The team formerly known as...

I've almost completely stopped reading Slate. My doctor says I need to get my blood pressure down and frankly, I'm pretty sure the job description for writers at Slate includes the words, "Write your articles to be as blatantly controversial as humanly possible in order to cause our readers' blood pressure to elevate by at least 50 points (systolic)."

I caved this morning and read an article entitled, "The Washington _______________". The tag line clarified, "Why Slate will no longer refer to Washington’s NFL team as the Redskins."

I didn't even need to read the article, penned by Slate's blood pressure terrorist-in-chief David Plotz. Every single article I've ever read by Plotz I've disagreed with. He's like the anti-X.

For $21 million, I'll play for a team named after a racial slur?

In this day and age when we can all take principled stands against such things, why didn't highly coveted Baylor quarterback Robert Griffin III include a clause in his contract stipulating the Redskins had to change their name? "Sure, I'd love to play in our nation's capitol! I'll accept $21 million over four years and, oh yeah, you guys need to change your name or the deal's off. I cannot in good conscience play for a team that disrespects Native American heritage."

This is PC run amok. There have been similar moves in Florida to force FSU (Florida State University) to change their team nickname (Seminoles); yet Chief Osceola still rides his distinctive Appaloosa Renegade out onto the field before every home game and plants the flaming spear into the turf at midfield, literally throwing down the battle challenge to FSU's opponents while more than 82,000 screaming fanatics do the "tomahawk chop" and chant (see also Atlanta Braves, just without the flaming spear).

Look out Chief, your next...

No one in their right mind believes that anyone associated with the Washington Redskins organization is a racist, Native American hater. Whatever the original motivation for the name was, the team's traditions have long-since outgrown any negative connotations.

Just to set the record straight. I'm totally with the Native Americans in our country. Tribes all over the land received significantly raw deals from the US Government. Their treatment at the hands of settlers, the US Army and various mercenary forces was indefensible. Maybe Daniel Snyder, the Redskin's owner could pledge a portion of the team's profits to help underprivileged Native Americans. I believe that would be a much worthier tribute than the witch hunt attempt to get the team's name changed.

And you just know what's going to happen if the name-change precedent is set. If we go down this path, what other teams should be looking over their shoulders and thinking about new names?

1. Cleveland Browns: Obviously something sinister is going on here; Cleveland took the sly route by just naming their team after a color without associating the color with anything specific.

2. Houston Texans: A clear slap in the face to Dallas Cowboy fans who believe THEY are the only real football team in Texas. Perhaps America's Team is taking the moral high ground and letting Houston have Texas - since the Cowboys have the rest of the country.

3. Tennessee Titans: Nobody likes giants (David vs. Goliath, Greek Mythology, etc.) and the flaming thumbtack logo is hideous. Maybe this isn't offensive but just really bad marketing.

Go, er, you flaming thumbtacks...

4. Kansas City Chiefs: You know it's coming. If the Redskins are forced to change their name, the Chiefs are next!

5. Oakland Raiders: Go back into history and ask the millions of people who were raped, pillaged and plundered, how much they enjoyed it. Unless you're a masochist, goth or suffering from a John Madden hangover, you don't like the Raiders anyway, so a name change is called for.

6. Dallas Cowboys: If you can't have teams named after Native Americans (Indians), you can't have teams named after Cowboys. How many of us grew up playing Cowboys and...never mind.

7. New York Giants: (See Tennessee Titans). Wait a minute; after seeing Eli and the Mannings' latest rap commercial for DirecTV, I think the Giants should be forced to change their name as punishment.

8. Minnesota Vikings: (See Oakland Raiders, only more so).

I don't want my kids growing up thinking this is okay

9. New Orleans Saints: These guys should be sued for false advertising for sure. How about making them change their name to "New Orleans Sinners"?

10. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: (See Raiders and Vikings). Okay, Buccaneers aren't quite as bloodthirsty as Raiders and Vikings, but they aren't choirboys either.

11. San Francisco 49rs: Really? How long before the gentile folks of Northern California demand a name change so their team isn't named after a bunch of hard-drinking, money-grabbing opportunists? How about the "San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appealers"? Okay, maybe 49rs isn't so bad...

There are currently 32 NFL teams. People may not agree with my eleven choices for name change candidates. Heck, the ASPCA and PETA might weigh in on the fifteen franchises who use animal names for their teams. I mean, seriously, what self-respecting Tiger would want to be associated with the Cincinnati Bengals anyway?

What do you think?

X

Soap oR Money?

Yesterday, I wrote in this blog about struggling for subject matter. Today, it's clear that there are major topics of great import that can yea, verily, be blogged for ages. As a matter of fact, I could probably milk these two topics for a week's worth of blog posts, if not more.

HR.3261e, entitled "To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes," better known as SOPA or the "Stop Online Piracy Act," certainly has folks in a lather. 

I have to admit, I haven't read the entire bill but if social media is to be believed, passage of HR. 3261e would signify the end of life as we know it. Perhaps a more rational view can be found in this Slate article.  Matthew Yglesias (no relation to Julio that I know of) opines that a little piracy is not necessarily a bad thing.

Frankly, I'm of two minds about that school of thought. First, as a writer - albeit with very little copyright material in the public domain that people are willing to pay me for - I am totally with those who fear that the fruit of their creative loins, as it were, is in danger from scurvy-infested Internet pirates seeking to make off with their (our) intellectual booty.

         Image courtesy of some website...

However, as inferred in the caption underneath yon image of our most famous modern-day pirate, Captain Jack Sparrow (aka Johnny Depp), I freely borrowed said picture - that someone slaved over for days - to spruce up my low-rent (actually no rent) blog.

Does that make me a pirate? No more than setting my Facebook profile to Pirate English does, I'm afraid. In fact, my use of this image brings no material benefit to me at all and could conceivably provide additional, free advertising for the film in question.

The story would be different if I was getting paid to write this blog and was able to generate more revenue for myself through the inclusion of Johnny's mascara'd image. Even so, unless I was raking in significant lucre merely through the inclusion of a copyrighted image, it's doubtful that the studio and it's heirs and appurtenances would be losing out.

One last note before we move on...the Internet - the part that remained open yesterday - was awash with cries of anguish from students denied their primary research source...Wikipedia. I'm no modern scholar but when I was taking some college courses in the last few years, Wikipedia was not on the approved reference list. So kids, maybe you need to start using that old social media fallback from days gone by: the Library.

                             My favorite (fictional) librarian

Second on my list of never-ending topics is the excitement of the unfolding republican primary. The current front runner, Mitt Romney, is an amazing amalgam of a man seeking to be everything to everyone.

Regular readers of The Stream will have no doubts as to my theology - or, if you do, I've done a poor job of communicating and have yet another never-ending topic to mine! But we'll get to the theological side of the Mitt Romney question in a moment. First, let's look at his candidacy from a secular viewpoint.

R. Money, a Slate article about Mitt by John Dickerson, talks about Governor Romney's propensity to try and make out like the everyman, but somehow he always ends up making comments that highlight how much money he has. I'm not averse to people making money; I think it's wonderful. And I'm definitely in line with folks who think we need rich business people to give a lot of us jobs. But no one likes a person who keeps bringing up the fact that they have a lot of money. That's gauche.

Case in point: Dickerson highlights a comment Mitt made when talking about his speaker fees; Mitt is quoted as saying part of his income came from "...speakers' fees from time to time, but not very much." Apparently, the actual amount was nearly $400,000.

This clearly highlights how out of touch Governor Romney is with the great majority of the American people. If you asked me this year how much money I had available to spend on Christmas gifts for my entire family and I answered you, "Not much," the actual amount would be nearly $400.

We're talking factors of ten here...

At heart, the issue is not about Romney being wealthy. It's about his ability to translate the skills that made him wealthy into real benefit for America.  I don't think he can.

Another large issue with Governor Romney - even though he won't cop to it - is the fact he is Mormon.

                 Will the real Joseph Smith please stand up?

Christians believe in the human birth and death of Jesus Christ - and in His divine resurrection, and that Jesus was also the Son of God - the second person of the Holy Trinity. God is not three different entities when we talk of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These refer to different iterations of the one, true God.

In his article Could you vote for a Mormon, Dr. Jerry Newcombe raises a few valid points about Governor Romney's chosen faith. Dr. Newcombe begins by noting importantly that, "Mormons tend to make great neighbors and friends; they tend to be honest and hard-working people."

This isn't about tearing down people, it's about clearing up the fact that Mormonism does not line up with traditional Christianity. So, if you're a Christian and you are contemplating voting for Mitt Romney because you believe his faith is your faith...you might want to take another look.

That is, of course, unless you buy into the idea that when you die, you too can become a god and get your own universe to play in; kinda like an eternal game of The Sims.

I'm just saying...

In summary, if I download a song or two from the Internet or watch a video on YouTube of a copyrighted song like the one below, the world will not end. And Simon Le Bon won't go broke.

And Mitt Romney likes being rich more than he likes you. And he believes that he will die and become a god; which won't be much of a change from being president - if he gets elected. Well, except gods get their own planet, not just part of one.

What do you think?

X