Raider Nation Distributing Shields to Fans To Ward Off Errant Russell Passes

Oakland Uber-fan group the Raider Nation is reportedly distributing protective shields to their members in an attempt to protect them from the wild passes of #1 draft pick Jamarcus Russell.

"Mr. Russell, though blessed with a rocket for an arm, has been known to have trouble connecting with his recievers in a big way," said Gregory Baker, head of the Raider Nation Human Resources Department. "These shields will allow our fans to remain safe while watching games."

When asked what sort of protection the Raiders players will get in regards to this situation, Raiders owner Al Davis reportedly said "Have you seen this guy throw? The players have nothing to worry about! It's the fans that need to watch out, and I'm proud of the Raider Nation for stepping up and making these protective devices available to its members."

The shields are reportedly made of a carbon-fiber material, making them light enough for a toddler to hold but strong enough to withstand the bullets of Russell.

"We recommend that two fans be reponsible for the wielding of each shield," said Baker. "This guy could throw a pass through a 747 - he's that strong."

The FTSB is apparently recommending that air traffic patterns be altered during game days to go around Oakland's McAfee Colisseum.

Some ire did remain for coach Lane Kiffin and his staff despite this humanitarian gesture by the Raider Nation.

"What do they think they're doing?" asked one irate Raider Nation mother. "I take my kids to those games - do they think a ten-year old can stand up to one of those passes?"

Baker and the Raider Nation Research and Development team are now looking at new ways to help defend the smallest Raiders fans from the gatling-gun like prowess of Russell. "We're looking at a kids' section that has a protective guard around it - sort of like the Popemobile. A cheaper option would be to hand out free t-shirts to all the kids with targets on the chests - Russell's sure to miss those!"

Ruiz to Crew? Er...um...

Okay, I'm not really sure how I feel about this one. Allen Hopkins at ESPN reports:

Reunion: Vol. 2?

First it was Clint Mathis and Bruce Arena. Now could it be Carlos Ruiz and Sigi Schmid?

There are growing rumblings that the Crew could make a move to pry Carlos Ruiz away from FC Dallas. Ruiz has been substituted in two of the past three matches by first-year head coach Steve Morrow and that hasn¹t sat well with the FCD captain.

Ruiz and Schmid were a very successful pairing in 2002 leading the Galaxy to their first MLS Cup after three previous championship-game losses. And to say Schmid has a place in his heart for Ruiz is an understatement. The Crew are quietly unbeaten and seem to be only a proven goal scorer away from making noise in the East.

An MLS coach told me this week, "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense the way they're [Dallas] playing tactically right now in that formation. To be playing Ruiz up top by himself and Cooper out wide really hurts them quite a bit." Stay tuned.

The article is absolutely right. We are a goal-scorer away from being a power at this point. We have solid defense, a midfield that has been able to get the ball forward, and even lots of shots. But we only have three goals on the season. THREE! Granted, Andy Herron is still trying to work himself into play and the crap suspension against him doesn't help. But there are another ten guys out there to score and they're just not doing it. Eddie Gaven is on leaderboard for shots but not shots on goal. So we could sure use a proven forward.

On the other hand, though... Ruiz is a diving mess. I don't feel as strongly about him as I do Ante Razov, but I sure as heck don't like him. He's too much a Central American player (who's not from Costa Rica - I never see them diving as much as I do other C.A. players, it seems) in that he's constantly flopping and throwing out the histrionics. And I can't support that. Even when it's our player, and you're supposed to be able to support your players... I can't do it here. He's all that is wrong with soccer.

Damn... what's a Crew fan supposed to do?

Ingenuity? Perhaps.

You have to appreciate the work that went into such a project. Look for this at soccer matches and award shows coming soon.

One Day Blog Silence

Apple's New Product

Introducing.... the iRack!

Try Petrolius... It'll Give You That Warm Feeling All Over (the World)

Brilliant video... and visit the link after you watch!

VideoVets.Org

Like any other community, the community of military veterans and their families is not homogeneously for the war in Iraq. Click here for more information.

Best Commercial Ever

And it actually makes me want to buy the product!

Tank McNamara Gets It Right

What's true for the NBA is most certainly true in MLS...

Okay, Who's Been Giving Clocks to the Trees?

