ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [309] -- Meet Brian Schweitzer

[ Posted Friday, June 20th, 2014 – 17:07 PDT ]

Today, we're going to have a special edition of the talking points, where we get to know a Montana politician who seems to be seriously considering taking on Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. But before we do so, it was a busy week otherwise, so let's just dive right into it. First, a look at what's going with Republicans.

Three separate Republican scandals were in the news this week, as Wisconsin governor Scott Walker was accused of running a criminal scheme out of his office, Congressman Don Young of Alaska was dinged by the House Ethics Committee for airplane rides he should have paid for himself, and prosecutors seem to be closing in on New Jersey governor Chris Christie. But even with all of that going on, the most shocking thing a Republican did wasn't actually a scandal per se, merely scandalous.

Thad Cochran faces a runoff election next week to be the Republican nominee for the Senate seat he now holds. It is expected to be a tight race. Cochran is out there fighting for every vote -- even the bestiality vote. Yes, you read that right. Here he is, addressing a rural Mississippi audience:

I grew up coming down here for Christmas. My father's family was here. My mother's family was from rural Hinds County in Utica. It was fun, it was an adventure to be out there in the country and to see what goes on. Picking up pecans -- from that to all kinds of indecent things with animals. And I know some of you know what that is.

Hoo boy. Not much more you can say about that one, is there?

There was news from the Washington Post this week, but not in the ordinary way. Two Post writers made some news of their own, as Dana Milbank annoyed righties by pointing out just how intolerant a recent righty gathering was. Meanwhile, George Will was yanked from a newspaper his column has been running in, for a column he wrote a few weeks ago where he took a rather bizarre position on campus sexual assault.

The news media (at least the televised portion) showed without a shadow of a doubt that they have not learned one single lesson from their coverage in the run-up to the Iraq war. I mean, even Glenn Beck (of all people) now admits that "liberals were right" about going in to Iraq, but the producers of teevee news have yet to realize this, it appears. Last Sunday morning, by my count, the broadcast political interview shows (on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox) had a total of nine Republicans on, which was "balanced" by two Democrats. The likely reason for this is that people like John McCain can be reliably counted upon to rant and rave, which the producers feel makes for "good television."

This trend continued during the week, as pretty much everyone who got Iraq fundamentally and tragically wrong before we invaded was invited to share their views about what to do now. In what universe is this any way to run the news: "Let's see... who should we ask what to do now... Oh, hey, I know -- how about all the people who got it wrong last time around?"

At least Megyn Kelley (on Fox News, of all places) realized that interviewing Dick Cheney involved quite a bit of tossing reality down the memory hole, as she asked him, point-blank:

Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir. You said there was no doubt Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators, you said the Iraq insurgency was in the last throes, back in 2005, and you said that after our intervention extremists would have to 'rethink their strategy of jihad.' Now, with almost $1 trillion spent there, with almost 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?

Sadly, most of the rest of the media were unaware of the ironies involved. Why else would Paul Bremer be interviewed on CNN? Or Paul Wolfowitz invited on air to share his flawed worldview once again? Huffington Post had some fun with this, suggesting proper captioning for these guests, to inform the viewers. Hey, people who book guests for news shows, here's a crazy idea: why not invite on the air the people who were right about the desirability of invading Iraq to share their views of the current situation? I'd love to hear what Dennis Kucinich thinks about things, for instance. Or Vice President Biden (more on this in a moment), for that matter.

Let's see, what else? Hard data is coming in on Obamacare, and most of the numbers are good -- much better than the naysayers had predicted. The media largely ignored this news, however.

Approval ratings for Congress have sunk even lower, but as the Washington Post points out, that doesn't mean most of them won't get re-elected.

The Washington football team (which we have taken to calling the Washington Racist Slurs) lost their trademark in court because of its offensive nature, but the team expects to win on appeal (as it did the previous time it lost its trademark), so stay tuned. In a related item, Republican ex-congresscritter Joe Walsh (remember him?) lost his radio job when he had a hard time understanding which racism is acceptable and which isn't on the airwaves.

Democrats in the Senate are trying to expand overtime pay for millions of Americans, but the media largely ignored this development. President Obama got some judges confirmed, which made a bit of history, but the media also ignored this story as well.

In marijuana news, New York is poised to become the 23rd state to legalize medical marijuana (although with serious restrictions). Just two more states and half the country will have gotten on board! The Senate is debating a few moves on drug laws, both considering changing the law which currently bars any marijuana user (even in a state where medical marijuana is legal) from owning guns, and also taking up the idea the House already passed which would zero out the Justice Department's budget for targeting any legal medical marijuana business or user (in states where it has been legalized). However, not everyone is cheering legal marijuana, as the Pope "just said no" (we just couldn't resist that one).

And finally, in the "you just can't make this stuff up, folks" department, it was revealed this week that the C.I.A. considered a propaganda effort to create a "demon toy" of Osama Bin Laden, to scare children in Muslim countries. The plan was ultimately nixed, but the photos are worth checking out. Your tax dollars at work!

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia is fighting hard to get the Medicaid expansion to his state, and this week he used his line-item veto in this struggle, for which he deserves at least an Honorable Mention. He's got a long fight ahead of him, and victory is by no means assured -- but he might just go ahead and do it on his own, without getting the legislature to act. So stay tuned, this fight may become a bigger issue as we get closer to November's election.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is being awarded for actions taken in the past. Way back in 2006, two men created a plan for a political solution in Iraq. One of them was a senator, and he pushed the plan as hard as he could -- to no avail, unfortunately. But this week, with the developing situation in Iraq, a whole bunch of people began talking about this plan once again, because it might have avoided what is now happening. I wrote an entire article on the subject on Wednesday, and I titled it: "Biden Was Right."

Vice President Joe Biden certainly deserves some credit, even if it is eight years late, for championing the idea to divide Iraq into three federated states. This is happening right now in Iraq (in a de facto sort of way, rather than Biden's de jure plan), which is why so much attention is now being paid to what Biden was urging back then. If Biden's plan had been adopted, it might have avoided a whole lot of bloodshed and it certainly would have avoided wasting eight years in the meantime.

Which is why, belated though it is, Joe Biden deserves the attention his plan is now getting, and he certainly also deserves our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Vice President Joe Biden via the White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

This is going to sound a little rough, since we are about to turn over the talking points section to him, but the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week was former governor of Montana Brian Schweitzer.

Two of the quotes we're using below fall into the "not ready for prime time" category in politics. Schweitzer's public persona is one of "straight-talkin', rough-edged politician," which can indeed do wonders, especially for a man genuinely from cowboy country (unlike, say, Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush). But at times this can slip very quickly into comments that sink candidacies, as others (mostly Tea Partiers, but not exclusively) have found in recent years. While neither one of the quotes below would absolutely disqualify Schweitzer from a run at the presidency, one has to wonder what else will pop out of his mouth out on the campaign trail.

So we're awarding this week's MDDOTW to Brian Schweitzer in a very cautionary manner. If he really is serious about a national campaign, he's got to learn to phrase things a little better.

[Brian Schweitzer is currently a private citizen and has not announced as a candidate, so our policy is not to provide contact information, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 309 (6/20/14)

Brian Schweitzer made a splash in the news this week, with two lengthy articles written about him and his obvious desire to challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Like many, I hadn't seen or heard Schweitzer much, although I have been aware of his ambitions ever since he declined to run for Senate to replace Max Baucus (a race he would have likely won, and one which will also likely now fall to the Republicans since he didn't run).

