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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

I am not THAT insensitive..

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

Michale

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

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

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.

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More nit-picking??

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...

I ALWAYS post facts...

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

:D

Michale

Whoa... Wait a tic..

Which fact are you referring to???

Michale

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

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...

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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...

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

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

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...

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

OUCH

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

That has GOT to hurt... :D

Michale

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

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

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

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

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???

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

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

JL

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

JL

JL

Think about my example of the Frito Bandito??

Michale

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

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

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

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.

JL

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

Michale

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michale

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

Michale

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

Michale

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

One Tee meeny martoonies???

Michale

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.

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.

Of course, that should read:

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

:D

My bust...

Michale

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

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

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

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

Michale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Those are the ONLY facts that are relevant..

Michale

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

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.

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

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

He left Iraq too early..

It's that simple...

Michale

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

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