Progressivism and the Seahawks’ Super Bowl Loss

Seahawks2by Jerry Richardson2/3/15
Why did the Seattle Seahawks lose the Super Bowl?  Everybody thinks they know the reason: Seattle’s Coach Pete Carroll did not call the play to give the ball to Marshawn Lynch—but with 20-20 hindsight that conclusion seems rather conveniently obvious.

The real question is why didn’t Coach Carroll make the call that probably 99.99% of the Super-Bowl viewing world would have considered, before and after the play, the most rational call to make?

I claim—as a working hypothesis—that the Progressivism that is endemic in the city of Seattle, and the State of Washington, was displayed in the decision process; and also in the reactions of many Seahawk supporters after the loss. But how could that possibly be?  Simple:

Progressivism is now well known for two tactics: 1) Never stick with the tried-and-true, go with something new; 2) When this formula backfires and needs escapism blame it on racism.

Progressivism is well known for not including unintended-consequences in the calculus of it decisions.  And a major part of the working-ideology of Progressivism is to always mistrust the obvious—the obvious is what experience has shown to work.

And so it occurred in Super Bowl 2015.

The ill-fated call came on second-and-goal from the Patriots’ 1-yard line, and on the heels of a strong four-yard run by running back Marshawn Lynch on a first-and-goal play from the 5.

A run by Lynch — who finished with 102 yards and a touchdown on 24 carries — certainly seemed in order. But with a timeout left, the Seahawks put the ball in Wilson’s hands with the in-breaking pass play.
Coach Carroll Takes Blame on Call

Of course, Coach Carroll no-doubt assumed that likely only one of two things would happen on the pass-play he sent in: 1) Touchdown, or 2) Incomplete pass. And if the pass was incomplete then the Seahawks would still have two downs and a time-out in which to score. But, it didn’t work-out that way.

It is well known, even if often ignored, as the legendary coach at Ohio State, Woody Hayes was famous for saying “only three things can happen when you pass (a completion, an incompletion, and an interception) and two of them are bad.”

As the fates would have it, the pass that Coach Carroll called-for was intercepted and the Seahawks lost.

Why do I suggest that Progressivism played a part in the Seattle Seahawks’ defeat?

It is because of Progressives’ blind-spot, or disdain, for unintended and undesired consequences; which means that Progressives are always, in every circumstance, willing and eager to go with hope-and-change.  Another way to state this is that Progressives never trusts the obvious, the obvious being what has been demonstrated to work—a very Conservative concept.

What is the evidence that this description might fit Coach Carroll?

Pete Carroll Might Be a 9/11 Truther

Is Seahawks coach Pete Carroll a 9/11 truther? That all depends: Does badgering a former four-star general about whether 9/11 was real make one a truther?

Here’s what happened, according to a couple sources: Late last spring, retired general Peter Chiarelli, who had just finished his term as the Army’s vice chief of staff, visited Carroll at the Seattle Seahawks headquarters. Chiarelli was expecting a pleasant meeting. After all, the pair had what important businesspeople tend to call synergies: Chiarelli—who grew up in Seattle—is a big Seahawks fan. His post-military work concerns traumatic brain injury research, a cause of some significance to the NFL. And both have plenty of experience leading groups of men on grand American stages.

The sit-down between Chiarelli and Carroll started off normally enough…But Chiarelli’s mention of Iraq sent Carroll in another direction: He wanted to know if the September 11 attacks had been planned or faked by the United States government.
Pete Carroll Might Be a 9/11 Truther

What is the essence of the Truther mentality?

It is a willful, ideologically-driven disbelief in the eye-witnessed obviousness of two jihadist-commandeered airplanes being crash-flown into the World Trade Center; as well as a third one crash-flown into the Pentagon; and a forth one stopped (crashed into a field) by brave passengers led by Todd Beamer with the final command, “Let’s roll.”  But a Truther doesn’t want to accept this overwhelming evidence of a jihadist attack.  Why? It doesn’t fit the Truther-narrative.

When it comes down to the toss-up evidence question: “What are you going to believe, the Truther-narrative, or your lying eyes”?  The Truther, usually a Bush-hating Progressive, will choose to believe the Truther-narrative over the evidence of their own eyes.