Schweitzer could be called a "mountain state Democrat," meaning his views on subjects like guns are not going to be the same as coastal Democrats. But he's a savvy politician who knows the value of political theater. As governor, he once gave a news conference where he used hot irons to "brand" Republican bills (bills he called "bat-crap crazy") with the word "VETO," and he won his first campaign in part by busing senior citizens across the border to Canada to buy cheap prescription drugs.

But since Hillary Clinton has gotten a huge amount of press recently, we thought it was worth examining Brian Schweitzer, in his own words, to present another possible candidate for 2016. These quotes are all from a lengthy article in the National Journal and an interview Schweitzer recently gave to Salon. There were plenty of quotable moments in both articles (including some digs at fellow Democrat and fellow Montanan Max Baucus), so we suggest you read them in full to learn more about who Schweitzer is and what he thinks of the future. The excerpts below contain the two worst things he said, and what we felt were the five best things he said. The press reaction (what there was of it) mostly focused on the first two quotes, it should be mentioned.

 

1
   Maybe that's the wrong metaphor

Schweitzer was asked about the National Security Agency spying, and about what we should do with Edward Snowden. The gaffe came after Schweitzer talked in general on the subject:

If you believe that a politician wouldn't use information gained on citizens to their political benefit, then you are extremely naive. Because they always have, and they will now. Simply stated, we have liberties in this country that no other people on the planet have, individual liberties. What about the generals in the N.S.A. that knew that they were violating our civil rights? What are we doing about that?

What made the news, though, was his reaction to Senator Dianne Feinstein, who had just (when the National Journal interview took place) taken to the Senate floor to denounce N.S.A. spying on Senate staffers. Of Feinstein, Schweitzer said:

She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says "I'm a nun" when it comes to this spying! I mean, maybe that's the wrong metaphor -- but she was all in!

 

2
   How to write off the South

Democrats aren't exactly strong in the South these days, but this one quote may kill any chance of changing that (for Schweitzer, at least). This one also came from the National Journal article, as a non-sequitur added from a later interview, after the news of Eric Cantor's primary loss broke:

Don't hold this against me, but I'm going to blurt it out. How do I say this... men in the South, they are a little effeminate. They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say -- and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right -- but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he's not, I think, so I don't know. Again, I couldn't care less. I'm accepting.

 

3
   If a bus ran over a congressman...

Moving on to the positive things Schweitzer had to say, here is the reason he wasn't interested in running for Congress:

Congress is a miserable place. If a bus ran over a senator or a congressman tomorrow, we wouldn't even miss them. Because all they have is [one] vote [out of 100 or 435]. They don't get to run anything. They sit around and wait until the train starts leaving the station, and if it looks like the wheels are moving a little bit fast, they start moving quickly to get on the train and issue a press release: "I am now a cosponsor of the train that was heading east!"

 

4
   You were so wrong

Schweitzer is outspoken on the Iraq war, how we got into it, and the fact that the media is now fawning over the people who got it wrong back then.

I don't want to hear revision [sic] history from Lindsey Graham or George Bush people or Wolfowitz or Perle. I don't want to hear anybody who supported going into Iraq saying, "Oh, well, gee, if only we would've stayed there longer..." You've lost your right to give me an opinion because you were so wrong and so many people lost their lives.

I'm passionate about this. The second day I was governor of Montana, I got in a Blackhawk helicopter and I went to my first funeral for a young man who came back dead [from Iraq]. The day that I was sworn in, I had no idea that I would be governor during the longest period of war in the history of the state. I had no idea that I would go to more of these funerals than any governor in the history of Montana. And at every single one of them I seethed with anger -- anger at those people in Washington, D.C., who decided to send these people to their deaths, and maimed people. Because it was a false mission from the beginning... I looked around during these funerals, and I saw the grieving families, and I hugged the grieving mothers, and I did everything I could do to comfort them. I didn't see those [pro-war] senators. I didn't see those people at the Department of Defense who sent them [to Iraq]. I didn't see them at those funerals, helping those families get back on their feet.

. . .

To have been so wrong so recently about a thing and a place -- and now offering opinions on the same place -- I think you’ve lost your credibility. Here's the way I see it: If somebody lights fire to your barn and all your livestock get out, they don't get to complain because the livestock are eating their corn. They burned the barn down!

 

5
   Who cares?

Schweitzer can sound a lot like Rand Paul, when discussing foreign affairs. He draws on his own experience, since he spent a year working in Libya in 1980, and then more time doing his own contracting in Saudi Arabia (Schweitzer's first career was as a soil engineer).

I saw the world. You don't even know anybody else who lived in the Middle East for seven years. You don't know anybody else who went there without speaking a single word of Arabic and learned it and started his own business and did business in Arabic in the most closed society in the Middle East. I did business directly with princes, sheiks, royal family, and built huge, huge projects there.

This, according to the article, left him with the impression that the United States should not act as the world's police force. The following is an earlier quote, given to Dave Weigel for a Slate article. When asked about the future in Afghanistan, this was Schweitzer's reaction:

If it all goes to hell in a handbasket, that's fine. That happened after Alexander the Great left; that happened after the Russians left. Who cares? They live in the Stone Age.

 

6
   How to speak Republicanese

Schweitzer was also in the news recently because he attended an event put on by Mitt Romney, which featured mostly Republican presidential contenders. He explains how Democrats should have sold the single-payer idea, using language his audience can relate to:

I said to them, "As I look around the room, raise your hand if you are a director or a major shareholder of a corporation with more than $2 billion market cap." Lots and lots of hands went up.... From $2 billion and above, almost all of them are self-insured when it comes to health insurance. Nearly every state, including Montana and most every state that you come from, we are self-insured for our employees when it comes to healthcare. Since most of the corporations in America figured out that you don't want to give 15-20 percent of your healthcare dollars away to health insurance companies, and most of the states have figured that out, did it surprise you that when the federal government decided to expand healthcare to people who didn't already have it, that we turned to the insurance companies and gave them 20 percent? Didn't that strike you as odd, that all the corporations and states have figured it out but the federal government couldn't?

 

7
   Free trade, except for the drug companies

How to speak Republicanese, part two. Speaking further about the Romney gathering, Schweitzer rips into the prescription drug companies and the carve-out they got in all the free trade mania.

I don't think there was anybody in the room [at the Romney event] that voted for Democrats. But as I was explaining the single-payer system to them in that way, they were nodding their heads. And then I said to them, back in the '90s when most of you in the room thought it was a good idea to have free trade all over the world... I was in Montana and I was raising cattle and wheat and barley and other crops and [said,] "Oh, my God! If that border was going to open from Saskatchewan and Alberta and all that cheap grain and all those cheap cattle were going to flow across the border, I may lose my farm." But nobody was listening to me because I was told that I needed to become more efficient, that free trade would create efficiencies, and if you find that on your farm you can't grow wheat as inexpensively as they can in Alberta or Saskatchewan, then you would switch crops. You'll find something. That's the order. That's free trade. So you all clapped your hands and got free trade passed. But why did you allow the pharmaceutical industry to carve themselves out so that everything made in Canada and the United States could freely move back and forth except one thing: pharmaceuticals? So now in Canada, like the rest of the industrialized world, they pay a third or even 10 percent of what we do for medicine, and you did nothing about it....

