If the Blazers can help a movement that will allow same sex marriages in Oregon . . . they will have transcended what most people think about professional sport franchises (it's a business all about making money) and taken an active step to effect the community in which they play.
Sports teams are very active in local politics. Arena funding, zoning, taxes, development. To say that a sports team shouldn't be involved in politics is crazy. They are, they're proud, get used to it.
Bob Costas, in the powerful halftime slot of NBC's "Sunday Night Football," joined in the growing sentiment that the Washington Redskins' nickname is offensive and the team should change it. In an even-handed essay, Costas said that the name is demeaning, despite no ill will being intended by anyone involved with the Redskins, including owner Daniel Snyder, or their fans. President Barack Obama recently said he would consider changing the name if he was the owner of the team, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the league needs to consider the issue. During his halftime essay, Costas brought up complaints about other team names like Braves, Warriors or Chiefs, and how that seems like "political correctness run amok," but said the Redskins nickname is different. "These nicknames honor, rather than demean," Costas said. Costas said names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas are trickier, but are OK if the "symbols are appropriately respectful," something MLB's Cleveland Indians and its Chief Wahoo mascot haven't always lived up to. Costas, whose halftime essays on end-zone celebrations in 2011 and gun control in 2012 became hot-button topics, closed his thoughts on the Redskins' name by saying it can justifiably be seen as offensive. Here's the full transcript of Costas' essay: "With Washington playing Dallas here tonight, it seems like an appropriate time to acknowledge the ongoing controversy about the name “Redskins.” "Let's start here. There is no reason to believe that owner Daniel Snyder, or any official or player from his team, harbors animus toward Native Americans or wishes to disrespect them. This is undoubtedly also true of the vast majority of those who don't think twice about the longstanding moniker. And in fact, as best can be determined, even a majority of Native Americans say they are not offended. Should NBC get involved in this political issue? Sometimes you just got to do what you got to do . .
No doubt. Paul Allen has the absolute right to use his team to say whatever he wants on a political topic. Everywhere we turn these days people are yelling at each other over a multitude of topics. I guess I just enjoy having one section of the morning news where I don't have to be thinking about politics.
Just using my first amendment rights to express my opinion about something that would improve the community.
Nope, I don't...are they crazy bat-shit nutters there too? I made the mistake of reading craigslist personals (or whatever it's called?)...it basically was porn with a slight hint of political oddness.
e_blazer, you repeated my point. Gun owners clearly have equal rights with non gun owners. Gun owners are allowed to marry. To keep their children. They are not fired for being gun owners (bringing guns to work is different). To say "we support the second amendment" is about as silly as saying "we support the 5th amendment" or "the 10th amendment" or whatever. It's meaningless. The teams are saying they support equal rights for all. God, why is this so fucking difficult to comprehend? Unlike mediocre man, most people know the difference between a group they don't happen to belong to and a group that calls for taking away all their civil rights. I am not a member of AARP. AARP does not take about taking away civil rights. I am not black. That is a group I do not belong to. The Ku Klux Klan is a group that calls for taking away all civil rights. I mean, the difference is obvious if you have an IQ in double digits.
I agree that the teams are saying that they support equal marriage rights for all. I'm pretty sure that even with my limited IQ I'm able to comprehend that point. I agree that MM's analogy is off the mark. All I'm trying to point out is that there is no civil right for same-sex couples to marry until such time as either the courts or a legislative body says there is. Rights in our country aren't a name it and claim it thing. They're either spelled out in the Constitution, legislated, or rely on sometimes creative interpretations by the courts to be officially established.
I think people who think the way you do probably do have IQ's in the double digits, so we agree there. She said it, I didn't. Gun control IS a civil right.
You may be right, but let me just say that if I'm a billionaire I absolutely do whatever the hell I want.
