 may clearly determine its target market, it might develop a suitably effective marketing plan.Jarrod Brown/Orange Leader Bridge City quarterback Ethan Oceguera (3) scrambles for yardage against Anahuac Friday night.
BRIDGE CITY – Following an 0-2 start to their season, Anahuac squeaked out a win against Bridge City in an overtime thriller Friday night by a score of 28-21 at Ward Stadium.
While Anahuac had already played the last two weeks, Bridge City suffered from first game jitters in their opening night of the new season.
The game got off to a very slow start, as both teams failed to get any offense going on their first two opening drives. However, things began to change when Bridge City took possession of the ball with two and a half minutes left in the first quarter. A 21-yard pass from junior quarterback Ethan Oceguera to tight end JT Fielder finally got things rolling, but the game remained tied 0-0 at the conclusion of the first quarter.
To start off the second quarter, Bridge City established the run game by rattling off several short gains to put themselves in scoring position. Oceguera put BC on the board with a 27-yard dime to senior receiver Austin Richardson for their first points of the game. Following the extra point from kicker Oscar Carranza, Bridge City led 7-0 after their 69-yard, 12-play drive.
Anahuac took possession with 9 minutes in the second quarter, and they quickly took charge. A 23-yard pass kick-started what would become a 16-play drive, fueled by big rushes from Christian Sanchez and Landon Corbitt, the latter of which would eventually cap off the possession with a touchdown to tie things up 7-7.
Following the break at halftime, Anahuac came out firing on all cylinders. After six straight rushes from the Panthers, Corbitt found Zyon Clark in the end zone for a 30-yard touchdown pass. However, things went south when a bad snap prevented them from booting in the extra point, leaving them up 13-7.
Dorian Pruitt opened up the Cardinals first drive of the second half with a nice 19-yard kick return. A couple of plays later Sam Carpenter hauled in a 15-yard pass for a first down, but a sack on a crucial play and a poor special teams play gave Anahuac the ball back with a few minutes left in the third. Both teams would go three-and-out on their next possessions though, and the third quarter came to a close with Anahuac still leading 13-7.
Anahuac began the final quarter of the game with a big drive downfield ending in a 10-yard touchdown rush from Christian Sanchez. Since they were only up by 12, the Panthers chose to go for two, and senior Jemaj Bailey punched it in to make the score 21-7.
After a penalty on the kickoff, Bridge City took over in great position at the 35 with nine minutes left. Joey Murty caught a 26-yard pass to put them at the goal line and Ethan Oceguera found the end zone on a two yard rushing TD. After the extra point, Bridge City trailed 21-14.
During the final minutes of the fourth quarter, BC’s defense came up huge, stuffing a crucial run on third and short as well as forcing another three-and-out on Anahuac’s next possession. With 1:47 left in the game, Austin Richardson caught his second touchdown of the night and the Cardinals tied the game up at 21-21. Trey Hebert recovered an Anahuac fumble shortly thereafter, and the game went to overtime.
Unfortunately for Bridge City, Anahuac’s rushing attack proved too much for them to handle and they gave up one more touchdown on the ground. Faced with a score-or-go-home situation, a forward pass call and interception would eventually cost the Cardinals the game 28-21.
Despite some sloppy penalties and four total fumbles, Anahuac should feel good about getting their first win of the year as well as putting up over 150 rushing yards on the night. Bridge City certainly had a good night after halftime, but should look to improve their defense heading into their bye week in preparation for their next game against Hamshire-Fannett at home Oct. 2 to start District 11-4A Division II play.
Anyone near Anna Maria island know of any good fishing spots?

I’ve been coming to Anna Maria island for vacation since I was a a toddler. I’ve always fished off the beach or on the bay side near the city pier. I’ve only caught 2 snook in the surf since I got down here about 4 days ago. Does anyone have any good recommendations on where I should try besides off the beach? I have a kayak but besides some of the grass flats on the bay side I’m not sure where to go on it. Any help is appreciated, thanks!I am very happy to welcome the next featured Political Philosop-her, Japa Pallikkathayil. She is an assistant professor in the philosophy department at the University of Pittsburgh. She works on issues at the intersection of moral and political philosophy. She has recently focused on the topics of coercion, deception, and exploitation. Recent publications include, “Deriving Morality from Politics: Rethinking the Formula of Humanity”, Ethics Vol. 121, No. 1 (October 2010), pp. 116-147 and “The Possibility of Choice: Three Accounts of the Problem of Coercion”, Philosophers’ Imprint, Vol. 11, No. 16.
I have been puzzlingly lately over the morality of market transactions. My puzzlement has been inspired by Elizabeth Anderson’s “The Ethical Limitations of the Market.” In that piece, Anderson argues that the norms of the marketplace are in tension with the norms of personal and civic relationships in various ways. She uses that tension to argue against the commodification of various goods and activities – some things ought not be available for purchase. I am interested in a somewhat different problem that her framework makes apparent – there are some contexts in which the use of the norms of marketplace is inappropriate because of the circumstances of the potential participants rather than the nature of the items up for exchange.
The central feature of market transactions that Anderson identifies is their impersonality: “The producers and consumers of economic goods are typically strangers. Each party to a market transaction views one’s relation to the other as merely a means to the satisfaction of ends defined independently of the relationship and of the other party’s ends” (Anderson, 182). For anyone with Kantian leanings, and maybe for anyone at all, this language is striking. How could it ever be appropriate for me to view you merely as a means to my ends?
Suppose you are having a garage sale. I come to consider your offerings and spot an attractive vase. You have listed the price as $15 but I judge the vase to be worth only $10 to me. I offer you $10 and you accept. I don’t consider what you would have done with the extra $5 and in that way I am blind to your ends. But I take you to have considered what you valued more – the $10 or the vase – and so I take it that the transaction furthers your ends in some way. And this way of mutually furthering each others’ ends is straightforwardly more efficient than deliberating together about our respective ends. So, I think it is important to distinguish between the blindness towards others ends involved in market transactions and indifference towards those ends. It may be that there are circumstances in which I best attend to your ends by, in a sense, ignoring them.
But there are at least two types of circumstances in which this way of respecting you and your ends is untenable. First, consider someone who has been subjected to injustice. Suppose, for example, I discover that you are having the garage sale because you are being unjustly evicted from your home (your landlord is violating the terms of your lease but you lack the resources to defend yourself.) There are two respects in which this situation should unsettle my use of market norms. First, you lack the control over your resources that you are entitled to have. In this way, your willingness to accept $10 for the vase becomes suspect – it may not reflect the discretion you are entitled to have over your ends. Second, I should worry about being the beneficiary of injustice. Although I am not the perpetrator of the injustice, using the injustice to further my ends taints them.
Before gesturing towards a strategy for dealing with this kind of situation, let me introduce the second type of circumstance in which abiding by the norms of the marketplace does not suffice to respect you and your ends. Suppose that I discover that you are having the garage sale to pay for your child’s chemotherapy. Here the direness of your circumstances should unsettle my use of market norms for two reasons. First, the use of market norms presupposes that I am entitled to discretion about whether to contribute to your ends or not. But I may not be permitted to simply walk away from your plight. Sorting out our duties to aid is, however, a difficult task. I won’t attempt to do that here and, in any case, the second reason market norms are inappropriate in this context does not rely on a view of duties to aid. This second reason focuses on the kinds of ends that are under consideration. There is something grotesque about treating your end of saving your child’s life and my end of decorating my home as equivalently important. But market norms suggest this very comparison – I help you save your child, but only to the extent that