As I looked around the room in the eyes of these people who wouldn't necessarily agree with me on anything, I [had] just described what we got wrong in the healthcare bill and how we can fix it, and I wasn't seeing people who were disagreeing with me. There was one. He worked for a pharmaceutical company.... He chewed my ass afterwards. But for the most part the rest of them didn't. I said to this guy as he was chewing my ass, "I thought you were a capitalist. I thought you, being a capitalist, you would agree with all those other people who told me that if I went out of business raising wheat because somebody could raise it cheaper, that that was just the way it works with free trade. Apparently you're not a capitalist, or you're just a crony capitalist. I'm not sure."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

90 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [309] -- Meet Brian Schweitzer”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    This trend continued during the week, as pretty much everyone who got Iraq fundamentally and tragically wrong before we invaded was invited to share their views about what to do now. In what universe is this any way to run the news: "Let's see... who should we ask what to do now... Oh, hey, I know -- how about all the people who got it wrong last time around?"

    Since we're playing the Hindsight Is Always 20/20 game, let me ask a question.

    Where were all these Monday Morning Quarterbacks BEFORE the 2nd Iraq War got started???

    Vice President Joe Biden certainly deserves some credit, even if it is eight years late, for championing the idea to divide Iraq into three federated states.

    This assumes that the Biden Plan would NOT have made things 20 times worse than it was, or is right now..

    There is no evidence to suggest that Biden's plan would have worked any better... There IS evidence to indicate that the plan would have been a catastrophe..

    If Biden's plan had been adopted, it might have avoided a whole lot of bloodshed and it certainly would have avoided wasting eight years in the meantime.

    Key word... MIGHT...

    It's MORE likely that it would have touched off another 10 year war that would have made the Iran/Iraq war look like a slap fight..

    She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says "I'm a nun" when it comes to this spying! I mean, maybe that's the wrong metaphor -- but she was all in!

    I would say, yea... That's the wrong metaphor...

    But you can't ding it for it's accuracy :D

    Interesting guy, this Schweitzer.. :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says "I'm a nun" when it comes to this spying! I mean, maybe that's the wrong metaphor -- but she was all in!

    It's funny because here in Weigantia, it was just the opposite...

    Here in Weigantia during the Bush years, it was "No!! Stop!! I'm a nun!! I'm a nun!!!"

    But once Democrats started wielding the power??

    "Take me now, sub-creature!!"
    -Dana Barrett, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

    The Left in general doesn't seem mind domestic spying. As long as it's their guys who are in charge...

    Funny, iddn't it?? :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Biden's plan had been adopted, it might have avoided a whole lot of bloodshed and it certainly would have avoided wasting eight years in the meantime.

    I am constrained to point out that it was OBAMA who wasted those years....

    He left Iraq too early..

    It's that simple...

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Washington football team (which we have taken to calling the Washington Racist Slurs) lost their trademark in court because of its offensive nature, but the team expects to win on appeal (as it did the previous time it lost its trademark), so stay tuned.

    I was reading an article about this and, in the comments section there was a very apropos and dead on ballz accurate comment..

    The commenter was a native american and he was getting sick and tired of ignorant Lefties who are so hysterically consumed with political correctness that they would presume to lecture HIM on what he should and should not be offended by.

    I thought that was the most dead on ballz accurate assessment of this situation..

    People who should have absolutely NO SAY in the matter are making things miserable for people who really are not offended in any way, shape or form..

    Basically the idea ya'all are advocating is that the needs of the one/few outweigh the needs of the many...

    The history of the name is not racist or bigoted... The vast majority of the native american population don't have a problem with the Washington Redskins... Just like they don't have a problem with the Kansas City Chiefs.

    The problem here is you have a few people who are "professional offendees".. They scour the country LOOKING for things to be offended by, SEEKING things that will offend them...

    To those people, I say....

    Get a life.....

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    The Native American national tribal congress condemns the name.--So you, of course, choose to believe some anonymous internet poster claiming to be a Native American as representative of Native Americans instead of the people Native Americans have designated to represent them.--Another example of your highly selective, and irrational, editing of facts, in support of your blind partisanship and bigotry.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Native American national tribal congress condemns the name.

    So?? A political action committee with an agenda condemns the name. Professional rabble-rousers..

    Big frakin' deal..

    EVERY TIME the name has come up in polling, run o the mill native Americans (non political-agenda types) DON'T have a problem with the name..

    The wisdom of Sarek of Vulcan is especially appropriate here..

    "There can be no offense where none is taken."

    I say again.. To those who have an issue with the Washington Redskins??

    Get a life.. There are things that are VASTLY more important to worry about..

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The history of the name is not racist or bigoted... The vast majority of the native american population don't have a problem with the Washington Redskins... Just like they don't have a problem with the Kansas City Chiefs.

    Those are the ONLY facts that are relevant..

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way..

    Why should the thin-skin'ede ones get to have it THEIR way??

    Don't the Native Americans who DO like the Washington Redskins have a say??

    Don't THEIR feelings count..

    It's all part and parcel to the Hysterical Left's idea of "tolerance"..

    They only have "tolerance" for their own agenda. Everyone else can go pound sand..

    That's not tolerance..

    That's the OPPOSITE of tolerance...

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    The Washington football team (which we have taken to calling the Washington Racist Slurs) lost their trademark in court because of its offensive nature, ...

    It shouldn't be about offensiveness. It doesn't matter if someone is offended. What matters is whether people are harmed via a trademark's effect on their reputations.

    "No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
    (a) 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 ..."

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052

    The name of the Washington Racial Slurs certainly tends to disparage Native Americans, and bring them into contempt or disrepute.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    The name of the Washington Racial Slurs certainly tends to disparage Native Americans, and bring them into contempt or disrepute.

    It didn't at the time the trademark was assigned..

    For your claim to be the law of the land, that would mean that ANY assigned trademark would be at the whim of whatever politically correct attitude the public might develop at any given time..

    Further, this gives WAY too much power to ANYONE with an agenda to affect a persons business..

    Suppose a small group of US Senators had decided that the Washington Senators was disparaging and wanted the team to change their name..

    Basically, ya'alls argument is the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many...

    Ya'alls argument ignores comment #8..

    Until that can be logically addressed, the argument that the Washington Redskins should change their name has no merit..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    For your claim to be the law of the land, that would mean that ANY assigned trademark would be at the whim of whatever politically correct attitude the public might develop at any given time..

    Let me amend that to say

    For your claim to be the law of the land, that would mean that ANY assigned trademark would be at the whim of whatever politically correct attitude any small percentage of the public might develop at any given time..

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    This argument reminds me of the Klingon Chancellor's daughter who claimed that the word "inalienable" was a racist word..

    The argument against the Washington Redskins trademark is as narrow (AND narrow-minded) as Azetbur's argument against the word "inalienable"..

    Which is why the case against the Redskin's trademark will not be upheld on appeal... Just like last time..

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Disney's SONG OF THE SOUTH

    Considered today to be a VERY racist movie...

    Yet, at the time?? Not so much...

    It won the Oscar for Best Music at the 1948 Academy Awards.. The actor, James Baskett won Honorary Award..

    If we used ya'alls REDSKINs argument, then SONG OF THE SOUTH should be stripped of all it's awards, simply because public attitudes change...

    For better or for worse, SONG OF THE SOUTH is part of our heritage... Our culture...

    Think what a frak'ed up society we would be if we applied TODAY's standards and TODAY's sensibilities to our past.. That we would re-write our own history, just to be more politically correct..

    "How bad does THAT suck!?"
    -Bill Murray, SCROOGED

    Sure, the word 'redskins' CAN be used disparingly.. It CAN be used to denigrate and to hold in contempt..

    But, in certain contexts, it's a perfectly appropriate word to use... In such contexts it is perfectly acceptable to use...

    This is Computer Hard Drive MASTER/SLAVE BS all over again...

    Politically Correct is the WORST concept the Left has ever come up with...

