A report surfaced yesterday out of Seattle that the Mariners Execs had extended the contract of GM Jack Zduriencik as his initial five year contract is set to expire at the end of the current season.
JackZ--as he's known to Mariner fans--inherited a franchise in disarray following a GM who basically destroyed the club from the inside out. JackZ promised to build the Mariners into a World Series team; but espoused patience in the process. After an initial break even season, the Mariners have had three successive campaigns of sub-500 ball; and this season is headed for a fourth straight losing season. Yes, some things have improved; but other things have not. Bad Free Agent signings, unequal trade results, and poor on-field play have all been recurring issues for the GM.
When CBS News reported the [JackZ] signing, I responded with the following brief, but incredibly valid observation...
If true, then the M's Upper Mgmt. should be awfully proud that JackZ built a sub-500 team from the ground up. Mediocrity as a measure of success...this could rewrite the book on underachieving!
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it...I'm a lifelong Mariners fan; have been since their inaugural season. But aside from the Lou Pinella years, Seattle really IS the greatest farm team in the Major Leagues! And with yet another sub-500 season well under way, I really don't see this changing anytime soon. Go sub-Mariners!
In the hours since I commented, not a single respondent alluded to, attacked, negated or assailed my observation. Once again, it seems I have a point.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Whining Pro Golfers
This morning the British Open [Golf] Tournament opened at Muirfield, a R & A (Royal and Ancient) course just outside of Edinburgh, Scotland. Like and R & A course on the British Open circuit, Muirfield is extremely challenging in many aspects of its layout and overall course conditions.
After completing his opening round of golf, Phil Mickelson, the media hog that he is, began complaining to the press corps about what he felt were unfair course conditions for any professional golfer to have to deal with. He stated that the directors of the tournament need to "let go of their egos and just set up the course so that the best players can win.;" inferring that the R & A had unfairly made the course harder--I don't see how they can do that--in an effort to penalize the players.
Here was my response:
"These professional golfers need to just keep their opinions to themselves and play golf to the best of their ability. After all, they're supposedly the best golfers in the world, right? So start playing like a pro and stop expecting the perfect course every time they tee off. There are hundreds of regular R & A members who play this course every week who likely have no problem whatsoever with the hole setups. What makes the pros so special that they need to have an easier course to play on?
I used to work at a course that was a stop on the Senior PGA Tour. The course was very difficult under normal conditions. Without exception, every year a majority of the players would whine that the setup wasn't easy enough, as if they expected the easiest pin placements, optimum watering conditions, etc. I played that course hundreds of times, and rather than whine about it, I worked on bettering my game to try and beat the layout.
Why pros like Mickelson think they have the right to complain about a course rather than improve their game is mystifying. These guys just need to suck it up and perform their job better. To do otherwise only decreases my respect for these supposed professionals."
After completing his opening round of golf, Phil Mickelson, the media hog that he is, began complaining to the press corps about what he felt were unfair course conditions for any professional golfer to have to deal with. He stated that the directors of the tournament need to "let go of their egos and just set up the course so that the best players can win.;" inferring that the R & A had unfairly made the course harder--I don't see how they can do that--in an effort to penalize the players.
Here was my response:
"These professional golfers need to just keep their opinions to themselves and play golf to the best of their ability. After all, they're supposedly the best golfers in the world, right? So start playing like a pro and stop expecting the perfect course every time they tee off. There are hundreds of regular R & A members who play this course every week who likely have no problem whatsoever with the hole setups. What makes the pros so special that they need to have an easier course to play on?
I used to work at a course that was a stop on the Senior PGA Tour. The course was very difficult under normal conditions. Without exception, every year a majority of the players would whine that the setup wasn't easy enough, as if they expected the easiest pin placements, optimum watering conditions, etc. I played that course hundreds of times, and rather than whine about it, I worked on bettering my game to try and beat the layout.
Why pros like Mickelson think they have the right to complain about a course rather than improve their game is mystifying. These guys just need to suck it up and perform their job better. To do otherwise only decreases my respect for these supposed professionals."
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Fourth of July
Due to having dialysis today, I just want to sat to everyone,
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!
