This is an email supposedly sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins ~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Mr. Page: I agree with our Native American population. I am highly jilted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward. Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns. The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk. The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives. I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres. Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates! Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children. The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children. The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children. The Milwaukee Brewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children. So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves. As a die-hard Oregon State fan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "The Beavers" (especially when they play Southern California. Do we really want the Trojans sticking it to the Beavers?) I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. As for the Redskins name I would suggest they change the name to the "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Washington DC. Forgot the Chicago Blackhawks !
This isn't the first time you've posted this around here, Lyman, and it's not the first time that it gets eye rolls and groans from everyone with half a brain, too.
That's F'ing hysterical !!!! Now. PC crowd ?? Be carful what you wish for, you just might get it !! Is Dan Snyder a Republican !?!?!?
Sorry buddy. I'm with Lyman on this one. The Redskins thing ?? I get that. But the rest of it ????? NO !!!!!
You recognize that "the rest of it" is satirical, and someone writing in to sarcastically protest the changing of these names, right? Right? Please tell me you understand that. If you get "the Redskins thing", then that's all there is to get. There is nothing else. But that doesn't stop people from being fear-mongers and trying to create a false narrative about how everything is taboo and disallowed. And that's all this post is.
OK. Valid points. But I've been watching what the left does all my life. You give them something, and they'll come back for more. Smoking legal cigarettes. Guns !! You just sit back and watch.
They do but there is argument there is a difference in using a tribal name, or a generic name like "Braves". Chiefs are also likely okay but they aren't without controversy. Now Indians is derogatory considering why they were named that to begin with so they are feeling the pressure too (as are the Braves but they could get away with it).
Multiple players on the Patriots are expressing their doubts about how anyone can simultaneously play football and follow public health guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Patriots cornerback Jonathan Jones wrote on Twitter, “I don’t know who needs to hear this but you can’t social distance football.” Teammate Dont'a Hightower replied to that with, “Ain’t no way.” Teammate Patrick Chung added, “Not a damn shot. They are trippin.” Patriots defensive backs Jason McCourty and Devin McCourty wrote at SI.com that players are in the dark about what the plans are. “So many questions with virtually no answers,” they wrote. “As fear continues to grow for our nation, it is also being spoken about among us players. Will we have an option to opt out of the season? Will we be making our full salary? What if there is a COVID outbreak within the league? It’s so hard to make a decision of whether we will play or not without knowing what the exact plan is.” With training camps set to open in less than two weeks, these questions need to be answered soon. NBC
Kenny Stills faces felony charge arising from Breonna Taylor protest A Tuesday protest in Kentucky relating to the murder of Breonna Taylor resulted in felony chargers for 87 participants. One of the persons facing felony charges is Texans receiver Kenny Stills. Via the Louisville Courier Journal, police took Stills into custody on Tuesday afternoon after he and other protesters marches to the home of Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron in connection with the failure to take action following Taylor’s death. Per the report, Stills was charges with “intimidating a participant in the legal process,” which is a felony. He also was charged with misdemeanor disorderly conduct and criminal trespass. Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by Louisville police who were serving a no-knock warrant in March. Still, who has been committed to social justice causes for several years, was due to be arraigned at 9:00 a.m. Wednesday. Said the Texans in a statement: “We are aware of the situation and are gathering more information.” NBC
Myles Garrett is set to become the newest $100-million NFL player. NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported the Cleveland Browns and Garrett reached an agreement on a five-year extension worth $125 million, per sources informed of the situation. Rapoport added Garrett's deal includes $50 million fully guaranteed at signing and $100 million in total guarantees. With two years remaining on his rookie deal, Garrett is now under contract in Cleveland through the 2026 season. While Aaron Donald (six years, $135 million) and Khalil Mack (six years, $141 million) signed extensions with more overall money, the $25 million per year in new money on Garrett's deal is tops among defenders. Garrett missed the final six games of the 2019 season due to suspension but will be sticking around Cleveland for many more contests to come. The NFL reinstated the pass rusher in February after he was the center of an ugly brawl with the Pittsburgh Steelers and swung a helmet at quarterback Mason Rudolph. The No. 1 overall pick in 2017, Garrett's combination of size, speed and athleticism makes him a menace off the edge when on the field. Injuries during his rookie campaign and the suspension, however, have wiped out 11 games in three seasons. In 37 tilts, Garrett has compiled 30.5 sacks, 65 QB hits, 104 tackles and 32 tackles for loss. Last year, he earned 10 sacks in 10 games. There is no question the 24-year-old is among the most talented pass rushers in the NFL. The Browns are betting we've still not seen the peak for the ultra-athletic edge rusher, who has grown each year in the league. NFL teams pay players for what they project to do down the road, not what they've already done. Garrett's new deal demonstrates the Browns' belief that big things are ahead for Garrett. NFL.com
Packers say no fans at camp, or home preseason games The Packers are still working on seating plans for the regular season, but they announced Wednesday that if they play a home preseason game, it will be without fans as well. They also said there would be no fans in attendance at training camp practices, or their annual family night practice. “The tremendous support of cheering fans at Lambeau Field motivates all of us in the Packers organization,” Packers president Mark Murphy said in a statement. “But after consulting with local health officials and reviewing League and CDC guidelines, we felt we needed to make this difficult decision. We will miss seeing so many of our fans, particularly the young ones, during this exciting time of year. We will continue to work on the protocols and logistics in the hope that we can welcome fans back to Lambeau Field for the regular season without jeopardizing the health of our players, team personnel and fans.” “We ask our fans to help us in this effort by wearing masks and staying six feet away from non-family members when out in the community in the coming weeks.” That last sentence is a gentle nudge to the community, or at least the part that has failed to realize that failure to take appropriate steps has put sports in jeopardy. NBC _________ __________________ I didnt realize the Packers had fans...
NFL schedules Friday owners meeting to discuss start of camp The scheduled start of training camp is drawing closer and the need for firm answers to many of the questions surrounding the NFL’s return remain unanswered. Talks between the NFL and NFLPA on issues like COVID-19 testing, economic fallout from lost revenues, opt-outs for players and injury protections for those who contract the coronavirus are ongoing. The end of this week will see team owners get together on for a meeting of their own. Daniel Kaplan of TheAthletic.com reports that the league has called for a Friday meeting that a source tells him will cover “where we stand on next steps regarding the start of training camp.” “Obviously, things can change a little bit with some of the player negotiations,” the source said. “For the most part, the big items are, we sort of already know about the economics in the league . . . So my gut is sort of go or no-go on training camp starting on time. There’s a number of cities and counties that are still concerned about training camp that have some semblance of verbal approval. But given the recent [COVID-19] developments [in so many] states, I think there’s some concern from the Washington, D.C., office on the political side of the NFL around where we all stand. So it’s all going to come down to the next couple days here.” With so many questions left to answer, it may be hard for the league to open camps as planned but the next few days should provide more information about how things will go. NBC
Report: Titans, Derrick Henry getting close on long-term deal Despite a previous report that Derrick Henry wasn’t expected to get a long-term deal done with the Titans, it appears it’s going to happen. Henry and the Titans are finalizing a deal right now, Adam Schefter of ESPN reports. They’re running out of time: The deadline is 4 p.m. Eastern today. Otherwise, Henry can only play on his one-year franchise tender. Although running backs have found it increasingly hard to get big paydays in today’s NFL, the Titans loved what Henry brought to the offense in their surprising playoff run last season, and it appears he’s going to be rewarded. And the Titans will hope Henry can buck the trend of running backs getting big second contracts and then failing to deliver.