    And THAT is saying something, considering.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Native American national tribal congress condemns the name.

    Yea... Back in 1993....

    EVERY study done since then confirms that the vast majority of the Native American population do not really care about the Washington Redskins.

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, if you want to talk opinions, why not get something a little more recent??

    The 2004 Annenberg Poll stated it quite clearly..

    90% of Native Americans do not have any problem with the Washington Redskins..

    That is the end of this discussion..

    No more debate is necessary...

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all might also want to consider the legal definition "Laches"...

    That is what sunk the Redskins' litigation before and nothing has really changed since then.

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooops.. Scratch comment #16... Laches do not apply in this case, because the Activists patsies this time around are younger...

    However, the original 1992 case, the courts held that the TTAB lacked substantial evidence to support disparagement...

    THAT is likely what will sink the case THIS time around..

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, let's face reality here..

    It's not as if racism is REALLY an issue for the Left....

    If it's politically expedient, the Left will ALWAYS turn a blind eye to racism...

    As usual, it's Party Uber Alles. Anything else takes a back seat..

    Ample precedent exists to support such a conclusion..

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    So you, of course, choose to believe some anonymous internet poster claiming to be a Native American as representative of Native Americans instead of the people Native Americans have designated to represent them.-

    The legitimacy or even EXISTENCE of the anonymous poster is not relevant to the point that was expressed..

    The SENTIMENT being expressed is dead on ballz accurate...

    NO ONE who is not of Native American blood has ANY right to tell Native Americans what they should or should not be offended by..

    Just like when some Hysterical Leftist Morons from New York came down here to Florida and started rabble-rousing about the Florida Seminoles College Football team.. The Chief of the Seminole Tribe here in Florida invited those Lefties to kindly shut the frak up and mind their own business... That their interference in the affairs of the Seminole Tribe is requested nor desired..

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    That their interference in the affairs of the Seminole Tribe is requested nor desired..

    Of course, that should read:

    That their interference in the affairs of the Seminole Tribe is NEITHER requested nor desired..

    :D

    My bust...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I had no knowledge of Governor Schweitzer prior to reading FTP [309], or if I did, I'd forgotten it, which amounts to about the same thing.

    If the 7 talking points are representative, Schweitzer is gifted at framing political issues, but has the unfortunate habit of depositing awful sound bite residues on the media rug.

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Since this column is a weekly update, may I coin a word?

    supercalafatalisticexpialadoshus

    "what you say when you don't know what to say about a fast breaking event in the Middle East and start mindlessly pointing fingers"

    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle lie.
    Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle lie.

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Sorry, Walt Disney's head must be rolling in it's bell jar.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS???

    One Tee meeny martoonies???

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Imbibed a few too many self serving Iraq editorials this morning. Then I started word associating with old movie musical lyrics. I think that's a defense mechanism, like involuntarily looking away from the sun. Apparently, the neuron in charge of "Mary Poppins" got called up to lead the diversion. "Jeez!" says the neuron, "and on an Sunday too."

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Talk about being hoisted by their own Picard!!! :D

    Longtime congressman Rangel finds himself in political peril in New York primary
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/longtime-congressman-rangel-finds-himself-in-political-peril-in-new-york-primary/2014/06/19/4551b960-f58d-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

    Rangel's district is now majority Hispanic instead of majority Black...

    Rangel gonna get Caster'ed!!! :D

    That's the problem with Democrats... The rarely see the consequences of their actions..

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-tran/politics/election-lab-2014

    It doesn't look good for the home team, people.. :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    "When it comes to border security, I think anyone who looks at this honestly will note the tremendous strides we have made in the past four years in protecting our borders. In fact, they have never been better enforced than they are now."
    -Obama Administration

    One has to wonder how the Obama Administration can keep all it's lies straight....

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Morning Joe: If a GOP Prez Lost IRS Emails, It Would Be NYT Lead Story Every Day
    "I think with a different administration, one that was a Republican administration, this story would be a national obsession..."

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/morning-joe-if-gop-prez-lost-irs-emails-it-would-be-nyt-lead-story-every-day

    I challenge ANYONE here to successfully refute that claim...

    Michale

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Polish-American alliance isn't worth anything. It is even harmful because it creates a false sense of security for Poland. We are suckers, total suckers."
    -Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski

    Like I said...

    There is not ONE SINGLE Allied relationship that has gotten better under Obama.

    The vast majority of relationships have gotten much much worse...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lemme ask ya'all something..

    Do you think that, once Republicans increase their hold on the House and gain control of the Senate, all of these scandals are going to just go away???

    Of course not.. The GOP will be in an even BIGGER and BETTER position to get to the facts...

    So, as I see it, Democrats have 2 options..

    They can come clean now and throw themselves on the mercy of the court of public opinion...

    Or they can wait until Republicans have total control of Congress, see Republicans very painfully EXTRACT the facts and the confessions from those who committed crimes... A process which, incidentally, will totally screw over Democrats chances in 2016....

    It seems to me that Democrats would be better served by taking a little pain now rather than taking a LOT of pain later...

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    RE: washington nfl franchise

    from my point of view, it's irrelevant whether or not anyone was offended, or whether that offense was or was not legitimate. for eighty plus years the NFL (a business enterprise) has been using a name and likeness of a class of people without the expressed or implied permission of that class. therefore that class is entitled to monetary compensation for eighty years of unlicensed use, and is entitled to set a price for future use of said name or likeness. they may use whatever image they want, that's first amendment. they may not derive profit from it without redress, that's seventh amendment. different issues.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    from my point of view, it's irrelevant whether or not anyone was offended, or whether that offense was or was not legitimate. for eighty plus years the NFL (a business enterprise) has been using a name and likeness of a class of people without the expressed or implied permission of that class. therefore that class is entitled to monetary compensation for eighty years of unlicensed use, and is entitled to set a price for future use of said name or likeness. they may use whatever image they want, that's first amendment. they may not derive profit from it without redress, that's seventh amendment. different issues.

    A unique perspective... But that is a very slippery slope...

    Using that argument anyone who uses a picture of a human being for profit would have to compensate EVERY HUMAN BEING on the planet simply because it is using a likeness..

    But even if we kept it narrow, that would be OPEN SEASON on every patent held by the Kansas City Chiefs (Every "Chief" on the planet would get a piece of the pie), The Buffalo Bills (Every guy (or girl) name Bill would get a cut), The Dallas Cowboys (way WAY too easy) and so on and so on...

    I mean, honestly?? Do we really NEED to create a MORE litigationous society???

    The words of Sarek SHOULD be the watchword here:

    There can be no offense where none is taken

    Which is simply a nice and polite way of saying:

    "Jesus H. Christ!! Get a life!!!"

    No one is hurt or degraded by the Washington Redskins team name unless they CHOOSE to be hurt or degraded...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless, there is one salient point that ya'all are overlooking..

    A Trademark cannot be issued if it 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 ... AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED

    There is no exception declared or provisions for an instance where a trademark BECOMES immoral or disparaging.. There is also no precedent established that would allow the TTAB to retroactively declare a past issued trademark immoral or disparaging under current societal standards..

    In other words, at the time that the Washington Redskins trademark was issued, there wasn't any issue with it...

    That decision is binding in the here and now..

    There are no provisions that allow a desire to be politically correct by a partisan Administration to change the rules to fit their agenda.

    Which is exactly what is happening here..