237 years ago, this great Nation was formed; and the world was forever changed by its inception.
I hope that you can take just a few moments to quietly ponder on those incredible events and offer your supplications of thanks to the brave men who risked their very lives in order "to form a more perfect Union."
Have a fun, safe Fourth of July!
HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!
237 years ago, this great Nation was formed; and the world was forever changed by its inception.
I hope that you can take just a few moments to quietly ponder on those incredible events and offer your supplications of thanks to the brave men who risked their very lives in order "to form a more perfect Union."
Have a fun, safe Fourth of July!
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Violating Bolivia's Sovereign Rights
Earlier today the plane carrying the President Evo Morales, of Bolivia, was illegally detained and searched by Austrian authorities for fourteen hours in the search for US fugitive Edward Snowden, the man responsible for NSA leaks that show a covert, and illegal surveillance of US citizens by the NSA (National Security Agency) and other Federal Law agencies.
When I read this I immediately responded with the following:
"A Head of State's plane was searched?
What happened to Diplomatic protocols? How would the US Govt respond if a nation decided to search Air Force One on suspicion of espionage or whatever else? There would be outrage! It would be a major international incident. But because it is just the President of Bolivia, it's OK? Seriously?!
How is searching the plane of a Nation's President any different? Protocols were breached, basic respect of a Head of state was missing, the Sovereign rights of Bolivia were violated, and the commenters on here can only make fun of Bolivia and condemn Snowden. President Obama went way beyond his Office by seemingly strong-arming other governments into joining this witch hunt and ignoring the sovereign rights of another country.
How does Congress stand by and watch this abuse of power and not say a word?
I just don't get it."
I posted that commentary earlier this morning and hours later, there isn't a single comment to what I wrote. How can people fail to understand what happened today? If I were the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, I'd be throwing a fit to any other Ambassadors who would listen. This breach of Sovereign rights is outrageous! President Obama has gone too far in his ridiculous quest to "bring to justice" the man who revealed to the American people that they were being implicitly spied on by order of the current Administration.
I am appalled that Congress says or does nothing to reign in this President from his constant abuse of Constitutional protections and international law, let alone international diplomatic protocol.
We have no right to violate the sovereign rights of any other nation. The President has numerous diplomatic tools at his disposal in order to find and detain Snowden. Strong-arming other nations to commit unlawful searches definitely isn't one of them.
When I read this I immediately responded with the following:
"A Head of State's plane was searched?
What happened to Diplomatic protocols? How would the US Govt respond if a nation decided to search Air Force One on suspicion of espionage or whatever else? There would be outrage! It would be a major international incident. But because it is just the President of Bolivia, it's OK? Seriously?!
How is searching the plane of a Nation's President any different? Protocols were breached, basic respect of a Head of state was missing, the Sovereign rights of Bolivia were violated, and the commenters on here can only make fun of Bolivia and condemn Snowden. President Obama went way beyond his Office by seemingly strong-arming other governments into joining this witch hunt and ignoring the sovereign rights of another country.
How does Congress stand by and watch this abuse of power and not say a word?
I just don't get it."
I posted that commentary earlier this morning and hours later, there isn't a single comment to what I wrote. How can people fail to understand what happened today? If I were the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, I'd be throwing a fit to any other Ambassadors who would listen. This breach of Sovereign rights is outrageous! President Obama has gone too far in his ridiculous quest to "bring to justice" the man who revealed to the American people that they were being implicitly spied on by order of the current Administration.
I am appalled that Congress says or does nothing to reign in this President from his constant abuse of Constitutional protections and international law, let alone international diplomatic protocol.
We have no right to violate the sovereign rights of any other nation. The President has numerous diplomatic tools at his disposal in order to find and detain Snowden. Strong-arming other nations to commit unlawful searches definitely isn't one of them.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
The Supreme Court Overturns DOMA
This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a divided Court to overturn The Defense of Marriage Act, the Federal Legislation, passed in 1996 and signed into law by the-President Bill Clinton, which mandated that the Federal Government only recognized marriages that were between one man and one woman, and supporting the definition of a traditional family. DOMA was endorsed by numerous churches and other national entities.