This of course is what makes them completely different from so-called “Birthers.” There is no validated documentary or eye-witness evidence that Barack Hussein Obama is actually a naturally-born-citizen of the United States.

In the closing moments of Super Bowl 2015, Coach Carroll seems to have ignored the obvious evidence of his own eyes: Marshawn Lynch, with high probability, could take the ball into the end-zone—so let him run it, at least once, and then if he doesn’t score the Seahawks would still have a time-out and two downs left, or two downs left if the time-out had to be used to stop the clock after a running attempt.   Of course there is nothing inherently wrong with a coach calling a pass play on the 1-yard line.  It’s done all the time.  But in this case, it was an error of disregard for what was obviously the best shot—the conservative shot: Give the ball to the running-back who had already averaged 4+ yards per carry in 24 carries in this ball game; he only needed one yard for the touch.

To his credit, Coach Carroll took full responsibility for the call. He didn’t do what undoubtedly Barack Obama would do in a similar situation:

You know, it’d be wonderful if Obama would actually stand up and take responsibility for his mistakes like Pete Carroll has. If Obama had made that call last night and it blew up, Obama would say, ‘I knew nothing about it! I found out about it when you did, when I watched the replay on TV from the sideline.
Rush Limbaugh

But my speculated-indication of Coach Carroll’s Progressivism is not the worst evidence of Progressivism glimmering in the Seahawks’ now-slightly-dimmed halo.  Here is perhaps the worst:

The Nation’s Dave Zirin (the same journalist who brought us the genius idea that not cheering for the Seattle Seahawks is racist) wrote a post-Super Bowl column attributing the Seattle Seahawks’ horrible decision to throw a pass on the one-yard line in the final seconds of the game was due to “the politics of race” and an anti-Marshawn Lynch conspiracy.

The theory, as relayed by Zirin, is that Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll called a pass because he wanted the young, clean-cut quarterback Russell Wilson to be seen as the game-winner, not the renegade running back Marshawn Lynch. The only source for this theory is a disgruntled anonymous figure in the Seahawks locker room.
Politics of Race Behind Seahawks Horrible Play Call

Unbelievable!

The Al Sharpton attitude has been allowed to penetrate every aspect of modern life, including the Super Bowl; regardless of the fact that an estimated 70% of NFL players are black; and regardless of the fact that both the Seattle Quarterback (Russell Wilson) and the star running-back (Marshawn Lynch) are both black.

But despite bringing up race, Zirin never explains the racial angle to the story. What’s the “politics of race” in making a black quarterback the star player over a black running back?
Politics of Race Behind Seahawks Horrible Play Call 

Of course there is no explanation given any more for an accusation of racism.  Playing the race-card in America no longer needs an explanation, thanks to the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the white guilt-trippers who inhabit the ideological media.

Seattle’s loss might have been due to the Coach’s ideology of Progressivism—my very debatable speculation—but it certainly was not due to racism.

© 2015, Jerry Richardson • (4556 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Progressivism and the Seahawks’ Super Bowl Loss

  1. Cardinal Fang says:

    Getting one yard anywhere else on the field is pretty easy. On the one-yard line it’s not that easy. I like the call with the explanation given. The execution of said play by the players…not so much.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Not being a football fan, I didn’t watch the Superbowl, but I have read a few pieces about the dispute. Basically, it seems that the decision wasn’t as obvious as people make it out to be, the crucial error being where the pass was thrown (i.e., in an area with a lot of defenders, greatly increasingly the likelihood of an interception). But another interesting aspect is that no one other than the coach is taking even a bit of responsibility for what happened. This is what leads to such inanities as the usual accusation of racism.

    Incidentally, there’s a photo of Belichick (I hope I spelled it right) entering his locker room with a t-shirt that had the “Don’t Tread on Me” on the back. Perhaps that’s why he made the . . . um . . . right decisions in the Superbowl.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    First off, the Patriots are a damn good team. They’ve been to the Super Bowl a number of times (and won it). They are no fluke. They are the shark who will get excited if there is blood in the water.

    The Seahawks bled a little bit…especially their defense who allowed four touchdown passes to Brady. The offense put more than enough points on the board to win it. The defense let a 10 point lead get away. Although any play at the end of a game will be magnified, it’s arguable that the Seahawks defense lost this in the late third and fourth quarter.

