clyons

QUOTE (Tex @ Aug 24, 2009 -> 02:14 PM) The NCAA checks with tribes and they say this is offensive, this is not; then acts on those recommendations. Seems pretty easy and not hypocritical to me. They even left it open for the Tribes to approve. The NCAA acts because they have legislative power over the teams. So not in their omnipotent wisdom, in the Tribes. "The debate came to a head in September 2005, when the NCAA declared Fighting Sioux as "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and said UND would be barred from hosting NCAA postseason tournaments if the school continued using it." Doesn't seem like the NCAA checked with the tribes in 2005 to me, if they're saying it can stay if they say ok now. Even so, bad in 2005, but maybe ok in 2009 doesn't sound the least bit hypocritical?

"The debate came to a head in September 2005, when the NCAA declared Fighting Sioux as "hostile and abusive" to American Indians and said UND would be barred from hosting NCAA postseason tournaments if the school continued using it." "The name and logo, which is a profile of an American Indian man with feathers and streaks of paint on his face, could still be saved if North Dakota's Standing Rock and Spirit Lake Sioux tribes agree by Oct. 1 to give the university permission to use them for at least 30 years." These two quotes from SoxBadger's Fox News link sum up the point I was trying to make earlier: If the NCAA (in its omnipotent wisdom) has already decided these things are "hostile and abusive," it seems hypocritical of it to allow the perpetuation of this "hostility and abuse" so long as the tribes say its ok. And who is the NCAA to make this judgment ahead of the tribes themselves, anyway? And, again, if something is bad enough to be deemed hostile and abusive in the first place, does one party's consent really make it ok? Maybe the NCAA thinks so, but that not how it usually works in the real world. For example, a workplace can be legally declared sexually hostile and abusive if a boss goes around grabbing the ass of a secretary, even if the particular secretary herself consents; the company can still be found liable for sexual harassment given the impact of the bosses hostile and offensive behavior upon bystanding co-workers. And recall my prostitution example a few pages back. Just sayin'. That is all.

I was suprised to read that Marvin Harrison is still unemployed. Anyone think the Bears should employ him? He's past his prime, but still productive, and it seems like the Bears could benefit from having a vetern receiver mentor Hester and Bennett.

QUOTE (WCSox @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 09:01 PM) Since when was Reinsdorf "more aggressive" in the '90s? What a poorly-written and factually-incorrect piece of crap. The Albert Belle signing was VERY aggressive. The Bo Jackson signing was mildly so. Everything else that decade, meh.

