Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Probably the saddest thing about this past weeks loss is that the Philadelphia Eagles wasted all of the karma that they had generated for themselves. Karma once again was able to carry them as far as the NFC Championship game, and a win away from the Super Bowl. But for the second year in a row, despite having every advantage including home field, they were unable to make it over the last hump to bring themselves to greatness.
Still, that is closer than alot of other teams. And while they face some major decisions in the off-season, they can be safe in the knowledge that their key to success is safely retained within the team budget, and cannot be signed away by another club. Am I talking about a key player like Donovan MCNabb, or a coaching wizard like Defensive coordinator Jim Johnson? Well, they certainly contributed to the teams success, but not nearly as pivotal to the success of the club as are the persons I am thinking of. The trainers? The front office? The clubhouse attendants whose job it is to wash the jocks and cups of the players (a truly thankless task, I imagine)? (I can picture a thank-you card from some player to the attendants thanking them for "always getting my cup minty fresh! It's like I washed my privates in Listerine!")
(OK, I admit that last part was rather wrong, and a tad creepy. Nobody said I wasn't guilty of the same.)
No, no, no. The Eagles have benefitted and owe their victories to the beyond wonderful karma created by their own cheerleaders. The cheerleaders, for thier second year in a row got togeather to shoot a Lingerie catalog, and the pictures can be seen if you click on their individual bios and then the calender photos. The goodwill generated by such beautiful pictures manifested itself in a 3 year run as NFC East division champions. Now before you dismiss my theory, let's take a look at the Super Bowl winners for the last few years, shall we? The Buccaneers from last year had cheerleaders. The previous year the Patriots won, and they had cheerleaders. Baltimore before that? Cheerleaders. The Rams? They have cheerleaders too. Denver won the Super Bowl 2 years in a row. Do they have cheerleaders? Check and Check. The Bears won the Super Bowl in 1985, and the Honey Bears graced the sideline. The following year, they got rid of the girls, and they haven't been back to the Super Bowl since. Coincidence? I think not.
(Sidenote: It's hard typing this out with one hand. No, not that! I'm holding a tiring toddler in one hand while I work, and she won't allow me to set her down.)
In fact, the only team that in recent history that won the Super Bowl without an established team cheer squad was the Green Bay Packers. However, in that instance I think we can all see the evil inherent in the team that drove THAT particular happenstance. A team that has the temerity to win without cheerleaders, well....that type of crime speaks for itself, and really there isn't a punishment in the world that coulld be devised to fully equate how much damage was done to the American psyche and spirit.
George W Bush, if you are looking for threats to the American people, look no further than Green Bay WI, where (amongst other crimes against the rest of the NFL) they they deprive the women of the state employment oppurtunities as Sports Entertainment Enhancers, and deny their own fan base of a complete sporting experience, not to mention an alternative for those who find the team on the field too painful to watch. Surely, this cannot go ignored, nor unpunished! We call upon the football gods to smote the team of Green Bay!
OK, enough talk about that.
(I am SOOOOOO good at segways from one topic to the next. )
I am not, nor have been a political mind. However, in the interest of being topical, I'll cover some thoughts about the State of the Union address this evening.
First and foremost, I'm neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. Not really a member or follower of any political party, really. Independant? As opposed to what; groupie? From what I hear, being a groupie CAN be fun, though I suppose that makes me a member of the Clinton party, and we certainly don't want that. (Clinton jokes are the lazy comedian's way out of everything. So of course there will be more references later. )
Beyond the typical party lines, there are those who paint themselves as Federalists, Patatriotists, Socialists, etc. And then there are teh OPtimists, Pessimists, Realists, Deists, Lutherans.....Wait, I got off track.
But there needs to be a label (well, maybe not) for those who are convinced that no matter who is in office, it was always better under the previous guy, regardless of political affliliation. And on the opposite side, there are those that are convinced that whomever happens to be in the Oval Office is THE GUY to lead us into prosperity for all tme.
Me? The trend seems to be supporting the POSITION of President, even though I might disagree with their policies, both foreign and domestic.
My oldest daughter asked me why I never tried to be President. Knowing that I couldn't explain to her the harsh criticism or the intusive background checks, the money required to run a campaign, and numerous other issues that come with it I simply told her that it was a very hard job to do, and it took very special people to do so (despite evidence to the contrary for the past however many years).
Besides, by staying impartial, I am free to criticize both sides without guilt! Hooray!
I'm also curious and am wondering allowed about how much time passes after his term for a President to be considered great, amongst the names of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and possibly Kennedy or Eisenhower. There have been whispers here and there about Reagan, and I wonder if that is simply because of the recent Return to the 80's craze, and maybe some pity because of his on-going losing battle with Alzheimers. OR has enough time past that he's being looked upon as a truly great President? Will partisan politics and the extreme media coverage from the late 80's forward provide too much intense coverage (not allowing us to forget gaffes or indescretions) prevent any President from ever achieving that lofty of a status?
