick Foles’ top receiver has been tight end Jared Cook, who has 10 catches for 132 yards. Cook led the Rams with 52 receptions a year ago.

“I missed a lot last year,” Quick said. “I’ve still got to get in the flow of things. I did camp. but I did it with the yellow hat and the defense wasn’t able to tackle me or give me any contact.”

Rams offensive coordinator Frank Cignetti didn’t shed any further light on Quick’s situation.

“You look at him going through individual and all the group work. ‘Quickie’s’ made strides,” Cignetti said. “He’s doing a really nice job out there.”

9/23/15

Rams Head Coach Jeff Fisher

(On having Tom Mack and Jack Youngblood visit today)
“Yeah, it’s always good…since we’ve got here, we’ve opened the doors to all the alums and they take advantage of it. It’s great to have them around. They’re not the first, not going to be the last. It’s really nice to spend some time with them. It’s a lot of good football there between the two of those players. A lot of Pro Bowls.”

(On how practice went today)
“Today was fun. Was a good day. Padded up, got some work done. Worked on the run game, worked on stopping the run. I thought it was a good day overall.”

(On what WR Brian Quick needs to show him to play on gameday)
“He just needs to keep practicing. Just be patient. He understands that we have to go to 46 (players) and it’s a numbers game. He’s in much better shape right now than he was a few weeks ago, so it’s nothing structurally or physically to do with his shoulder at this point.”

(On how Quick is handling the adversity)
“It’s like anybody that’s missed a significant part of the offseason program and was limited in training camp, you’re going to be a little bit behind. That’s his only issue. So I’d like to think he’s caught up by this point.”

(On Steelers Head Coach Mike Tomlin’s request to know if RB Todd Gurley is playing this weekend)
“You guys just have him give me a call. I’ll talk to him. I’d rather talk to him in person.”

(On how much RB Todd Gurley has improved this week)
“He’s had two good days. He had a good day today in pads and he had a good day in the three-quarter speed practice yesterday. So he’ll get a day off tomorrow and we’ll see how he is Friday.”

(On if Gurley will get more reps this week)
“He had a good day today, so I’m not counting his reps.”

(On why WR Chris Givens isn’t receiving the ball as much)
“It’s a by-product of just our offense. We didn’t have a lot of opportunities because of the self-inflicted wounds last weekend, so we didn’t have very many plays. He’ll be part of our offense.”

(On if he’s spent extra time this week preparing for the Steelers 2-point conversion attempts)
“I mean since the rule changed, we’ve been spending considerable time on the two-points, in the meetings and on the practice field. They converted their first two then missed their first extra point of the game, so we have to expect that they’re going to attempt to go for two. But teams don’t typically repeat their two-point plays, so they’re creative and they come up with new ones. So we just have to prepare our defense to be ready for anything.”

(On how many classic Steeler defense traits does he see on display even with the new defensive leadership in Pittsburgh)
“Well you see it all up front. It’s continued with the same system – a few minor tweaks. But you see the aggressive, firm, shock-and-shed approach with the front seven. Their secondary has always been well-coached, regardless of who’s been playing.”

(On what he’s seen from LB Ryan Shazier)
“He’s a good football player. He’s got great speed and he’s really, really smart. I remember going through the draft process. He’s highly intelligent, he gets it, he understands, he’s always getting to the right place. He’s hard to get blocked, too. He’s usually one of those unblocked guys that arrives at the ball carrier.”

(On what makes Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger so good)
“He’s stayed healthy. He’s in his third year of the system now. He’s got great people around him. He’ll extend plays. He’s not looking to run, but he’s looking to buy time and push the ball down the field. Their run game, their short passing game, their screen game, sets up their deep passing game. He’s got a deep arm. He’s one of those guys in the league, one of those rare guys that can throw it a mile and he throws it with accuracy.”

(On if he would like to go for more two point conversions)
“If we score some touchdowns and we might go for two. Touchdowns are the issue right now, it’s not the extra point.”

(On why Roethlisberger is so tough to sack)
“He’s just got exceptionally strong lower body strength. He can shed, he twists and torques and sheds off defenders. He’s always been that way.”

(On what he’s seen from DT Aaron Donald since he’s had him here with the Rams)
“Nothing different. Mike’s (Tomlin) on the competition committee and he commented in several of the meetings early this offseason that he’d seen Aaron in there in late January, early February every day. He just gets up in the morning and goes to work and works out. He’s all about business. It’s certainly paid off for him.”

(On what steps the offense has made this week)
“Well, we still have some work to do throughout the rest of the week, but we’re not, not scoring on purpose. We’re working to do those things. We’ve just faced two pretty good defenses. You stress the importance of getting better every day and improving and minimizing the mistakes and making the plays when you get the opportunities. Our offensive touchdowns are a team, it’s a byproduct of the team, too. It’s not just offense, it’s the defense not getting the ball back, it’s the special teams not getting field position, all of those things.”

(On how much the work ethic in a player can be the edge)
“It’s a difference. You see it over the years. The great ones that come through that play a long time that are perennial Pro Bowlers, they just don’t do it based on God-given ability. They do it as a result of hard work and preparation and dedication and all of those coaching clichés. That’s what Aaron does. Aaron is about football. He loves the game. He studies the game. He studies each and every opponent – individual opponent. He understands our system and he’s been blessed with that great leverage and strength quickness and he’s taking advantage of it.”

Rams Offensive Coordinator Frank Cignetti

(On how he makes amends this weekend from last week’s loss)
“Well you know what, the formula never changes. You put the last game behind you – that 24 hour rule. Then you come out here and you prepare. It starts in the classroom and then you have great meetings. You come out here, you have a great practice like we did today and you press on and you move forward. It’s all about the Steelers now.”

(On if he has had a lot to correct from last weekend’s game)
“No, there’s not a lot to fix. There’s things we’d like to fix. Regardless of how well you play or how poor you play, there’s always things you can do better in the running game, in the protection phase and in the passing game. So you’re always striving for perfection. You’re always striving to do things better.”

