Advertisements

[VIDEO] A Progressive’s Guide to Political Correctness

Is there a point where the “P.C. Police” are satisfied? Are there ever “enough” rules governing the jokes we tell, the mascots of sports teams, or the symbols on city seals? Or should we want a society as non-offensive as the American college campus? George Will, Washington Post Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, imagines what an idyllic politically correct universe would look like.

Advertisements

Marshawn Lynch Fined $20,000 for the Post-Touchdown Luxury of Grabbing His Dick

Lynch

 reports: The NFL has fined Marshawn Lynch $20,000 for his post-touchdown crotch grab in the NFC Championship, and more fines could be forthcoming if Lynch decides to continue his tradition of not talking to reporters.

“Johnny Manziel was hit with a $12,000 fine for flipping a bird at the Washington Redskins in preseason.”

ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that the NFL is also considering fining Lynch significantly more than the $50,000 for each of the past two seasons for not talking to the media. Lynch again declined to speak on Sunday after the NFC Championship.

“Kansas City’s Travis Kelce was fined $11,025 for a gesture that we really can’t even describe here…”

Lynch, along with the rest of the Seahawks, is slated for media availability on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week. If he decides to go with his usual repeat-a-single-phrase routine, the Super Bowl trip could end up being a significant hit to his wallet. Read the rest of this entry »


In Arizona, a Navajo High School Emerges as a Defender of the Washington Redskins

redskins-wapo

RED MESA, Ariz. — Ian Shapira reports:  The fans poured into the bleachers on a Friday night, erupting in “Let’s go, Redskins!” chants that echoed across a new field of artificial turf, glowing green against a vast dun-colored landscape.

“This is one of the reasons why it’s so hard to change the name. I don’t find it derogatory. It’s a source of pride.”

— Superintendent Tommie Yazzie

Inside the Red Mesa High School locker room, Ted Nugent’s “Stranglehold” blared on the stereo as players hurried to strap on their helmets and gather for a pregame prayer and pep talk.

“This is your time, right?” the team’s assistant coach demanded.

“Yes, sir!” the players shouted. “Redskins on three! Redskins on three! One, two, three, Redskins!”

“I don’t know what she means that it’s a racial slur. It’s not a racist slur if it originates from a Native American tribe…It’s always used in the context of sports.”

— Mckenzie Lameman, 17, a junior who is Red Mesa’s student government president

The scene at this tiny, remote high school was as boisterous as it was remarkable: Nearly everyone on the field and in the bleachers belongs to the Navajo Nation. Most of the people in Red Mesa not only reject claims that their team’s nickname is a slur, they have emerged as a potent symbol in the heated debate over the name of the more widely known Redskins — Washington’s NFL team. More than half the school’s 220 students eagerly accepted free tickets from the team for an Oct. 12 game near Phoenix, where they confronted Native American protesters who were there to condemn Washington’s moniker.

Red Mesa High School football player Kai Lameman leads the team on a march during a homecoming parade Oct. 16. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Red Mesa High School football player Kai Lameman leads the team on a march during a homecoming parade Oct. 16. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

None of that mattered to the Red Mesa Redskins as they marched onto the field for their game against the Lobos of Many Farms High School. It was homecoming, and the players knew they needed to keep winning if they wanted to make their first appearance in the state playoffs in five years.

Red Mesa students, parents and alumni stamped the bleachers, clutching signs that read “Fear the Spear” and “Redskin Nation.”

“There were 62 high schools in 22 states using the Redskins moniker last year, according to a project published by the University of Maryland’s Capital News Service.”

Sitting in the front row, Superintendent Tommie Yazzie basked in the crowd’s festive mood and in the sight of the newly built football field, which cost nearly $400,000 in federal aid at a school that struggles to pay for computers and wheelchair-accessible bathrooms.

“This is one of the reasons why it’s so hard to change the name,” he said with a smile, trying to make his voice heard over the cheers. “I don’t find it derogatory. It’s a source of pride.” Read the rest of this entry »


Official Etsy Policy: Anything with REDSKINS Logo FORBIDDEN (Swastikas A-Okay!)


‘Look! Squirrel!’ Redskins Controversy: Does Trademark Law Violate First Amendment?

Supreme Court Affirmitive Action

Regulatory adventurism–an arm of government being misused for a political, narrow, misguided agenda–naturally raises legal questions. Can you imagine so much effort on the part of a tyrannical minority of activists about a ruling that most Americans, and most native Americans think is a pointless solution to an imaginary problem?

For Brietbart.com, Ken Kuklowski writes:

Yesterday’s decision from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to cancel the trademark protections of the Washington Redskins professional football team, ruling that the word “redskins” is disparaging to Americans descended from indigenous people instead of immigrants, has sparked an energetic conversation raising serious legal and constitutional issues.

“To be clear: the federal government is not banning anyone from using the term ‘redskins.’”

Trademark law permits PTO to reject trademark protection to terms that PTO finds disparaging. Specifically, PTO may deny trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1052 when a term, “consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

“…Instead, PTO is saying they no longer have the right to use the term exclusively to retain all financial benefits from its use.”

Lawyers for the Redskins argued that the trademark is (1) old and (2) well used, and (3) has tremendous financial value as a brand name. And one judge on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dissented from the decision to revoke the Redskins’ longstanding trademark protection. Read the rest of this entry »


Terry McAuliffe, the Redskins, and the Big Lies of Liberalism

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Jonah Goldberg’s column (and current book) his good-humored, scholarly, pop-culture-savy approach to the often dreadful business of exposing liberalism’s falsehoods never fail to entertain. It’s rare to see Goldberg’s temperature rise. This column is an exception. I can almost see the veins popping out on his forehead. –The Butcher

terryMcJonah Goldberg writes: Some of you may recall this scornful column I wrote the other week mocking the myth that there’s anything socially libertarian about liberalism. If not, you might recall a couple dozen Corner posts on the same theme. It is easily one of my biggest peeves in politics. But there is something worse than lying about being a libertarian on social issues. It’s lying about being a libertarian on economic issues.

I haven’t been following the Virginia gubernatorial race too closely, but I managed to catch the last few minutes of the debate last night. Chuck Todd asked the candidates whether they think the Redskins should keep their name. Terry McAuliffe responded: “I don’t think the governor ought to be telling private businesses what they should do about their business.”

“Even if it’s offensive to people?” Todd interjected.

“I don’t think the governor should be telling private businesses . . .” McAuliffe repeated. Todd interrupted. Asking what his personal opinion was. McAuliffe stuck to his bogus answer: “As governor, I’m not going to tell Dan Snyder or anybody else what they should [do] with their business, and I want to congratulate the Redskins, because I went down to the training practice here in Richmond and it is spectacular.”

Now, in what way is this remotely true? Don’t get me wrong, I think McAuliffe’s answer is basically right. And for all I know he won’t pressure the Redskins to change their name. But is that because he’s the sort of guy who doesn’t tell businesses what they should do? Or is it because he’s the sort of guy who says what audiences want to hear about their beloved football franchise? If the question was about businesses that refuse to comply with Obamacare’s requirement to pay for birth control, would he still be the sort of guy who doesn’t think politicians should be telling businesses what to do? Is he for no environmental regulations? Against all zoning? Is he now against civil-rights laws that tell business who. they must serve, hire, etc.? Read the rest of this entry »