It's been a whirlwind four days, with my birthday on Friday and then having an event planned every day since Thursday, that I haven't had the time or energy to blog.

But first with Sunday's news. Yes, I am bummed about the Oakland Raiders losing. I thought for sure they would win by a touchdown, but the Tampa Bay defense was strong and Rich Gannon and the Oakland offense never could find their rhythm. Weird thing too, with the center being sent home. No one on the team will admit that this incident made them lose the game, but it's got to have been a distraction. Not sure if I even heard what the real story was on the center, but I'm sure the news will come out soon enough.

So damn! This is the second San Francisco Bay Area team this year to make it a sport championship final, and then bomb out at the end. The SF Giants lost to the Anaheim Angels, when in game 6 it looked they had it all wrapped up, and now the Oakland Raiders, who were a 3.5 point favorite to win, get stuffed in the superbowl. Bummer, bummer, bummer!

I liked that Oakland Raider was full of veterans and older players, or as the media dubbed them "football senior citizens". I wanted Oakland to win, to make a statement that just because you're old doesn't mean you can't play. I didn't want Tampa Bay to win, beause it sends the message out to everyone, that if you've got enough money and are willing to give up draft picks, you can buy a coach and win a superbowl. It's the New York Yankees style of winning championships, and I didn't want the same thing to happen to football. But it did, and that's too bad.

Thank god, football has a salary cap, so the George Steinbrenner school of winning championships can't infect football entirely. But because of salary cap, most of the Raider players will be gone next season, since the Raider will be seriously over the salary cap next year. Oh well. Al Davis did get spectacular draft picks in giving up John Gruden, so they'll be able to rebuild the team that way.

I think the Raiders lost because Al Davis has so much bad karma with the NFL. He's still in lawsuit with the NFL and with the City of Oakland as well.

Someone in the NFL office must really be a big Sting fan, since he appeared again. I loved Santana's appearance and No Doubt, and even Shania Twain. But Sting? Come on. I mean, I love Bon Jovi, but I can't believe they're playing at some other big event on TV. And why wasn't there any rap/hip hop acts like Nelly? Guess the NFL front office doesn't listen to the music that most of their players listen too or believes in variety in their acts.

I did love the way the Dixie chicks sang the national anthem, but I'm a Dixie Chicks fan. I kind of liked the spoof of the Bud Light two girls fighting commercial down the "The Practice". I think it only came on once, and it was funny. Then there's the visa check card commercial with Rondi and Tiki Barber, such cuties, where Rondi has a visa check card and the checkout girl makes the observation that Rondi is the one in the superbowl and Tiki isn't, because he's the one who uses check. Funny. The Ozzy Osbourne commercial was funny, but Pepsi Twist does not taste good. I wonder how much Pepsi paid all those people to be in that ad.

More later on Thursday's events - I went to see "American Buffalo" at ACT and ate at the Pacific Restaurant the Pan Pacific Hotel, Friday's events - I watched "Lilo and Stitch" and "Gangs of New York" and ate at One Market and at a Singapore/Malaysian/Thai restaurant, and Saturday's events - I went to a lecture on Tibetan art, wondered through a Chinatown street fair and saw "LOTR-The Two Towers." Like I said, it was a busy four days.

Here's an editorial on the US and Iraq from Arab News, Saudi Arabia's First English Daily, Editorial: Iraq and US. The media is Saudi controlled, but it's interesting that the writer says that perhaps the best way to keep Saddam Hussein under control is to have UN weapons inspectors permanently stationed in Iraq. My question is, who is going to fund this solution? Is it the USA, since we fund most of the United Nations expenses anyway? I mean it sounds like a half decent idea, and an alternative to war, but it's logistics of this solution that bothers me.

For the wine readers, I tried Charles Shaw Cabernet Sauvignon, on sale at Trader Joe's for $1.99, and it was very good for the price. An article in the SF Chron said people were calling Charles Shaw wine, "Chuck for a Buck". The wine is young and it wasn't as smooth as a more expensive wine, but for a $1.99 it's totally drinkable and a great picnic or every day dinner wine. If I didn't know it cost a $1.99, I'd have guess the cost of the wine to be between $5-15.

Check this link out, Future of Public Interest in the Digital Age at Stake as FCC Proceeds with Plans to End Longstanding Safeguards. The FCC, which is coincidentially chaired by Colin Powell's son, is reviewing the FCC rules which allow how many media stations a company may own in a given market. I think the current number limit is eight, but the buzz on the conspiracy theory radio programs is that the FCC will lift the limits thereby creating media monopolies.

Don't we already have media monopolies on the radio with a company like Clear Channel, which owns a ton of radio stations? If a company like Clear Channel is allowed to own all the sources of media in a market, doesn't that they mean they will control all forms of communication media like radio and TV. This is not good. Of course, the internet is there as a source of alternative information, but I don't like that one company may one day be able to own and control every radio and TV station in a market. Talk about being able to "control the message".