    Or is it that the Patriots offense is that good? It’s likely a little of both.

    But despite all this, the Football Gods offered the Seahawks a chance to win this game — a game the Gods had every right to pull away from them because of that idiot Seahawk player who pantomimed in the end zone some kind of juvenile celebration — the act of crapping out the football onto the field. They didn’t show it on the TV at the time, but every Seahawks fan should be embarrassed by that…and plenty were. The Northwest is known for goofy liberal politics, the Space Needle, and coffee, not for thugs and ignoramuses who look as if they belong to the Yankees or Raiders.

    But despite this, the lapses of the defense, and other errors, the Football Gods still smiled upon Seattle and offered up one more improbable chance to win the game — a chance that bookended nicely with their improbable (almost divine) victory over the Packers in the NFC Championship.

    And the coaching staff literally threw it away. Anyone familiar with the ebb and flow of football knew the right thing to do was to run the ball, to go with the hot hand, and to put an exclamation point on this victory by ramming the ball down New England’s throat.

    Instead, for whatever reason (probably over-thinking the call), the coaching staff threw one over the middle in the crowded end zone. In some ways this is fitting for a sport that has done about everything it can to erase the running game as a factor and turn it into an aerial circus. Surely there were some in the stands who just supposed that it was illegal to run the ball inside the ten yard line.

    It was a dubious call combined with an extraordinary guess by the defender, who might otherwise have been the goat of the game had the receiver cut upfield. But he guessed right. He gambled in a situation that called for it and made a great play. The Seahawks coaches gambled in a situation that did not call for it. Didn’t Kenny Rogers say “You gotta know when to hold ’em”?

    Congratulations to the Patriots, a team who showed class, something the Seahawks did not. The Gods giveth and the Gods taketh. Whom the Gods would destroy, they first give the ball on the one yard line.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I claim—as a working hypothesis—that the Progressivism that is endemic in the city of Seattle, and the State of Washington, was displayed in the decision process;

    I’m just a simple Texan, but is Boston, Massachusetts any less progressive than Seattle, Washington? Down here, we sort of put them in the same category, i.e. La La Land.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      That’s an interesting point, KFZ. Having been to both cities, I’d say they were equally hideous politically, but that Seattle residents are more laid-back and relaxed about it, while Boston Progressives are in-your-face obnoxious, like Elizabeth Warren.

      Perhaps the greatest problem with Jerry’s amusing hypothesis is one he brings up himself: the Seahawks coach accepted the blame for having adopted a “policy” that failed miserably. Jerry points out that Obama wouldn’t have done that; I’m going to point out that no Progressive would have done that! (Has even one Democrat taken the responsibility yet for destroying Detroit with his bad ideology? Have Progressives admitted that communism has never, ever worked?)

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I think an important point to notice is that while there is a strong Republican base in Washington, it’s outside of the Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area for the most part (some of the outer suburbs do vote Republican). Massachusetts is less Republican as a whole, but they do seem to have more strength near Boston than near Seattle. Note that Curt Schilling was criticized for supporting the GOP, and (as I mentioned earlier) Bill Belichick was observed before the Superbowl in a “Don’t Tread on Me” t-shirt. I still doubt that’s the explanation, but I wouldn’t rule it out either.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There used to be a fairly strong conservative base east of the Cascades. And if there is a conservative still to be found in Washington State, that’s where you’ll likely find him. Oh, we have plenty of Republicans…of the very worst Establishment sort, such as Slade Gorton. Almost every single Republican is simply what we would have called a Democrat 20 years ago.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      but is Boston, Massachusetts any less progressive than Seattle, Washington?

      I’ve certainly never lived in Boston, Mr. Kung. But I’ve been a Northwest native all my life.

      There are more radical Progressives than you’ll find in Seattle. San Francisco and Boston come to mind. But I think the rank-and-file middle class has truly drunk down the Progressive brew as deeply as anyone in the nation. We’re not talking the typical Progressive hypocrites you find in California or much of the East Coast where Progressive ideas are always something to be imposed on the other guy while they live behind their gated communities.

      For better or for worse, the Seattle/King County libtards mean to make it work. Oh, they’ll be friendly about it (Jonah’s “friendly fascists,” for sure). And I think they’ve done as much as anyone to make it a way of spiritual life. These are not generally angry hags. These are friendly hippies (without the overt signs of tie-dye and such).

