Wednesday, October 16, 2013

"Costas on the Word Warpath"

"Think for a moment about the term ‘Redskins,’” NBC Sports commentator Bob Costas exhorted viewers in his tirade at halftime of Sunday’s Cowboys-Redskins game. “Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed [at] African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way,* ‘Redskins’ can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term.”

“It is an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent,” Costas continued.

This is ludicrous. I say this not as someone who has particular love for the Redskins or their name. I say this as a lover of words.

... He [Costas] — and the editors of Slate — are simply deciding to be offended about something they don’t need to be. According to various accounts, “redskin” actually has quite innocuous origins. It was probably adopted from Native Americans themselves. And though it obviously took on nastier connotations over time and in some contexts, it strains credulity to believe that the team name was intentionally pejorative or that the fans or the ownership see it that way today.

Words become offensive when we choose to be offended by them. When should we be offended? That’s a tough question. “The answer, of course, lies in the context,” the late Hugh Rawson wrote in his lovely lexicon, Wicked Words. “The meanings of words change according to who says them, to whom, and in what circumstances.” Rawson chronicled many words that were uncontroversial in Chaucer and Shakespeare but are considered repellent today.

Ultimately, of course, this isn’t a fight about words but about cultural politics and the imperative to scrub society of all offensive language (or, often, merely language that offends liberals). That fight will never end, and not just because some people always need to be offended by something. It will never end because words themselves will never cooperate.

Jonah Goldberg National Review On Line , *Althouse link.

Commenter AllenS emails an "UPDATE":
"Because the American Indian Council has requested that the NFL disassociate itself from Indian Names, the Washington Redskins have announced that they will change their name to the Washington Foreskins, in honor of all the dickheads in Washington DC, effective immediately."

101 comments:

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Words become offensive when we choose to be offended by them..

+ President Trayvon mentioned it, so, of course, the predictable sycophant media fall in line.

Shouting Thomas said...

For Christ's sake, it's going to be a long day of idiots screeching about one sort of bigotry or another.

I've gotta clean the garage and work on booking the band.

Is there any way to stop this group psychosis from dominating everything?

Probably not.

AllenS said...

Lem, I just sent you a personal email. Should fit right in on this thread.

chickelit said...

FACE
PALM
and
PARRY
ON

sakredkow said...

In my opinion this stuff's not worth arguing about. Just change the name.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Don't argue with PHX, just do it his way.

:)

AllenS said...

Well, phx, I could suggest to you a new name, but I'd hate to ruin the punchline in a future post.

rhhardin said...

Do you think she'd come across for two bucks?

- Indian punchline

rhhardin said...

It's quiet out there. Too quiet.

- Indian movie

rhhardin said...

You want hot, or not so hot.

- Indian waiter

rhhardin said...

Did you ever suck on a blowtorch?

- Jean Shepherd after selecting hot

Icepick said...

Change the name of the franchise to the Washington Palefaces. Then it can be one more thing the white man has taken from the Western Hemisphere Aboriginal.

rhhardin said...

The Washington Stagecoaches

Icepick said...

In my opinion, this stuff is just not worth arguing about. So STFU Bob Costas & co.

ricpic said...

Why isn't the team just renamed the Washington Scalpers, since that was the defining mode of,er... interaction between the white settlers and the injuns from the moment whites set foot on the eastern shore till the injuns were finally finally beaten in the 1880's. Of course that horrendous FACT has been scrubbed from white consciousness, but it hasn't been disappeared, not if you read the actual historical record of 17th, 18th and 19th century America.

Icepick said...

The Washington The Only Good Ones Are Dead.

Or just the Washington Sheridans, for short.

Trooper York said...

I love how you state the liberal position so succulently phx.

Icepick said...

And since we can't mention skin color without being offensive, i guess this means we can't mention that Obama is you-know-what... One of THEM. (White!)

Icepick said...

Next person that calls me a you-know-what man (White!) gets slapped with a discrimination suit.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

If a sports team's name suggests powerful and strong virtues and attributes, why is it offensive?

We don't have a teams named after slow moving, unreliable oatmeal slugs.