After the ruling was announced, the message boards were aflame with support (by the gay community) for the decision. Anyone with the temerity to disagree was attacked with voraciousness, vehemence, intolerance and hatred; as if having a contrary opinion was a horrific and unconscionable thing.
Here's my response:
"According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case. The SCOTUS was created and designed by the Founding Fathers to interpret the law ONLY, then to send to Congress their ruling; and Congress would then draft and legislate the law to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. That's it. Unfortunately, Lawyers and Special Interest groups have changed the basic role of SCOTUS into the law-making entity it is today.
Justice Scalia was entirely correct when he stated [in the dissenting opinion], "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution (SCOTUS) in America."
Right, or wrong, the issue of gay marriage is an issue that should be up to the people as a whole to decide. Let Congress fight it out--as it should! Legislation through legal action only undermines the Constitution and the foundation of democracy that the Republic of the United States was founded upon.
Today's Supreme Court decision will forever alter the check's and balances system that was designed to assure that our Government never had too much power to dictate how Americans should live. Instead, the Supreme Court, the top-tier of Constitutional interpretation, has literally stripped the checks and balances system and bypassed Congress, the law-making entity of the United States Government. And ultimately, that is just plain unconstitutional."
*As of about one hour after posting my opinion, the only comment I had was related to a single typo I had in the text; a single apostrophe placed where it shouldn't have been. There was no addressing my opinion, just an attack because I had an apostrophe in the wrong place.
I love it when I can state my point well enough that no one can tear it down!
After the ruling was announced, the message boards were aflame with support (by the gay community) for the decision. Anyone with the temerity to disagree was attacked with voraciousness, vehemence, intolerance and hatred; as if having a contrary opinion was a horrific and unconscionable thing.
Here's my response:
"According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to decide this case. The SCOTUS was created and designed by the Founding Fathers to interpret the law ONLY, then to send to Congress their ruling; and Congress would then draft and legislate the law to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. That's it. Unfortunately, Lawyers and Special Interest groups have changed the basic role of SCOTUS into the law-making entity it is today.
Justice Scalia was entirely correct when he stated [in the dissenting opinion], "We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution (SCOTUS) in America."
Right, or wrong, the issue of gay marriage is an issue that should be up to the people as a whole to decide. Let Congress fight it out--as it should! Legislation through legal action only undermines the Constitution and the foundation of democracy that the Republic of the United States was founded upon.
Today's Supreme Court decision will forever alter the check's and balances system that was designed to assure that our Government never had too much power to dictate how Americans should live. Instead, the Supreme Court, the top-tier of Constitutional interpretation, has literally stripped the checks and balances system and bypassed Congress, the law-making entity of the United States Government. And ultimately, that is just plain unconstitutional."
*As of about one hour after posting my opinion, the only comment I had was related to a single typo I had in the text; a single apostrophe placed where it shouldn't have been. There was no addressing my opinion, just an attack because I had an apostrophe in the wrong place.
I love it when I can state my point well enough that no one can tear it down!
More Border Fencing?
An article in this morning's MSN Homepage tells of additional funding for another 700 miles of US Southern border fencing. The 1500 or so comments were all predictable in their pro and anti rhetoric. Here was my response:
"With as much $$ as the illegals pay the coyotes (guides), they could be applying for and securing legal green cards, then cross the border without endangering their lives. Why isn't the Federal Government pushing programs to emphasize this avenue for those wishing to come to the US?
As a result, there would be fewer deaths, fewer illegals, and the drug cartels would have fewer unwilling and very reluctant drug mules with which to smuggle drugs across the border.
Instead, we erect an [ineffective] isolation fence costing billions of dollars, increase border security which costs billions of dollars, and fill our prisons with illegals which costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Anyone see the pattern and insanity here?"
*I literally just posted the comment on MSN, but if I get any responses, I'll add them below:
In the hour since my post, I have gotten zero responses. What a surprise...
"With as much $$ as the illegals pay the coyotes (guides), they could be applying for and securing legal green cards, then cross the border without endangering their lives. Why isn't the Federal Government pushing programs to emphasize this avenue for those wishing to come to the US?
