• Date: 2001-11-10
• Location: Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, San Francisco, California, USA
• Referee: Marty Denkin
• Judge: Ric Bays 54-58
• Judge: Marshall Walker 56-56
• Judge: Raul Caiz Sr 57-55
• International Boxing Federation Super Bantamweight Title (1st. defending of Pacquiao)
• World Boxing Organization Super Bantamweight Title (1st. defending of Sanchez)
• Time: 1:12
• Weights: 120.5 lbs (each)
The Main Attraction on the HBO Event taking place in San Francisco, Ca. was Floyd Mayweather, Jr. (26-0) vs Jesus Chavez (35-1). So here I was, seated approximately ten floor-rows back (row KK) due to a convenient ticket printing mix-up, able to see the sweat from George Foreman's ringside bald head as well as from the fighters, watching my first and only professional boxing event featuring two would-be hall of fame boxers early in their careers.
There were plenty of preliminary fights that were so, so. However, to be up close to any boxing ring during a fight is undisputedly one of the best experiences in sports. The anticipation leading up to the main event was edge of your seat can't wait. By the time the two main fighters entered the ring and introductions were made, the arena's atmosphere was simply off the charts. Definitely worth the price of admission.
It was the only time Pacquiao (33-2) and Mayweather would be on the same boxing card until they finally faced off against each other fourteen years later in 2015. That fight was also anti-climactic, with Mayweather displaying his defensive skills while applying what seemed like an avoid direct confrontation style. It was like watching the fox chase the hare and the hare's quickness was too much for the fox. Mayweather fans saw him as demonstrating the sweet science of boxing while Pacquiao fans labeled Mayweather a cowardly running chicken. It was not a good fight.
Now with both pretty much retired, they were scheduled to meet in 2026. However, the HBO event was postponed indefinitely due to legal disputes and financial gridlock surrounding Mayweather's camp. But that's okay, boxing fans aren't trying to see an old fox chase an older hare around the boxing ring, even in an exhibition match.
If you've never been to a Professional Boxing event and have the opportunity to do so,
After watching various shows about the Lindsay Clancy case, I determined there was no motive for why a mother of three children would murder her kids. I believe the defense and/or prosecution also voiced no motive was found. This doesn't mean there was no motive but that no evidence could be presented as a motive. A prosecution without a motive usually favors the defense, except in this case both sides agree the mother murdered her kids. It is the mental state of the accused mother that is on trial.
After taking it all in and hearing additional evidence I hadn't heard earlier, I do believe at the time of the murders Lindsay Clancy knew what she was doing. I feel she struggled with coming to the conclusion of having to take the lives of her three little ones but somehow was able to justify it in order to successfully follow through with at least part of the plan (murder-suicide).
It is the "somehow" which I feel gives us a peek into the motive for why she did what she did to her children.
I believe if a mother has determined to commit suicide her biggest roadblock/burden is having to leave her children behind. Not knowing what will happen to her children after she is dead, and having no say whatsoever in the fate of their lives afterward would weigh heavily on any mother abandoning her young children due to any circumstances.
And if mental illness, depression or a fatal illness has befallen a mother, what more concern would she have than the care for her young children (5yrs, 3yrs, 8mos) after she is gone. A mentally stable mother might look to female family or close friends to ensure the safety and upbringing of her children. A loving father, who did exist in this case, might lack in nurturing and loving.
In the case of Mrs. Lindsay Clancy, we know she was being treated for mental illness and depression. What was never given as evidence was her motive for wanting to kill herself, if there is such a thing for suicidal thoughts. Perhaps it was mentioned in the trial, but I don't remember hearing it. It seems clear that for whatever reason(s) she came to the conclusion to end her own life, the lives of her children weighed heavily on her decision.
In coming to that conclusion, she was faced with the dilemma of leaving her children behind to face a life without a mother's nurturing love. I do believe she loved her children as much as any mother could, and in her depressed mental state she chose the only place she thought they'd be safe and possibly with her to watch over them was in death.
It seems the prosecution and defense were more focused on accusing and defending the medical professions and pharmaceutical prescriptions used to treat her condition, than determining what led Lindsay to want to commit suicide. I believe once Lindsay decided to kill herself, as a mother she calculated it was best for her children to die along with her.
In other words, Lindsay chose first to kill herself, and the killing of her children was an afterthought that took planning.
I believe the Lindsay Clancy Case was a botched murder-suicide. A case where a loving mother chose what she felt best for her children once she decided to end her own life. And in some mentally/emotionally challenged way of thinking, it would take the love of a mother to understand the fear and hurt of leaving her children behind forever. Perhaps, so much fear and hurt that she may not have been able to go through with her own suicide while her little ones were still alive.