Additionally:

Some consider the namesake and logo of the Washington Redskins to be racist.[59] However, a 2013 USA Today poll found widespread support for the Redskins name. The poll indicated that 79 percent of Americans believed that the Redskins should keep their name.[60] There have been movements by certain groups to change the name,[61] but the attempts have been unsuccessful. Others make the case in defense that the Redskins name is intended to honor the bravery and dignity of American Indians and that, regardless of past usage, the word redskins today refers to the football team. Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.[62] The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over-represented, and the exact wording and order of questions).[63][64] But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania essentially confirmed the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.[65] In 2013, a letter was written by 10 members of Congress, to team owner Dan Snyder, asking him to consider changing the name of the mascot.[66] Snyder insists that "We will never change the name of the team."[67]

Faux outrage and more faux outrage... it helps to cover administration incompetence.

I blame the tea party!

Trooper York said...

Phx solves problems like his hero Obama negotiates the debt crises.

"I don't care if you got elected and have the power of the purse just do what I say because....Obama!"

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Icepick - you are soooo beige.

bagoh20 said...

No matter what our expertise, many of us imagine other people give a shit what we think about other stuff. We pace against the corral fence just knowing that people will be awe struck with us when we break out and opine on the outside.

That's why we have blogs, Bob. Now get back in the barn.

edutcher said...

Somebody had a great one yesterday:

The Washington Welfares - with a picture of Choom and a food stamp instead of the Indian head.

Icepick said...

The Washington The Only Good Ones Are Dead.

Or just the Washington Sheridans, for short.


The Washington The Only Good Ones Are Dead Ones.

FIFY

Or, even better, the Washington Chivingtons.

AllenS said...

Lem, can you include the picture of the Washington Foreskins?

bagoh20 said...

phx's call to action is so pure lefty. To paraphrase:

It's not broken, so lets fix it.

Suggested new name: "The Victims"

Trooper York said...

Why are so many sportscasters ultra-liberal douchebags?

Remember Costas is one of the most prominent morons who is always saying we should get rid of the designated hitter. This gives you an idea what his opinion is worth.

bagoh20 said...

There is another round of talk about L.A getting a football team. I suggest we call them the "Manifest Destiny".

Known Unknown said...

The Washington Toughskins!

They could wear jeans with extra fabric sewn into the knees.

Icepick said...

Icepick - you are soooo beige.

Don't push me, woman! I draw RED LINES in the sand like Barry Half-White!

edutcher said...

There's also the Washington Old Hickories, with a nice portrait of Gen'l Jackson.

Trooper York said...

I mean look at all of the outrage when Rush was going to be on Monday Night Football.

Costas and Keith Olberman are just as liberal and outrageous as Rush is conservative and outrageous.

Why do they keep getting jobs when they outrage a great deal if not an majority their audience?

Trooper York said...

Could it be the vast left wing main stream media conspiracy that is such a clear and present danger to our Republic?

edutcher said...

Trooper York said...

Why are so many sportscasters ultra-liberal douchebags?

Many are probably failed J-school grads.

Icepick said...

like Barry Half-White!

Aw, crap, now _I'M_ doing it again. This is so hard!

Icepick said...

[Insert standard come back HERE}

Icepick said...

We don't have a teams named after slow moving, unreliable oatmeal slugs.

Saved by a technicality!

Methadras said...

phx said...

In my opinion this stuff's not worth arguing about. Just change the name.


Why? Most Indians (90%+) don't give a shit about the name nor do they find it offensive. So I ask you again why?

Trooper York said...

Why....Why...WHY.....OBAMA!!!!!!!

THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

@AllenS, The computer here at work does not allow me to handle pictures. I could barely change a post with text.

Lem the artificially intelligent said...

If context was irrelevant blacks could not call each other the N word. Do i have that right?

sakredkow said...

Let's be clear. I don't personally care what you guys do. I've said before it doesn't offend me in the least. Why should I be offended by other people's offenses? I'm just sayin' it seems to me the right thing to do would be to change the name.

But if you think differently that's fine! I've also said several times the right has a tin ear for these things, but it's certainly not my worry.

Frankly, I like the idea of giving you a megaphone.

Rabel said...

