Super Sunday in San Diego.
Egad. The Oakland Raiders were handed their asses by the TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS?! Who would have thought, 20-odd years ago, that Tampa Bay would even GET to a Superbowl, much less blow out a team like the Raiders? It's a mind-blowing concept similar to the idea of the Los Angeles Clippers winning the NBA title; most folks just shake their heads and say, "it'll never happen."
Tell it to the Raiders fans: it happened. Black and Silver gave up 48 points. The number one rated offense in the world could only manage 21 points. Oh, it was ugly…and beautiful at the same time. I pitied the fools that paid $1,000 a seat, then dressed up in black and silver grease paint.
I watched the first half of the game in a room equally divided by Buc and Raider fans. Early in the game, when the score was tied at 3, those guys and gals were so loud I couldn't hear myself think. One Raider fan had a lot to say about certain Buccaneers:
"Sapp is too fat to do anything"
"Jurevicus had only one good catch in his life"
"Alstott is gonna fumble it away"
"Keyshawn is gay"
On and on it went…until the first Tampa Bay interception. By the time the half rolled around, and the Bucs were up by 17 points (uh, that's two touchdowns and a field goal for those that don't know), the Raider side of the room had quieted considerably.
By the end of the third quarter, it was quite clearly a ridiculous blowout. Oakland had their clocks cleaned, their lunch stolen, they were chumped in front of the second-largest television audience to ever watch a Superbowl.
Ouch.
Well, at least the commercial for the next "Matrix" movie was cool.
More later…
Paul
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Laci Peterson
This story first broke right after Christmas and it was a local (SoCal) story only. Now it has gained National status. The more I watch the media reports surrounding this case, the more I can't believe what I am seeing.
It is a horrible case. A "who-dunnit". Hubby goes fishing on Christmas Eve, by himself, and 180 miles away. While his wife, whom happens to be 8 months pregnant at the time, supposedly sits at home by herself on Christmas Eve. Now normally Christmas Eve, Christmas, and Thanksgiving are Holidays that really lean towards family and friends time. Well Mr. Peterson decided to leave his darling, pregnant wife at home...or I guess you could say, Mr. Peterson decided to get out of the house. Either way, the wife is missing, the baby is missing, their house was later broken into, but somehow through all of this, the dog made it back home. Nobody actually witnessed Mr. Peterson at the lake, however, he produced a single receipt from the marina.
Now we are hearing that Mr. Peterson had an affair with another woman. She supposedly didn't know that hubby was married. She claims as soon as he found out that hubby was involved she immediately called Modesto Police. Hubby had both sides of the family supporting him until his fling came out. Now of course the family is evenly divided. But wait just a damn minute...now hubby says that his lovely wife knew of the affair. Wow! This is getting good! We have got ourselves a true movie script in the works! This is prime time 6:00pm "Dirty Laundry" News. The reporters are giddy with the excitement over this case. The Pink Panther himself couldn't ask for a better mystery. Or maybe, just maybe, we could get Thomas Magnum to fly over to the mainland for one last bout with the clues. It makes for great watercooler fodder for sure. Producers are happy, ratings are up, and the newspapers are flying off the shelves. Will Hubby confess? Will the mistress confess? What about the witness that has yet to come forward? And why did someone break into the house in question? Was it staged to throw the police off? Did someone plant something? Will the truth ever surface? I am sitting at the edge of my seat!
In the meantime, there is a beautiful young lady, Laci Peterson, whom may be out there still alive (if she is extremely lucky, and beating all odds and statistics). There is also a beautiful unborn baby that remains unaccounted for. Also left in the wake of this fast moving news story, is Laci's parents. The same parents that raised her from a baby to the beautiful young mother she is today. Their lives are destroyed. I pray for Laci, the baby, and her family, but chances are we will never see Laci or the baby again. Chances are much better that the media circus will continue all of the way through this and eventually into a courtroom. It makes for great TV! I can already see a made for TV starring Kate Jackson and the Life-Time Movie Network in the works. I am sure they have already started pre-production (just as soon as Scott Peterson signs off on his lucrative contract and gives up all rights..of course)
As I wonder, at what point do we ever regain the humanity that we as a people lost forever and a day ago? When is enough, enough?
-WadeMC
This story first broke right after Christmas and it was a local (SoCal) story only. Now it has gained National status. The more I watch the media reports surrounding this case, the more I can't believe what I am seeing.