I don't know. Anyway, here's my notes from the State of the Union.
First, I noticed that they did not play Hail to the Chief as he entered. I thought that song accompanied him wherever he went. Trip to Russia? Hail to the Chief. Meeting with the press? Hail to the Chief. Midnoght bathroom visit? Hail to the Chief. (If you really wanna mess with the band, take two steps into the room, back out, and come right back in again, to see if they stop and start over, or just keep going. )
Second, I don't remember watching alot of State Addresses before, but I never remember it being so racous. I was waiting for the assembly to start "Roof! Roof! Roof!" and waving their fists about like some sort of Very Special Arsenio Hall Reunion show. I thought they were supposed to be a bit more...conservative, if you'll forgive the term.
---There is a guy with the title of Majority Whip. See, there's another example of jokes making themselves. There is a heirarchy of whips, of course. Majority whip is at the top, followed by Miracle, and then Cool right below that. Bull whip is a bit further down, and then the cat-o'-nine tails.
Watching on NBC, they had a camera angle that shot straight on. It was misleading because at different times, the assembly would give a standing ovation, and it looked as though only the right side would stand up. Unless they did it wedding style, and sat family and friends of the Prez on the RIGHT (staunch supporters on the FAR RIGHT, har har har), and friends of the bridesmaids-but-never-the-bride Democrats on the left. Turns out that the cabinet and the judges were sitting front row on the left, leading to the mis-understanding on my part, but I couldn't have been the only one to notice this.
Another thing was the shot of representative from NY Charles Raegel. He'll be hearing from his constituents today, I am sure, since it looked as though he had fallen asleep, like some over-tired toddler (oh, look. There she is.) I'd hate to be the head of HIS re-election committee. That's a campaign ad for his opponents that writes itself.
President Bush also went after pro sports and steroids. He wants everyone from the League offices on down to do away with performance enhancing drugs (are you listening, Bud Selig?) to provide better role models for our kids. NOw we've already been down this road before, with various athletes coming out and saying that they are NOT a role model, and that kids should look to their parents to fill that position. I would say that as a resident and contributor of the community, it's up to them to be a positive force within that area. And some of that comes from leading by example. A role model. A parent will do all they can to lead their kids down the right path, but everyone needs help, and needs TO HELP.
Time to sign off. Good night all.
Still, that is closer than alot of other teams. And while they face some major decisions in the off-season, they can be safe in the knowledge that their key to success is safely retained within the team budget, and cannot be signed away by another club. Am I talking about a key player like Donovan MCNabb, or a coaching wizard like Defensive coordinator Jim Johnson? Well, they certainly contributed to the teams success, but not nearly as pivotal to the success of the club as are the persons I am thinking of. The trainers? The front office? The clubhouse attendants whose job it is to wash the jocks and cups of the players (a truly thankless task, I imagine)? (I can picture a thank-you card from some player to the attendants thanking them for "always getting my cup minty fresh! It's like I washed my privates in Listerine!")
(OK, I admit that last part was rather wrong, and a tad creepy. Nobody said I wasn't guilty of the same.)
No, no, no. The Eagles have benefitted and owe their victories to the beyond wonderful karma created by their own cheerleaders. The cheerleaders, for thier second year in a row got togeather to shoot a Lingerie catalog, and the pictures can be seen if you click on their individual bios and then the calender photos. The goodwill generated by such beautiful pictures manifested itself in a 3 year run as NFC East division champions. Now before you dismiss my theory, let's take a look at the Super Bowl winners for the last few years, shall we? The Buccaneers from last year had cheerleaders. The previous year the Patriots won, and they had cheerleaders. Baltimore before that? Cheerleaders. The Rams? They have cheerleaders too. Denver won the Super Bowl 2 years in a row. Do they have cheerleaders? Check and Check. The Bears won the Super Bowl in 1985, and the Honey Bears graced the sideline. The following year, they got rid of the girls, and they haven't been back to the Super Bowl since. Coincidence? I think not.
(Sidenote: It's hard typing this out with one hand. No, not that! I'm holding a tiring toddler in one hand while I work, and she won't allow me to set her down.)
In fact, the only team that in recent history that won the Super Bowl without an established team cheer squad was the Green Bay Packers. However, in that instance I think we can all see the evil inherent in the team that drove THAT particular happenstance. A team that has the temerity to win without cheerleaders, well....that type of crime speaks for itself, and really there isn't a punishment in the world that coulld be devised to fully equate how much damage was done to the American psyche and spirit.
