And It's So Easy Even A Caveman Can Do It.

In the Geico commercial, the pundit interviewer is told by an apparent female sociologist that “we are living in a day when individual ego is predominant.”

The opposing viewpoint is delivered by the caveman, who when invited to reply, says, “yes I have a response. Uuuuu-WHAT?”

Point taken. We are living in an age of hive mentality, and this is especially true when it comes to minority culture, it seems. A perceived or real slight at any one member or segment of a particular society is seen as an assault on the dignity of the entire hive, and no one now is learning this lesson better than is Don Imus, the radio talk show host of the CBS show “Imus In The Morning”, which is simulcast on MSNBC in the mornings Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

The “nappy headed hoes”, to borrow the offending Imus quote, of the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights Women’s Basketball team, who just lost to Tennessee in the championship NCAA women’s basketball tournament, certainly have a right to take offense and even to demand the firing of Don Imus, and truthfully, Imus has purposely disturbed enough hornets nests to know better by now. He is currently on a two week suspension from both CBS and MSNBC, and could very well end up being fired for this remark, despite the fact that he actually made them with a degree of admiration. In fact, he personally knows one of the players (who has also nevertheless expressed offense at the statement).

He certainly at least owes them an apology. But does he owe an apology to Al Sharpton, whose radio show Imus voluntarily appeared on? He did so doing as he has done non-stop the last several days, apologizing profusely while maintaining that he is a good person. Sharpton was not impressed, and called forth his own daughter. She stepped forward, whereupon Sharpton informed Imus that she, his daughter, was not a “nappy headed hoe.”

So, is the offending words the observation that the girls are “nappy headed”? Or that they are “hoes”? I could see where the first would apply to Sharpton’s daughter, and perhaps she should have a right to feel insulted at this slang. But I don’t see how the second qualifies as an offense to the daughter of Al Sharpton, unless she knows something her father evidently doesn’t. Unless they are implying that Imus meant that if you are nappy headed, then you must be a ho, especially if you are a college woman’s basketball team player with tattoos. Personally, I don’t think the man meant it that way, nor do I think he really meant it as an insult. I tend to think Don Imus just hasn’t caught on to the fact that he isn’t black.

Like I said, the girls have a right to take serious exception to this, and even they might be taking it hard to some extent for the wrong reason. One of them stated that they worked hard to get to where they got, in their underdog status, to rise to the level of playing in the NCAA championship game, and Imus took away from that sense of accomplishment. Yes, I can see that point. Then, unfortunately, one went on to inform us that they are “the future leaders of tomorrow”.

With that, she almost through what sympathy I initially had out the window. No matter how well you do in life, you’re still just like all the rest of us, just another cog in the wheel of life. You are just as deserving of respect, but no more so, than anybody else. That being said, these young women are certainly more deserving of respect than is implied by the term “ho”, nappy headed or otherwise. But that is true of any non-ho from any branch of society. If she or they think otherwise, maybe their egos needed to be brought down a notch or two. But so too does Don Imus, perhaps.

I just wonder how long the Sharpton’s and Jacksons of the world have been laying for him. Perhaps ever since show producer Bernard MacGurk delivered a scathing satirical “poetry” reading supposedly from Maya Angelou, in which the poetess delivered a tribute to her black ancestors, bemoaning the fact that the white man, “took from you your pride, your dignity-your spears.”

Yes, Imus has long been a raw, edgy, at times over the top show that always pushed the envelope, to use all the standard cliches in one line, but now he might soon be gone. After this week, of course, after he has concluded a telethon to raise money for children’s charities. Then, there are plans for Imus to meet with the Rutgers women’s team. Then, soon, the decision will be made. It don’t look good. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are sticking to their guns in demanding that Imus be fired, and in the meantime at least one advertiser has threatened to withhold sponsorship, while at least one more is seriously considering taking the same action.

