The gripers and groaners amongst the pro football fans in Seattle is going once again. They just cannot let go of the past season and continue to vilify now former Head Coach Jim Mora. I wrote the following response to all the bandwagon jumpers who lie in wait to spew their hate-filled rhetoric upon the sports public whenever they are given the chance.
"-Front Office
-Head Coach
-Coordinators & Position Coaches
-Players
Let's see...Out of all the griping going on in this post we continue to see a failure to blame the PLAYERS for their collective roll in the tragedy of last season. There are at least these four sets of individuals responsible for the success or failure of any pro team. Setting aside emotion for the game, I still maintain that it is the players who should step up and accept part of the blame for the dismal season.
How many reports have we heard out of the Seahawk locker room about player discord, disrespect, big ego's, personnel clashes, apathetic attitudes, etc? If the players themselves don't give a hoot about working together, then everything will fall apart.
Many of these guys are paid more money in one season than I'll see in my lifetime. They are paid to be the BEST in the land; yet their efforts on the field are pathetic, at best. You could see the defeatist attitudes and ill will on their faces.
They just didn't care!
Mora made some huge coaching mistakes, to be sure. So did the front office management, the coordinators and various coaches, and especially the players. It is NEVER one man's fault that an entire pro sports franchise performs that poorly. Blame Mora all you want...but be sure you are also acknowledging everyone else's role as well."
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A Victory!
FINALLY!
Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a lawsuit aimed at stripping the wishes of the vast majority of Americans by ruling that the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God," and the phrase on US currencies "In God We Trust" are NOT unconstitutional.
The following AP story states
"A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.
"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."
The same court ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter's school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.
That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.
So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed the challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite the pledge. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.
"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency."
This is the second attempt by Mr. Newdow to force his atheistic views on hundreds of millions of people. This is Mr. Newdow's second failure. Isn't it time he gives up his ludicrous attempts to enforce his personal preferences upon the whole population of the United States?
After all, NO ONE FORCES him to read the phrase on coin or paper bills.
NO ONE FORCES him to utter "Under God" when reciting the pledge.
So why should Michael Newdow be allowed to FORCE everyone else to feel the same way he does? What makes him so special?
If Newdow really studied the founding of this country, he would know, without doubt, that the Fathers were strongly, religiously convicted to form a government and country that would follow Christian/Protestant mores and values. They knew that if we followed these simple, logical values espoused by their christian heritage that this nation would prosper. And so it has.
I applaud the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their decision was not only right and just; it was also a true reflection of the wishes and beliefs of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans.
Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a lawsuit aimed at stripping the wishes of the vast majority of Americans by ruling that the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God," and the phrase on US currencies "In God We Trust" are NOT unconstitutional.
The following AP story states
"A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.
"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."
The same court ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter's school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.
That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.
So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed the challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite the pledge. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.
"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency."
This is the second attempt by Mr. Newdow to force his atheistic views on hundreds of millions of people. This is Mr. Newdow's second failure. Isn't it time he gives up his ludicrous attempts to enforce his personal preferences upon the whole population of the United States?
After all, NO ONE FORCES him to read the phrase on coin or paper bills.
NO ONE FORCES him to utter "Under God" when reciting the pledge.
So why should Michael Newdow be allowed to FORCE everyone else to feel the same way he does? What makes him so special?
If Newdow really studied the founding of this country, he would know, without doubt, that the Fathers were strongly, religiously convicted to form a government and country that would follow Christian/Protestant mores and values. They knew that if we followed these simple, logical values espoused by their christian heritage that this nation would prosper. And so it has.
I applaud the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their decision was not only right and just; it was also a true reflection of the wishes and beliefs of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