As a result, there would be fewer deaths, fewer illegals, and the drug cartels would have fewer unwilling and very reluctant drug mules with which to smuggle drugs across the border.
Instead, we erect an [ineffective] isolation fence costing billions of dollars, increase border security which costs billions of dollars, and fill our prisons with illegals which costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars. Anyone see the pattern and insanity here?"
*I literally just posted the comment on MSN, but if I get any responses, I'll add them below:
In the hour since my post, I have gotten zero responses. What a surprise...
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Utah Liquor Laws
In this year's version of the Utah Legislature--a ridiculously insignificant forty five days of completely ineffective "leadership" by the State's governing body--the Houses of Senate and Representatives are again tackling the issue of the so-called Zion Curtain, restrictive liquor laws that are intended to shield families from certain alcohol routines in restaurants and all such establishments.
This year there has been a movement to annul the antiquated laws as the Hospitality industry is growing larger, and year-round tourism increases. Then two days ago, a State Sen (John Valentine--R) from Orem decided that the laws had to stay because--and I quote--"Restaurants should be restaurants, and Bars should be bars." His ill-spoken remarks, meant to distinguish between family-friendly restaurants and non-family restaurants, came across as sanctimonious and with a 'I know what's best for everyone' attitude, regardless of personal choice.
Anyhow, here's the article (by Bill Hesterman) as it appeared in the 12 March 2013 edition of the Daily Herald:
SALT LAKE CITY -- The so-called Zion Curtain won't fall for at least another year.
On Tuesday Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, introduced an omnibus liquor policy bill that brings together multiple liquor-related bills and removes the portion of one bill that sought to tear down the walls erected in restaurants to keep the public from viewing a bartender mixing a drink.
The new bill that will run through the Legislature in the final days of the session will contain language dealing with Valentine's plan to create a master liquor license for restaurant chains and stiffen the enforcement fines for restaurants that serve alcohol to minors.
"This represents a compromise between the House and the Senate for the alcohol bills this session," Valentine said.
While members of the House overwhelmingly approved the provision to tear down the wall, Valentine explained the move gave some members of the Senate heartburn. Those differences forced Valentine to create the omnibus bill to so the Legislature could pass a bill that does contain items both houses can come to terms on this session.
"I'm concerned about the culture of alcohol. And I'm concerned about changing of the atmosphere in our restaurants into bars," Valentine said.
Valentine went on to state that he feels Utahans want family-friendly restaurants and that a removal of those separate preparation areas will hinder restaurants being family-friendly.
House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, who has in the past characterized the Zion Curtain as weird, stated that she was disappointed in the Senate's decision to keep the wall. Lockhart stated that she expects the issue will return to the Legislature in the next session.
Valentine's new alcohol bill has been given early approval in the Senate. The Senate will take a final vote on it on Wednesday.
And here is my response:
"This is ludicrous.
I'm LDS, don't drink, and I see no sensible reason for the restrictions. You can't tell me that because a minor sees drinks being mixed this will lead that child to drinking. Additionally, these senseless and antiquated serving laws only stifle tourism and the increased economic benefits and tax dollars that follow.
Just because we live in Utah, don't think for one second that we don't already have an alcohol problem in our midst. Children, teens, adults...it's already here whether our leaders want to acknowledge it or not.
Time for the Utah Legislature to get is head out of the proverbial sand and join the rest of the country in the 21st Century. Instead of enforcing what are essentially stupid laws, how about focusing on prevention, communication and education about issues related to alcohol. It makes a lot more sense!
Then again, in my eleven plus years living in Utah, I have yet to see the Legislature tackle anything difficult; always going with the easiest, least effective solutions available. So really, this news comes as no surprise. Legislative inaction at its finest!
In the responses that followed, no one directly referred to my comments, but made in-kind remarks that amounted to a universal support of what I was saying. Both LDS and non-LDS see the Utah liquor laws as outdated. I just wish the State Legislature would listen to their bosses once in a while.