Owing to the lovely olive complexion I inherited from my Mediterranean ancestors I am quite offended when I am lumped in with those pale and pasty faced Scandinavians as a white man.

So I can sympathize with the less ruddy Native Americans.

Methadras said...

phx said...

Let's be clear. I don't personally care what you guys do. I've said before it doesn't offend me in the least. Why should I be offended by other people's offenses? I'm just sayin' it seems to me the right thing to do would be to change the name.


Hold on, you don't care, you aren't offended, but you think it's the right thing to do and just change the name because? That makes zero sense and isn't a cohesive answer.

But if you think differently that's fine! I've also said several times the right has a tin ear for these things, but it's certainly not my worry.

Frankly, I like the idea of giving you a megaphone.


Why do we have tin ears to something like this? Just because someone is offended at something then we should simply capitulate to the offended and make them no longer offended by changing something they were offended by? Why begs the further question as to why you are rolling over so easily on something like this? You are asking a professional organization to change it's entire brand, a brand it has had for a long time because of the perceived offense that some in the Indian community might be offended by it and therefore it has to go? And yet, you don't care, but the owners should do the 'right thing' and change the name anyway to satisfy some offense? And we are the ones with tin ears?

Methadras said...

There should be a standing rule. If you are offended by something like the redskins name, then you should pony up the cash to financially back an entire team brand that you want to change. That should be a distinct motivator for how serious you are. Let those that are offended spend the money to make the change, the logo change, the brand change, commercials, memorabilia, jerseys, letterhead, the whole thing. All of it. Let's see how serious they are.

Amartel said...

"In my opinion this stuff's not worth arguing about. Just change the name."
" I've said before it doesn't offend me in the least. Why should I be offended by other people's offenses? I'm just sayin' it seems to me the right thing to do would be to change the name."

Shorter version: I don't care but the right thing to do is what the TV says is right.

Shorter shorter version: Submit.

Birches said...

Phx believes that since all of the Coastal Media Elite says the name is offensive, then it must be.

Go drive through Gallup, NM sometime and see how much Braves/Chiefs and Redskins gear you see displayed PROUDLY. Might change your mind about what Native people find offensive.

Costas' argument lost all merit when he decided that the Chiefs, Seminoles, Braves were alright, but not Redskins. "You can't just walk up to someone and call them a Redskin. That would be offensive." Yeah, go up to my cousin (1/2 Native) and call him Chief and then see what happens.

Basta! said...

Protein Wisdom includes a link to a scholarly paper, published in The Smithsonian and available on-line that proves that "red skin" was one of the main terms used by Native Americans, in particular various Algonquin-speaking tribes of the midwest, to refer to themselves. The article includes the Native American words that mean, literally, red skin, and quotes extensively from documents of those times (1700s-1800s) that demonstrate this.

Anyone who says the term is offensive is a fucking moron hack who doesn't care one whit about unambiguous documentary evidence and historical scholarship.

Icepick said...

Yeah, go up to my cousin (1/2 Native) and call him Chief and then see what happens.

I know people who call everyone chief. Maybe that's a Southern thing?

sakredkow said...

Hold on, you don't care, you aren't offended, but you think it's the right thing to do and just change the name because? That makes zero sense and isn't a cohesive answer.

Because other people are offended, and I understand why they are. If that kind of shit offended me I would be offended to. They have a legit case IMO.

sakredkow said...

You are asking a professional organization to change it's entire brand, a brand it has had for a long time because of the perceived offense that some in the Indian community might be offended by it and therefore it has to go? And yet, you don't care, but the owners should do the 'right thing' and change the name anyway to satisfy some offense? And we are the ones with tin ears?

I completely hear you, I think I understand you, I don't have a problem with this argument. My answer though is yes, I think you have a tin ear. Now the reason the corporate owners don't want to change probably isn't because they have a tin but as you note because it's going to be expensive for them. Hey, sometimes corps get stuck. It's the nature of their business. Let me know if you think it's going to bankrupt them though, I'll reconsider.

sakredkow said...

There should be a standing rule. If you are offended by something like the redskins name, then you should pony up the cash to financially back an entire team brand that you want to change. That should be a distinct motivator for how serious you are. Let those that are offended spend the money to make the change, the logo change, the brand change, commercials, memorabilia, jerseys, letterhead, the whole thing. All of it. Let's see how serious they are.