(On how RB Todd Gurley looks this week)
“Todd looks good.”

(On if Gurley looks better than last week)
“Yeah, I think you look at him here today he did a really nice job.”

(On what he sees from WR Brian Quick on the practice field)
“I think Brian’s doing a great job. You look at him going through individual and all the group work. ‘Quickie’s’ made strides. He’s doing a really nice job out there.”

(On what Quick has to do to play on game day)
“Well we just have to see where he is and where we are. Time will tell when it’s the right time for him to be up.”

(On if the reason Quick isn’t playing is because of stamina or strength)
“No, no. Those are questions like when you talk to Coach Fisher, those would probably be better for Coach Fisher.”

(On how big his offense needs to be this weekend)
“Well we think every week we need to be big. We have a job to do out there. We have high expectations of ourselves. We want to go out there and protect the football. We want to score points. We want to finish games.”

(On how the young offensive linemen are doing)
“I tell you what, I’ve said it every time here, I think they’re doing a good job. There’s a progression to it. Coach (Paul) Bou (Boudreau) is doing a great job with them. They’re doing a great job preparing. They come out here and practice very well, and you can see in the first two weeks that there’s progress being made.”

(On if he thinks QB Nick Foles took a step backwards from last week’s game)
“No, he didn’t take a step back. It’s tough out there. Every Sunday’s tough out there. There’s going to always be plays that the quarterback would like to have back. In our situation, you look at it, football’s a situational game. We didn’t do a very good job on third down. When you don’t convert on third down, you don’t get another set of downs.”

(On if he’s preparing as if Gurley will play this weekend)
“We always prepare for whoever’s going to be available. We come out here and we run our offense and whoever’s up, they’re prepared to go.”

(On what kind of problems the Steelers present defensively)
“Well first off, they’re a 3-4 defense. They’re a 3-4 defense that will play over and under, very good personnel, tough, physical, active, excellent sub-package, very well coached. There’s a tradition there. They have great tradition in their defense and a lot of pride.”

(On what he sees from the Steelers linebacker group)
“It’s a physical group. Active, physical, they do a great job.”

(On how closely this Steelers defense resembles what he’s seen in the past)
“Well I think (Defensive Coordinator) Coach (Keith) Butler’s doing a great job. I think you can see that there’s a resemblance.”

(On if he could see himself playing at 37 years old like Steelers LB James Harrison)
“Absolutely not.”

(On if he’s amazed when he watches Harrison on tape)
“It’s amazing. I’m amazed at almost all these athletes out here, how gifted and how talented they are.”

Rams Special Teams Coordinator John Fassel

(On the Steelers PR Antonio Brown)
“Yeah, he’s pretty easy to notice. Veteran guy that’s kind of like a lot of the best punt returners in the NFL. He’s fast, great ball skills, hard to tackle. He’ll be one of many that we face this year that are like that.”

(On if it’s unusual to see an elite receiver returning punts)
“Yeah, it really is. A credit to him is he’s still courageous and he wants to catch and he wants to run them. He’s trying to break tackles. It is unique to see a guy that’s five, six years in the league still really care that much about being good at that.”

(On if he thinks the Steelers will kick to WR Tavon Austin)
“We’re always planning on them kicking to us. If they don’t, then we adjust, but our game plan is they’re going to kick it.”

(On if it looks like the Steelers will kick it to Austin from what they’ve done in the past few games)
“Yeah, I think they will. They have a good punt team. Their coach I’m sure is confident in their ability to cover it. We have a good punt return team, so hopefully they do and we can play some football.”

(On if a punter can kick the ball and make it roll short on purpose)
“No, I mean I don’t think he’s trying to do that on purpose. We had Tavon at the yardage that we thought he’d punt it. If he punted it how we thought he would…they went straight up and straight down, not very far. Then there’s one you have a 20-25 yard roll. One went for about 14 (yards). Tavon’s decision-making is excellent. So every one of those punts, I was very happy to see he went up, didn’t try to make a catch, which could be a muff and then the giveaway…protect our field position, protect the football as best as he can and great decisions.”

(On if it’s up to Austin to try and catch short punts or let them roll)
“Yep, all the way on him. Like I said, he’s a great decision-maker. His first two years and two games in the NFL and into his third season, I thought he’s made great decisions every time he’s been back there. Those were tough balls because you want to catch them, but you just can’t because it’s a risky catch and you don’t want to risk losing possession of the football.”

(On if he would be running into the coverage by catching a short punt)
“Yeah, he’s got his eyes in the sky on the ball, and then there’s going to be 21 other bodies probably around him. So it’s a tough catch, and I think he made the right call on every single one of them.”

(On having RB Isaiah Pead returning kicks Game 1 and RB Benny Cunningham Game 2 and if he’s still looking for answers on who his returner will be in Game 3)
“No, we only had one ball to bring out against Washington. Benny Cunningham is our answer, who was excellent last year. He had been excellent in really his one return he’s had this year. He took it out eight deep. He’ll be excellent the rest of the season. Benny’s the guy and he’s going to do a good job.”

(On K Greg Zuerlein’s struggling last season against Washington and him making his field goal this year at Washington)
“It says that he’s improved. Says that’s he’s got like I’ve always said, a very strong mindset to be like a cornerback. You get burned deep, forget it and move on to the next one. What was great was it was going the same direction on the same hash, the two kicks he missed last year and it was about a 25-yard further kick. I was on the sidelines just saying he’s going to kill it. He’s going to hit it. He’s going to hit it. He went out there and he piped it. It was great for him to him to hit it, but that’s what we expected and he’s improved.”