It would certainly save me the trouble of deciding whether or not to return to expanded cable. If they fire him, that would take away my main reason for paying the extra money for it, and certainly for watching MSNBC. But like I said, he’s pretty much brought this on himself. I could moan here and go on about the First Amendment, but really, the First Amendment cuts both ways. Sponsors have a right to withhold support and station owners and broadcasters have a right to respond to that reality, every bit as much as Imus technically has the right to make an ass of himself. In the grand scheme of things the First Amendment is pretty much worth just about as much as the paper it is reproduced on.

Especially when you consider that he has also seriously damaged his credibility as a host who typically can get major political interviews with politicians and presidential candidates, respected journalists, performers, and newsmakers of all stripes. John Edwards has been a frequent guest in the past, as has John McCain. Both of these and others might well be rethinking the wisdom of such appearances now.

Maybe he should just call it off, and bow out gracefully. There is always Sirius, or XM Satellite. After all, a big part of the current controversy stems from the fact that the public networks are in fact federally regulated, in addition to corporate sponsored. The First Amendment still applies, however, it is a true democracy. Unfortunately, what that amounts to these days is a kind of mob rule that fuels and drives a corporate plutocracy, with the rule of law executed by advertising dollars.

Wackjobs Have Rights Too

I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?

Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".

She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.

She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.

I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-

Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.

Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.

My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?

As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.

Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.

Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.

Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.

Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.

As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.

True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?

Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.

Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).

And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.

So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.

To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?

Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.

As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.

Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.

So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-

Congratulations, Universe. You win.

The Pope And The Witch (And The Bitch)

I think I’ve come up with a master plan to achieve literary success, and it’s almost sure-fire. Just write a movie script, tv script, novel or play that is offensive-the more offensive the better-to Bill Donahue, the head of the Catholic Leaque. He’s sure to go on all the major news networks caterwauling like a little bitch, and you’ve got more publicity than you could possibly have imagined, for not one red dime.

That’s the way it seems, anyway. Just a couple of months ago, he went after little Dakota Fanning, of all people, for portraying a character who becomes a rape victim in a movie. He must not have raked in much in the way of contributions from that controversy, as it seemed to die out relatively quick. Now, he’s found another target-a school play, of all things (you would think catholic leaders would know better than to harass child stars and school play performances, but I guess some people just don’t have a sense of irony), called “The Pope And The Witch”.

Here is a very brief synopses of the play. The Pope in question is in a state of anxiety over an impending visit of a hundred thousand children from the third world. No, you wags, not because he doesn’t know possibly how he can ever secretly pick out the most attractive from such a large number in the middle of what will be a media circus. It’s because he thinks it’s all part of a leftist plot to embarrass the Catholic Church over it’s doctrinaire stance on birth control. These children are all from impoverished regions, and families, and they are soon to arrive in Saint Peter’s Square for an audience.

Sometime during the play, the Pope engages in a dialoque with an African shaman (the “witch” of the title), with whom I imagine he engages in a narrative exchange pertaining to wisdom, righteousness, and the responsibilities and consequences of power.

Yeah, it sounds kind of cheesy to me too, and if I had to wager money, I would be willing to bet the play is indeed somewhat anti-Catholic. Does that give Donahue the right to complain about the school’s production? Yes. Does it give him the right to issue a response? Yes.

Did it give him the right to demand the school stop production of the play, which was scheduled to be performed from March 1-9 at the University of Minnesota? No, in my opinion. Luckily, in what Donahue calls a "collapse of leadership" the school decided to go ahead with this example of what Donahue called "hate speech".

What Donahue and his cartel of supporters were attempting, obviously, was the censorship of a work of art that didn't meet their approval. And, thankfully, censorship lost, this time.

And I come at this position honestly as one who is totally opposed to all forms of censorship, save in the following cases- is the work in question slanderous/libelous? Does it encourage incitement to violence? Does it contain child pornography?

In the case of the play in question, the answers would seem to be no, no, and no. So there’s your answer, Bill Donahue-no dice.

So, how about my ideas?