It is a horrible case. A "who-dunnit". Hubby goes fishing on Christmas Eve, by himself, and 180 miles away. While his wife, whom happens to be 8 months pregnant at the time, supposedly sits at home by herself on Christmas Eve. Now normally Christmas Eve, Christmas, and Thanksgiving are Holidays that really lean towards family and friends time. Well Mr. Peterson decided to leave his darling, pregnant wife at home...or I guess you could say, Mr. Peterson decided to get out of the house. Either way, the wife is missing, the baby is missing, their house was later broken into, but somehow through all of this, the dog made it back home. Nobody actually witnessed Mr. Peterson at the lake, however, he produced a single receipt from the marina.
Now we are hearing that Mr. Peterson had an affair with another woman. She supposedly didn't know that hubby was married. She claims as soon as he found out that hubby was involved she immediately called Modesto Police. Hubby had both sides of the family supporting him until his fling came out. Now of course the family is evenly divided. But wait just a damn minute...now hubby says that his lovely wife knew of the affair. Wow! This is getting good! We have got ourselves a true movie script in the works! This is prime time 6:00pm "Dirty Laundry" News. The reporters are giddy with the excitement over this case. The Pink Panther himself couldn't ask for a better mystery. Or maybe, just maybe, we could get Thomas Magnum to fly over to the mainland for one last bout with the clues. It makes for great watercooler fodder for sure. Producers are happy, ratings are up, and the newspapers are flying off the shelves. Will Hubby confess? Will the mistress confess? What about the witness that has yet to come forward? And why did someone break into the house in question? Was it staged to throw the police off? Did someone plant something? Will the truth ever surface? I am sitting at the edge of my seat!
In the meantime, there is a beautiful young lady, Laci Peterson, whom may be out there still alive (if she is extremely lucky, and beating all odds and statistics). There is also a beautiful unborn baby that remains unaccounted for. Also left in the wake of this fast moving news story, is Laci's parents. The same parents that raised her from a baby to the beautiful young mother she is today. Their lives are destroyed. I pray for Laci, the baby, and her family, but chances are we will never see Laci or the baby again. Chances are much better that the media circus will continue all of the way through this and eventually into a courtroom. It makes for great TV! I can already see a made for TV starring Kate Jackson and the Life-Time Movie Network in the works. I am sure they have already started pre-production (just as soon as Scott Peterson signs off on his lucrative contract and gives up all rights..of course)
As I wonder, at what point do we ever regain the humanity that we as a people lost forever and a day ago? When is enough, enough?
-WadeMC
Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Disarm or Destroy?
What do they mean when they say they want to disarm Saddam Hussein?
Think about what would be necessary for someone to disarm YOU. Many of my gun-owning friends subscribe to the phrase "they'll get my gun when they pry it from my cold, lifeless hands" or words to that effect. Okay, so it's pretty clear that we'll need military force to "disarm" the Iraqi dictator, and the buildup of our forces in the Persian Gulf pretty much point to that eventuality. But why the focus on one man?
The president said the other night, "…let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." The president even made an appeal directly to the citizens of Iraq, saying that the day Hussein is removed from power "…will be the day of your liberation." Those, my friends, are very strong words.
To put my question another way, if Saddam suddenly went into exile in another country, would we no longer be concerned about the thousands of tons of bioweapons supposedly in Iraq's arsenal? Are we really silly enough to believe that the ouster of Hussein will signal the end of the problems in Iraq? Well, of course not. It's the entire government in Iraq and most, if not all, of their military that needs to be replaced, if the claims by Powell and Bush and Cheney are to be believed. My question is, why won't they just come out and say it? "We're taking over Iraq, dammit! It's for their own good!"
Go ahead, call me naïve. I never said I was good at this global diplomacy stuff. The problem is that I'm starting to suspect that the guy who lives on Pennsylvania Avenue is not so good at it, either. You see, I value personal integrity and apparently that's not a good trait for a world leader.
More later…
Paul
What do they mean when they say they want to disarm Saddam Hussein?
Think about what would be necessary for someone to disarm YOU. Many of my gun-owning friends subscribe to the phrase "they'll get my gun when they pry it from my cold, lifeless hands" or words to that effect. Okay, so it's pretty clear that we'll need military force to "disarm" the Iraqi dictator, and the buildup of our forces in the Persian Gulf pretty much point to that eventuality. But why the focus on one man?