    A biased and partisan Administration is attempting to legislate their own agenda against an American public who doesn't WANT it...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I miss the Frito Bandito.... :(

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfPJkn4eKeY

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    michale, there is a very precise definition of a protected class of people, which people named bill or people who happen to be cowboys don't fit. that definition exists for precisely the reasons you mentioned. to be honest, the chiefs and the seminoles should probably owe back-pay too - the argument for the seminoles keeping quiet about it is that it's free advertising for their casino. part of getting a life is getting paid, so in my view it's the NFL who should quit crying and show american indians the money.

    JL

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In other words, at the time that the Washington Redskins trademark was issued, there wasn't any issue with it...

    just because it wasn't widely discussed or considered offensive in mainstream society at the time doesn't mean it wasn't harmful from the get-go. i see where you're going with this, but things just as old are reversed and corrected all the time. in kurematsu v. us, the supreme court ruled that the government didn't owe the interned families anything, but fifty years later the case was reversed and the families were compensated. same principle, if the name was inappropriately appropriated it doesn't matter whether people thought it was fine at the time.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    michale, there is a very precise definition of a protected class of people, which people named bill or people who happen to be cowboys don't fit. that definition exists for precisely the reasons you mentioned. to be honest, the chiefs and the seminoles should probably owe back-pay too - the argument for the seminoles keeping quiet about it is that it's free advertising for their casino. part of getting a life is getting paid, so in my view it's the NFL who should quit crying and show american indians the money.

    If such provisions were in place *at the time the trademark was issued* then you would be right.

    But this process DOES NOT allow for politically correctness, which is all this issue is about..

    By the latest relevant poll, 90% of Native Americans don't have a problem here...

    This is a case of the Left pushing the axiom, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many"

    Which is not only ridiculous, it's illogical... :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    just because it wasn't widely discussed or considered offensive in mainstream society at the time doesn't mean it wasn't harmful from the get-go.

    And if there is any evidence to support that, then you MAY have a point..

    But one can't say, "Well, it MIGHT have been offensive at the time!!" without any factual evidence to support it...

    "Might" isn't much of a basis to cause a business entity millions and millions of dollars, don'tcha think???

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    same principle, if the name was inappropriately appropriated it doesn't matter whether people thought it was fine at the time.

    But, as the FACTS show, even today 90% of Native Americans don't have a problem with the name..

    So, even if you want to apply today's standards to back then, the name would STILL be issued..

    Let's face facts.. It's a very VERY vocal minority who is causing the fuss in the here and now...

    The position being advocated appears to be, "If just ONE person has a problem with A or B or C, then A, B or C HAS to change"...

    That's bupkiss...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't you think there is a MUCH BETTER way to go about this???

    Think about my example of the Frito Bandito??

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as with all survey questions, the results depend on how you ask. if you ask them whether they care what the washington football franchise calls itself, most american indians will probably say who cares, but if you ask them whether they ought to be owed money for the use of their image, you'll get a different answer.

    JL

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    as to whether actual "harm" was done, the american psychological association and the american sociological organization both seem to think so. so don't ask a native american if they feel offended, ask them if they ought to get paid!

    JL

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    as with all survey questions, the results depend on how you ask. if you ask them whether they care what the washington football franchise calls itself, most american indians will probably say who cares, but if you ask them whether they ought to be owed money for the use of their image, you'll get a different answer.

    Today?? You might be right... Everyone is out to make an easy buck, no matter who gets hurt...

    Back then?? Was a simpler time...

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/06/brad-kozak/sunday-morning-funnies-the-frito-bandito/

    You DO realize that the Washington Redskins logo was drawn BY an Native American, right??

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You DO realize that the Washington Redskins logo was drawn BY an Native American, right??

    and how much has he (or any other native american) collected in royalties since then for the image?

    JL

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    as to whether actual "harm" was done, the american psychological association and the american sociological organization both seem to think so. so don't ask a native american if they feel offended, ask them if they ought to get paid!

    If THAT was upheld, then ANYONE who ever drew a Native American would owe a buttload of money to Native Americans...

    But, OK... Now we're getting somewhere..

    You are arguing that Native Americans weren't demeaned or denigrated....

    You are arguing that they should get paid because someone used a picture of a Native American DESIGNED by an Native American and that ALL Native Americans should be paid because of it...

    Hmmmmmmm... Don't think so...

    But it IS a novel argument..

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    and how much has he (or any other native american) collected in royalties since then for the image?

    He was paid for his work...

    How much in royalties did the guy who took the Windows XP meadow picture get???

    None.. He was paid for his pic and that was that...

    If I draw a picture of a Native American and I see that to someone and they make a very successful logo out of it, as you saying that EVERY Native American in the world deserves the fruits of MY labor???

    On what planet???

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    let's assume for the sake of argument that only 10% of native americans suffered any real negative effects - that would still be quite a few people. it's kind-of irrelevant to my point of view, but that's not really much of an argument in your favor.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    f I draw a picture of a Native American and I see that to someone and they make a very successful logo out of it, as you saying that EVERY Native American in the world deserves the fruits of MY labor???

    SELL.... That should read SELL not see :D

    f I draw a picture of a Native American and I SELL that to someone and they make a very successful logo out of it, as you saying that EVERY Native American in the world deserves the fruits of MY labor???

    Now, if you can find the actual MODEL that posed for that picture that the Native American drew, then you MIGHT have a case..

    It would be a very weak case, because in all likely hood releases were signed etc etc...

    But to say that EVERY Native American on the planet is entitled to compensation because some Native American drew a (likely) self-portrait and then sold that portrait to someone who made millions of bucks off of it??

    That just stretches the bounds of credulity to the breaking point...

    But it IS interesting.. You don't buy into the demeaning or degrading argument.. You are making an economic argument..

    Kudos... That's a new and fresh take on things.. :D

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    let's assume for the sake of argument that only 10% of native americans suffered any real negative effects - that would still be quite a few people. it's kind-of irrelevant to my point of view, but that's not really much of an argument in your favor.

    Whoa now.. Wait a tic..

    I am not saying 10% of Native Americans "suffered" ANYTHING... I am saying that, according to the latest dataset, 10% had issues with the name, The Washington Redskins..

    If they are claiming that they actually SUFFERED because of the name, that 10% is going to have to pony up some EVIDENCE....

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    as to whether actual "harm" was done, the american psychological association and the american sociological organization both seem to think so.

    Ahhhhh... So, in THIS issue, the sciences of psychology and psychiatry have merit???

    But, in the issue of Nature vs Nurture, the science of psychology and psychiatry take a back seat to the science that supports the desired outcome?? :D

    Sorry, but ya walked into that one... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MTEBZKQQL.jpg

    Let's say this iconic Movie Poster goes viral and sells a quadzillion copies...

    Does that mean every Black person on the planet is entitled to compensation from the movie production company??

    Of course not...

    Just because one happens to be of the same race as a picture/logo/design doesn't entitle that person to any money that said picture/logo/design might bring in...

    As I said, it's a novel argument... I love the outside-the-box thinking...

    But I just don't think it would fly...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/xl7xg-eqo0afhci_xrqcpa.png

    OUCH

    Barack Obama at the bottom. Even lower than BOTH Bushes....

    That has GOT to hurt... :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all made such a big fuss over the John Yoo torture memos???

    I wonder what the Left thinks about the Barack Obama American Assassination memo???

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2014/06/23/memo-on-targeted-killing-al-awlaki/

    :D

    What a difference that little '-X' after the name makes, eh??? :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Michale-

    41 out of 54 posts in this thread so far, eh? Still going for quantity over quality I see...

    You DO realize that the Washington Redskins logo was drawn BY an Native American, right??

    Which one? There have been about six different versions, most without the chiefs head, and the modern one with the chiefs head has gone through about as many revisions...

    How much in royalties did the guy who took the Windows XP meadow picture get???

    Really poor example. The guy tried to license it through a stock photography company but Microsoft wanted to own it outright. The exact amount is under NDA but it is thought to be in the low six figures. The photographer went to send Microsoft the original negative but no courier company would do it. The value was higher than their insurance would cover. Microsoft covered the photographer to fly up and deliver the negative in person...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    41 out of 54 posts in this thread so far, eh? Still going for quantity over quality I see...

    Says the guy who simply potshots on a whim and "doesn't have the time" when he is proven wrong and must concede the point..... :D

    Really poor example.

    In YOUR opinion..

    If the artist hadn't sold, MS would have gone to another one...

    The point is, Native Americans were involved in the creation of the team name..

    90% of Native Americans polled don't have a problem with the name..

    Those are the only facts that have relevance here..

    This issue is just a bunch of whiney Leftists who are trying to make a mountain out of a non-existent mole-hill...

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Can we agree on one point??

    That only Native Americans are in a position to complain about the Washington Redskins??

    That anyone else not of Native American blood is simply trying to score whiney politically correct points??

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    he is proven wrong and must concede the point.

    In your dreams hysteria boy...

    In YOUR opinion..

    And most others. He made more in a single payment than he would ever had made via royalties and you know it.

    Still can't tell me which logo the native American drew? Are you sure of this "fact" if you don't know the specifics?

    Those are the only facts that have relevance here..

    And as usual, this phrase is oft repeated but never right. You really mean these are the only facts you have that are relevant to your argument and don't bring in others as they might, and usually do, disprove your point...

    And before you get all indignant and hysterical you might want to review my stand on the issue as this is far from the first time this argument has come up...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    And most others.

    It was "most others" opinion that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe..

    You SURE you wanna fly with THAT example holding you up?? :D

    Still can't tell me which logo the native American drew? Are you sure of this "fact" if you don't know the specifics?

    Unnecessary.. It's not relevant to the discussion...

    And as usual, this phrase is oft repeated but never right.

    You mean like the phrase, "the science is settled"??

    Like that one?? :D

    And before you get all indignant and hysterical you might want to review my stand on the issue as this is far from the first time this argument has come up...

    By all means.. Enlighten me... :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It was "most others" opinion that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe..

    You SURE you wanna fly with THAT example holding you up?? :D

    You brought up the example. Please, lets see your best argument that this guy's royalties would be anywhere near his payoff from Microsoft. Or his payoff would be near the alleged native American who drew the Washington Redskins logo. Come on. I dare you. Double dare you...

    Unnecessary.. It's not relevant to the discussion...

    It's extremely relevant to the discussion. How do I know if a native American actually did the art for the logo if you can't even tell me which logo? Which logo? What was his name? You know, some actual facts...

    You mean like the phrase, "the science is settled"??

    Like that one?? :D

    Bait and switch, eh? Are we really going to play who can come up with the most unrelated counter example? Yawn...

    By all means.. Enlighten me... :D

    If you can't remember what goes on on this blog, it's not my job to be your memory back up. Look it up yourself...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Please, lets see your best argument that this guy's royalties would be anywhere near his payoff from Microsoft.

    If the photog of the XP pic had demanded royalty payments instead of a flat out purchase, his pay out would have been EXACTLY zero...

    It's extremely relevant to the discussion. How do I know if a native American actually did the art for the logo if you can't even tell me which logo? Which logo? What was his name? You know, some actual facts...

    No. Actual nitpicks... If you doubt my word, then look it up.. They have this thing now called "THE INTERNET"... It's a pretty handy tool...

    Bait and switch, eh? Are we really going to play who can come up with the most unrelated counter example? Yawn...

    In other words, you concede the point... :D "The science is settled" is another oft repeated but never right statement :D

    If you can't remember what goes on on this blog, it's not my job to be your memory back up. Look it up yourself...

    Son, I barely remember what I had for breakfast..

    If you can't relay your own opinion, then that's on you, not me... :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you concede the point... :D "The science is settled" is another oft repeated but never right statement :D

    I mean, seriously... What kind of moron would actually believe that any kind of science, REAL science, is "settled"..

    The very nature of REAL science is that it's a constant learning process...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    I understand I might be taxing the limits of your capabilities.. :D

    So I found the reference for you..

    “More than a decade ago one of the foremost scholars of Native American languages, Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard, spent seven months researching the subject and concluded that the word ‘redskin’ originated as a Native American expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations that traveled to Washington to negotiate Native American national policies,” Allen says.
    Allen goes on to note that the Redskins logo was designed by Native American leaders in 1971 when his father, George Allen, was head coach.
    “The highly respected Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania surveyed Native Americans nationally and reported that an overwhelming 90% of respondents said the name was not offensive,” Allen states in the letter. “More importantly, Native Americans continue to embrace and use the name and logo.”
    In his final bullet point of “facts,” he refers to the national survey conducted by the Associated Press “confirming 83% of Americans said they are in favor of keeping the Washington Redskins name.”
    Allen ends the letter by saying, "We hope you will join us; Native Americans deserve our support."

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/05/24/redskins-president-bruce-allen-responds-with-letter-to-sen-harry-reid/

    Now, you are free to dispute everything said here...

    But the ONLY reason you would have to dispute it is that you don't like what it says..

    Kinda a piss poor reason, don'tcha think? :D

    "I find this lack of stimulus to be truly disappointing, don't you think?
    "I try not to, my dear. However, you're young, think all you want!"

    -Demolition Man

    :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moving on... :D

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666413/House-Republicans-subpoena-White-House-lawyer-missing-emails-case-IRS-commissioner-prepares-prime-time-grilling.html

    And the HITS just keep on coming...

    Another Obama official is caught lying to Congress... AGAIN...

    Ya know, it would save the MSM a bunch of time and trouble if they would just report when an Obama official actually tells the truth...

    They would never have to report ANYTHING...

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    just as a counterpoint, a recent UCSB study found that 68% of native americans found the team name offensive. the annenburg figure was actually nine percent, not ten. why the discrepancy? depends on how you ask the question and how you sample your population.

    as to why the issue matters regarding people who are not american indian: if the moniker is racist then its acceptance would promote racist attitudes and actions among non-amerindian people, which would be harmful in the real sense.

    but when i wrote "harm" or "suffered" i didn't mean internment camps. to suffer harm or damage in this case means the loss of income, as a result of someone else misusing intellectual property that rightfully belongs to you. the fact that SOME american indians consider the term to be racist or inappropriate, whether it's 9% or 68%, is sufficient evidence that the term has been misused in a way that entitles native americans to be paid. that doesn't make it a crime against humanity, just a tort issue.

  66. [66] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    If the photog of the XP pic had demanded royalty payments instead of a flat out purchase, his pay out would have been EXACTLY zero...

    Which backs your original point EXACTLY zero. Personally I think you pulled the windows background example out of your ass without knowing the interesting history behind it...

    In other words, you concede the point... :D "The science is settled" is another oft repeated but never right statement :D

    Actually this is my trigger that you have conceded the argument. Since you have some psychological need to get the last word in, I assume that once you bring in completely unrelated subjects to defend your points you are out of subject related material and grasping for straws, so to speak.

    No. Actual nitpicks... If you doubt my word, then look it up.. They have this thing now called "THE INTERNET"... It's a pretty handy tool...

    Which for someone who posts link after link after link I would think you would follow your own advice and back up a fact rather then just opinion pieces...

    [64]

    You actually posted a fact. I'm gobsmacked :D

    Of course it took more searching to find the entire story, which is interesting...

    What I said in previous discussions is my reading on the subject leads me to believe that many Native Americans like the Washington Redskins because the logo is dignified but generally are offended by teams like the Cleveland Indians because the the logo is a caricature and disparaging.

    What I suspect now is that Native Americans who are hardcore sports fans generally like the Washington Redskins for the above reasons but the group "sports fans" may be small in comparison to those Native Americans who are not.

    Now the battle is being whipped in to a frenzy they might be forced to change the name. I'm not too bothered by that but I hope they keep the logo and some Native American term. Otherwise, should Greeks be offended by sports teams using Spartans or Nordic people be offended by Vikings?

    I mean, seriously... What kind of moron would actually believe that any kind of science, REAL science, is "settled"..

    The very nature of REAL science is that it's a constant learning process...

    Probably the same kind of moron who thinks that because the science isn't settled, that it must be wrong...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which backs your original point EXACTLY zero. Personally I think you pulled the windows background example out of your ass without knowing the interesting history behind it...

    More nit-picking??

    By all means, Bashi.. Dazzle me with your reasoning behind your claim...

    I am ALL ears... :D

    What I said in previous discussions is my reading on the subject leads me to believe that many Native Americans like the Washington Redskins because the logo is dignified but generally are offended by teams like the Cleveland Indians because the the logo is a caricature and disparaging.

    I see your point. And it's actually a GOOD point too.. :D

    Now the battle is being whipped in to a frenzy they might be forced to change the name. I'm not too bothered by that but I hope they keep the logo and some Native American term. Otherwise, should Greeks be offended by sports teams using Spartans or Nordic people be offended by Vikings?

    EXACTLY my point..

    Once you start down that slippery slope of bowing to every Tom, Dick and Cochise who claims to be offended by something, ANYTHING, then you have anarchy...

    In other words, if EVERYTHING is offensive, then NOTHING is offensive..

    Probably the same kind of moron who thinks that because the science isn't settled, that it must be wrong...

    Point out such a moron, iffn ya don't mind. :D

    I never claimed absolutely that the Global Warming fanatics are wrong..

    Just as I would never claim that christian fanatics are absolutely wrong about the existence of god..

    I merely point out that the Global Warming fanatics COULD be wrong and the idea that the science is "settled" is 12 different kinds of utter clap trap...

    Go ahead and throw that 97% of scientists agree BS at me..

    I DARE ya!!! I DOUBLE DOG dare ya!!! :D

    You actually posted a fact. I'm gobsmacked :D

    I ALWAYS post facts...

    The problem is when the facts conflict with your ideology, ya'all tend to ignore the facts or nit-pick them on some inconsequential and tangientanal point..

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    You actually posted a fact. I'm gobsmacked :D

    Whoa... Wait a tic..

    Which fact are you referring to???

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    You actually posted a fact. I'm gobsmacked :D

    I ALWAYS post facts...

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/06/06/ftp307/#comment-49492

    :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I ALWAYS post facts...

    No. You usually post opinion pieces and pawn them off as facts.

    More nit-picking??

    By all means, Bashi.. Dazzle me with your reasoning behind your claim...

    I am ALL ears... :D

    Do I really have to spell this out? You just concede that you pulled this out of you ass?

    I think what nypoet22 hinting at is the Native American behind the logo was not compensated appropriately for his work considering the proportional use of said artwork. You bring up the windows background as an example. But that guy was compensated in the range of "beyond his wildest dreams". The funny part is after going beyond your link above, I think you are both wrong. A Native American did not "draw" the logo as you stated above. Native American leaders helped "design" the logo and were probably not compensated at all for it but also probably did not ask for compensation. Some forgotten graphic artist working in house or on contract probably did the actual drawing...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think what nypoet22 hinting at is the Native American behind the logo was not compensated appropriately for his work considering the proportional use of said artwork.

    We don't know that. THAT was my point to JL is that he was merely stating a possibility...

    You bring up the windows background as an example. But that guy was compensated in the range of "beyond his wildest dreams".

    You are correct insofar as I did not know the entire story behind the XP "bliss" picture..

    But that was not relevant to the point I was trying to make.. That point being that you cannot ask for MORE compensation beyond what was already agreed upon and/or paid simply because the work in question is a LOT more popular than was initially thought. Unless, of course, such is stipulated in the initial contract/agreement...

    You are also correct insofar that it wasn't a single Native American artist but rather a group of NA leaders who helped design the logo..

    Again, such detail is not relevant to my point. THAT point being is that the logo was designed with NA input...

    My overall point to JL is that, while I admire the different way of looking at the issue, the 'outside-the-box' thinking, the economic argument has less merit than the degrading/disparaging argument..

    Expanding the view even further, I don't think the issue is with the logo. I think what CW is saying and what most Weigantians are agreeing with CW over is the issue of the name "Redskins" and that it is disparaging or demeaning..

    I contend (and no one has successfully refuted) is that the name is ONLY disparaging and/or demeaning to those who would be inclined to be offended by anything.. The 'no-dog-in-the-hunt' argument supports that claim...

    Further, the etymology of the term "redskin" has also been established as a term of camaraderie amongst Native American tribes..

    No matter WHICH argument the Left chooses to put forth, it's clear that this Washington Redskins argument is of the Mountain/Mole-Hill variety....

    Having said all of the afore, I am in complete agreement with you.

    If Native Americans are going to be offended, it seems to me that the Cleveland Indians logo is a MUCH better target...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    I ALWAYS post facts...

    No. You usually post opinion pieces and pawn them off as facts.

    And yet, EVERY TIME someone has made this accusation, they have not been able to substantiate it with any facts or examples... :D

    Funny how that is, iddn't it? :D

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    But I am still curious.. Which fact??

    I thought it was in reference to the George Allen article, but that was comment #65...

    Comment #64 (which you cite) has to deal with the IRS scandal..

    And if you agree with me on THAT!!???

    Whooaaaaaaaaaaa

    I'de have to check with Dean Winchester and see if Hell has frozen over....

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/24/irs-admits-wrongdoing-pay-50000-leaking-marriage-groups-tax-return/

    And there are people on the Left who STILL think that the IRS is not out of control.. That there is no partisan agenda percolating at the IRS...

    Despite ALL the evidence to the contrary...

    Fascinating....

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My overall point to JL is that, while I admire the different way of looking at the issue, the 'outside-the-box' thinking, the economic argument has less merit than the degrading/disparaging argument..

    i would say they're closely linked. if the team name and logo were a hundred percent respectful and condoned, then (perhaps like the FSU Seminoles) the tribe would appreciate it and consider it good publicity. If a name (like washington's) or logo (like cleveland's) may be objectionable to a significant plurality of the group, then american indian leadership should have the right to forbid use of the name or force the NFL to pay for having done so without their permission.

    the vikings and spartans are not good examples, because those groups no longer exist as nationalities. a better example would be kentucky, vis-a-vis the kentucky derby or kentucky fried chicken. if a business wants to trademark the name kentucky, then it's up to kentucky to decide what's helpful and what's harmful. now i happen to think kentucky made the wrong decision in terms of tourism and publicity, but it's still that state's decision to make. the american indian nations are entitled to decide for themselves who is allowed to use what where they are concerned, and get paid if their wishes aren't respected.

    i agree with michale that the opinions of the american indians are the only ones that matter; i just disagree with him about how many are required to dispute the unlicensed use of an improperly obtained trademark.

    Try this analogy: pay ME a few thousand dollars to draw a guy with a yarmulke and call your team the San Jose Jews, then see how many of MY tribe come asking you to pony up the dough.

    JL

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well said, JL...

    Try this analogy: pay ME a few thousand dollars to draw a guy with a yarmulke and call your team the San Jose Jews, then see how many of MY tribe come asking you to pony up the dough.

    Ahhhh, but therein lies the rub...

    Let's travel back in time 60 or 70 years to make that deal.. To a kinder gentler time where Americans actually CARED about their fellow American and wasn't out to screw over their mother or their father to make a fast buck...

    THAT is the time that has relevance...

    Not the here and now where people are killed, literally KILLED for the 4 dollars and 36 cents they have in their pockets...

    The die is cast.. The deal is set in stone..

    One can't go back and negotiate a new deal just because the money would be better now...

    The argument against the economic issue is even more solid than the argument against the disparagement/discriminatory issue...

    BUST A DEAL... FACE THE WHEEL

    :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further, if one looks at the history of the Washington Redskins logo....

    http://famouslogos.net/images/washington-redskins-logo-evolution.jpg

    .... one can easily see where the Redskins can easily survive by changing their logo..

    The argument that the Hysterical Intolerant Left is trying to make is against the team NAME, the Redskins...

    Economically speaking, that would be a LOT harder of a change to bounce back from...

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    But I am still curious.. Which fact??

    63...

    Further, the etymology of the term "redskin" has also been established as a term of camaraderie amongst Native American tribes..

    The origin of a word does not dictate later uses. A more common example would be gay or queer. It's funny reading older literature where someone is described as gay or queer and they mean happy or strange rather than homosexual. Well, either that or those Hobbits have some serious sexual identity issues :D

    Redskin has been used as a slur, and that slur has been popularized in the movie genre of westerns. Having looked at usage on both sides of the argument I think the issue is much more murky than both sides are willing to admit.

    Yes, the native Americans should decide for themselves but momentum to change the name within various tribes seems to be building just as quickly as else where.

    against the team NAME, the Redskins...

    Economically speaking, that would be a LOT harder of a change to bounce back from...

    Only if they have a losing season. The Redskins change their name then go far in the playoff or win the Superbowl, the new name will be adopted with vigor. We are talking about sports fan here...

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Let's travel back in time 60 or 70 years to make that deal.. To a kinder gentler time where Americans actually CARED about their fellow American and wasn't out to screw over their mother or their father to make a fast buck...

    even if we were to forget for a second what life for minorities was actually like in the 1940's and 50's, that is one rose-colored view of american behavior. the current argument aside, i seriously think that people were just as greedy back then as they are now, they were just more afraid.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    even if we were to forget for a second what life for minorities was actually like in the 1940's and 50's, that is one rose-colored view of american behavior.

    Call me insensitive (go ahead, it's OK.. I've been called worse :D) but did jews have a bad lot in the US in the 40s and 50s??

    Regardless, my point was that I don't think that Americans back then were as litgationally sue-happy as they are in the here and now...

    I could be wrong...

    the current argument aside, i seriously think that people were just as greedy back then as they are now, they were just more afraid.

    I tend to be a cup is half full kinda guy.. :D

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Call me insensitive (go ahead, it's OK.. I've been called worse :D) but did jews have a bad lot in the US in the 40s and 50s??

    in the forties about six million were exterminated in death camps in europe, and the survivors arrived with the mother of all posttraumatic stress. then israel got started and was under fairly constant attack. so the answer i guess is that jews back then had other things on their mind. however, you bet your ass that if someone in the fifties named their sports team the fightin' israelites, that person was getting sued.

    JL

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    in the forties about six million were exterminated in death camps in europe, and the survivors arrived with the mother of all posttraumatic stress. then israel got started and was under fairly constant attack. so the answer i guess is that jews back then had other things on their mind. however, you bet your ass that if someone in the fifties named their sports team the fightin' israelites, that person was getting sued.

    I am not THAT insensitive..

    I specified "here in the US" which is, after all, what we are talking bout here...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    however, you bet your ass that if someone in the fifties named their sports team the fightin' israelites, that person was getting sued.

    Not in 2030, they wouldn't be getting sued..

    That's my whole point on this issue.

    You can't sue someone for damages 80 years after the alleged violation occurred...

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I specified "here in the US" which is, after all, what we are talking bout here...

    i understood that part, and by response i tried to explain. american jews in the forties and fifties had some major global concerns that drove domestic issues. because of the horrors of the holocaust, anti-semitism in the u.s. became a faux pas.

  85. [85] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not in 2030, they wouldn't be getting sued..

    that argument presumes that nobody cared about such things in the past. the national congress of american indians was founded in the 1940's, and have been working on this issue in general for decades, including specific requests to the nfl franchise in the 1960's. just because the national media haven't been covering the case, doesn't mean it hasn't been ongoing.

    JL

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    that argument presumes that nobody cared about such things in the past. the national congress of american indians was founded in the 1940's, and have been working on this issue in general for decades, including specific requests to the nfl franchise in the 1960's. just because the national media haven't been covering the case, doesn't mean it hasn't been ongoing.

    If you can cite case law and precedent that establishes there were some legal challenges to the Washington Redskins at the time the name was adopted, then you might have a case..

    But I don't think there are such cites and you can't apply societal standards retroactively..

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If you can cite case law and precedent that establishes there were some legal challenges to the Washington Redskins at the time the name was adopted, then you might have a case..

    are you saying that the lack of an according to hoyle lawsuit prior to the 1990's constitutes tacit acceptance of the name and logo? it is a strong technicality and the basis for the 1999 revocation being overturned, but as a point of fact there had been official protests and requests to change the franchise name even before it was trademarked to begin with.

    the NCAI represents a large percentage of native americans, and they protested the name in the 1960's before the trademark was even issued - which is the factual basis for the trademark board's present-day ruling.

    JL

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    re you saying that the lack of an according to hoyle lawsuit prior to the 1990's constitutes tacit acceptance of the name and logo? it is a strong technicality and the basis for the 1999 revocation being overturned, but as a point of fact there had been official protests and requests to change the franchise name even before it was trademarked to begin with.

    I am saying that unless there is a paper trail of "significant" protest of the name at the time the trademark was granted, there isn't a case to be made for the alleged disparaging quality of the name..

    I am saying you can't apply today's societal standards retro-actively..

    You can't give tacit permission to use a name unconditionally and then, 8 decades down the road, change your mind because a vocal minority all of the sudden has found it offensive...

    I am referring to the name..

    The logo is so generic you simply cannot say that someone owns all the rights to every native american picture ever taken or drawn or created...

    Michale

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    You may be right, JL...

    I mean, when you consider the total illogic of our civil litigation system, you might be right.

    If you put a disclaimer on a product, you acknowledge the "possible illegality" of the product and your guilty..

    If you DON'T put a disclaimer on, you haven't taken steps to warn people away from the illegality of the product and your guilty..

    America, the land of Damned-If-You-Do-Damned-If-You-Don't litigation...

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    You may be right, JL...

    I mean, when you consider the total illogic of our civil litigation system, you might be right.

    If you put a disclaimer on a product, you acknowledge the "possible illegality" of the product and your guilty..

    If you DON'T put a disclaimer on, you haven't taken steps to warn people away from the illegality of the product and your guilty..

    America, the land of Damned-If-You-Do-Damned-If-You-Don't litigation...

    And if you think I am bitter and speak from experience.....

    http://www.miningmx.com/pls/cms/iac.page?p_t1=1562&p_t2=0&p_t3=0&p_t4=0&p_dynamic=YP&p_content_id=932742&p_site_id=83

    .... you would be right... :^/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.