BURN- A drama in which a group of early Christians plan out the burning of Rome in the days of Nero, and carry it out, resulting in the entire movement being persecuted.

So, would this be slanderous? A case could be made for that, I guess, but on the other hand, this is theoretically within the realm of possibility. In point of fact, this is actually what I honestly believe happened. Also, there are no living people that could be directly impacted by the accusation, of course, so no one would be unfairly maligned by such a theory( involving fictional characters), which again, is a most reasonable assumption to make. So, let Billy bitch, about this one and others, such as-

THE PROMISED LAND-A comedy in which a Catholic Priest, whose parish is in danger of shutting down, becomes involved with coyotes smuggling illegal immigrants into his parish in order to increase his flock, which becomes filled with drug smugglers and prostitutes, and gang members. His parish prospers due to the influx of illegal money but his conscience takes a hit-especially when he is investigated by the authorities-though he is encouraged by many of his superiors.

FATAL CHOICE-Yet another Catholic Priest, one involved in the Pro-Life movement, undergoes a crises of faith when he learns the Anti-Christ is soon to be born. He comes to suspect that the mother is a woman in his parish who is-yes, seeking an abortion.

And, finally-

CUTE-

Guess what this one is about? If you need a clue, put it this way: I have to be careful that it doesn’t cross over the line into the realm of matching my third criterion for acceptable censorship.

On the other hand, I’ll probably never write this one, or in fact any of these, I’ve got too many irons in the fire as it is. But just in case I change my mind, I will be counting on Billy Bud, Wailer, for all the publicity I need to make the debut of whichever one I might choose a resounding success.

Hat Tip To Renegade Eye, my cool communist friend who, if communism ever does take over, I hope is put in charge of all the Gulags.

Mascot Madness

In the annals of sports, there are few things more maddening than the manufactured controversy over team mascots, with the NCAA going the extra mile of denying post season playoff berths to schools who utilize mascots that are deemed inappropriate, insulting, or denigrating to a special interest group. The most obvious example here would be the use of Indian mascots, as reported by the good folks at American Legends, the post for which you can find linked to in the title of this post.

Actually, if this post is widely read enough, I will probably be sentenced to death in
some quarters for refusing to refer to them as “Native American”, which I used to do, but no longer. I’m spiteful that way.

In fact, I want to take the time here to extend kudos to the Seminole tribe of Florida, who in fact has supported the use of their name and image by the Florida State Seminoles, an act that probably has the NCAA officials secretly all but tearing their hair out, and considering presenting the tribe a gift of smallpox infested blankets addressed from the Florida State Alumni Association.

I contend that most Indians, in fact, could care less about this issue, and what ones do care are probably in favor of it, much like most Irish Americans look with self-deprecating humor on the image of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot. The minority that are opposed I put down to the level of-well, renegades on the warpath.

Of course, when it comes to the NCAA and others who suffer from the infestation of political correctness, it would appear they are in denial of their own bigotry. To their way of thinking, only white people are of a superior enough intellect and emotional maturity to be able to appreciate one of their cultural images being utilized in such a humorous fashion. Indians, blacks, etc., are doubtless genetically inferior, so it is wrong to “make fun” of them. After all, they obviously, as members of a lesser race, have not evolved enough to appreciate this subtlety, therefore we should go out of our way to shelter them. After all, this should make us feel better, by showing these poor unfortunate inferior people that we really care about their feelings.

Well, I disagree with this assessment, and I believe that all cultures and races should be integrated into the great American melting pot, and what better way to do this than by mercilessly making sport of them and their cultures, the way the gods intended. I propose that school names and mascots are the best way to begin this great new American experiment.

Let’s start with the mentally retarded. Let’s face it, nothing is funnier than a retardo trying to act smart, or clever, or gods help us, sexy. Admit it, haven’t you ever laughed at least once at a retarded person? You just can’t help it at one time or another, let’s face it, they were meant to be laughed at, otherwise, well, you wouldn’t have laughed at that little mongoloid chick in school that was constantly sticking her finger up her butt and smelling it when she thought nobody was looking. Or the boy that just couldn’t keep his eyes off the best looking girl in school, and couldn’t help breathing like a maniac if she got so close to him. If you were that girl, and you were a little on the cruel side, you might have flirted with him just enough to get him to admit with a glaze over his eyes, “I wuv oo”.

About the only thing that isn’t funny about them is, well, when they try to be funny. Then you finally see them for what they are-stupid. Then you feel sorry for them. But is that any better? Hell no. Let’s bring them fully integrated into America. They are off to a good start with the Special Olympics, but let’s really honor them by naming a bona fide real sports team after them. For example-

THE RHODE ISLAND RETARDOS
MASCOT-



BUGSIE BOOGEREATER

Once that goes over like a lead balloon, and it’s obvious that most people just aren’t comfortable with making fun of the “mentally challenged” (realspeak translation-idiots), then we have to persevere by bringing in other minorities. Here is where the negro can make a contribution. Oh, excuse me, I forgot, it’s not negroes anymore, it’s Afro Americans. No, shit, that’s wrong too, it’s blacks. Wait a minute, man, I’m still way back in the past, it’s “people of color”. Oh wait,though, I forgot, that was decided to be too broad to apply to people of African heritage, so let’s make sure we call them “African Americans”. Well, for the rest of this decade, at least.

To hell with it, I have the perfect team name and mascot for our Negro/Afro-American/Black/People of Color/African American/Whatever’s Next You Damn Well Better Learn To Say It Quick brothers and sisters.

THE NEW JERSEY JIGGABOOS
MASCOT-



CHIEF SPEARCHUCKER

All during the game, his cheerleading squad will be charged with shouting out incendiary racial rhetoric. After losing a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot. After winning a game, they will lead the crowd in looting and burning down the stadium and vandalizing all the cars in the parking lot.

Now, of course, some people might think we should make some exceptions, for example, when it comes to Arab/Muslim Americans. After all, these folks feel overly maligned due to association with Islamic terrorists. It just wouldn’t be right to add to their degradation by appropriating their cultural images in a humorous way for a sports team and mascot, would it?

Perhaps you will not be shocked to learn that I disagree with this opinion, and in fact the opposite might well be the case. In fact, what better way to relieve the stress and tension due to this serious issue than be dedicating a university or perhaps a professional sports team specifically to this misunderstood and yet intriqing culture. In fact, since there are so many Arabs and Muslims in the great state of Michigan, might I suggest-

THE DETROIT DIAPERHEADS
MASCOT-



MUHAMMED BEHEDR

Now, there will be a problem here with his cheerleading squad. Of course, they will be required to dress in such a manner so that no parts of their bodies will be shown, so they can’t take the chance of jumping up and down and risk showing an ankle or calve, so they will have to be relegated to waving posters and placards that say cool things like “Death To The Infidel Team” while Muhammed Behedr runs up to the oppossing teams' cheerleaders and throws acid in their faces.

Since they can’t be seen, it would be necessary for them to mingle with the crowd during halftime in a friendly way, while passing out team pictures in envelopes that also contain powdered anthrax.

The teams lawyers might also want to consider filing a lawsuit to lift the restrictions on airspace flights over the stadium during game time. At least during away games.

Another issue that is a great cause for concern is the problem of illegal immigration, particularly that of migrant workers from Mexico. These fine folks go out of their way to “do jobs Americans won’t do”, and are so concerned about the quality of work available to American farmers and businesses, they go out of their way to insure that inferior workers from Nicaraqua and Honduras are blocked at their own country’s southern border from entering the US. I think we owe them a debt of thanks, and what better way to repay them than by honoring them with a sports team and mascot of their own. Nor does it have to be limited to a team from the American Southwest. Not any more. Now, they are all over the country, even the east and midwest. In recognition of their “contribution”, therefore, I suggest-

THE WEST VIRGINIA WETBACKS
MASCOT-



THE WELFARE BANDITO

The whole team can be driven out into the field in the back of eighteen wheelers hidden under ears of loose corn and lettuce. This will probably be one of the poorest teams, of course, to all appearances, but they can make all kinds of extra money under the table by selling good quality Mexican blow and smack to the crowd. They won’t have to worry about the border agents arresting them. Even if they try to do that, all they have to do is shoot them. Who would complain about a thing like that? The government? Hah!

Of course, not all teams have to have an ethnic or racial orientation. Some might even have a religious orientation, as well as an ethnic one. To this end, what better team for white Christian folks to rally behind than-

THE ALABAMA BIBLE THUMPERS
MASCOT-



WHITEY HOOD

Can’t you just see him now taking the field and leading cheers with a crack of the whip?

Of course, he will lead the team in a rousing prayer before every game, shout out the Ten Commandments all throughout the game, and after every home game, he will lead them in burning a cross. After every victory that is, after every defeat they lynch an opponent of the visiting team. Just one though, then they tell the rest to go back where they came from.

Or, a team can have a solidly religious structure. After all, all Christians aren’t white, nor are they all protestant. They are, however, vital members of American society. As such, I am sure that catholics, for example, would appreciate a team such as-

THE PHILADELPHIA PRIEST PEDOPHILES
MASCOT-



FATHER PHIL BUTZ

Of course, this particular team will also require a special kind of cheerleading squad to accompany the good priest as he goes about his business of blessing the game, the crowd, the players, etc. A good solid squad of about fifty pre-teen children, one girl for every ten boys, should do the trick nicely. Half the team can masturbate during halftime while they perform, while the other half of the team looks the other way. It will be Father Phil’s job as team mascot to make sure all is forgiven.

Of course, it has been often stated that not all victims of sex crimes are legitimate, some are even making false accusations. Is this possible? Would a teenager lie about being molested, why what ever for? Surely their mothers or fathers wouldn’t put them up to that. In the case of runaways, is it true, as I have recently heard, that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM are unwilling victims of the sex slave industry? Especially the girls, I have heard, who just want a Prince Charming in a romantic fantasy kind of way. None of these girls actually ENJOY sex. How disgusting to even consider such a thing as that! Why, it’s impossible for a teenage girl to enjoy sex with a teenage boy, let alone a grown man, isn’t it?.

For that matter, would a grown woman lie about being raped? Why, you would have to think there are vengeful women on this earth to believe something like that. What other reason would they have to make up something so horrid, surely not MONEY?

This is where education can play a large role in teaching people the truth and bridging the sexual divide that causes these misunderstandings, and what better educational tool than in the realm of sports? Therefore, in order to show how ridiculous these beliefs are, I propose-

THE CALIFORNIA CUNTSLUTS
MASCOT-



PRUDENCE PRICKTEASER

She should be a real Amazon, of questionable sexual orientation, while her squad of cheerleaders should be women of all races, ages, and looks, ranging from drop-dead-gorgeous-and-knows-it, to god-awful-fucking-ugly, to downright trashy. When a ruling on the field goes against them, they all scream RAPE with a flashy, ear to ear grin of dubious sincerity, alternating with cries of mock anger and disgust if the offending rule stands. No matter the ruling, they threaten a lawsuit. No matter how the game ends, they are always ready, willing, and eager for the next one.

Finally, although I could name many more such examples, I would be remiss if I didn’t end this post with a recommendation to our leaders in Washington to set an example. They are always wanting a sports team, and amazingly, they have already led the way with The Washington Redskins, a team which has always come under much criticism due to the derogatory nature of this supposedly racist name. Yet, the Redskins play on, while the DC crowd prattles on, with the encouragement of the many special interest groups that demand special rights,considerations, and even privileges.

In honor of them all, what better team to grace the landscape of our nations capital than-

THE DC PC PRICKTARDS
MASCOT-



Of course, there would be many worthy candidates to hold the position of this particular mascot. Who knows what the future might hold?