Badger-- I still think the NCAA is being radically hyprocritical, and the matter has nothing to do with "federally protected rights," despite the status given to tribes by the federal government. As you said, this is about NCAA rules and their relationship to the hosting of athletic tournaments, so that point’s just a red herring dressed up in legalese. We're not talking Title IX here. The Seminoles don't enjoy federal protection with respect to how they are depicted by FSU, any more than they do with respect to how they may be depicted in a TV movie (let's say a PBS movie, to keep "state actors" involved). To me, this whole thing is grossly hypocritical because, as I said, if some descendant of the Illini confederation suddenly emerged from a cave on the prairie and said, "I don’t care whether the school made him up or not, I’m not offended by Chief Illiniwek and actually kind of think that it honors my people in a positive way by keeping their memory alive,” then, what was deemed "hostile and offensive" one day would suddenly become retroactively acceptable the next. That could never happen, of course, but if one 100 year old geezer had been around to say that five years ago, the NCAA would not have applied its rule to Illinois and all of the people who had registered offense would have been forever SOL, regardless of whether “they” found the Chief offensive or not. I don’t care to debate whether the Chief was or was not politically incorrect or offensive. I did my fair share of that when the question was still relevant. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I’ve given up trying to change anyone’s. That’s not what my posts have been about. I think the NCAA is hypocritical in a lot of things it does, and this is just one more prime example to me. f***, Brian Roberts just homered again.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 05:21 PM) Yeah, the Seminole situation is completely different. I'm not out to get this moved to the 'buster, but I don't see how. The white guys in suits at the NCAA forced U of I to get rid of the Chief because they deemed him hostile and offensive. They did this because some Indians (not Seminoles, and certainly not the Illini) and other people complained about his dancing. The NCAA acted in response to these complaints. Presumably, these same people who complained about the Chief are equally offended (if not more so) by the Seminole's antics, as his are arguably more inflammatory (pun intended). Yet with FSU, the NCAA seems to not care any more whether those same complainers are offended, simply because the Seminoles aren't. Suddenly, the non-tribesmen to whom the NCAA so diligently responded in the Illini case don't matter any more? I understand that the Seminoles themselves don't mind (and they're no doubt more important), but my point is the Illini obviously don't mind either, and yet that didn't stop the NCAA with regards to the Chief. And suppose U of I could produce an affidavit from one lone Illini descendant saying he doesn't mind the Chief any more than Seminoles mind the FSU guy? Would that alone render the Chief no longer "hostile or offensive" to those who complained in the first place? Seems to me that Indian imagery and antics are either hostle or offensive or they aren't, and it isn't the NCAA's role to judge. For the NCAA to say "if its ok with the Seminoles, its ok with us" is a hypocritical cop out. You can't always decide what's ethical or right based on the consent of those "involved." Otherwise prostitution would be legal. Come to think of it, the NCAA would fit right in with that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 03:49 PM) How can it be racist if that race you are supposedly offending (Seminole) is involved and completely supports it? Each Native American tribe is different, they have the right to say how people can use their name. How can Chief Illiniwek be racist if the people you are supposedly offending (Illini) are all dead and thus not around to be offended? If each Native American tribe is different, who is doing the complaining on behalf of the Illini, and why aren't they just as offended by the flaming spear-chucker, even if the Seminoles aren't? The dead Illini sure aren't doing any complaining.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 21, 2009 -> 03:34 PM) Hard to tell FSU to stop using the Seminole name, when the Seminole Tribe would fight it tooth and nail to make sure they can. There is no Illini tribe to give its approval and unfortunately the headdress etc was Sioux I believe. True, there are no Illini around to give their approval (in exchange for large cash donations like at FSU). I just find it odd that the NCAA can deem a dancing Indian "hostile and offensive" imagery, yet tolerate and approve of a spear-chucking one. The hypocrisy in amateur athletics is just unreal.

Meanwhile, the Seminole's still chuckin' his flaming spear down in Tallahassee.

"Jake Peavy" (44)

Doubtful, but perhaps you're right.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 10:47 PM) I was going to suggest The Abiding Dides as a team name. That's a fine name . . . in the parlance of our times.

"The Jesus"

Jose Contreras continues to astonish. The guy has a lot of heart.

ALL HAIL THE BRONZE TITAN!!!!! (even if it is Kansas City)

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) Going to the bottom of the 1st in a scoreless game. Jose threw 15 pitches in the top of the inning. Thanks for the updates, please keep them coming.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 19, 2009 -> 09:28 AM) Greinke has never won on 8/19/2009 in his career, so lets hope the Sox can capitalize on this stat and take the Royals down. I like the way you think. This, combined with the fact that the Sox are undefeated on 8/19/2009 to date, hopefully means good things are in store.

What's with the guido with the batting gloves in the front row of the Scout Seats?

He can't catch the ball, but man he's been clutch.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 10:29 PM) Ozzie being outmanaged tonight. By Trey f***ing Hillman

QUOTE (chw42 @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 10:13 PM) Linebrink can't pitch for s***. fixed

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 10:10 PM) Oh God, PLEASE be OK Thornton. Looked like he was grinning a little as he walked off.

Kilt!!!

QUOTE (MattZakrowski @ Aug 17, 2009 -> 09:54 PM) Anyone else think maybe next year we should move Alexei to left or right field? He can't play defense anywhere. He's Soriano-lite.

I've seen enough of that clown at shortstop.