      That doesn’t mean the same ugly underbelly doesn’t apply. WTO-like riots are always a possibility wherever Progressives congregate. And I suspect that Seattle will go up in flames like many cities will in the next 20 years when severe economic times come. But for now, Progressive libtards in Washington State are a fairly content lot.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I recall reading the recent embarrassment (or it should be) of a far-left group that called for high minimum wages, but wants to pay their own workers less than their proposed minimum (they can’t afford it, and are incapable of understanding that there are many businesses in the same situation).

        And whatever the Republicans there are, they control the State Senate whereas in Massachusetts both houses are overwhelmingly Democratic, and have 4 House seats compared to 2 in all of New England (seats in Maine and New Hampshire). And a look at the voting records and ratings in The Almanac of American Politics suggests that they’re more conservative than most New England Republicans.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          They (Seattle, King County, or the State Legislature…I forget) was trying to pass a $15.00/hr minimum wage. I’m not sure where that stands now. I don’t stay glued to local issues. Reading local newspapers these days is quite literally like reading Pravda. We are an socialist, environmental wacko state. We may have a Republican majority in the State Senate, but these aren’t necessarily your fathers’ Republicans, as they say. They best they will do is slow down the Left a little. Tim Eyman (the man of the initiatives) has been the only one who has been effective in repealing any of the Progressive agenda…and usually only for an instant because the Communist courts repeatedly overturn the will of the people.

          I kid you not when I say that this is now basically the People’s Republic of Washington. We will eventually find ourselves in debt as bad as California. And, really, I said they are “friendly fascists” but we do perhaps have the worst bunch of environmental Nazis, second only to California. And I do believe we have taught them a trick or two.

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    KFZ,

    I’m just a simple Texan, but is Boston, Massachusetts any less progressive than Seattle, Washington? Down here, we sort of put them in the same category, i.e. La La Land. —Kung Fu Zu

    I’m just a simple Texan too—if there is such a thing. And, for the record, I don’t for a minute consider you just “a simple Texan”; I find you to be a very interesting, perceptive, and pleasantly-complex man. I’m glad to consider you, my fellow Texan, a fellow Conservative and one of my new Internet friends.

    I think that Massachusetts Progressivism is more in-your-face but perhaps less dangerous in a subtly way than Seattle and Washington State Progressivism.

    I gather that Brad is from somewhere in the NW region and here’s part of what he had to say that jives with what I think:

    There are more radical Progressives than you’ll find in Seattle. San Francisco and Boston come to mind. But I think the rank-and-file middle class has truly drunk down the Progressive brew as deeply as anyone in the nation. We’re not talking the typical Progressive hypocrites you find in California or much of the East Coast where Progressive ideas are always something to be imposed on the other guy while they live behind their gated communities.

    For better or for worse, the Seattle/King County libtards mean to make it work.—Brad Nelson

    As far as both (Boston and Seattle) being in La La Land, I’m with you all the way on that evaluation.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Nik,

      It’s been almost 30 years since I visited either city so I was somewhat curious as to the difference. Seems like you hit it. I suspect the Bostonian progressives also drink more booze. Perhaps therein lies a major reason for their aggressiveness.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Thanks Jerry. I think the ability to meet and exchange ideas with people, is one of the best things about the internet. The learning never ends.

  6. Jerry Richardson says:

    NAHALKIDES,

    Perhaps the greatest problem with Jerry’s amusing hypothesis is one he brings up himself: the Seahawks coach accepted the blame for having adopted a “policy” that failed miserably. Jerry points out that Obama wouldn’t have done that; I’m going to point out that no Progressive would have done that!
    —Nahalkides

    Golly gee NAK, you’ve pointed-out the Achilles-heel of my argument!

    And yes, you are correct. Taking responsibility for ones decisions is in no way the act of a typical Progressive. I think it is certainly very debatable whether Coach Carroll actually aligns himself with Progressives.

    Thanks for a very thoughtful comment!

  7. Jerry Richardson says:

    Cardinal Fang & Timothy,

    Getting one yard anywhere else on the field is pretty easy. On the one-yard line it’s not that easy. I like the call with the explanation given. The execution of said play by the players…not so much.
    —Cardinal Fang

    Basically, it seems that the decision wasn’t as obvious as people make it out to be, the crucial error being where the pass was thrown (i.e., in an area with a lot of defenders, greatly increasingly the likelihood of an interception.
    —Timothy Lane

    I’m certain that the two of you (Cardinal Fang and Timothy) and other readers have spotted a bit of tongue-in-cheek in my article—that was certainly the intent, about the coach and football; but not about Obama.

    I coached football, among other sports, for 12 years in high school. It was certainly nowhere near NFL action, but the competition and the pressure to win was just as intense for me as for any other coach in any league, or so I felt.

    Given the game situation, I truthfully don’t like the call that Coach Carroll made, but I do respect his call. And I have to admit that he undoubtedly knew more about the capabilities of his personnel than I possibly could. It was reported in another article—I didn’t research it—that Marshawn Lynch had previously carried the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times and had scored 1 touchdown; that’s a 20% success rate.

    So what if Coach Carroll had given the ball to Lynch; what kind of game would have followed if he hadn’t scored or if he had fumbled? Truth is, nobody knows; that’s part of the allure of competitive sports, the uncertainty of the outcome. People burn-out every day in jobs that are cut-and-dried; people literally die of boredom because there is no realistic uncertainty to challenge them.

    I deeply respect Coach Carroll’s willingness to accept the total responsibility for the play-call, even though perhaps his offensive-coordinator was involved. Doesn’t matter, he’s the head coach, the decision was his. And of course, if the pass had been completed, the entire football-viewing-world would be singing his praises; he would be considered a coaching-genius today; admired because he won. Yes indeed, Americans love winners.

    No clutch decision made by a coach is ever as obvious as all the Monday-morning-quarterbacks make it out to be. As a coach, I made enough clutch-calls (some winners some losers) to know that regardless of how good or even how brilliant my play-call was, if my team lost I would instantly become an idiot for that failed play-call. All coaches know this and live with it; it’s just part of the game.

    One of my favorite quotes relative to all of this is from Theodore Roosevelt:

    It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. —Theodore Roosevelt

    The Man in the Arena

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It was reported in another article—I didn’t research it—that Marshawn Lynch had previously carried the ball from the 1 yard line 5 times and had scored 1 touchdown; that’s a 20% success rate.

      The Cardinal had reported to me the day after that he heard Dan Patrick give that stat on the radio or TV. It wouldn’t be surprising if that was factored into their thinking. That’s a great quote from Roosevelt (who was otherwise an idiot regarding government).

      In retrospect, and after close consultation and consolation with Cardinal Fang, if that ball is thrown 6 inches further back and a little lower (as it should have been), we’re likely not having this conversation. The coach would be a genius.

      And it was unknown to me at the time that the one Seahawk player called for “celebrating” in the end zone (and contributing to a short field for Brady) was actually defecating in the end zone. One reason I now watch little sports is because of this thug factor. Gangs, juveniles, and just people of low class have taken over much of sports. At the end of the day, although Russell Wilson is apparently a class act, it’s hard to feel too bad losing to Brady & Company who do seem to be more of a class act. Their libtards (Boston) beat our libtards in a fair fight. They pulled it out while we were caught with our pants down.

  8. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    As for your general premise that Carroll made the decision that he did because he’s of a Progressive mindset, I think what the Progressive mindset gives you in regards to football is a lack of any kind of criticism of the black thug factor. And it also means that you automatically root for the black man, especially in the QB position. Rush Limbaugh noted this as an obvious factor several years ago and got fired from ESPN for it.

    As a confidant pointed out to me, you’re hearing very little criticism of Russell Wilson for a pass that was a little too far out in front of the receiver. Don’t get me wrong. I think he’s a very fine quarterback and key to the immediate future of this franchise. But as someone said on local talk radio (and I’m sort of amazed that he said this), if this was Tony Romo who had threw that pass, the fans and everyone else would be all over him. But there has not been an ounce of criticism (at least that I’ve heard) aimed at Russell Wilson for a somewhat bad pass.

    There is an “artificial niceness” factor inherent in the Progressive mindset. So I do think this mindset has an effect, although I don’t think it has any effect in actual play calling. It’s more of a peripheral factor.