(On if he likes what he’s seeing from his punt coverage team ever since the hiccup with Tyler Lockett against Seattle)
“Yeah, I mean that first one…he was good. He hit it right up the shoot. We lost (RB) Chase (Reynolds) early on that cover, so we kind of missed him in our fit. Two years ago the very first punt of our preseason game no.1 against Cleveland, Travis Benjamin ran it back. We learned a lot from that and we made big improvements the rest of the season. So I would hope that it’s going to kind of follow the same suit.”

(On the emergence of S Maurice Alexander the first two weeks of the season)
“Well really he’s picked up where he’s left off from last year. The first probably eight weeks last season, he was kind of…he was young. It was new to him. Then the final eight weeks of last season, he really started to ascend and became a core guy for us. Then the first two games this year, he’s been fantastic. Really kind of picked up where he left off last year, and he is a huge part of our special teams and I expect him to be one of our best.”

(On how much WR Bradley Marquez is an asset on special teams)
“It’s huge, especially from a receiver position. Not only a guy who contributes on all four phases, but a tough guy and a smart guy. He’s been a huge asset for us, especially not having (LB Daren) Bates the first game and then losing (RB) Chase (Reynolds) and not having Chase this past game. He’s kind of filled in and he’s done a really nice job.”

Rams QB Nick Foles

(On what challenges they face from the Pittsburgh defense)
“It’s a defense that everybody knows about their history of their defense. Their front seven are among the best in the league. They do a really good job of stopping the run. It’s really going to come down to execution. We need to gain yards with our running game to open everything up. That’s something that going back to the Washington game that we’ve been working on this week. It’s going to be a tough task. It’s a really talented team, so I’m looking forward to facing them.”

(On what he sees from their linebacker core that features four first round draft picks)
“They’re big guys. Like I said, they’re really good at stopping the run. Great front seven, so we’re going to have to do a good job in the passing game and really try to get them out of that box so we can run it. But, it always comes down to execution. We know what kind of talent they have, so we’ve got to go out there and do a great job with our blocking. I’ve got to do a great job with recognizing what they’re doing, making sure we’re in an appropriate play.”

(On what would be his biggest critique of himself was from last week)
“I think we just didn’t get into a rhythm. That’s on me. I’ve got to make sure to get some easy completions here and there. Football is such a rhythm game that if you can’t get into a rhythm, it’s very difficult to sustain a drive, convert on third down, keep your defense off of the field and we didn’t do a good job of converting on third down. That’s a big thing. That’s a big emphasis this week. It’s really just gaining that rhythm throughout the game and holding onto the ball to help our defense out.”

(On if they never got into a flow offensively last week)
“Yeah I think that we just shot ourselves in the foot. Maybe just the little things. We had penalties, missed throw, missed opportunities, staying behind the chains. So, we’ve got to stay within the chains to give us an opportunity on second and medium, third and short, stuff like that. That gives you a higher percentage than being in third and long.”

(On if there are things that are easily correctable)
“Yeah, nothing is really easy in this league, but it’s just something that making sure that everybody’s on the same page. Understanding why the run we’re running, what it’s designed to beat, why we’re doing it, where the hole is, stuff like that. It’s just the attention to detail that you have to continue to come back, win or lose each week. When you lose, people are going to point it out more and more. The same thing happens when you win. You don’t play perfectly and you miss things out there. So, it’s just every week detailing it up and getting better.”

(On how much difference having RB Todd Gurley would make)
“I don’t know what’s going to happen with that, that’s for (Head) Coach (Jeff) Fisher. Todd’s a talented guy. We all know what he did in college. Just having him out there, he looks great in practice. He’s looking good moving around. Great vision and just a real smooth runner.”

(On if Gurley is getting more and more work)
“Yeah, just trying to get acclimated, just trying to get his legs underneath him and getting used to running this offense. Getting used to the holes, where he’s running, stuff like that. It’s great having him out there.”

(On if he sees some potential for some opportunities in the passing game when looking at the tape)
“You definitely want to be able to pass the ball. They’re a great defense. They’re going to be studying film and ready to go, but we just have to be dialed in. Me and the receivers, tight ends, backs, in the passing game, we have to be able to pass it and move the chains. The running game is always going to complement the passing game and vice versa, so we’ve got to execute on both to sustain drives. We’ve got to really go out there and hone in this week.”

(On what WR Brian Quick can add)
“The sky is the limit for that guy. So talented, such a big receiver. His ball skills are among the best I’ve seen, just how he goes up and gets it. When he’s healthy and when he’s back out there, it’s going to be exciting. We have a great group of guys who go out there and catch balls every day. My job is just to make sure I’m putting them in a position to give them an accurate pass and give them an opportunity to be successful and show their talents. When he gets out there, it’ll be exciting.”

(On what it would mean for a young team like the Rams to beat the Steelers at home)
“Any time you can go out there and win a game in the NFL, it’s huge. It’s such a talented league. We’ve just got to keep working. Our goal going into the game is to improve. Obviously, everybody goes into the game wanting to win, so we just need to keep progressing through this week and go out there and play like we know how to. We have to win on every phase of the game – special teams, offense and defense. We have to play together, complement each other and we’ll put ourselves in a position to be successful.”

(On if it’s a point of pride to show people that last week wasn’t how they play)
“I wouldn’t say it’s a pride thing, it’s more of a, ‘Who we are’ thing. We know that we have work to do. We know we’re a young team, but the guys come in here and it hurts when you lose. That’s part of playing this game. You’d love to win them all, but it doesn’t always work out that way. I see how do the guys respond? The guys responded by getting back in the building, ready to work, hungry like always and just detailing it up. We just had a great practice and that’s what I want to see from these guys. Coming back, not being down, being optimistic and moving forward. So far we’ve had a great work week, we just need to keep doing that each and every day.”

(On if they are prepared to go to a silent count if there’s a lot of Steelers fans in the building)
“We always have that. I’m looking forward to getting our fans out there and taking those seats so we can use our home field advantage like we did against Seattle. The home fans were tremendous then and I’m looking forward to seeing them there and just showing up. I’m not really thinking that way, but if we have to that’s something that we’ve practiced. But, we’re going to be at home and I want to use our home field advantage and have our fans loud.”