This year there has been a movement to annul the antiquated laws as the Hospitality industry is growing larger, and year-round tourism increases. Then two days ago, a State Sen (John Valentine--R) from Orem decided that the laws had to stay because--and I quote--"Restaurants should be restaurants, and Bars should be bars." His ill-spoken remarks, meant to distinguish between family-friendly restaurants and non-family restaurants, came across as sanctimonious and with a 'I know what's best for everyone' attitude, regardless of personal choice.
Anyhow, here's the article (by Bill Hesterman) as it appeared in the 12 March 2013 edition of the Daily Herald:
SALT LAKE CITY -- The so-called Zion Curtain won't fall for at least another year.
On Tuesday Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, introduced an omnibus liquor policy bill that brings together multiple liquor-related bills and removes the portion of one bill that sought to tear down the walls erected in restaurants to keep the public from viewing a bartender mixing a drink.
The new bill that will run through the Legislature in the final days of the session will contain language dealing with Valentine's plan to create a master liquor license for restaurant chains and stiffen the enforcement fines for restaurants that serve alcohol to minors.
"This represents a compromise between the House and the Senate for the alcohol bills this session," Valentine said.
While members of the House overwhelmingly approved the provision to tear down the wall, Valentine explained the move gave some members of the Senate heartburn. Those differences forced Valentine to create the omnibus bill to so the Legislature could pass a bill that does contain items both houses can come to terms on this session.
"I'm concerned about the culture of alcohol. And I'm concerned about changing of the atmosphere in our restaurants into bars," Valentine said.
Valentine went on to state that he feels Utahans want family-friendly restaurants and that a removal of those separate preparation areas will hinder restaurants being family-friendly.
House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, who has in the past characterized the Zion Curtain as weird, stated that she was disappointed in the Senate's decision to keep the wall. Lockhart stated that she expects the issue will return to the Legislature in the next session.
Valentine's new alcohol bill has been given early approval in the Senate. The Senate will take a final vote on it on Wednesday.
And here is my response:
"This is ludicrous.
I'm LDS, don't drink, and I see no sensible reason for the restrictions. You can't tell me that because a minor sees drinks being mixed this will lead that child to drinking. Additionally, these senseless and antiquated serving laws only stifle tourism and the increased economic benefits and tax dollars that follow.
Just because we live in Utah, don't think for one second that we don't already have an alcohol problem in our midst. Children, teens, adults...it's already here whether our leaders want to acknowledge it or not.
Time for the Utah Legislature to get is head out of the proverbial sand and join the rest of the country in the 21st Century. Instead of enforcing what are essentially stupid laws, how about focusing on prevention, communication and education about issues related to alcohol. It makes a lot more sense!
Then again, in my eleven plus years living in Utah, I have yet to see the Legislature tackle anything difficult; always going with the easiest, least effective solutions available. So really, this news comes as no surprise. Legislative inaction at its finest!
In the responses that followed, no one directly referred to my comments, but made in-kind remarks that amounted to a universal support of what I was saying. Both LDS and non-LDS see the Utah liquor laws as outdated. I just wish the State Legislature would listen to their bosses once in a while.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Seattle-- A "Loser" Sports Town?
In conversations this afternoon about possible Super Bowl teams, a comment from one respondent caught my attention when he called Seattle a "...wet, soggy loser" of a sports town; followed by general denigrations of the pro teams in Seattle. I absolutely HAD to defend my hometown, so I wrote up the following response...
"(Respondent), You need to get your history straight. Seattle had a hugely successful minor league club for decades called the Rainiers who played at Sicks Stadium. They were replaced by the Seattle Pilots, a MLB club whose owners moved them after one and a half seasons to become the Milwaukee Brewers. The Mariners came to be from the litigation that followed the sudden departure of the Pilots. The Mariners struggled, to be sure. But they fostered future HoFers Griffey, Jr, Randy Johnson, Ichiro Suzuki, HoF Deserving Edgar Martinez and possibly, depending on steroid use, Alex Rodriguez.
In 2001 the Mariners won 116 games to tie the record for most wins in a season. For three years they led the leauge in attendance, topping three million each year.
Sure the team has struggled. So what? They are far from losers, as you claim.