    Everything I said above would be twisted as “racist” by the lunatics of today and I’d be fired in any sports-related job…maybe even have my Seahawk paraphernalia taken away from me (if I had any…and I don’t…not a scrap). But down on the field — and come draft day — I doubt that any coach has anything in mind other than winning. Some lunatics have said that maybe Carroll made the call that he did because he wanted Wilson, not Lynch, to be the MVP. But as someone pointed out, some other guy (I forget who) would likely have won the MVP if the Hawks had won the game.

    Conspiracies do sometimes happen. But it’s difficult to find a conspiracy theory in this. One factor that I’ve noted is that 20 years ago (or perhaps a little longer), it would be unheard of to pass the ball inside the five yard line. It was consider too high risk. Now teams routinely make what were once considered very high risk passes in the end zone or anywhere else. Certainly Joe Montana and Bill Walsh had a lot to do with this change. The idea of passing in the end zone when on the one yard line is now routine.

    The problem with the call is really one of rhythm. One of the finer aspects of football that has been said to have been lost is real field generalship. I can guarantee you that any quarterback worth his salt would have tried to run the ball in on the next play because Lynch had been making good yardage all day and because they had New England on their heals. Now was the time for a little brute-force running it down their gut. But with plays now being sent in from the side lines, the players are but chess pieces being moved around. Oh, it works. Brady, Montana, Young, Bledsoe, Manning, and many others have shown how brutally effective a well-coordinated aerial assault can be with coaches in the sky boxes fine-tuning their x’s and o’s as never before.

    The down side — and I think we saw this at the end of the Super Bowl — is that you can get some truly tone-deaf calls, as that final one by the Seahawks clearly was.

  9. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    But I did learn a lot about the difference between your Seattle libtards and Boston libtards. So something positive came out of the silly play.

  10. Jerry Richardson says:

    Brad,

    One reason I now watch little sports is because of this thug factor. Gangs, juveniles, and just people of low class have taken over much of sports —Brad Nelson

    Same here. I hardly every watch any professional sports of any kind and increasingly less-and-less college sports. And it is for the very reasons you mention. Ages ago when I coached, coaches includes myself had zero-tolerance for undisciplined players. You act-up on the field and you got yanked; if it was bad enough you were off the team. All of this celebration on the field even after a tackle is so silly and undignified, I just don’t care to watch. Now-days there is little discipline on or off the field. Makes me sick.

    I actually only watched the first half of the Super Bowl. I find the half-time “shows” so asinine I switch or turn-off. In this case, I just went to bed. I read about the game-results and watched the critical play next morning on the internet.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I find the half-time “shows” so asinine I switch or turn-off.

      My ideal Super Bowl halftime show would be Frank, Dean, and Sammy on stage doing their thing. I know they’ve passed on, but maybe their spirits could be borrowed for just one night.

      I had no idea who that talentless hack was. I’d never heard of her. But they all sound the same. And there’s no soul in the music. It’s artificially constructed crap. Crass as this may sound, the only way to have made the show interesting is if they were doing it topless.

      What a great statement on a culture. A completely plastic “artist” for the halftime show to bookend a player who pantomimes taking a crap in the end zone with the football. Welcome to the Brave New World…and a tasteless world it is.

  11. Jerry Richardson says:

    More idiocy from Progressive La-La Land:

    Spokane Obituary Blames Seahawks’ Play Call For Man’s Death
    Pete Carroll killed a man. Okay, not exactly, but an obituary in a Washington newspaper has blamed the Seahawks’ fateful play call for a man’s death.

    Michael Vedvik, 53, of Kent, Washington was remembered in an obituary in Thursday’s The Spokesman-Review. The obituary concluded: “We blame the Seahawks’ lousy play call for Mike’s untimely demise. Mike was greatly loved and will be dearly missed.”
    —-
    Vedvik’s brother-in-law was responsible for adding in the “We blame the Seahawks lousy play call for Mike’s untimely demise” line, and the rest of the family supported his addition.

    Seahawks playcall causes man’s death

    Don’t chuckle at this. Progressives spend most of their spare-time (time that is often government-subsidized) playing the blame-game, which means hurling accusations at something, somebody, or some organization that could not possible be logically or morally responsible for what they are being accused of.

    Typical example is the tactic of gun-grabbers blaming the gun (the tool) for the act of the person who misused the tool.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *