tvc184

It is somewhat comical that you use the word detractors toward PNG supporters. It is the people who are criticizing PNG who are the detractors, not the other way around.

Palo Duro HS in Amarillo has the mascot Dons. Dons in Spanish meaning head of the household (how sexist!) and the way it was used, like a member of royalty in the Mexican culture. Did anybody in Mexico give that school permission to use the term Don? Strange (maybe) is that their yearbook is called Conquistador. The Conquistadors were from Spain and conquered the Native Americans in South America (wiping out some tribes) but it was the Mexican dons that defeated them to create a free Mexico. So a HS in Texas celebrates a group of Spanish that invaded and wiped out indigenous Native Americans by naming their yearbook Conquistador. Then they name their mascot after the people that beat the Conquistadors but who were the descendants from them, the people that invaded, dominated, wiped out and in some cases likely enslaved some Native Americans. Not to distinguish between degrees of outrage but what is more offensive? A team that uses the generic term Indian and celebrates it as an honorable culture or a team that celebrates a group of people that wiped out some Indians?

What is racist? Is it the name or is it the phrase scalp ‘em? If it is the phrase scalp ‘em, can they simply remove that from their tradition and we can all have a group hug? Now the can their traditional cheer be… “I N D I A N S, Beat ‘em Indians, eat ‘em!!”

It isn’t my logic. I would never justify the team name Indians because a chief gave the name and said they could do so. If the justification of the mascot is a letter from a Cherokee Chief in 1980, yes that is flawed logic. It is flawed because they were not named the Indians in 1980 and they needed no approval. In truth decades after a team mascot was created, an Indian Chief came along and said, hey I like it. Some people opposing the name are using a current Cherokee Chief as not liking it. Is that based on the fact that Indians is derogatory or that a previous Cherokee Chief gave a letter of agreement, so the current one withdrew it? Let’s assume the current chief changes his mind or is replaced by another. PNG then gets a letter of approval saying that we made a mistake, now we appreciate the portrayal of Indians. Does that all of a sudden end this is controversy? If it does not, then why even bring up the current Chief’s opinion. There is a high school team in Texas named the Cherokees and another name the Comanches. Can you imagine that the Cherokees played the Comanches? Oh my gosh!!! Those teams did not use a generic term for a group of people, Indians. They actually used the name of Indian tribes that still exist today. Did they get permission? It seems like much of this ado comes from a letter sent by an Indian chief. So if the first chief never came along in 1980, would this controversy even exist? So yes I agree it is flawed logic to use what a Cherokee chief said 40 years ago but if that is true, is it also flawed to worry about what one says today?

Is that all people or just Indians?

Then what is offensive? Do mascots need approval?

Is Indian an offensive term like some kind of racial slur? I have seen the comment to “educate yourself”. About what?

… because they said Scalp ‘em in their performance at Disney World. [Hidden Content]

I really don’t think so. It is just the opposite. They are doing it because they believe in majority of Americans are out of touch. I believe it is done for behind the scenes deals with the knowledge that a majority of the Americans (that vote for them) have no clue what is happening.

The one I have watched said 10 times, then a other 10 times watching peoples’ reaction videos to his video?

One of the craziest things is that nonsensical story he came up with. Since he concocted the whole deal and could carry it out at his discretion, he could’ve come up with something more rational.

I like the change of times because it modifies when the sun came up as far as our clock workday and when it goes down. The issue is and always will be that the sun doesn’t always cooperate with work or outdoor activities. At different times of the year it rises and sets at different times. Everybody knows that but sometimes when I see discussing daylight saving time, it apparently goes over some people‘s heads. Whether we continue going back-and-forth once in the spring and once the fall or if they settle on one really doesn’t matter much. The funny part is when I see the same argument over and over…… I lose an hour sleep in the spring. Yes, on a Sunday morning you will get one less hour of sleep. The crazy part is you would think that the person always got up at exactly the same time the other 364 days. During the entire year apparently some people never get up early to go hunting or fishing or go to work a bit early for overtime or have a headache or…… I (and at least Bullets13) members of a hunting forum website and I guarantee it practically every one of the thousands of members gets up way earlier than normal to go hunting or fishing many times during the year. Those are the same people that say, oh my God, I have to wake up early one day. Things that make you go hmmmm……

In my opinion, you and Todd WERE Setxsports. The behind the scenes leg work was outstanding and extensive. How many times did the mods ask questions and you both had answers quickly, no wavering or ambiguity and backed us up. The mods know and others might soon find out the void that has occurred with Todd’s passing and your retirement. It has been my privilege and pleasure to work with you. Job well done. Enjoy the beach and your other pursuits.

Fortunately it’s not their call. Unfortunately (I think) the victim country has to be a signatory of the ICC Rome agreement. Ukraine has never signed nor ratified the Rome accords.

I am not criticizing your comment but “headlines” are usually clickbait and/or sensationalism.

I don’t think that was a “full scale invasion”.

… or lucky it wasn’t pointing horizontal and killed someone.

I had given up!! Awesome is often overused but that was an awesome finish.

Let’s see, kicked off a basketball team in the state tournament, very likely losing the football scholarship he signed and facing up to 20 years in prison (according to what charges are filed) because…. He wanted to be cool? He is a felon who always carry guns and just had not been caught? For some reason he felt extremely threatened while at a heavily guarded event? Obviously there’s nothing even approaching a valid reason for the situation to have happened. He was talented enough to play in the state tournament in basketball and sign a football scholarship to play in college. Apparently that talent did not extend to his thought process. And this has nothing to do with Dallas having a lack of institutional control or an undisciplined team, etc. That all might or might not be true but unless somebody in the school district knew this kid was packing a gun, you can’t blame that on them.

A true what the heck moment. An 18 year old student, who signed a scholarship to play football in college, is a star on the basketball team (about to play Beaumont United coincidentally) in the state championship tournament …. decided it was a good thing to bring a gun with him and throw it in his gym bag. It went off and shot another student in the foot. She other went surgery and is on the way home. So now he may be facing up for 20 years in prison and losing his free college…. because maybe he wanted to be cool? What dangers did this kid perceive while with a team in a heavily guarded event that he felt he needed to bring a pistol with him to a basketball game? I have a hard time believing that he actually felt he was on some grave danger. [Hidden Content]

There is generally no issue with females moving to male sports. There is usually such a physical difference that there is no unfair advantage, at least after puberty. I coached in Little League in the early 1980s and had a 12 year old girl on my team and if I remember correctly, she made the All Stars. This was 40 years ago folks and nobody cared. That is because she had no unfair advantage. Once the guys’ voices started getting deeper and stubble started growing on their faces, her equality and skills went away. So women crossing over into men’s sports, even when they can, seems as equal at best. Men crossing into women’s is anything but equal. In practically any professional or college level sport, the top women probably would not crack the top 500 for men. There is just that huge of a disparity in strength. I think all you have is a bunch of male losers who cannot compete against their own level of competition so wish to bully a weaker person. Let’s say a male was number one in the world in a sport such as for example the 400. He had record setting times and is on the USA Olympic team for the next Olympics. He is an overwhelming favorites to win the gold. Is he going to opt out and run as a woman because he has feeling feminine or gay or transgender or whatever? I think not!! So yes, let’s allow them to have their own competition. It can be like the minor leagues in baseball, JV in football, the men’s softball league, the everybody gets a trophy league or whatever.

After being a cop for almost 4 decades, I see a lot of humor (as probably do ER nurses, EMTs, doctors, etc.) in a lot of situations that other people might think is sick. I don’t ever recall having a desire, even in jest, in making such a comment about a beautiful woman who was brutally was murdered by an abusive husband. At least it is anonymous…….

The judge DID NOT give him 30 years. There was no punishment phase of the trial and it was about to be argued and then go in front of the jury. During the lunch recess, a plea deal was reached between the DA and the convicted murderer. This is my opinion on that plea deal…… Yes it was a light sentence. I would have likely not accepted the deal as the DA without at least 50 so he would have 25 to do minimum. Of course that is easy for me to say sitting in my house watching it on YouTube. However….. It is always a roll of the dice in front of a jury. A jury with a little sympathy could have given him 10 years and then probated that so he would actually do no time in prison. I watched it live on YouTube and I think there was nine women on the jury. Would that tend to show sympathy? So the DA could accept a 30 year sentence as opposed to risking a potential probation. I think the number of women could have actually worked against him also. That is the roll of the dice. I think I saw four or five black women on the jury. That could be the wildcard either way. The DA might have seen them as having sympathy for the black defendant however….. They and the other women might have had just the opposite effect. There is a reasonable chance that the women either have a relative or a friend who is going through or has gone through abuse just like the murdered woman was claimed to have gone through. Rather than being sympathetic toward the convicted murder, they might have been the ones that wanted to throw the book at him. The murderer, who up until he was found guilty was proclaiming his innocence, as part of the plea deal agreed to file no appeals and the verdict would stand as final along with the sentencing. So the murderer and/or his attorneys looked at that jury and said we might go see if the DA will make an offer. I think I only saw three men on the jury. It is obviously just my opinion but I thought it was great and think it was a black women on the jury who pushed the murderer to accept a plea deal with no appeal possible. He could have still made a plea in from of the jury for a lighter sentence and probation. Rather than seeing them as an easy touch (they could’ve easily held out for a lower sentence), the defense might have seen them as sympathetic toward the victim. So both sides have something to risk by going in front of the jury. Even though they got a conviction, a light sentence with probation would have been a slap in the face to the DA and the victim’s family. Then the murderer could’ve hoped for that light sentence but he also could have had the jury give him 99 years. With both having a lot on the line, they came to that agreement. I have no way of knowing but I suspect and thought it was a great that black women may have been the deciding factor. Their presence on the jury might have been powerful but obviously we will never know.

No, I glanced at it and missed the prescription part.

This officer did not kill Breonna Taylor but he returned fire after a partner was shot. He fired into the apartment where the gun fire was coming from and did not hit anyone but a couple of bullets with him to the neighboring apartment. The officer who shot Breonna Taylor was not charged (correctly) So I think they charged this officer with endangering. Fortunately the jury saw through the charge and acquitted the officer. [Hidden Content]