I completely understand this, too. Seems like a good idea. Except if I was the other side I might be inclined to counter, "Nah, let's just pressure them until they do the right thing. Much better."

sakredkow said...

I saw a meme though that said the Washington Redskins need to change their name because "Washington" is so offensive.

sakredkow said...

I love how you state the liberal position so succulently phx.

Thanks, Troop. I'm not actually speaking for anyone other than myself, however.

sakredkow said...

Don't argue with PHX, just do it his way.

You can argue with me all you want, April. Especially you! ; )

sakredkow said...

phx flirts with April

chickelit said...

Methadras said...
Let those that are offended spend the money to make the change, the logo change, the brand change, commercials, memorabilia, jerseys, letterhead, the whole thing. All of it. Let's see how serious they are.

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the namer changer contingency are also anti-football or at best indifferent.

Ah you say--but certainly not Bob Costas, who earns his very living from football commentary.

How many other prominent pro name changers are also pro football?

Just askin'

virgil xenophon said...

AprilApple and Basta! speak Heap Big Medicine!

Beside all that, as I said here before, are we going to change the names of States and cities for being "offensive?" What about Indiana and Indianapolis? Or the City of Seattle named to honor Chief Seattle? Or Inninois, which is French for the Illini Indians. Or the State of Utah named for the Ute Indian tribe? Or Oklahoma, which means "red people." These names are OBVIOUSLY RACIST! THEY MUST BE CHANGED!!!!!

virgil xenophon said...

***ILLINOIS--can't even spell my home state--just enough Barbancourt to dull my senses....must...consume mOar immediately--indeed "vast quantities"--to sufficiently lubricate the neurons to max efficiency..

test said...

The left could learn from this if they were less superficial people. Instead of asserting they are offended or are right to be offended they could look to understand why.

The term Redskin was created by American Indians to distinguish themselves from Europeans, so the term wasn't created as a racist slur. And while I've lived in places with significant Indian populations I've literally never heard the term used outside a reference to the football team, so I doubt the term has evolved into such a slur. I further suspect that if the term had so evolved even in the distant past 80% of American Indians wouldn't support the teams continued use of the name. And further if it were so obviously a racial slur why isn't the lefting pointing out the evidence?

This faux outrage is just something activists created to feed their self-image and fundraising machine. The average leftist knows none of the facts but incorporates whatever talking points he hears from approved sources into his worldview. It's a clinic in propaganda.

sakredkow said...

Here is the tribe of the Tin Ears.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Virgil..
It's madness, indeed. Remember, it's all a silly distraction for the king.

What about Colorado? It means, basically - color red, and refers to the abundant red rocks. The rocks must be offended.
I demand justice for the red rocks!

test said...

phx said...
Here is the tribe of the Tin Ears


Note how phx is solely concerned with appearances rather than the facts. Plus note his claim he's not offended, he just supports others who are. His goal is to ensure the weaknesses in his preferences are never discussed, since he pushes responsibility for them to others.

A less serious commenter could not be invented.

sakredkow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

Here is the tribe of the Tin Ears.

I say it's far better to have a tin ear than to suffer from peristaltic closure.

sakredkow said...

His goal is to ensure the weaknesses in his preferences are never discussed,

I have no idea what this bullshit means but you can discuss anything you want. If you show a little good faith I'll discuss it with you. I think I've shown plenty that I'm transparent about my thinking, my conculsions, how I get there, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Anyone who doesn't come at me like a total dick >cough< Marshall>cough< is welcome to my thoughts about anything.

Discuss away.

sakredkow said...

And if you got the better of the argument I'll even acknowledge it.

Trooper York said...

I love how you are taking this in a goodnatured way phx.

Here is a serious question for you.
What is the critical mass of offense taking where things should be changed? Five people? Five thousand people? 50% of those polled?

There is currently a movie about the biblical figure Noah which in previews has proven to be very offensive to both Jews and Christians. Should it be banned? Should the filmmaker be forced to change his product because other people are offended? Just the same as you want to change the name of a storied franchise just because a small segment of the public is offended.