George W Bush, if you are looking for threats to the American people, look no further than Green Bay WI, where (amongst other crimes against the rest of the NFL) they they deprive the women of the state employment oppurtunities as Sports Entertainment Enhancers, and deny their own fan base of a complete sporting experience, not to mention an alternative for those who find the team on the field too painful to watch. Surely, this cannot go ignored, nor unpunished! We call upon the football gods to smote the team of Green Bay!
OK, enough talk about that.
(I am SOOOOOO good at segways from one topic to the next. )
I am not, nor have been a political mind. However, in the interest of being topical, I'll cover some thoughts about the State of the Union address this evening.
First and foremost, I'm neither a Democrat, nor a Republican. Not really a member or follower of any political party, really. Independant? As opposed to what; groupie? From what I hear, being a groupie CAN be fun, though I suppose that makes me a member of the Clinton party, and we certainly don't want that. (Clinton jokes are the lazy comedian's way out of everything. So of course there will be more references later. )
Beyond the typical party lines, there are those who paint themselves as Federalists, Patatriotists, Socialists, etc. And then there are teh OPtimists, Pessimists, Realists, Deists, Lutherans.....Wait, I got off track.
But there needs to be a label (well, maybe not) for those who are convinced that no matter who is in office, it was always better under the previous guy, regardless of political affliliation. And on the opposite side, there are those that are convinced that whomever happens to be in the Oval Office is THE GUY to lead us into prosperity for all tme.
Me? The trend seems to be supporting the POSITION of President, even though I might disagree with their policies, both foreign and domestic.
My oldest daughter asked me why I never tried to be President. Knowing that I couldn't explain to her the harsh criticism or the intusive background checks, the money required to run a campaign, and numerous other issues that come with it I simply told her that it was a very hard job to do, and it took very special people to do so (despite evidence to the contrary for the past however many years).
Besides, by staying impartial, I am free to criticize both sides without guilt! Hooray!
I'm also curious and am wondering allowed about how much time passes after his term for a President to be considered great, amongst the names of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and possibly Kennedy or Eisenhower. There have been whispers here and there about Reagan, and I wonder if that is simply because of the recent Return to the 80's craze, and maybe some pity because of his on-going losing battle with Alzheimers. OR has enough time past that he's being looked upon as a truly great President? Will partisan politics and the extreme media coverage from the late 80's forward provide too much intense coverage (not allowing us to forget gaffes or indescretions) prevent any President from ever achieving that lofty of a status?
I don't know. Anyway, here's my notes from the State of the Union.
First, I noticed that they did not play Hail to the Chief as he entered. I thought that song accompanied him wherever he went. Trip to Russia? Hail to the Chief. Meeting with the press? Hail to the Chief. Midnoght bathroom visit? Hail to the Chief. (If you really wanna mess with the band, take two steps into the room, back out, and come right back in again, to see if they stop and start over, or just keep going. )
Second, I don't remember watching alot of State Addresses before, but I never remember it being so racous. I was waiting for the assembly to start "Roof! Roof! Roof!" and waving their fists about like some sort of Very Special Arsenio Hall Reunion show. I thought they were supposed to be a bit more...conservative, if you'll forgive the term.
---There is a guy with the title of Majority Whip. See, there's another example of jokes making themselves. There is a heirarchy of whips, of course. Majority whip is at the top, followed by Miracle, and then Cool right below that. Bull whip is a bit further down, and then the cat-o'-nine tails.
Watching on NBC, they had a camera angle that shot straight on. It was misleading because at different times, the assembly would give a standing ovation, and it looked as though only the right side would stand up. Unless they did it wedding style, and sat family and friends of the Prez on the RIGHT (staunch supporters on the FAR RIGHT, har har har), and friends of the bridesmaids-but-never-the-bride Democrats on the left. Turns out that the cabinet and the judges were sitting front row on the left, leading to the mis-understanding on my part, but I couldn't have been the only one to notice this.
Another thing was the shot of representative from NY Charles Raegel. He'll be hearing from his constituents today, I am sure, since it looked as though he had fallen asleep, like some over-tired toddler (oh, look. There she is.) I'd hate to be the head of HIS re-election committee. That's a campaign ad for his opponents that writes itself.
President Bush also went after pro sports and steroids. He wants everyone from the League offices on down to do away with performance enhancing drugs (are you listening, Bud Selig?) to provide better role models for our kids. NOw we've already been down this road before, with various athletes coming out and saying that they are NOT a role model, and that kids should look to their parents to fill that position. I would say that as a resident and contributor of the community, it's up to them to be a positive force within that area. And some of that comes from leading by example. A role model. A parent will do all they can to lead their kids down the right path, but everyone needs help, and needs TO HELP.
Time to sign off. Good night all.
Comments:
Post a Comment