Here's a letter to the editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette from Connie M. Meskimen, of Hot Springs, Arkansas. Apparently she thinks Congress has a little more power than they do...

Seriously, I pray that this is a joke. But somehow I don't think it is...

UPDATE: It is a joke. But it's a darned funny one. See Matt's comments below.

Finally, a Serious Look at Caffeine

US News and World Report is running an article this week on the health risks of caffeine and other uppers, an addiction that is afflicting our nation at an alarming rate.

And thank goodness. It's been apparent to me from the beginning that those things are bad news.

Remember Jolt Cola? When that stuff came out in the 80s, I was amused by the ads for it: "All the sugar, twice the caffeine." Then, I tried it - and my heart started palpitating. I never tried it again. I didn't see the point.

I tried a Red Bull once before I realized what it was... the stuff tasted like crap and made me feel about the same... it was hard to tell because I had it with vodka. I never tried that again, either. Then I actually looked at the label... and I figured why I felt the same. And there's another reason to question MLS's "family-friendly" ideals when they accept money from Red Bull to change a team name to that of their drug drink.

Those so-called "energy drinks" are nothing of the sort. They're uppers, plain and simple. They disrupt sleep, cause heart problems, increase stress, and basically wreck your life.

I have a cup of coffee now and then, and I take Excedrin Migraine for my migraines. And that's about it. I rarely drink caffeinated pop, and I get my "upper" from exercise and deep breathing. That's all you really need. There's no better upper than a vigorous round of good exercise - like my daily bike ride into work.

And as for all those drug drink "energy drinks," they need to have warnings on them like cigarettes and alcohol. Because there's really very little difference.

Urlacher Slapped On Wrist Over Choice of Beverage

Brian Urlacher was fined $100,000 for wearing a Vitamin Water hat and drinking the aforementioned beverage publicly at a Bears media day event. Apparently it's against the rules for players to appear at official events wearing logos for non-NFL sponsors.

This makes me laugh until you think about how un-American it is. If we are a country that stands up for the freedom of choice, then what business is it of the NFL or its sponsors which beverage Brian Urlacher or any other player chooses to drink, no matter where he is?

I hope Urlacher takes this just as far as Jim McMahon did back in the day of the whole Rozelle headband thing.

Corporate Named Teams SUCK

I know, I know, any money coming into MLS should be welcomed and all, and to some extent I agree with that. But... renaming a team after your corporate name? Hmmm...to me, that's just....

When Irish Eyes Are Smiling...

Makes me pine for the old country...

Bush Set To Disobey Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's landmark case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency and global warming is near to being totally defied by the Bush Administration - predictably.

From the Los Angeles Times:

President Bush, while acknowledging Tuesday that he took "very seriously" the Supreme Court's ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency must regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles as pollution, set up a potential conflict with Congress by attaching two conditions to comply with the decision.

Bush said that any regulatory program should not slow economic growth, nor should its benefits to the atmosphere be offset by mounting emissions from China, India and other growing economies.

So, let's sort this out:

First, Bush says that a regulatory program should not slow economic growth. Obviously, the Bush Administration continues to follow the mindset that environmental policy enforcement means slowing the economy, when most reports today indicate that such enforcement will actually HELP the economy in the long run. Otherwise, why would companies like Wal-Mart be attempting to go green? The big box store giant announced late last year that it was attempting to produce zero waste and use entirely renewable fuels. And companies like DuPont and General Electric have announced similar goals, as a SMALL example.

So it seems the encouragement and enforcement of environmental policies is actually a PRO-economy move... unless you're in an industry that makes its living from being a polluter, specifically energy, oil and coal industries. And guess who put Bush into the White House!

Second, Bush says that our efforts should not be offset by China, India, and other developing countries. So, in other words, Bush is applying the playground mentality of "Joey doesn't have to do it, why do I have to?" Grow up, Mr. President. The economic issue isn't valid, therefore neither is this issue - we don't have to pollute to keep up with developing nations like China and India economically. And the US is the number one polluter in the world - our reduction in emissions can't help but make an impact, no matter WHAT China and India do.

And one final note: the President doesn't have the legal option to defy the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's decisions are final, they are the Constitutional law of the land. He, as the head of the executive branch, is constitutionally bound to enforce the law of the land - no matter what. But, given his flouting of his constitutional responsibilities throughout his administration, should we be surprised?