Column: The real cost of the NFL's business

JIM LITKE

In the past few months, more than two dozen NFL players and a sprinkling of front-office executives have been arrested for crimes ranging from petty to deadly.

No matter how bad it looks, remember that's not a crime wave by any fair measure, let alone by league standards. Think of it instead as just the cost of doing business. Everybody in the NFL already does.

To be fair, any company with that employs 9,000 people is bound to have some bad apples. And this year's number of arrests, give or take a few, lines up with last year's pace.

So no one should have been surprised to awake Thursday morning to news reports that Patriots cornerback Alfonzo Dennard was arrested on suspicion of drunken driving in Lincoln, Neb. But because the NFL is all about image, about "protecting the shield," as commissioner Roger Goodell never tires of saying, Dennard's team pretended to be.

Another jersey trade-in offer may be in the works even as you read this.

"The New England Patriots are extremely disappointed to learn of Alfonzo Dennard's arrest," a team statement said. "We take this matter very seriously and are working to get more information on the incident."

Please. Let's not forget the bottom line is always personal responsibility, and that Dennard climbed into his car likely knowing that the entire league and his team in particular - former Pats tight end Aaron Hernandez is being held on a murder charge -was already feeling the heat.

And that he was on probation after punching a cop during a fight in the same town a week before the 2012 draft.

But let's not forget, either - because the Patriots certainly can't - that the reason they were able to pluck him all the way down at the seventh round of that draft is because Dennard had several previous scrapes on and off the field.

Once you stop to think about it, the cynicism that underpins the whole "crime-in-the-NFL" phenomenon is almost breathtaking.

A respected agent said earlier this week that just about every time he meets with one of the league's general managers or personnel chiefs, the guy knows exactly how many potential troublemakers are on his roster. There's even a code word for those players: "turds," as in "I can't risk a chance on another turd. We've already exceeded our quota."

There's upwards of 10 on just about every squad, the agent estimates. He said they tend to be clustered around a handful of defensive positions where meanness and a short memory are essential, with wide receivers being the most notable exception on the other side of the ball.

"They want guys who say 'gimme the damn ball," and guys who can turn around the play after they get beat and start talking trash right away about how it won't ever happen again," he said. "Without those nasty, selfish guys, competing on a regular basis is practically impossible."

According to the agent, who asked that his name be withheld because he's still negotiating deals, the number of headaches a team takes on can generally be calibrated by how desperate it is to win. Think of the Cincinnati Bengals a few years back, or on a smaller scale, how Cowboys owner Jerry Jones hired a bodyguard to make sure wide receiver Dez Bryant didn't find himself in any more compromising positions.

The problems in New England at the moment may spring from a different source - hubris, or as the agent put it, "too much faith in the 'Patriot Way.'" But in every case, teams know exactly what they're doing when they draft, trade or take a flyer on a knucklehead like Dennard. The only thing they can truly be "extremely disappointed" about is when one or another does something stupid or dangerous while they were his enablers.

There were at least 17 different teams touched by the more than two dozen arrests these past few months, and anytime a problem extends that wide, it usually runs top to bottom as well.

As noted above, this is first and foremost about personal responsibility. And to be fair, Goodell hasn't been shy about doling out harsh punishment to any employee, and even harsher punishments to the league's higher-ups. But what's clear is that his message, no matter how many times he warns rookies to "protect the shield," is still being greeted in too many corners of the league with little more than a wink and a nod.

So why not just spare us the lecture?

___

Jim Litke is a national sports columnist for The Associated Press. write to him at jlitke@ap.org and follow him at Twitter.com/JimLitke.

REUTERS: Ecuador offers U.S. rights aid, waives trade benefits

Ecuador offers U.S. rights aid, waives trade benefits
10:06am EDT
By Alexandra Valencia and Brian Ellsworth

QUITO (Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist government thumbed its nose at Washington on
Thursday by renouncing U.S. trade benefits and offering to pay for human rights
training in America in response to pressure over asylum for former intelligence
contractor Edward Snowden.