Rams Head Coach Jeff Fisher –– 9/22/15

(On how he thought the team looked today)
“Well, they bounced back. We had some kind of reload, recover stuff this morning and got a good start on the plan and I thought they worked really good today. They have a short memory, which is important. We got things corrected, like we said yesterday. Now we have a great challenge on our hands with this coming opponent.”

(On his concern facing the Steelers run-game, specifically RB Le’Veon Bell and RB DeAngelo Williams)
“I’m concerned. Our defense is concerned. We have respect for them. We know that it’s going to start there. Other than that they have an outstanding passing game. They have a quarterback that can throw it all over the place. They have a couple of the best receivers in ‘ball. So they’re balanced and this will be probably one of our biggest, at least this far this season, will be our biggest offensive challenge from the defensive standpoint.”

(On what makes Bell a versatile running back and what makes him difficult to defend)
“Yeah, he is. I mean the screen game. He’s good in protection. For a big back, he can bounce out. He can take the cut back. He can come out any place. In addition to that, he’s really good between the tackles. It’s just, we have to do much better in our gap fits and our run responsibilities and try to get them in third down and get off the field.”

(On if he expects to see a lot of Bell)
“Yeah, we expect that as we have to get our run-game going as well, so we’ll see. It’s early in the week, the plan looks good right now and we’ll continue to adjust things and put things in. Hopefully we can have some success.”

(On if he’s waiting to see how RB Todd Gurley performs this week to determine his game status)
“Yes.”

(On how Gurley looked at today’s practice)
“He looked great today. (He) feels really good. As I said, he had a really good workout prior to the game and he’s in good shape. He’s excited and we’ll just see what happens.”

(On WR Brian Quick’s status)
“I have not ruled him out. He’s physically able to play, so we’ll see what happens.”

(On what kind of asset Steelers Offensive Line Coach Mike Munchak is)
“He’s very, very thorough up front. You can just watch three or four plays of their offensive line and say to yourself, ‘That’s a Mike Munchak coached offensive line.’ They’re very sound. They’re very aggressive. They’re very patient. They finish. They rarely make mistakes. Mike’s really good – and what we have to adjust to is – Mike’s really good at taking special defensive players away, especially if you have rushers. I would expect they would pay a lot of attention to where (DT) Aaron (Donald) is and to where (DE) Rob (Quinn) lines up. They just don’t get their quarterback hit. Their game is about (QB) Ben (Roethlisberger) buying time, buying time and moving around and making the off-schedule play down the field.”

(On if after he left Tennessee if there was any talk about finding a role for him with the Rams)
“No.”

(On Steelers’ WR Antonio Brown)
“He has a great compliment around him. When you’ve got a run game, you’ve got a quarterback that’s experienced and can see and make the throws down the field, they work really well together. He can really run. They’re in sync. Rarely is there a throw where they’re not on the same page. They back-shoulder fade, he catches the deep ball, he catches the shallow cross, he catches the bubble screens. He’s just a really good player. You have to know where he’s at.”

(On if pressure is the key is to controlling Steelers QB Ben Roethlisberger)
“Pressure is the key to stopping any quarterback. I don’t think you stop him. I think you have to tackle, you have to minimize gains and you have to make plays and hope he throws a few incompletions.”

My own feeling is, it can wait.

It’s kind of nice to know that they can be playing pretty well yet still haven’t brought out their big gun.

So when the daily Gurley updates roll in, I am kind of blasé. I figure he will get on the field sometime this year. I figure it will be good when it happens, but it’s like having your birthday on Christmas. First, the christmas presents. Later, there will be a birthday present.

So, first it’s the pony, and later in the day, you get a new car. That kind of thing.

Ram notes: Quick remains patient, supportive of teammates

Joe Lyons

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/ram-notes-quick-remains-patient-supportive-of-teammates/article_65b73121-e238-5baa-9744-4a546dff73f2.html

It may have caught some by surprise, but Rams receiver Brian Quick knew he would not be on the active roster for Sunday’s game against the Seahawks.

“We talked about it previously, before the season; I knew what was happening,” the fourth-year pro said following practice and a lengthy post-practice session with the JUGS pass-catching machine Tuesday at Rams Park. “It’s not my call. I want to be out there, but I also want to do what’s best for the team. All I can do is continue to work and make sure that I’m ready when they decide to call my number.’’

In the midst of a breakout season that saw him post career-best numbers in receptions (25), receiving yards (375) and touchdowns (three), the 6-foot-3, 218-pound Quick suffered a severe shoulder injury Oct. 26 at Kansas City and finished the 2014 season on injured reserve.

Following a long and challenging rehab process, Quick has progressed slowly but surely through training camp and the preseason. In 30 offensive plays during the preseason, he did not have a pass thrown his way.

Coach Jeff Fisher said the decision was a numbers issue.

“We had to get to 46 players,’’ said Fisher, who needed more special-teams depth with linebacker Daren Bates (knee) unavailable. “He’s just going to have to be patient. He’s coming. He’s missed a lot of time. He’s coming.’’

Practice squad changes

The Rams made a pair of practice-squad moves Tuesday, signing cornerbacks Brandon McGee and Melvin White and releasing safety Jacob Hagen and cornerback Trovon Reed.McGee, a fifth-round draft pick by the Rams in 2013, was among the final cuts this year after missing all but one day of training camp with a foot injury. He played in 15 games as a rookie, chipping in with 10 tackles and six more on special teams. In 2014, he appeared in just two games before being placed on injured reserve with a foot injury.White, 25, was signed by Carolina as an undrafted free agent in 2013. He played in 30 games, making 17 starts, over the past two seasons before being cut recently. The 6-foot-1, 205-pound White recorded 83 tackles, defended 11 passes and had three interceptions in his time with the Panthers.

Ram-blings

Rams defensive tackle Aaron Donald, who finished Sunday’s overtime win over Seattle with two sacks and a career-high 13 tackles, is one of the nominees as the Castrol EDGE Clutch Performer of the Week.Fans can vote at http://www.nfl.com/castrol-edge through Friday at 2 p.m.The Redskins placed starting strong safety Duke Ihenacho on injured reserve with a dislocated left wrist. To fill the roster spot, Washington signed veteran cornerback Will Blackmon, a ninth-year pro who spent the last two seasons with the Jacksonville Jaguars. Washington also cut fullback Ray Agnew (De Smet, SIU Carbondale) from its practice squad.

In another practice squad move, former Ram Gerald Rivers was cut by the Giants. A defensive end from Ole Miss, Rivers spent most of 2013 with the Rams, playing in one game. Since then, he’s spent time with Jacksonville, Miami and Denver.

• Former Ram Austin Pettis was among a group of veteran wide receivers working out for the Cowboys on Tuesday. The team eventually made a trade with Oakland for Brice Butler.

http://www.terryfox.org/TerryFox/Terry_Fox.html

Terry Fox was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and raised in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, a community near Vancouver on Canada’s west coast. An active teenager involved in many sports, Terry was only 18 years old when he was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma (bone cancer) and forced to have his right leg amputated 15 centimetres (six inches) above the knee in 1977.

While in hospital, Terry was so overcome by the suffering of other cancer patients, many of them young children, that he decided to run across Canada to raise money for cancer research.

He would call his journey the Marathon of Hope.

It was a journey that Canadians never forgot.

After 18 months and running over 5,000 kilometres (3,107 miles) to prepare, Terry started his run in St. John’s, Newfoundland on April 12, 1980 with little fanfare. Although it was difficult to garner attention in the beginning, enthusiasm soon grew, and the money collected along his route began to mount. He ran close to 42 kilometres (26 miles) a day through Canada’s Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario. However, on September 1st, after 143 days and 5,373 kilometres (3,339 miles), Terry was forced to stop running outside of Thunder Bay, Ontario because cancer had appeared in his lungs. An entire nation was stunned and saddened. Terry passed away on June 28, 1981 at the age 22.

The heroic Canadian was gone, but his legacy was just beginning.

Support your local Terry Fox Run.

http://www.terryfox.org/InternationalRun/
To date, over $650 million has been raised worldwide for cancer research in Terry’s name through the annual Terry Fox Run, held across Canada and around the world.

St. Louis Rams
http://www.stlouisrams.com/news-and-events/article-1/Monday-Wrap-Up-Donald-Brockers-Show-Out/accfdf2f-f20b-46df-b37e-99376c25b908
Monday Wrap-Up: Donald, Brockers Show Out

Posted 7 hours ago

Myles Simmons Rams Insider @MylesASimmons

It’s no secret the Rams have one of the more dominant defensive lines in the league. And that came through in the final play of St. Louis’ 34-31 overtime win over the Seahawks, when defensive tackles Michael Brockers and Aaron Donald combined to take down running back Marshawn Lynch behind the line of scrimmage.

And head coach Jeff Fisher had some effusive praise for the second-year D-tackle out of Pitt in his press conference on Monday.

“Aaron really had one of the best games I’ve seen a defensive tackle play,” Fisher said.

One of the key plays to cement the notion came just before the matchup’s end. On 3rd-and-3 from the St. Louis 44, Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson dropped back to pass, but felt pressure and scrambled up the middle. Even with the quarterback’s athleticism, he gained only two yards before being stopped by Brockers and Donald.

“The 4th-and-1 stop, you saw it was a great effort by both the tackles. But we wouldn’t have had that situation had they not on the [3rd-and-3] the previous play squeezed and collapsed the pocket, re-traced, and tackled Russell to create the 4th-and-1,” Fisher said. “So both tackles on back-to-back plays made tremendous effort plays to give us a chance to win in overtime.”

In all, Donald racked up 11 tackles — two for loss — a quarterback hit, and 2.0 sacks to start off 2015. He was consistently wreaking havoc in the backfield, which the team has grown accustomed to since Donald arrived last year.

“[No.] 99 is a special player,” Robert Quinn said after the game. “He’s always in the backfield getting tackles for a loss and sacks. He’s a game changer.”

Because he does the dirty work in taking up double teams, Brockers’ strong play doesn’t always show up in the box score. And the defensive tackle said last week he’s more than OK with that.

“I play the big man game, he plays the little man game,” Brockers said of his and Donald’s roles. “I have embraced my position and I think I can be the best nose tackle in this league.”

And Brockers showed just how far he’s progressed on Sunday, when he led the team with 13 tackles, according to the coaches’ film evaluation.

Fisher said Monday both Brockers and Donald had strong offseasons, working hard to improve. That paid dividends against Seattle.

“They prepared,” Fisher said. “They understood what to do. We had a really good plan inside with some stunts and things like that, and just pressuring their interior offensive line.”

And so while many teams would likely be happy to have just one of the pair, the Rams know having Brockers and Donald work together can be a real advantage.

“I think [Brockers] does a lot of good dirty work for all of us and Aaron is just great on his own,” Chris Long said after the game, adding Donald is “the most disruptive D-tackle in football — he is the best D-tackle in football. It doesn’t hurt to have someone like Brockers in there, who I think sometimes gets over shadowed, but is a heck of a player in his own right.”

NEWS AND NOTES

There was plenty more to come out of Fisher’s Monday press conference. Here are some of the highlights.

—On the injury front, Fisher said both Eugene Sims (knee) and Chase Reynolds (knee) should not miss many games from what they sustained on Sunday.
.
“Good news on Eugene and Chase,” Fisher said. “They may miss some time, but they’re not going to miss an extended period of time like we feared last night. So they may not be available this week.”
.
The head coach also said Trumaine Johnson (concussion) is feeling better. Johnson, of course, will have to pass the concussion protocol in order to be cleared.
.
And Fisher said running back Tre Mason was close to playing yesterday, and has a chance to be back this week.
.
“I thought he had a really good warmup in pregame,” Fisher said, “so he’ll be day-to-day this week.”