The president said the other night, "…let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." The president even made an appeal directly to the citizens of Iraq, saying that the day Hussein is removed from power "…will be the day of your liberation." Those, my friends, are very strong words.
To put my question another way, if Saddam suddenly went into exile in another country, would we no longer be concerned about the thousands of tons of bioweapons supposedly in Iraq's arsenal? Are we really silly enough to believe that the ouster of Hussein will signal the end of the problems in Iraq? Well, of course not. It's the entire government in Iraq and most, if not all, of their military that needs to be replaced, if the claims by Powell and Bush and Cheney are to be believed. My question is, why won't they just come out and say it? "We're taking over Iraq, dammit! It's for their own good!"
Go ahead, call me naïve. I never said I was good at this global diplomacy stuff. The problem is that I'm starting to suspect that the guy who lives on Pennsylvania Avenue is not so good at it, either. You see, I value personal integrity and apparently that's not a good trait for a world leader.
More later…
Paul
Friday, January 24, 2003
The (oil) Drums of War.
I keep telling people not to believe everything they read, especially in the mainstream press. Why? Well, mostly because I harbor a deep distrust in the motivation of the so-called Fourth Estate, but also because some of the stuff they print is, basically, unbelievable.
Case in point: I fired up my browser this morning to check out the news and the first story I came across is a Reuter's story with the headline "Iraq Intends to Damage Own Oil Fields in War - U.S." The story went on to explain that an "anonymous" Pentagon official has learned that if we go to war with Iraq, they will "cause damage or destruction" to their own oil fields.
More telling is the planned U.S. response to such a move. The source said U.S military planners "have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction, as opposed to having to go in and clean up after."
What about those alleged weapons of mass destruction? See, if I believed everything I have read so far about this potential war, I would believe that the reason we're sending troops to Iraq is to disarm Hussein and keep him from stockpiling nuclear and biological weapons. Now I read that we have "crafted strategies" to protect the oil fields from sabotage. Hard to believe, isn't it?
Or is it?
Is this war about Iraq's weapons or Iraq's oil? Or, and this is probably more germane to the entire situation, is Iraqi oil their primary weapon? Certainly to a nation addicted to (relatively) low gasoline prices, foreign oil has more of an impact to our day-to-day lives than the implied threat of nuclear weapons that may or may not exist.
And if I were a betting man, I would bet that if YOU grew up in a family that made it's fortune in the petroleum business, the idea that your sworn enemy would torch his own oil fields (to keep them out of your hands?) would probably incite you to action.
We'll soon see if this story can be believed.
More later…
Paul
I keep telling people not to believe everything they read, especially in the mainstream press. Why? Well, mostly because I harbor a deep distrust in the motivation of the so-called Fourth Estate, but also because some of the stuff they print is, basically, unbelievable.
Case in point: I fired up my browser this morning to check out the news and the first story I came across is a Reuter's story with the headline "Iraq Intends to Damage Own Oil Fields in War - U.S." The story went on to explain that an "anonymous" Pentagon official has learned that if we go to war with Iraq, they will "cause damage or destruction" to their own oil fields.
More telling is the planned U.S. response to such a move. The source said U.S military planners "have crafted strategies that will allow us to secure and protect those fields as rapidly as possible in order to then preserve those prior to destruction, as opposed to having to go in and clean up after."
What about those alleged weapons of mass destruction? See, if I believed everything I have read so far about this potential war, I would believe that the reason we're sending troops to Iraq is to disarm Hussein and keep him from stockpiling nuclear and biological weapons. Now I read that we have "crafted strategies" to protect the oil fields from sabotage. Hard to believe, isn't it?
Or is it?
Is this war about Iraq's weapons or Iraq's oil? Or, and this is probably more germane to the entire situation, is Iraqi oil their primary weapon? Certainly to a nation addicted to (relatively) low gasoline prices, foreign oil has more of an impact to our day-to-day lives than the implied threat of nuclear weapons that may or may not exist.
And if I were a betting man, I would bet that if YOU grew up in a family that made it's fortune in the petroleum business, the idea that your sworn enemy would torch his own oil fields (to keep them out of your hands?) would probably incite you to action.
We'll soon see if this story can be believed.
More later…
Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)