StevieInferior Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Easterbrook sounds a little perterbed at the ruling. I think he is the one you needs a statistics course as sampling indians that are in leadership postions as opposed the the "normal folks" is not a random poll. Someone needs to enlighten him on the SI poll which proved that although Indian leaders and activists care, the "common folks' DO NOT. http://espn.go.com/page2/s/tmq/031007.html On the Plus Side, This Insures TMQ Can Keep Calling Them the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons: Things went well for Lord Voldemort (Dan Synder) last week. While the football world focused on Rush Limbaugh -- maybe, possibly, you heard something about that -- attention was distracted from what otherwise would have been a big story: a federal judge's inexplicable ruling that the name "R*dsk*ns" has not been shown to be disparaging to native groups.U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly tossed out a Patent and Trademark Office finding that the name is offensive, sending the case back down for yet more consideration. Kollar-Kotelly inexplicably said it was unclear whether linguists considered "R*dsk*ns" disparaging. ("Offensive slang:" American Heritage Dictionary.) Kollar-Kotelly also declared that the Patent and Trademark Office should not have relied on a random poll of 300 American Indians, most of whom objected to the term; Kollar-Kotelly said survey results cannot be extrapolated to the population as a whole. Reader Jason Grady notes, "Apparently, the judge has never taken a statistics course. The fundamental rule is that if a population sample is random, it is indicative of the population as a whole." Judge, what was the Patent and Trademark Office supposed to do -- call up every American Indian in the United States? Anyway, some wouldn't come to the phone because they're busy watching a "R*dsk*ns" game. Had it not been for the Rush razzle, editorialists might have focused on this decision, in which federal power is employed to preserve an offensive racial stereotype. Say what you will about Rush, he was speaking off the cuff; Kollar-Kotelly had weeks to ponder her decision.. :dallasuck :eaglesuck :gaintsuck :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I think the constant Lord Voldermort reference is hysterical. Although, personallly, I prefer "The Danfather". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I'm usually not one to spout off liberal rhetoric, but damn this bugs me. Personally, I never even thought of the name Redskins as disparraging until this lawsuit, it was just the name of my team to me. Even if the name is offensive, the Redskins are a private organization and they can name their team whatever the heck they want to. And anyway, why is it illegal to hurt someone's feelings? If you want to name your team "WallyG3's mom is a whore" that is your freaking right as an American. I just won't support them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 What a weenie! I prefer not to read ANYTHING he writes anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman56 Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 He is always decidedly anti-Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan44 Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Poor thing, he had his feelings hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I quit reading his trash a long time ago. I'm glad it bothers him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 This guy spends so much time and energy trying to be clever he almost never gets his actual facts straight. I'm not particularly concerned with his opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 These things are "inexplicable" to the poor fool because the sum total of his research into the subject was to look the word up in his desktop dictionary (strike that - no doubt he had "his girl" do it for him). Wally, just to set the record straight, the lawsuit is not about allowing the Redskins to retain their name. Its about keeping copyright protection on the name so Snyder retains exclusive marketing rights, not that you'd learn that from this poor fool (fool: One who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding; one who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous). Lets not even explore that he seems to think ANY random sample is statistically acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallyG3 Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Thanks for the levity, Jimbo. You're right, this case was not about racism or the first amendment. It was about copyrights. I just got a little hot after reading this guy's crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 What I found especially funny was Easterbrook's sudden change of heart regarding Kollar-Kotelly. Just a few weeks ago, he was talking her up in his column as a smart and fair magistrate. Of course, that was before she blew his mind by ruling against one of his pet professional victimology projects, a decision that has landed her firmly in Greggie's doghouse. :laugh: BTW, has anyone ever actually attempted to read Greggory's entire column? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, if you thought the Gospels were long, they ain't got nothing on Gregg's column! I thought columns were supposed to be no more than 600-700 words. Apparently ESPN.com is too wrapped up in overseeing its fantasy football operations to spare someone to help Easterbrook winnow his prodigious ramblings down to something a tad more manageable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BD Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Okay, a couple of things. -I like Gregg Easterbrook as a person. I read his stuff, on politics for TNR, and have read TMQ since day one (I was the first winner of the trivia contest while it was at Slate). In fact, my name is in his column this time, because I sent him something about William & Mary (my college) losing a game without actually playing it. I think he needs an editor (these things are way too long and rambling now), but he's still a smart guy and occasionally quite funny. -That being said, I can't stand Easterbrook when he rants about the Redskins. He absolutely hates everything and everyone associated with the team, and goes overboard trying to find ways to criticize. He still (still) criticizes them for firing Schottenheimer, probably the easiest "good move" the front office has made in the Danny era. I think part of the fact is that he's a regional guy, so he has to hear about the Skins constantly... and that just drives up his bile. -Not to troll for hits, but here's a link to two posts I made on the subject, before and after the ruling. http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/001109.html http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/archives/001156.html What's notable about the actual ruling is that the anti-Redskin plaintiffs got this far having proved so little of their case. They relied on "expert testimony" and weak legal arguments, and even their linguistic history of the word (the most basic part of their case) is faulted as being full of flaws. Easterbrook has decided that the word Redskin is a slur, but society hasn't decided that. So he wants to instead impose that opinion on us, using any means necessary (in this case, the courts). But as long as the Redskins franchise name is popular and beloved (and we all know it is), he hasn't got a case in hell. BD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.