I would submit that you would be against forcing the movie maker to conform to the wishes of those who are offended by his product.

The Native Americans who are offended by this nickname should simple pick up their welfare check and go to trading post to pick up some liquor to get drunk with just like their ancestors did back in the day. I am sure they will feel better about themselves.

Birches said...

The truth of the matter is that the name will never be changed as long as Daniel Snyder is successful in moving merchandise with Redskins.

Herein lies the problem. The 30 college educated Native American activists who have never set foot on a reservation didn't buy any football merchandise to begin with. So they had no power. Now, they're trying to shame Daniel Snyder into changing the name through the Coastal Media Elite who never met an aggrieved minority they didn't like and couldn't exploit.

As long as regular football fans (and the actual Natives on the reservations who DO buy Redskins merchandise) keep buying, there is no incentive to change. Free market at work.

Amartel said...

Feelings are more important than facts, you tin-eared sillies! The important thing is not that the name is objectively inoffensive but that it might possibly be perceived subjectively as such.

Amartel said...

Bob "Trail of Tears" Costas has been in the sportscasting business for decades and is just now for the first time speaking out about this burning issue? Involving the name of a major football franchise that has been around since 1932? How likely is it that Bob never noticed this supposedly highly offensive name before?

Amartel said...

Bob Paleface Costas cares more about obtaining the good will of the Ruling Class, by parroting their phony race concerns, than of the people watching his broadcast.

Trooper York said...

Bob Costas should have been fired a long time ago. It is time to put some new blood in there.

Amartel said...

He does look like he could use a transfusion. Of something.

Trooper York said...

At one time most football announcers were ex-New York Giants.
Frank Gifford. Pat Summerall. Kyle Rote.

They need to get back to that.

Replace Costas with Carl Banks or Phil Simms and we will be fine.

Trooper York said...

That's why Michael Strahan has the number one rated morning show.

People want to see Giants. Not midgets like Costas. Just sayn'

Trooper York said...

I mean Bob would be perfect when they do a remake of "Fantasy Island."

Birches said...

Oh I hate Phil Sims almost as much as I hate Troy Aikman (but I only hate Aikman if they're covering a Cardinals game).

Trooper York said...

The fact remains that what built the NFL to the success it had today was having ex-Giants as announcers.

It is a law like you should only have gay hairdressers and Irish cops and Italian barbers. Once you mess with the natural order of things everything gets fucked up.

Icepick said...

People want to see Giants. Not midgets like Costas. Just sayn'

Keep that up and Costas will go after the Giants next.

The night of the game, I hit the mute button when I heard (paraphrasing) "And next, Bob Costas on the name of the Washington Franchise." The reason I didn't hit mute immediately upon hearing "Bob Costas" was because I had mistakenly left the remote on the other side of the room.

I'd rather get "dating" tips from Marv Albert than hear anything Costas has to say about anything these days. I'm not certain exactly when Costas became annoying, but it was probably in the late 1980s when NBC was trying to buy the rights to EVERY sporting event that existed. Olympic coverage in the USA went to Hell when NBC got the rights away from ABC. It's never been the same.

chickelit said...

There's something I'm not getting here. Does network sports coverage have so little competition that everyone is essentially forced to watch Bob Costas? Why can't people just chose not to watch him, like Rachel Maddow?

chickelit said...

In other words, give your support to alternative coverage. Don't reward your enemies.

Icepick said...

I just don't want to hear about politics and political issues when I'm watching sports. I understand that various people involved have their opinions, but I don't want to hear them DURING the sporting event, or read about them on the sports page. That holds true whether I agree with the opinion or not.

Therefore, I don't want to hear Bob Fucking Costas ever open his mouth about anything ever again. Same with Keith Olberman. Same with not wanting Rush Limbaugh on my football telecasts. And I don't want to read Peter King's latest snide comments about whatever burr he has up his fat ass today in the middle of his football column. I didn't like it when Dr. Z did it, and he was a helluva lot better football writer than King.

And I especially, under no circumstances, ever want to hear what a punter thinks about anything. Same goes for kickers. Shut the fuck up and kick the ball. Please, for the love of God, Man, Woman and Breast Cancer Awareness Month, don't let the punters talk about anything!

Icepick said...

There's something I'm not getting here. Does network sports coverage have so little competition that everyone is essentially forced to watch Bob Costas?

NBC has Sunday Night Football. Costas is on the pre-game show. The show isn't bad (it isn't good either, but not sucking total ass is a step up from the mode for pre-game shows these days), but the big thing is, if you watch ESPN instead, you might miss the start of the game. So fans tend to stick with the NBC pre-game show. Plus they might want to hear Dungy, or King, or whomever else is on the show. I generally avoid that show, but last Sunday I didn't want to miss the start of the game. My mistake. Especially since events conspired to keep me from watching most of the game anyway. But I almost got doused with Bob Costas spew, so there's that....

Icepick said...

TO be clear, having Sunday Night Football means that no, NBC does not have any competition for NFL fans in their timeslot, unless another game is running VERY long.

Birches said...

@ Icepick

Finally gave up on reading MMQB. Peter King is so arrogant and sheltered from the world the most of us live in. Cancelled my SI subscription awhile ago too because every issue seemed to contain some sort of insult to flyover country. The writing quality declined too. Ten years ago I could forgive an aside because the rest of the article was fantastic. Now, not so much. I think the Coastal Media Elite has spent so much time indoctrinating, they've forgotten how to write.

Trooper York said...

You have to listen to the announcer if they are the only ones running the game.

Now on Yankees broadcasts I turn off the sound on the TV and listen to the radio feed with the great John Sterling.

I do it with the Giants as well. Shut off the announcers and put on the radio to get Bob Papa and Carl Banks.

Birches said...

I won't watch the pregame or half time on SNF. I really like Dungy, Dan Patrick is alright, and I like Mike Florio a lot, but if there's a chance that Costas or Collinsworth is going to talk, then I'm out.

Birches said...

We can barely tolerate Collinsworth's "analysis" during the game. If he wasn't paired with Al Michaels, we would probably just watch on mute.

I know he's not everyone's favorite, but I actually love Joe Buck.

chickelit said...

Now on Yankees broadcasts I turn off the sound on the TV and listen to the radio feed with the great John Sterling.

I do it with the Giants as well. Shut off the announcers and put on the radio to get Bob Papa and Carl Banks.


What a great idea!

chickelit said...

You know, people got fed up with Katie Couric, stopped watching, and now she's on the ropes.

Icepick said...

Collinsworth is terrible. I don't understand how he is so popular when the only people I ever hear say good things about him are other media people. I'd rather listen to Gruden. Or Bobcat Goldwaith, for that matter. Collinsworth has mastered a combination of smarm and condescension that I would have assumed impossible if I hadn't heard it myself.

Birches said...

Collinsworth has mastered a combination of smarm and condescension that I would have assumed impossible if I hadn't heard it myself.

For the win.

test said...

Trooper York said...
It is a law like you should only have gay hairdressers and Irish cops and Italian barbers. Once you mess with the natural order of things everything gets fucked up.


Having straight old white male conservative clothes designers will be the sign of Armageddon.

Michael Haz said...

Name the team after an animal. The Washington Pussies.

Michael Haz said...

The team name issue is nothing. Just wait until word leaks out that kids have been able to buy Coke at the stadium for decades.

Icepick said...

I'm waiting for the outcry against the Packers. That'll be fun.

Methadras said...

El Pollo Raylan said...

There's something I'm not getting here. Does network sports coverage have so little competition that everyone is essentially forced to watch Bob Costas? Why can't people just chose not to watch him, like Rachel Maddow?


Because in order to watch football, you are in some cases forced to see and hear him, which sucks.

Methadras said...

Once the NFL went political then that opened the floodgates to let the PC/Diversity crowds to infiltrate. Now we are having these conversations which are ultimately pointless and cause nothing but disharmony.

sakredkow said...

Six or seven years ago I thought SSM was a huge mistake. Now I've been to two gay weddings, and I think it's great.

People who think you should believe the same things you did 30 years ago aren't conservative, they're just stuck.

rcocean said...

I think Costas is probably the most pompous windbag in sports TV - on network TV. On Cable the title belongs to Olbermann.