—With Johnson out, cornerback Marcus Roberson filled in admirably. Fisher said the Florida product has done well since he came in as an undrafted rookie last year.

“I thought Marcus did a nice job when he came in,” Fisher said. “Made some plays, made some tackles, knew what to do.”

“Since his arrival last year at rookie orientation, he learned our system,” Fisher added. “He understands the system. He’s got ball skills. He’ll tackle. And he had a good preseason. He pays attention and he knows he’s a snap away from going in.”

—Wide receiver Brian Quick did not play on Sunday, but it was not due to injury.

“We had to get to 46,” Fisher said of constructing the gameday roster. “We’ve got six [wide receivers] and the other guys were playing. So he’s just going to have to be patient.”

“He’s missed a lot of time,” Fisher continued. “He’s coming. It wasn’t physically related. It was just numbers related.”

—Finally, the Rams have decided to shift their practice schedule — at least for the time being. The changes are mainly on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. While Fisher’s teams have given the players Tuesday off in years past, now the players will have a lighter practice Tuesday, take Thursday off, and then do a little more on Saturday.

“We’re going to see how it works this week,” Fisher said. “Coaches are adjusting today and tomorrow, and we’re going to stay with it this week. And then we’ll go from there.”

“I think it’s going to work,” Fisher added. “We already started preparing last week for this week’s change. But I feel confident a day off on Thursday is going to bring the players back as we near kickoff.”

And Sunday’s victory doesn’t hurt for a reason to keep the change.

“It appeared to work out pretty good for us,” Fisher said.

Rams Head Coach Jeff Fisher –- 9/14/15

(Opening Statement)
“Well we got a chance to take a look at it in detail and there’s some really good things in the game: tremendous effort and emotion and very few mental errors. We cut back on the penalties, which was obviously a concern of ours in the preseason. The bottom line is we have to do a better job closing out games. At the end of the third quarter, we were up by 11 and we had them at a second-and-20, basically. We just had some issues, had some mistakes. Anytime you have two returns against you for touchdowns, the odds are really diminished as far as having a chance to win ball games. The point is we gave up two returns for touchdowns and we turned the ball over three times. So you combine those two and then the one play was combined, but the odds of winning games are significantly reduced. So I think it speaks volumes from a patient standpoint and a commitment standpoint. They just never panicked. They kept playing. Tremendous efforts. The fourth-and-one stop, you saw, it was a great effort by both the tackles, but we wouldn’t have had that situation had they not on the third-and-three and a half or four the previously play, squeezed and collapsed the pocket, retraced and tackled (QB) Russell (Wilson) to create the fourth-and-one. So both tackles on back-to-back plays made tremendous effort plays to give us a chance to win in overtime.

“Injury-wise, good news on (DE) Eugene (Sims) and (RB) Chase (Reynolds). They may miss some time, but they’re not going to miss an extended period of time like we feared last night. They may not be available this week. I’ll let you know later in the week, but we got good news there. And (CB) Trumaine (Johnson) is feeling much better today, so we’ll take him through the protocol. I thought (CB) Marcus (Roberson) did a nice job when he came in. Made some plays, made some tackles, knew what to do. We were a little nervous when (DB) Lamarcus (Joyner) went down because then we were down to two corners. The coaches did a nice job moving guys around and preparing them to finish the game, but Lamarcus came right back. I thought (QB) Nick (Foles) played well. Made a lot of plays and both of our young offensive linemen (G Jamon Brown and T Rob Havenstein) lined up and played pretty well. I thought from a protective standpoint we were good. They were sound. They played with a lot of effort. Neither one of them played 60 minutes up to this point, and they both finished the game really well.”

(On his relationship with and how inspired his team was by the Saturday night speaker Will Jimeno, the New York Port Authority police officer who survived 13 hours under World Trade Center rubble)
“Yeah, I met him probably back in 2003 at a function. We spoke at a function together and since have stayed in touch and become friends. We just thought because of the closeness of 9-11 to kickoff, that we reached out to him and he came in. That was pretty cool and I noticed that you noticed when we made that fourth-and-one, there was 9:11 left on the clock. So that’s pretty cool. I haven’t had a chance to tell Will that yet, but he’ll appreciate it. But, tremendous story. Tremendous man. Part of the reason was on Saturday nights it makes no sense to get guys motivated and get them ready to play at nine o’clock at night, so we do different things at times. I thought because so many of those guys might have been 6/7/8/9-years old and not really remember what happened, it was an opportunity to close the history gap for them and expose what was in essence the worst tragedy this country has ever faced. Will, in my eyes, was a hero. Those guys got an opportunity to listen to him.”

(On the status of Eugene Sims and Chase Reynolds)
“They’re knees (injuries). I’m not going to go into specifics, but (it’s) their knees. Non-ACLs.”

(On the status of RB Tre Mason)
“He was fine. I thought he had a really good warm-up in pre-game, so he’ll be day-to-day this week.”

(On WR Brian Quick’s status)
“We had to get to 46 (players). We have six (players) and the other guys are playing. He’s just going to have to be patient. He’s coming. He’s missed a lot of time. He’s coming. It wasn’t physically related. It was just number related.”

(On if he was disappointed in the size of the crowd)
“No, I wasn’t disappointed at all. They were great. They (Seattle) had to go to silent count. That was pretty good when their offense is in a silent count and a hurry-up throughout the game. No, we were excited. Both sets of fans, the Seahawk fans that were there and all of our fans that were there, saw an amazing football game. There’s a lot more to come. I know that.”

(On why there wasn’t a flag thrown on the onside kick for tackling WR Bradley Marquez after he waived for a fair catch because it seemed obvious that he signaled fair catch)
“He did. There should have been. It was incorrectly enforced. They got it half right.”

(On if at the time he was just happy to get the ball or was he thinking about the fact that there should have been a flag thrown for tackling Marquez after the signal)
“Yes, I was concerned that there was going to be a re-kick. When they ruled it an invalid fair catch signal, that implies that he signaled for a fair catch because it’s not permissible to signal fair catch if the ball is hit in the ground and bounces up in the air, like the college rule. So, when they ruled that, then there was no question in mind that they recognized the fair catch signal. I just couldn’t convince them to enforce the penalty because they just wouldn’t put the ball on the 35-yard line.”

(On if he brought up the penalty at that time)
“Yes.”

(On what the officials said when he asked about the penalty)
“They just said, ‘We’re going to give you the ball right here. We’re not going to re-kick, so let’s go.’”

(On if the officials were bargaining with him)
“No. That thing is…when have you seen that before? It just doesn’t come up. I talked to (NFL Vice President of Officiating) Dean (Blandino) last night and he explained it and we were right, and he said, ‘No, they made a mistake.’”

(On both DTs Michael Brockers and Aaron Donald coming up with double-digit tackles and what it says about the way they played)
“Well, they prepared. They both had great offseasons. They’re both talented. They’re both healthy and they prepared. They understood what to do. We had a really good plan inside with some stunts and things like that and just pressuring their interior offensive line. Aaron – and not taking away from ‘Brock’ – but Aaron really had one of the best games that I’ve seen a defensive tackle play.”

(On if this team is more resilient this year)
“Well, we had some good efforts last year and had some good games. If you look back, we let a couple slip away. But, I think this team understands now that you just keep playing. I think a lot of that has to do with the entire group’s confidence in Nick (Foles) because Nick was all about that, ‘Hey, let’s keep playing. Defense, give me the ball back. I’ll put a drive together here, we’ll go win,’ this kind of thing. That kind of attitude permeates throughout the team.”

(On how much confidence this gives the team)
“Success in this league requires you to keep wins and losses in perspective. After a tough Sunday afternoon, things don’t work out – you have to get them back. When we have a really emotional win like we did yesterday, you have to keep things in perspective. We have to correct mistakes. We have to put another good plan in and we have to go out and carry respect in for next week’s opponent. But, it certainly was a reward for them for all of the hard work through camp and some of the negativity that emerged from our preseason games because of the lack of points and lack of production and things like that. It was a great day. If you protect the football and put some drives together, the game probably goes a little bit differently. We score a couple more times, get the ball back, continue to put them in third down situations – we put them in 19 third down situations, which is pretty impressive from a defensive standpoint – but, if you say for example, you go out there and you win by 14 (points). I’m not so sure that the manner in which we won this game yesterday is better than winning by 14 points against a team that played in back-to-back World Championships. Overall, I think it was a great effort. But, again, you can’t over-emphasize the importance of getting better. We have to improve in a lot of areas.”

(On if there are things that he can do to keep the team in perspective)
“They know how to practice. It’s about preparation and going out and practicing hard. That’s what we do. We have to size it a day at a time as you go through the preparation.”

(On if yesterday’s emotional win will help the players be consistent week to week)
“Again, it’s one week at a time. We have to build on this and carry this intensity and the lack of mistakes that have hurt us in the past and into Week 2. We’ll see what happens.”

(On how important short passes were against a defense that is tough to run against)
“I think it was a great plan. We were able to stay with the run throughout. The screen game for us has worked through the preseason. It worked yesterday a little bit. Even the tight end screen, (TE Jared) Cook was really close to hitting that seam and making a big play there. We were able to carry balance into the end of this game. We took our shots, we ran the football, we had the short passing game, missed a couple of opportunities, but one of the things we did do is we made the catches. There weren’t any drops. Against that team you have to catch the football. Remember what happened up there last year? That ball bounced off of (TE) Lance’s (Kendricks) shoulder.”

(On the play to WR Kenny Britt on third down)
“It was huge. Third-and-15s are hard. That’s about (QB) Nick (Foles) just having a feel and knowing where guys are and he made the throw and Kenny made the catch and then got up and made the first down. And, oh by the way, the towel is not part of the body. If you grab the towel or touch the towel, it’s not down by contact.”

(On the success Seattle had when they switched to no huddle and if that’s something they have to work on)
“Again, our practice tempo on the field against our defense is no huddle tempo every single day. They had success because of the talent level they have on offense in (QB) Russell Wilson and their running back, who by the way is really, really good.”

(On what happened on the Seahawks’ punt return)
“We were backed up. When you’re backed up, the timing is different. He couldn’t take the footwork that he needed to put the ball on the boundary. He had to punt the ball and just get the ball off. When you get the ball off and you’re backed up and you have a tight punt, you don’t get the immediate presence of your gunners. We just got a punt that he hit a little off the mark. Had we got the ball on the boundary, we would’ve been fine because our intention was to pin him. We got into problems on first down with the loss and then second down with the loss and then we pushed it out a little, but we were snapping from the 12-yard line and his heels on the end line and you have to get rid of the ball as quick as you can. The whole thing was a function of the offensive negative plays.”

(On the miscommunication on the snap)
“We’ll get that worked out. We’re alright. They haven’t been working together very long. When they went to change the play and (C Tim Barnes) ‘Timmy’ didn’t hear it and snapped the ball and that caught him by surprise.”

(On what worked for them on their punt return for a touchdown)
“We carry over all of the stuff we do on the practice field. All of our drills, on to the field yesterday in that return and it all paid off. Some great, great down the field, individual efforts by a number of players to wall people off, go to the next level knowing that (WR) Tavon (Austin) is going to make somebody miss and they just kind of dominoed down the field. And then his athletic ability kept him in the field of play.”

(On what he liked from CB Marcus Roberson)
“Since his arrival last year at the rookie minicamp or orientation, he learned our system. You saw him play in the preseason last year, he made plays. He understands the system, he’s got ball skills, he’ll tackle and he had a good preseason. He pays attention and he knows that he’s a snap away from going in and unfortunately yesterday he had to go in. Unfortunately we had the injury, but fortunately for him he had to go in and he filled in nicely.”

(On if G Jamon Brown being out for a few plays was an equipment thing)
“Yes, facemask.”

(On the number of plays Seattle had and not giving up a lot of yards on defense)
“I think it speaks volumes of their commitment through the spring and what we were able to do this summer and keep them fresh and how we backed down a little bit last year and kept them fresh. We were on the field for a lot of plays, but we weren’t tired.”

(On what makes WR Bradley Marquez such a good special teams player)
“He’s an instinctive football player. That was not the only really good play he made. He made a couple of other really good plays. He works hard, he pays attention, he acts like he’s been around for three or four years. We can trust him and put him in some unusually difficult positions, especially as a personal protector on our punt team to make all the calls and protection and things. We trust him and he gets it right.”

(On practicing tomorrow and going to a new schedule)
“We’re going to see how it works this week. Coaches are adjusting today and tomorrow. We’re going to stay with it this week and then we’ll go from there. I think it’s going to work. I don’t want to put anybody in a difficult position from a workload standpoint. Unless you’ve gone through it a week or two, so we already started preparing last week for this week’s change. But I definitely know that I feel confident that a day off on Thursday is really going to help to bring the players back as we near kickoff.”

(On how much you get accomplished practicing on Tuesday after a game)
“We’ll have a good idea. It’s a workload thing. We’re discussing it, but I’m confident. This event that we’re having tomorrow is not a full-speed practice. It’s kind of an install, a first and second down install. Wednesday is normal, completely normal.”

(On if that will be the plan every week if it works out)
“It may be the plan, depending on how it works out this week.”

(On if he’s ever done this with one of his teams before)
“No.”

(On other teams doing more work on Saturdays)
“We did that here this past Saturday. A little bit more. A little more up-tempo. You’ve got to get them going and get the functional movement rather than just shut down completely. It appeared to work out pretty good for us.”

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-notes-davis-jones-hook-on-with-new-teams/article_3864dc89-6398-5df0-92c1-07c7a0df7b13.html%5DRams Notes: Davis, Jones Hook on with New Teams –PD
Two players cut by the Rams on Saturday have signed elsewhere. Quarterback Austin Davis was signed to Cleveland’s roster Monday. Meanwhile, center Barrett Jones was signed to Pittsburgh’s practice squad.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/ten-questions-for-rams-season-are-revisted/article_3133c2c8-29f7-5f12-bbd5-16927c0df3d7.html%5DTen Questions for Rams’ Season are Revisted –PD
As the Rams move to game-week mode for the season opener, against Seattle, we reexamine 10 questions facing the Rams as they embark on the season:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-report/former-rams-qb-davis-signs-with-cleveland/article_be91818a-dcb6-5260-9983-e56e7fa825e1.html%5DFormer Rams QB Davis Signs with Cleveland –PD
Two of the three “biggest” names cut by the Rams on Saturday now have jobs elsewhere in the NFL.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/09/07/defensive-line-could-put-rams-back-in-playoffs/71844596/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomnfl-topstories&AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=ieanjwefsg011lvg00dth%5DDefensive Line Could Put Rams Back in Playoffs –AP
The St. Louis Rams have been stockpiling defensive linemen for so long, end Chris Long has played for three head coaches.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25293581/rams-gurley-cleared-for-contact-but-may-not-play-for-a-couple-of-weeks%5DGurley cleared for contact but may not play for ‘a couple of weeks’ –CBS Sports
The question of whether or not Todd Gurley will see lots of action for the Rams in the early part of the season is a good one. The former Georgia star was a first-round pick but he’s coming off an ACL tear, so St. Louis understandably doesn’t want to rush him into contact drills.

http://www.todayspigskin.com/nfc-today/nfc-west/st-louis-rams/7-surprising-rams-roster-decisions/%5D7 Surprising Rams Roster Decisions
The St. Louis Rams finalized their 53-man roster on Saturday after wrapping up a wholly unimpressive 0-4 preseason with a 24-17 loss to their Missouri neighbors, the Kansas City Chiefs, at the Edward Jones Dome a couple days prior.

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/21138/todd-gurley-says-no-contact-beanie-is-gone-but-must-remain-patient%5DTodd Gurley Says No-Contact Beanie is Gone But Must Remain Patient –Wagoner
St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher said Saturday that running back Todd Gurley won’t play in the season-opener Sunday against the Seattle Seahawks. That was only the confirmation of what had been known as the Rams continue to take a cautious approach with the No. 10 overall pick.

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/20827/rams-roster-brings-continuity-everywhere-except-quarterback-and-offensive-line%5DRams’ Roster Brings Continuity Everywhere Except QB, Offensive Line –Wagoner
Here’s a player-by-player look at the St. Louis Rams’ 53-man roster

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/21126/wondering-whether-rams-are-poised-for-playoff-berth%5DAre St. Louis Rams are Poised for a Playoff Berth? –Wagoner September 7, 2015
In this week’s edition of Sports Illustrated, their staff unveiled their annual NFL preview. In it, senior writer Greg Bedard released his playoff and Super Bowl selections.

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-lb-james-laurinaitis-press-conference-96-video-2/%5DRams LB James Laurinaitis Press Conference – 9/6 –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-safety-t-j-mcdonald-press-conference-96-video/%5DRams Safety T.J. McDonald Press Conference – 9/6 –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/rams-rookie-lb-cameron-lynch-press-conference-96-video/%5DRams Rookie LB Cameron Lynch Press Conference – 9/6 –Video

http://www.rams-news.com/wagoner-rams-hoping-experience-makes-up-for-youth-video/%5DWagoner: Rams Hoping Experience Makes Up For Youth –Video