The Seattle Supersonics played for the NBA Championship in back to back years in the late 70's , winning the league title in 1978. They were coached for years by Hall of Famer Lenny Wilkins. They competed at the top of the league for years, and their last attempt at the NBA title was stopped by Chicago. Then, Clay Bennett, the college buddy of Commish Stern came riding into town with grandiose promises of winning, all while secretly working to move the team from the then 13th largest market to the dead-last smallest market in ALL of pro sports. So tell me just how the Sonics are "losers."
The Seattle Seahawks, like every other NFL team in existence, has had their ups and downs. For a "loser" of a team, they sure have passionate, loud and emphatic fans. They came within a few bad officiating calls of winning the Super Bowl--calls which league officials would later admit shouldn't have been made. They consistently are amongst the league leaders in attendance, and have one of the most exciting young QB's in the NFL. As for Hofers, let's only start with Steve Largent and Cortez Kennedy.
And you forgot their other teams... the Seattle Sounders, league leaders in attendance for every year they've existed as a pro-level team, and who played in a bygone era for the NASL Cup twice in the early 80's. No, they haven't won the MLS Cup...yet. But hey, they've only existed in their current form for four seasons.
Then, there's the Seattle Storm of the WNBA. They are consistently amongst the top teams in the league and have won the WNBA title in 2004 and 2010 and have fostered Hofers Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird. But...they're losers, too...right?
Finally, time for a history lesson. In 1917, the Seattle Metropolitans became the first US-based team to win the Holy Grail of hockey, Lord Stanley's Cup. But they were also losers, weren't they?
You never know which team from any sports league will win the championship. So please, get off your rocking horse and give the fans--and their teams--in Seattle a little respect. Have an awesome day!"
"(Respondent), You need to get your history straight. Seattle had a hugely successful minor league club for decades called the Rainiers who played at Sicks Stadium. They were replaced by the Seattle Pilots, a MLB club whose owners moved them after one and a half seasons to become the Milwaukee Brewers. The Mariners came to be from the litigation that followed the sudden departure of the Pilots. The Mariners struggled, to be sure. But they fostered future HoFers Griffey, Jr, Randy Johnson, Ichiro Suzuki, HoF Deserving Edgar Martinez and possibly, depending on steroid use, Alex Rodriguez.
In 2001 the Mariners won 116 games to tie the record for most wins in a season. For three years they led the leauge in attendance, topping three million each year.
Sure the team has struggled. So what? They are far from losers, as you claim.
The Seattle Supersonics played for the NBA Championship in back to back years in the late 70's , winning the league title in 1978. They were coached for years by Hall of Famer Lenny Wilkins. They competed at the top of the league for years, and their last attempt at the NBA title was stopped by Chicago. Then, Clay Bennett, the college buddy of Commish Stern came riding into town with grandiose promises of winning, all while secretly working to move the team from the then 13th largest market to the dead-last smallest market in ALL of pro sports. So tell me just how the Sonics are "losers."
The Seattle Seahawks, like every other NFL team in existence, has had their ups and downs. For a "loser" of a team, they sure have passionate, loud and emphatic fans. They came within a few bad officiating calls of winning the Super Bowl--calls which league officials would later admit shouldn't have been made. They consistently are amongst the league leaders in attendance, and have one of the most exciting young QB's in the NFL. As for Hofers, let's only start with Steve Largent and Cortez Kennedy.
And you forgot their other teams... the Seattle Sounders, league leaders in attendance for every year they've existed as a pro-level team, and who played in a bygone era for the NASL Cup twice in the early 80's. No, they haven't won the MLS Cup...yet. But hey, they've only existed in their current form for four seasons.
Then, there's the Seattle Storm of the WNBA. They are consistently amongst the top teams in the league and have won the WNBA title in 2004 and 2010 and have fostered Hofers Lauren Jackson and Sue Bird. But...they're losers, too...right?
Finally, time for a history lesson. In 1917, the Seattle Metropolitans became the first US-based team to win the Holy Grail of hockey, Lord Stanley's Cup. But they were also losers, weren't they?
You never know which team from any sports league will win the championship. So please, get off your rocking horse and give the fans--and their teams--in Seattle a little respect. Have an awesome day!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
