Tag Archives: new england patriots

NFL: AFC Championship Game – Broncos

Denver Broncos versus New England Patriots. Let me start off by saying I really don’t like the Patriots. I admit my dislike probably is an emotional button that both Belicheck and Brady step on quite frequntly.

I know that there are many people who are trying to get us to believe that football is changing. We are seeing a new type of football. Horse hockey. We are seeing the same type of football that we have been seeing over the last 20 years. The playoffs are all about preventing mistakes. Controlling the football and playing solid defense. One of the reasons that a great quarterback like Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl is because he was never matched with an equally great defense. On the flip side, average quarterbacks like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer have won Super Bowls because their teams possessed great defenses.

The Denver Broncos won the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball. It is really that simple. The surprise of the game was that the Patriots were not able to run the ball at all. The Broncos held the Patriots to only 64 yards on the ground. That was the game.

Neither team turned over the ball. Both quarterbacks made good safe throws. The Broncos didn’t make the mistake that they made last year by getting exposed deep. Their pass defense bent a little bit in the 3rd quarter but held tough.

This game was billed as Manning verses Brady. This game was Manning ripping the Patriots’ defense. The score really doesn’t reflect the dominance that the Broncos had in the first half. The Broncos defense forced 3 and outs. The Broncos offensive held the ball and moved at will. The half time score should have been 28-3 or even 35-0. This game was about the Denver defense standing tall and containing the New England offense.

Congratulations to the Denver Broncos and Peyton Manning.

News Update – Supreme Court, Aaron Hernandez and more

supreme court (2)

Let’s be clear, the Supreme Court of the United States is still led by conservatives. The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court also struck down California’s Proposition 8. Basically, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision. Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court did not step out on a limb and boldly go where no man has gone before. As a matter fact, they wimped out. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to tell gay and lesbian Americans that they had the exact same rights as any and all other Americans – to marry anyone whom they love. That is not what the Supreme Court did. Instead, the Supreme Court made what in my opinion was a very narrow ruling. The question still remains about whether gay marriage is legal throughout the land and the answer has to be no. If you happen to live in the correct state, gay marriage is okay in that state. I’m sorry, but I understand that there are lots of people who are very happy, but I continue to be disappointed by the closed-minded cowardice of what is supposed to be the greatest court in the land.

Wendy Davis is awesome!!!

Yesterday, I talked about the New England Patriots tight end, Aaron Hernandez. Today, Mr. Hernandez was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. 90 minutes after his arraignment, the New England Patriots released Aaron Hernandez. He is on his own.

I would like to point everyone to Linda Greenhouse’s article in the New York Times. In my opinion, Linda Greenhouse was the best legal reporter in the country when she retired couple years ago. The article:

“While any racial discrimination in voting is too much,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. told us in Tuesday’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

Well, here’s a current condition: the ink was barely dry on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder when Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas announced that his state’s voter-ID law, blocked by a federal court last summer, “will take effect immediately.”

The Texas statute has the most stringent requirements of any voter-ID law in the country. The three-judge federal panel, pointing out in a 56-page opinion the several less onerous versions that the Legislature had rejected, found that the state had failed to meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the law wouldn’t have the effect of suppressing the minority vote.

With his precipitous in-your-face move, the Texas attorney general may be doing us a favor, making clear that the court’s decision has real and immediate consequences. Welcome to the Roberts court’s brave new post-Voting Rights Act world.

Roger Federer gets bounced out of the second round of Wimbledon. Maria Sharapova is also out.

News Roundup – Aaron Hernandez, Edward Snowden, The Voting Rights Act

I wish I were able to find something intelligent and thoughtful to say about Aaron Hernandez. To those of who you don’t follow football, or even sports for that matter, Aaron Hernandez is the All-Star tight end for the New England Patriots. Two years ago, it could be argued that Aaron Hernandez, along with his partner, fellow tight end Rob Gronkowski, revolutionized the NFL. Most of the time, when a team comes out with two tight ends, they’re showing you their running formation. Both Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski are relatively fast. They run good routes and they have good hands. Suddenly, teams don’t know if the Patriots were going to run the ball or pass the ball. Injuries to both tight ends really hurt the New England Patriots last year. Right now, I have nothing intelligent to say about the fact that Aaron Hernandez appears to be embroiled in a murder investigation. All I know is that if I were a 23-year-old football star earning millions of dollars to play a game, I would do everything I could to make sure that I could play that game as long as I possibly could.

Oh my goodness, could we give it a rest!!! Every time I turn on the radio or TV somebody’s talking about Edward Snowden (here, here, here, here there’s more). Where is he? Why did he leave Hong Kong? Why is he in Moscow? Why didn’t he make his plane? I don’t care. Seriously. I really don’t care. Between today and yesterday, I was listing to progressive radio and I heard callers, on one hand, praise Edward Snowden as one of the greatest Americans since George Washington. On the other hand, another caller was badmouthing him for giving secrets to the Russians. People, get a grip. Right now, all we know is that Edward Sowden was smart enough to get a job working for some company that was contracted by the NSA. We also know that he’s taken some sort of technology. He is told us that our government has the ability to spy on us with little or no provocation. That is it. I’m sorry, I don’t know if he’s a good guy or a bad guy. I wish I knew. I wish I could get caught up in this frenzy and either erect a statue to Snowden in my front yard or to start burning effigies of him. I don’t know. Do you? (By the way, don’t listen to the mainstream media. They don’t know either.)

When I first moved to North Carolina back in 2005, I was surprised at how easy it was to vote. I didn’t need to give a pint of blood. I really didn’t even need my voter registration card. I went in and I gave them my name. They looked me up and asked me to verify my address and that was it. I was ready to vote. I did not have to vote on a specific day. I had several days, actually a couple weeks in which I could vote. It was easy. That is thanks to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, like the Andy Griffith Show, those days are gone. Today, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court earned their pay. It has been 50 years since the Voting Rights Act passed and conservatives have been plotting to kill it ever since. So, today, instead of killing the whole Voting Rights Act, they decided to simply gut the middle of it. Andrew Koppelman wrote, “The Supreme Court has a long history of declaring that the problem of racism in the United States has been solved. It did that in a series of decisions just after the Civil War, striking down civil-rights and anti-lynching laws and paving the way for decades of racial segregation. And today it has just done it again.” I agree with him 100%. He goes on to say, “The fact that things have gotten better hardly means that the act is no longer necessary. It may just mean that it is operating successfully. Ginsburg writes: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” Still more, “When it struck down the lynch laws in the 1880s, the court lectured Congress on the need to rewrite its statutes to comport with previously unheard-of constitutional limitations. No rewriting occurred. There was no more Federal civil-rights legislation until 1957.”  Professor Koppelman is correct. He knocks it out of the park. To be honest, I don’t see any easy fixes. I don’t see Congress rushing to the rescue because there are enough conservatives in the House to prevent any meaningful legislation to pass. Our best bet is to take back the House in 2014. I’m not sure how we can do that if the ballot box is stuffed against us.