The angry response threatens a showdown between the two nations over Snowden,
and may burnish President Rafael Correa's credentials to be the continent's
principal challenger of U.S. power after the death of Venezuelan socialist
leader Hugo Chavez.

"Ecuador will not accept pressures or threats from anyone, and it does not
traffic in its values or allow them to be subjugated to mercantile interests,"
government spokesman Fernando Alvarado said at a news conference.

In a cheeky jab at the U.S. spying program that Snowden unveiled through leaks
to the media, the South American nation offered $23 million per year to finance
human rights training.

The funding would be destined to help "avoid violations of privacy, torture and
other actions that are denigrating to humanity," Alvarado said. He said the
amount was the equivalent of what Ecuador gained each year from the trade
benefits.

"Ecuador gives up, unilaterally and irrevocably, the said customs benefits," he
said.

An influential U.S. senator on Wednesday said he would seek to end those
benefits if Ecuador gave Snowden asylum.

Snowden, 30, is believed to be at Moscow's international airport and seeking
safe passage to Ecuador.

The Andean nation's government denies reports that it provided a travel document
to the former National Security Agency contractor, whose U.S. passport has been
revoked.

The government has not been able to process his asylum request because he is not
on Ecuadorean territory, another government official said.

COMBATIVE CORREA

Never shy of taking on the West, the pugnacious Correa last year granted asylum
to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to help him avoid extradition from Great
Britain to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over sexual assault
accusations.

The 50-year-old U.S.-trained economist won a landslide re-election in February
on generous state spending to improve infrastructure and health services, and
his Alianza Pais party holds a majority in the legislature.

Ecuadorean officials said Washington was unfairly using the Andean Trade
Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which provides customs benefits in exchange
for efforts to fight the drug trade, as a political weapon.

The program was set to expire at the end of this month.

An OPEC nation of 15 million people, Ecuador exported $5.4 billion worth of oil,
$166 million of cut flowers, $122 million of fruits and vegetables and $80
million of tuna to the United States under the Andean trade program in 2012.

Termination of the benefits could hurt the cut flower industry, which has
blossomed under the program and employs more than 100,000 workers, many of them
women.

Critics of Correa say Ecuador's embrace of Assange - and now possibly Snowden -
is hypocritical given what they say is his authoritarian style and suppression
of media at home.

Supporters of Correa say he has simply taken on media and business elites who
were trying to erode what the president calls his "Citizens' Revolution."

(Writing by Brian Ellsworth and Andrew Cawthorne; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Iran's new president looks westward for nuke talks

BRIAN MURPHY

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) - Hasan Rouhani knew there was an element of risk.

Just a week before Iran's election gatekeepers announced the presidential ballot, Rouhani said one-on-one talks with Washington are the only way for breakthroughs in the nuclear standoff, given that the United States - as he put it - is the world's "sheriff."

Such a public portrayal of America's importance and the need to make overtures to it undoubtedly rattled a few among Iran's ruling clerics, who decide which candidates are cleared to run. Yet they allowed Rouhani to enter the race, and to the surprise of many, he surged to a runaway victory.

Rouhani's repeated emphasis on direct outreach to Washington may now have a chance for real traction among the ultimate decision-makers in Iran - the ruling clerics and the powerful Revolutionary Guard. They have long opposed bilateral talks, insisting they would do no good. But the lack of major blowback to Rouhani's speech in mid-May signaled that the idea is no longer a taboo for the establishment, even if it is not yet entirely convinced. Another sign came from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who in March hinted he would not stand in the way.

"We have disagreements with the U.S. on regional and international matters, but obviously friendship or hostility with the world is not permanent," Rouhani told an audience at Tehran's Sharif University in his May address. "Every country can improve its relations with others."

Rouhani was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator from 2003 to 2005 and he has said he is convinced he could have sealed a deal if Tehran had been talking directly to Washington at the time. Efforts are under way for a new, fourth round of the multilateral nuclear talks bringing together Iran and the U.S. and other world powers. Earlier rounds have brought no headway.

It's far too early to gain anything more than hints from Iran on whether Rouhani's election this month could shift tactics in nuclear negotiations.

Rouhani does not formally take office until August. Washington has said it appreciates Rouhani's appeals for more engagement, but knows the meaningful decisions are made higher up by Iran's theocracy.

Moreover, Rouhani has made clear he has the same red lines as the ruling clerics: He said in his first post-victory news conference that Iran will never surrender its ability to enrich uranium - the central issue of the disputes.

Still, the next chief nuclear envoy on the Iranian side is almost certain to side closer to Rouhani's view that seeking one-on-one talks with Washington is a worthy pursuit. It's widely expected that hard-liner Saeed Jalili - who finished a distant third behind Rouhani in the June 14 election - will be sent packing by the ruling clerics to avoid internal tensions.

It may be weeks before a shortlist for successors is known. But some possible names mentioned include former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, who finished next-to-last in the presidential race; Mohammad Javad Zarif, a former envoy to the U.N., and Amir Hossein Zamaninia, a former member of Iran's negotiating team.

No dates have been proposed to possibly resume talks between Iran and a six-nation bloc, the permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany. The four previous rounds since last year have foundered on a central deadlock: The U.S. and others insist Iran sharply scales back its uranium enrichment as a first step, while Iran says the West should ease sanctions as an opening offer.

The West and allies fear Iran's enrichment labs could eventually produce material for a nuclear weapon - and some critics in Israel and elsewhere believe that extended negotiations will only give Iran more time to advance its program.

Rouhani "may well create an opening," wrote Dennis Ross, a former White House envoy for the Middle East and South Asia, in a commentary published Tuesday in The New York Times. "But we should be on our guard: It must be an opening to clarify what is possible and to test outcomes, not to engage in unending talks for their own sake."

Iranian officials, including Rouhani, say that Iran will not give up control over the entire nuclear cycle, which turns uranium ore into reactor-ready fuel, but that it only seeks the technology for energy production and medical uses.

"The bottom line is that Rouhani's views are not a wholesale change from the ruling system's. They are pretty much the same on all the central points on what Iran wants," said Mohammad Ali Shabani, a British-based Middle East expert concentrating on Iranian affairs. "The issue is over tactics and how to get there."

For Rouhani, that likely means pushing the ruling clerics to see the value in direct nuclear talks with the U.S., which broke off ties with Tehran after the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in the wake of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Rouhani's frequent references to a failed 2005 accord help explain his views.

He said he was close to a French-backed deal that would have allowed the maximum level of inspection by the U.N.'s nuclear agency in exchange for keeping Iran's nuclear case from reaching the U.N. Security Council, which set in motion layer after layer of economic sanctions over the years. The deal was not backed by France's European partners, and Rouhani now believes it was a mistake not to deal directly with Washington.

"The American are, as the saying goes, the sheriff. So it would be easier if we rather hammer things out with the sheriff than deal with lesser authorities," he told the university audience in May.

The scholar Shabani said Rouhani now hopes to "redeem himself" for letting the 2005 deal slip away.

"It's a mistake to think Rouhani is soft," he said. "He's not. He has a clear view that the only talks that matter - the only talks that are meaningful in the end - are with the Americans."

Whether Rouhani can sell this with the ruling establishment is not so simple.

The supreme leader opened the door in March for one-on-one nuclear talks with the U.S. in a significant reversal of policy. But it was far from a ringing endorsement. "I'm not optimistic about these talks, but I'm not opposed to them, either," Khamenei said.

In the past, Iran has insisted that any unilateral negotiations with Washington deal with a host of disputes between the two countries beyond the nuclear issue. The U.S. has rebuffed such multitasking talks.

One major sticking point could be efforts by Iran's establishment to use any new openings for nuclear dialogue as a back channel forum to discuss the civil war in Syria, where Washington backs the opposition and Iran is firmly behind its crucial alliance with Bashar Assad's regime.

"For much of the Iranian leadership at the moment, Syria is more of a priority than the nuclear talks," said Mustafa Alani, a regional analyst at the Gulf Research Center based in Geneva.

"Rouhani, though, believes the nuclear issue is the key to everything else. You resolve that and then move on to other things. This view may be logical, but may be not what Iran's rulers are thinking. This could leave Rouhani trying to swim against the current."

In Memoriam Carol Eileen Jaglowski

In memoriam Carol Eileen Jaglowski.  

I keep hearing these words but it still doesn’t seem real.  

In memory of Carol Jaglowski.  

We’ve lost her far too young.  She was 64.  She and her husband, my father-in-law, Dan, were planning their retirement together.   She had become a routine presence with her grandchildren, my three sons, her only daughter Jessica’s children.   A few times a week, Grammy, as our kids called her, would be hanging out with the older boys, Owen and Tenzin, sitting on the ground putting puzzles together, sorting Legos, teaching them to fold paper airplanes, listening to bird calls, and playing kid’s games.  Or she’d be holding the baby and watching the other lads while allowing their mother a much needed respite.

And now she’s gone.  We buried her on Friday in a wicker basket in a prairie in a cemetery decorated with giant memorials with bold, renowned names, like Dreyfus and Paul.  But grand memorials and ostentatiousness were not Carol’s way.  She was an unassuming, peaceful, and loving soul who should have had more years to live.  She was an accepting, open-minded person who early on in my marriage to her daughter asked that I call her mom, which from that time on I did.  

And at the drop of a quarter-note, she’s gone.  And however hard that is for us, for me, to accept, we have no choice.  That’s all we have.  Steven Wright said, “First you don't exist; then you exist; then you don’t exist; so this whole thing is just an interruption from non-existence.”

And Ecclesiastes reminds us, “all is vanity” that just like other animals humans “are of the dust and will turn to dust again.”  A lot of what happens to us is just a matter of chance or fate that we have little or no control of.   We can’t talk about being alive without talking about being dead.  

A few months ago, a few of us sat in a room with doctors and nurses who told us that when the feeding tube and the continuous dialysis were stopped, mom would die.  She wanted to go home in the worst way.  She wanted out of the hospital after two months of being stuck in bed.  As a show of her resolve and her strength, she proved the doctors wrong.  When one doctor walked in, his nose in her file, he looked up at her startled, and said “Wow, you look a lot better than your numbers.”  Even in this short part of her life, the last few months of it, mom was showing how she lived with fortitude and perseverance and a strong will.

Mom believed in life and that belief extended into death.  She was an organ donor and her final wish was to be put to rest naturally where she’ll be among the wild flowers she so adored and the birds and animals she vowed to protect.  It was a wonderful side of her.  She believed in standing up for those who cannot defend themselves.  She took refuge and found peace in watching the birds and would have given anything to protect the wildlife sanctuaries across the country.  To protect some of the least regarded among us.  

Mom was a thoughtful person who trusted in family.  A couple of years ago out of the blue she called her Aunt Arlene and they enjoyed getting together for lunch.  They planned on searching through photographs, retracing their past through pictures.  

She was a loyal and committed wife who shared 42 years of marriage with Dan.  They travelled together to Alaska, Horicon Marsh, Florida, anywhere as long as it was together.  Dan was with her nearly every moment she was hospitalized.  When Mom died peacefully at home, she was fittingly with Dan in just the way she wanted to go.

She was a devoted mother and Grammy who would have done anything for her daughter and our family and often did, taking the kids to the domes, the botanical gardens and parks, flying kites, going for walks.  When she was sick, just hearing their voices returned the color to her face, and the brightness in her eyes.

She loved music.  A rocker at heart, she attended countless Kansas shows then would sit down at the piano and play a Beethoven sonata.  One day I got home from work to the sound of Hoagy Carmichael from the piano.  She was teaching our oldest son to play “Heart and Soul.”

Mom’s life was not an easy one.  She lost her biological father at a young age and was raised along with her brother Dale by her mother, Betty.  Years later, after Betty had remarried to Frank, when little Mark came along, mom helped care for him.  She learned a lot about living during those years, traits and qualities she learned from her mom that she passed on to her daughter.  And that Jessica will pass on to our kids.

Mom was an invaluable role model and resource for Jessica.  Mom taught her daughter the value of generosity and kindness.  And Jessica always admired her for that.  

There were times when we would be trying to solve a dilemma, we’d call mom and she’d know the answer.  One day on the other end of the phone, mom walked me through making pecan fingers.  Somehow, mine never turned out like hers though.   Isn’t that strange how that happens? We follow the same recipe but something’s just not the same in the end. 

Mom could be temperamental, especially in the face of a bad pun, but in the 18 years I knew her, I never heard her utter a disparaging word about anyone even when others were less kind.

In the end each of us comprises pages of snapshots some flattering, some regretful that we hope people will look at with fondness.  We hope that when we die, others will sit around talking about the good we brought to the world and hopefully we’ve contributed more benefit than harm.  We are who we surround ourselves with, whether they are our children or friends or relatives.  And we live through them and because of them.  We carry mom’s memory, we remember her through these pictures and a not-too-distant voice in our heads.  “It’s all in the grand scheme of things,” she would have said. 

The last time I saw her was two days before she died.  We were talking about the dialysis she had to suffer through three times a week.  It was hard on her.  She confided in me, “I don’t know how long I can do this.”  Five months of constant pain had finally worn her out.  

I’ll miss her.  I’ll miss her effervescence, her rambunctiousness.  I’ll miss sharing a cold drink with her.  I’ll miss her laugh and the twinkle in her eye when she’d feign disgust after hearing an awful play-on-words from her husband.  I’ll miss her uncanny ability to remember anything because in the end that’s all we are – memories.  We are only what we remember ourselves to be and what others remember us to be.  I ask that we remember Carol Eileen Jaglowski today for who she was, a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, an aunt, a cousin, a woman with a huge heart who loved life and gave her all to what she did.  Look at her pictures, she was full of vitality.  

However hard we try, words can never adequately express how we feel.  That’s why there is music.  Hammerstein said, “All the sounds of the earth are like music.”   

    

The song you’re going to hear is a rock song by Kansas, mom’s favorite musical group.  This was the song she wanted played at her funeral.  It’s a little loud and poorly edited by the man at the podium but as you listen to the lyrics try to understand what the song means.  It reveals a lot about the woman we memorialize here.  For the underlying message is one of hope. 

(cue to play edited version of Lamplight Symphony)

G8 exposes rift among leaders on Syria

G8 exposes rift among leaders on Syria

JULIE PACE

ENNISKILLEN, Northern Ireland (AP) - Deep differences over Syria's fierce civil war clouded a summit of world leaders Monday, with Russian President Vladimir Putin defiantly rejecting calls from the U.S., Britain and France to halt his political and military support for Syrian leader Bashar Assad's regime.

But there were also fissures among the three Western nations, despite their shared belief that Assad must leave power. Britain and France appear unwilling - at least for now - to join President Barack Obama in arming the Syrian rebels, a step the U.S. president reluctantly finalized last week.

The debate over the Syria conflict loomed large as the two-day summit of the Group of 8 industrial nations opened Monday at a lakeside resort in Northern Ireland. The lack of consensus even among allies underscored the vexing nature of the two-year conflict in Syria, where at least 93,000 people have been killed as rebels struggle to overtake Assad forces buttressed by support from Hezbollah, Iran and Russia.

Obama and Putin, who already have a frosty relationship, did little to hide their differing views on the matter while speaking to reporters following one-on-one talks on the sidelines of the summit Monday evening. The two-hour meeting marked the first time the leaders have met in person since last year.

"We do have different perspectives on the problem," Obama said of their divergent views on Syria.

The Russian leader, speaking through a translator, agreed, saying, "our opinions do not coincide."

But despite their seemingly intractable differences, Obama and Putin did express a shared desire to stop the violence in Syria and convene a political conference in Geneva, Switzerland. U.S. officials said they were still aiming to hold the summit next month, though that prospect was looking increasingly unlikely given the deepening violence.

It's also unclear who would participate in such a meeting or whether the rebels, given their weakened position, would have any leverage if they did.

U.S. officials say Obama's decision to send the rebels weapons and ammunition for the first time was an attempt to increase their military strength in order to bolster their political bargaining power. But the American inventory for the rebels is not yet expected to include the high-powered weaponry sought by the opposition, raising questions about whether the deepening U.S. involvement will be effective in changing the situation on the ground.

The White House also announced Monday an additional $300 million in humanitarian aid for Syria and neighboring countries absorbing refugees escaping the violence. The new money brings the total U.S. humanitarian assistance to $800 million, according to the White House.

Obama's decision to arm the rebels coincided with the White House's announcement last week that it had definitive evidence of multiple instances of chemical weapons use by Assad's regime against the opposition. Britain and France have also accused Assad of using the deadly agent sarin, while Russia has publicly questioned the credibility of chemical weapons evidence.

"It's necessary to refrain from unproven claims by either party," Putin adviser Alexei Kvasov told reporters at the summit Monday. "We have no evidence proving it."

Moscow's continued support for Assad is based in part on Russia's deep economic and military ties with his regime. Last month, Russia acknowledged it has agreed to sell Syria advanced S-300 air-defense missiles, which are considered to be the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.

The Russian president's divisions with Western leaders on Syria were also on display in his separate meetings with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande. Both European leaders have previously indicated a willingness to arm vetted Syrian rebels and successfully pushed for the European Union to allow an arms embargo preventing the flow of weapons to expire.

Still, neither country is yet to join Obama in arming the opposition. Following the U.S. decision, there has been growing public concern in both countries over the wisdom of delivering weapons to a country where groups affiliated with al-Qaida are supporting elements of the rebellion.

"I am as worried as anybody else about elements of the Syrian opposition, who are extremists, who support terrorism and who are a great danger to our world," Cameron said Monday.

Hollande, following his own meeting with Putin, did not commit to sending weapons to the rebels. But he did appear to open the door to some form of deeper involvement from Paris.

"How can you allow Russia to continue to send weapons to the regime of Bashar al-Assad while the opposition gets so few weapons?" Hollande asked. "How can we accept the fact that we have proof of the use of chemical weapons without a unanimous condemnation by the international community, and that includes the G8?"

Obama, who has long signaled a preference for deepening U.S. engagement in Syria in conjunction with international partners, was expected to urge his British and French counterparts to join the U.S. in boosting lethal aid to the opposition. Syria was the primary topic among the G-8 leaders at a working dinner Monday night.

Britain, which is hosting the summit, has pressed leaders to ensure the meeting results in a statement on Syria, including the need for greater humanitarian access. The U.K. floated the possibility of releasing a statement even without Russia's approval, but a British official said the dinner resulted in broad consensus among the leaders on key points.

While Putin did not publicly criticize the U.S. decision to arm the opposition during his meeting with Obama, he exhibited far less restraint Sunday following his meeting with Cameron.

"One hardly should back those who kill their enemies and, you know, eat their organs," he said, referencing a gruesome Internet video purportedly showing a rebel commander committing an act of cannibalism.

"Do we want to support these people?" Putin asked. "Do we want to supply arms to these people?"

Among the other options being considered by the U.S. - though reluctantly is a no-fly zone to stop Assad from using his air power to crush rebel forces of kill civilians. But European nations are so far opposed to that idea, and Obama's own aides have publicly questioned the feasibility, given Assad's air defenses and the significant costs of such a program.

Perhaps signaling another fight to come between the U.S. and Russia, the foreign ministry in Moscow said Russia would veto a motion to set up a no-fly zone if the U.S. sought authorization from the United Nations Security Council.

___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Shawn Pogatchnik, Vladimir Isachenkov and Cassandra Vinograd in Northern Ireland and Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow contributed to this report.

___

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC