We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, June 18. 2014
I entirely understand why eating tacos and drinking Margueritas on cinque de mayo is a racist act and offensive to lunatic grievance-seeking Latinas and Latinos who own that bogus holiday, but I still do not understand what is offensive about "redskin."
In the US, it's a silly narcissistic badge of something to be part redskin. I am 1/16th, can prove it, and I stupidly think it's cool.
Indians aren't really red-skinned. It was a term based on the habit of eastern Indians coating themselves with bear grease to stay warm in winter and, I think, other Indians decorating themselves with reddish make-up.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I usually avoid long exposure to sunlight, as my skin appears to turn red. Should I be offended?
How about banning the term "ticket scalpers" too, Or that terribly-named Washington Senators team?
I'm still up in arms about "Fighting Irish" and I'm ready to fight about it, dammit!
Actually, since I really can't stand Notre Dame, I've never given it much thought besides realizing the name is meant to honor my heritage, not disparage it.
I fail to see how "Redskin" doesn't honor Native Americans, in some sense. Only 30% found it offensive.
As a rather tall person, my brother is now upset that "Titans" and "Giants" remain common team names.
I graduated from Syracuse, the "Orangemen". Since my family is all from the Republic, I suppose I'm only hating myself a little for being a turncoat.
The owners of the NFL team in question has defined the President of the United States in particular and political correctness in general. This cannot be tolerated. Only approved viewpoints are permitted - and only the correct people get to approve viewpoints.
If I read the article correctly, the patent office rescinded the Redskins trademark with the stroke of a pen, no determining process needed. Whomever sits in the chair decides.
So my question is, is anyone's trademark safe anymore? As the 'the rules' continually change, it strikes me that a bureaucrat could declare anyone's trademark 'offensive' on a whim.
Seems like ruling by decree is becoming more and more common in the USA.
I am offended by the racist United Negro College fund and the NAACP and black colleges. I assume that for social justice and equality there will be a strong effort made to eliminate these vestages of slavery and discrimination.
This is frivolous nonsense. That's why Harry Reid has been in the middle of it.
the redskins have other recourse ...
from the USPTO Frequently Asked Questions about Trademarks
What are “common law” rights?
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark and may allow the common law user to successfully challenge a registration or application.
no, you read it completely, totally incorrectly.
ruling and the procedures, briefing, due process, etc., followed can be read here:
Sounds like yet another attorney full employment/pay off those student loans action we seem so fond of now a days.
Oh well, off to the Winn Dixie to get a box of Georgia Crackers and Swartze Kats.
the rules are whatever the person who wants to apply them decides they are.
so yes, the rules were followed. They were just made up on the spot.
And if you really think anything is safe from the government, you're delusional.
I'm offended by people deciding for others what they're supposed to consider offensive...
I'm guessing only one of us, and it isn't you, has a winning record against the government.
I linked the decision, show me where the court acted arbitrarily.
Don't forget the HoR Black Caucus. Its a counter to all the other 'caucus' that subjugate in our governance.
Now the CENSORED have been neutralized, how about the Cleveland Indians? Atlanta Braves? Orlando Magic? White Sox? LA Raiders?
If you 'just look hard enough', you can see PC transgressions 'everywhere', or is that taboo to say, too?
He has the same thoughts...
You're on the right track,feeble. At issue is the decision to take the case in the first place - a totally arbitrary decision by the board (there's no court involved in that decision, so where frigate is coming from,well...)
It is unelected bureaucracy at its most potent - the taking of income for whatever reason it selects. Likely to be tossed...
BTW, a couple of those "activists" are well known, and have no more proven ancestry than high cheekbones from Massachusetts.
I really think this is more about the "progressive elites" who don't approve of the fact that the majority of Americans enjoy following professional / college sports teams, analogous to "clinging to their guns and their Bibles" to some extent. So they are trying any way possible to make these sports more acceptable (i.e., more politically correct) for themselves, and p!ss off the rest of us in the bargain; a twofer!
Or it could just be that they could just be greedy opportunists, trying to somehow get "their share" of reparations (i.e., Pigford) for the actions of our distant ancestors.
from The Federalist:
"This ruling happened precisely because the campaign against the Redskins has failed in the court of public opinion. The issue has become the hobby horse of a small group of lefty commentators and politicians in DC, while regular Washingtonians, the people who make up the team’s base of fans and customers, are largely indifferent. So the left resorted to one of its favorite fallbacks. If the people can’t be persuaded, use the bureaucracy—in this case, two political appointees on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
That’s what is disturbing about this ruling. Our system of government depends on the impartial administration of the laws by the executive. In this case, executive officials declared that a private company doesn’t deserve the protection of the law:
This ruling isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a slope we’ve already slid down: bureaucrats in Washington are now empowered to make subjective decrees about what is offensive and what will be tolerated, based on pressure from a small clique of Washington insiders. Anyone who runs afoul of these decrees, anyone branded as regressive and politically incorrect, is declared outside the protection of the federal government.
That this is happening, and that we have no idea where it will stop, is what should terrify us—even if, like me, you don’t particularly care one way or the other about the Redskins."
"Redskins" was a term coined by those awful, racist Native Americans to distinguish between their fellow natives and the pale-skinned, hairy, smelly Euro-trash then filtering into their world.
Now we have Euro-trash men characterized by a semi-slovenly appearance (including half-shaven faces), greasy hair, rib-hugging shirts, tight jeans and loafers worn without socks and women distinguished by anorexia, over-bleached hair, gaudy jewelry and plastic surgery; all still pale though.
where I'm coming from is that congress, under powers granted to it by the constitution, set up this administrative tribunal, whose decisions, as always, are reviewable by an article III court.
you can read its rules of procedure and administrative decisions, you can read the judicial decisions that review them.
so, apart from the fact that you disagree with the ruling, where is there error?
here's the order, again:
obviously, this battle isn't lost, so all this poor-me whining about unfair administrators is just poor-me whining, something I expect from libtards but am always dismayed when it comes from the Right.
That’s what is disturbing about this ruling. Our system of government depends on the impartial administration of the laws by the executive.
as opposed to the impartial administration of the law by the judiciary or legislative branches? what is the Federalist complaining about?
administrative agencies and their tribunals are creations of congress ultimately overseen by the courts and what is it about checks and balances that's got all those Federalists' panties in a wad?
100 years ago (and more) Indians were perceived as exemplars of a certain masculine virtue--hence the names assigned to sports teams. The Boy Scouts program was patterned after this same virtue--hence the many references to Indian culture in their handbook and badges.
I expect the only Indians troubled by it are those who enjoy the grandstand.
BTW: Keep the name and change the image to a potato--Problem solved.