A painful tragedy to envision. And I'd assume painful for a mother who lived through it all and a father who couldn't protect his children. But my heart truly goes out to those who were innocent victims in this case: young Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy. No verdict in any courtroom will give back what was forcefully taken from them. Life!
It wasn't pretty. Raiders have much work to do both offensively and defensively. But in their second preseason game the Raiders showed composure, resilience, and the "Will to Win" as they came back from a seventeen-point halftime deficit to defeat the Houston Texans in Raiders style.
Winning can soothe the aches and pains from a disappointing showing. And watching that first half was a painfully, huge disappointment. But to show up when it matters most, with the game on the line and no time outs left eased the earlier pain. A gutsy goal line tush-push play with fourteen-seconds on the game clock launched a Raiders sideline celebration as a decades old team motto sunk in for the newly signed young players wearing silver and black (white jerseys):
After revisiting the movie Django Unchained, I have nothing but admiration for the creativity and genius of filmmaker Quentino Tarantino. The characters, the dialogue and the violent cruelness of some scenes make it a classic tribute to Western films past. And the main theme song, an original from the 1966 film Django, should be tops on any list of western theme songs.
The genius is recognizable right from the beginning, when Tarantino inserts slavery, race and revenge into the plot along with his uniquely hinted humor. To watch a Tarantino film is to sit back, suspend belief, and let your senses take in an unfiltered collage of place, time, peoples and circumstances.
If nothing else, Tarantino should be remembered as the filmmaker who revolutionized the "N"-word in film. From an older generation, who rightly attach so much violent hatred to this word, hats off to a younger generation for somewhat declawing the word and rendering it less harmful by using it in a fraternal/brotherly context.
But to know the history of the word is to know what a person today means when using it. One should know the social context associated with how a person addresses another. When it comes to the "N"-word, its history alone distorts its use and meaning today.
Personally, I do not use the word. But I'm more aware and sensitive to the manner in which someone addresses me than the words they use to address me. Yes, words matter. But as we have seen with the "N"-word, when a word is used in a slang context, its social relevance has been altered by those using it in that context. Meanwhile, those so offended by the ugly history associated with the word continue to find its use in any context offensive.
As for Quentino Tarantino's over the top use of the "N"-word in his films, I believe his creative artistry puts the viewer's thoughts and conscience on trial, where he/she is the judge/jury/plaintiff/defendant all wrapped up into one. Each viewer must battle with their own inner feelings about how the word was used and what emotions arose in them by hearing its use over and over again. I doubt those who find the word vulgar regardless of context can comfortably sit through a Tarantino film. Then again, maybe Tarantino is all about making viewers uncomfortable about violent and cruel behaviors that were once acceptable.
Chattel Slavery was legal in what is now the United States of America for 246 years.
Do remember, Django is a creation of historical fiction for entertainment purposes. It is you, as a living, breathing being with a mind, body and emotions tethered to your own history that movies like Django can awaken awareness in. There is so much more to this classic Western movie than just one word. But without the "N"-word's use, in its slavery-era context, I doubt this film would have had and continues to have such an impact on its viewing audience.
There’s a powerful moment in Django Unchained where Stephen, the house slave played by Samuel L. Jackson, sees Django riding a horse and immediately becomes furious. Not because Django did anything wrong, but because the image itself violates the order Stephen had internalized. A Black man moving freely, confidently, outside the hierarchy he had accepted. That moment wasn’t just about anger. It was about conditioning.
I thought about that scene when I saw the old clip from the Ricky Lake show where two Black men are arguing about racism. One is speaking honestly about still feeling the weight of profiling and discrimination. The other says racism may exist but we should just ignore it and focus on Black people harming each other instead.
Both are reacting to the same history, but from very different places.
One says you can acknowledge racism and still strive, still build, still succeed while understanding the system you’re navigating. The other says success requires pretending the system doesn’t exist at all.
But the deeper issue is how the conversation turns inward and becomes a fight between us. That’s the legacy that stretches all the way back to slavery. Systems that conditioned people to compete, distrust, and police one another while the larger structure remained intact.
Stephen’s anger at Django wasn’t just a character moment. It was a metaphor. Internalized hierarchy can make people defend the very structure that once oppressed them. And when that conditioning carries forward through generations, the argument becomes less about the system and more about each other.
The real challenge isn’t deciding whether racism exists or pretending it doesn’t. The challenge is recognizing the history of how we were conditioned and refusing to let that conditioning turn us against each other.
Awareness and success are not opposites. You can acknowledge reality and still rise above it.
Disclaimer: This post contains commentary on historical themes, media, and social dynamics for educational and discussion purposes.
All societies need a shared moral code. They all therefore need a process of socialisation. But not all do this in the same way. The anthropologist Ruth Benedict made a fundamental distinction between shame cultures and guiltcultures. In shame cultures the highest value is honour. In guilt cultures it is righteousness, "doing what is right because it is right." In shame cultures, morality functions through a sense of what others expect from you. Shame itself is the sense of the disgrace we would suffer if others found out what we have done. Guilt has nothing to do with opinions of others and everything to do with the voice of conscience. Shame cultures are other-directed. Guilt cultures are inner-directed.
This has significant consequences. One who has been shamed has been marked, tainted, stigmatised. The only way of escaping shame is to leave and live elsewhere or, in extremis, to commit suicide. Guilt cultures are different because they draw a sharp distinction between the agent and the act, the sinner and the sin. The act may be wrong, but the agent remains untainted, intact. As we say in our morning prayers, "The soul You gave me is pure," even if I have done things that are impure. Thus, in guilt cultures, there is always the possibility of remorse, repentance, atonement, and forgiveness. We can mend broken relationships. We can atone for sins. We can apologise and be forgiven. What we did does not hold us eternally captive. What we do in the future can atone for what we did in the past. A guilt culture is a morality of freedom. A shame culture is a morality of conformity and social control.
Much has been written about Genesis 2-3, the story of the first humans in the Garden of Eden and the first sin, eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Few, however, have understood that it is actually a story about the difference between guilt and shame. Bernard Williams, in Shame and Necessity, points out that shame is essentially a visual phenomenon. When you feel shame, you are experiencing or imagining what it is like to be seen doing what you did by others. The first instinct on feeling shame is to wish to be invisible or elsewhere. Guilt, by contrast, is more a phenomenon of hearing than one of seeing. It represents the inner voice of conscience. Becoming invisible or transported to somewhere else may assuage shame, but it has no effect on guilt. The voice goes with you, wherever you are.
Seven Features of Jewish Ethics
1. The dignity of the individual
2. Human freedom
3. The sanctity of life
4. Guilt, not shame
5. Loyalty and love
6. The ethics of covenant
7. The dual covenant
Judaism: A faith and way of life centered on the Torah, divine commandments (mitzvot), and spiritual relationship with God. Historically, traditional belief held that the return to the Land of Israel would occur through divine messianic intervention rather than human political action.
Zionism: A movement formalized by figures like Theodor Herzl in the 1890s in response to European antisemitism, asserting that Jewish people—like other nations—have the right to national self-determination and sovereignty.
French artillery officer of Jewish descent, wrongfully convicted of treason. Sentenced first to life imprisonment on Devil's Island penal colony. Sentenced a second time to 10 years but later exonerated. Antisemitism and a French military coverup were motives behind his wrongful convictions.
SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Capital One Financial (COF.N)
, opens new tab hit back on Friday against a lawsuit over its decision to close the Trump Organization's bank accounts years ago, stating that it did so after a review by anti-money laundering experts.
The disclosure marks the first time a bank has formally tied money laundering concerns to U.S. President Donald Trump's family business. Capital One is seeking to dismiss the case by casting doubt on claims of illegally debanking — or denying services on religious or political grounds — the Trump Organization.
And here we are as American citizens 2026, watching helplessly as a government we once suspected of corrupt, greedy, unfair practices now flaunt their disregard for rule of law in plain sight for all to see. Democratic foreign governments understood early the "Quid pro quo" policies being pushed to do business in America and have taken steps to offset any losses.
Meanwhile, American citizens are left feeling the squeeze not only financially, but in their all-around health, as well as the health of the country.
- Because of an underlying propensity to be greedy, and because the human condition seeks advantage, there is no shortage of corruption — and its pernicious consequences — in the contemporary universe. But no political jurisdiction can function on behalf of its citizens and stakeholders if its leaders and middle managers are focused on private gain rather than public enrichment. Instead, bridges collapse, roads crumble, food is tainted, organs are peddled for profit, police self-enrich at roadblocks, marriage and birth certificates become costly, and the very fundamentals of a safe and secure life are compromised.
And yet we still see those corrupt ones in high government positions continue to lie, excuse, and defer in order to avoid accountability for war, disease, food & fuel prices, unconstitutional/illegal federal job cuts, Immigration and Customs Enforcement killings, and the list goes on growing by the day. We must continue to keep a light on the truth while this unwelcome darkness fueled by greed passes through. The world is watching, and I'd like to believe most are keeping us in prayer.
_-_photo_originale.jpg)
