Ketch's 10 Thoughts From The Weekend (Time for Ash to go 8 Mile)

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:

I don't believe for a second that you think the Clippers owner overtly being racist and the Redskins name is apples to apples either.

Considering some view the name as a racist slur, yes, I would say it's in the overtly racist category.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:

My comparison is a hell of a lot more apples to apples than the connection your trying to make.

I disagree.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:

Yes, native Irish people were discriminated against for a long time in America, with the backbone of that being a stereotype of being dirty drunks who liked to fight. Yankees and Fightin' Irish are derogatory terms depending on the context, just like Redskin is.

Like I said, those depictions should also be changed. It's not needed in 2014.

That being said, I wouldn't compare the plight of the Irish in America with that of the Native Americans, unless there's a chapter in American history where the Irish were slaughtered, had their property seized from them and were marginalized in society to embarrassing levels that I somehow missed.

This comes from someone with a lot of Irish family members.

No one is comparing the plight. We're comparing the slur. Neither blacks, Hispanics, or Asians had that indentical plight either, and it's not okay to go around using ethnic slurs towards them either.

Yes, the Irish in America were discriminated against. It's forgotten as a lot of assimilation has taken place, but even though "No Irish Need Apply" hasn't been posted in over hundred years, we are not that far removed from JFK being elected President being a Roman Catholic marked a big step forward for tolerance in America.

The bottom line is that if you're going to be ultra-sensitive about race, you need to streamline it and not tolerate any slurs equally. In the context of the Washington Redskins as a football organization, there is no intended racism. If you don't think the slur itself should stand, then take away any team whose name can be construed as a slur in another context.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Baguette:
No, they're telling Wittek he'll have to compete with Ash for the starting job, and may the best man win.

I think they are likely giving him more indications that he has a strong chance than just showing up and competing. This dude could have gone to a lot of places and he's choosing this one without visiting others for a reason that's better than a chance to compete.

Originally posted by Baguette:

You seriously think they've already given Wittek the job when they know full well that Ash may prove himself to be the better QB!?

I never said that.

Originally posted by Baguette:
Finally, both Strong & Watson have some very good things to say about Ash {as do your colleagues Jason S. and Dunlap}. No, they haven't committed to him being the "official starter" but they have been slow to name anyone as a starter as they want these guys competing like crazy right to the end.

Strong does not list QB as a position of strength currently. This is the last thing he said about his quarterbacks after the spring game.


"We don't need a great player. We just need someone to take control of it."
Whatever praise you think he has given Ash is washed away by the lack of confidence he has in his ability to take control of it.

Originally posted by Baguette:
Methinks Ketch your perspective on Ash is not entirely objective as is your reaction to those who feel P.C. is wrong, if not downright dangerous when its held above truth & accountiblity

You think I'm not being objective with Ash? lulz

Originally posted by Baguette:

{i.e, "You must be a racist if you are critical of Obama}.

Originally posted by Baguette:
with regard to the Redskins. I can bet you this chorus of changing the name is coming much more {at least its genesis} from the white, far-left crowd that it is the native indians

Just be better people and do the right thing. It's that simple. Open your mind and stop thinking of politics and Obama and far-left crowds.

Just be better. Don't use a racial slur or a word that others find offensive.

In 100 years, I feel like there are going to be a lot of people looking at these conversations and wondering why in the world this is such a tough conversation to have. this isn't rocket science.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by darickc:
And don't tell me you've never listened to Jack Johnson

I have an album of his somewhere... er... a CD of his somewhere.

 

[LEFTY658]

Ketchum posted on 5/5/2014...

Originally posted by LEFTY658:

I agree with the others that liberals have taken the Redskins issue totally out of context.

I don't find this a liberal issue. I find it a simple right vs. wrong issue.

A large number of people find the name offensive. Just change it. Find a non-offensive word.

Call yourself the Americans and don't change the emblem. What's wrong with that?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. I see it as a slippery slope issue. Agree to disagree.
2. A large number of people do not find the name offensive including from the polls i've seen, native americans.
3. I would have no problem with this idea if it wasn't trying to be forced by people who think their "right" is all that matters.

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by LEFTY658:

Ketchum posted on 5/5/2014...

Originally posted by LEFTY658:

I agree with the others that liberals have taken the Redskins issue totally out of context.

I don't find this a liberal issue. I find it a simple right vs. wrong issue.

A large number of people find the name offensive. Just change it. Find a non-offensive word.

Call yourself the Americans and don't change the emblem. What's wrong with that?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. I see it as a slippery slope issue. Agree to disagree.
2. A large number of people do not find the name offensive including from the polls i've seen, native americans.
3. I would have no problem with this idea if it wasn't trying to be forced by people who think their "right" is all that matters.

1. What is the slippery slope? That we take away all offensive names (even ones that are lets say borderline). If so let's go skiing. This can't be forced by any government entity. It will be decided by the NFL if the NFL feels it is hurting its brand. It's a PR thing plain and simple and it seems like a harmless change that can be framed in a great light if they aren't so stuck on what is simply a mascot.
2. I understand people don't find the name of the team offensive even a majority. A lot of african americans don't find the n word offensive in the right context. You wouldn't call any native american a redskin to their face.
3. Wat? It is just common sense that you are considerate of other people especially when you are trying to be a national brand. Good business to be accommodating to all. It is no one group or persons right or wrong.

 

[SteveHookEm]

I have never been so disappointed than when I clicked one image too far on your "Hottie of the Week" images. Go through them one by one and then let the gallery go to the next girl. Wah Wah.....

 

[cruelbutfair]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

I wonder if Charlie Strong believes Wittek is better. I don't get the sense that he's sold on Ash at all, on all fronts.

I believe you are right. I also believe that Charlie is right to not be sold. At this point what has been shown to make anyone feel confident in Ash?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly

No one is comparing the plight. We're comparing the slur. Neither blacks, Hispanics, or Asians had that indentical plight either, and it's not okay to go around using ethnic slurs towards them either.

There are no other team names in sport that have a name that comes close to a slur to blacks, hispanics or asians. There is one for Native Americans.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly

Yes, the Irish in America were discriminated against. It's forgotten as a lot of assimilation has taken place, but even though "No Irish Need Apply" hasn't been posted in over hundred years, we are not that far removed from JFK being elected President being a Roman Catholic marked a big step forward for tolerance in America.

Don't disagree. It's not the same as what the Native Americans went through. Again, I'm not fighting for Irish stereotypes in any shape, form or fashion. It is not flattering.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly

The bottom line is that if you're going to be ultra-sensitive about race, you need to streamline it and not tolerate any slurs equally. In the context of the Washington Redskins as a football organization, there is no intended racism. If you don't think the slur itself should stand, then take away any team whose name can be construed as a slur in another context.

I am not being ultra-sensitive about race, i'm just being the right amount sensitive.

As for as the unintended racism in the team name, those that offend don't get to define how they are interpreted. It's viewed as a slur, period.

Or do you believe that Dan Snyder calls Native Americans by his team nickname in person?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by LEFTY658:


1. I see it as a slippery slope issue. Agree to disagree.
2. A large number of people do not find the name offensive including from the polls i've seen, native americans.
3. I would have no problem with this idea if it wasn't trying to be forced by people who think their "right" is all that matters.

1. Everything is usually a slippery slope in the minds of those that oppose change. Fear of perceived slippery slopes has usually been at the root of so many social issues that have required changes in thinking over our nation's history.

2. Do the smaller group of people not matter?

3. Right vs. wrong as a general set of acted upon principles isn't a terrible idea. Much better than stubborn for the sake of being stubborn principles.






This post was edited on 5/5 5:21 PM by Ketchum

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by SteveHookEm:
I have never been so disappointed than when I clicked one image too far on your "Hottie of the Week" images. Go through them one by one and then let the gallery go to the next girl. Wah Wah.....

You had an issue with this?

 

[JBR2009]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by SteveHookEm:
I have never been so disappointed than when I clicked one image too far on your "Hottie of the Week" images. Go through them one by one and then let the gallery go to the next girl. Wah Wah.....

You had an issue with this?

nope i am guessing he had a problem with this

 

[ATXHorn4425]

Just my two cents, but we need to stop the culture of having to conform to a small but vocal minority of people that get their panties in a wad about everything. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans don't care. People get offended by stupid stuff all the time. Sometimes, its not the Dan Snyders that need to conform, but the vocal minority that wants to get all pissed off about something that just isn't offensive to a reasonable person.

 

[txvago]

What has mishappened to Texas baseball is A Garrido AKA Mack Brown. We need old Texas Gorilla ball and not panty- waist T-ball Garrido professes. Time for new blood to recuit Texas-style baseball players.

 

[McGuapo]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by darickc:
How about a Jack Johnson top 10 list?

Good suggestion. It's Billy Joel week, though.

Jack Johnson is for ga......American males with a softer side.

 

[golfpr3145]

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:
Just my two cents, but we need to stop the culture of having to conform to a small but vocal minority of people that get their panties in a wad about everything. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans don't care. People get offended by stupid stuff all the time. Sometimes, its not the Dan Snyders that need to conform, but the vocal minority that wants to get all pissed off about something that just isn't offensive to a reasonable person.

Yep. It seems like someone is always looking for something to offend them. I'm offended every day but it seems like I've managed to survive. Mostly people want to get themselves either on tv or in the newspaper and they could give a damn about the people that are supposed to be offended by some statement someone made or something like a nickname. Instead of that crap we need to focus on the real problems in this country or we aren't going to have a country anymore.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by JBR2009:

nope i am guessing he had a problem with this

Not of my doing.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:
Just my two cents, but we need to stop the culture of having to conform to a small but vocal minority of people that get their panties in a wad about everything. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans don't care. People get offended by stupid stuff all the time. Sometimes, its not the Dan Snyders that need to conform, but the vocal minority that wants to get all pissed off about something that just isn't offensive to a reasonable person.

Or we could just change the team name and do it because the people who are offended do matter. Because it represent a great stand for principles of what is and what isn't tolerated in terms of racism.

Wouldn't it a better tribute to call the team the Americans. If the point is to celebrate the heritage, why not find a tribute that isn't viewed as racist by some?

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by McGuapo:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by darickc:
How about a Jack Johnson top 10 list?

Good suggestion. It's Billy Joel week, though.

Jack Johnson is for ga......American males with a softer side.

Perfect for me.

 

[McGuapo]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by McGuapo:

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by darickc:
How about a Jack Johnson top 10 list?

Good suggestion. It's Billy Joel week, though.

Jack Johnson is for ga......American males with a softer side.

Perfect for me.

 

[Wellby]

It would definitely be interesting to see Wittek win the starting job and somehow find a way to be successful this Fall. I have to think Charlie definitely wouldn't mind that at all. ---Texas coach takes highly touted QB from SoCal football powerhouse (Mater Dei), most known for producing stud QBs, and revitalizes his career after a failed attempt at USC, Mater Dei's go-to school for their Qbs year in and year out---. I can hear the recruiting pitches in California already...

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by golfpr3145:

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:
Just my two cents, but we need to stop the culture of having to conform to a small but vocal minority of people that get their panties in a wad about everything. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans don't care. People get offended by stupid stuff all the time. Sometimes, its not the Dan Snyders that need to conform, but the vocal minority that wants to get all pissed off about something that just isn't offensive to a reasonable person.

Yep. It seems like someone is always looking for something to offend them. I'm offended every day but it seems like I've managed to survive. Mostly people want to get themselves either on tv or in the newspaper and they could give a damn about the people that are supposed to be offended by some statement someone made or something like a nickname. Instead of that crap we need to focus on the real problems in this country or we aren't going to have a country anymore.

You can do both. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

[bigeye6912]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
Ketch, I also won't call a Norwegian a "Viking", an Irishman a "fightin' Irish", or a New Yorker a "Yankee".

Should we change these names up too?

I don't believe for a second that you believe those are apples to apples comparisons to what we're talking about.

Let's just be better people and find a different word.

Call the the Washington Native Americans or the Washington Americans.

How about the Washington Cherokee? or the Washington Powhatan? That's a lot cooler and authentic than "native americans." I'm not sure which tribe actually inhabited the DC area, but the Cherokee were in Virgina.

some info from the web:

How do you pronounce "Powhatan?" What does it mean?
Powhatan is pronounced "Pow-HAT-un." ("Pow" rhymes with "cow," and
"HAT" rhymes with "cat.") Powhatan meant "waterfall" in the Virginia Algonquian language. It was originally the name of
Chief Wahunsonacock's home town (which was located near a waterfall.) Sometimes you may see it spelled Powatan or Powhatten instead.

Where do the Powhatan Indians live?


The Powhatans lived in Virginia, where they famously interacted with the
Jamestown colony. Some Powhatan descendants still live in
Virginia today. Other Powhatan Indians were driven northward and their
descendants live in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

What language do the Powhatans speak?

The Powhatan Indians speak English today. The Powhatan language,
also known as Virginia Algonquian, has not been spoken in centuries. Some Powhatan Indians continue to use
Powhatan today for cultural and religious purposes, the way Italians may use Latin words.
You can see some Powhatan words
here.

How was the Powhatan Confederacy organized? What was Powhatan government like?


Originally, there were many different Algonquian tribes in Virginia,
including the Powhatan, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Chickahominy tribes.
They shared the same language and culture, but each village was
independent from the others.
In the 16th century, Chief Powhatan united all these villages into the Powhatan Confederacy. Many villages
joined the Powhatan Confederacy willingly. Others were conquered by Chief Powhatan.

Who were some famous Powhatan Indians?

The most important Powhatan Indian was Chief Powhatan. His
real name was Wahunsonacock. "Chief Powhatan" was his title as the
leader of the
Powhatan Confederacy. Chief Powhatan was actually more like a European
king than a traditional Algonquian chief. In most Algonquian tribes,
village chiefs
came together in councils to make important decisions, and all the
chiefs had to agree to take an action. But Chief Powhatan was an
absolute ruler.
Village chiefs had to obey Powhatan's commands and pay tribute to him.



The most famous Powhatan Indian was Chief Powhatan's daughter Pocahontas.
A lot of stories told about Pocahontas are not true.
Pocahontas was only eleven years old when she met John Smith, and they
did not have a romance. The story about Pocahontas saving his life may
not
be true either. But Pocahontas really did marry another English
colonist, John Rolfe. It was the most famous interracial marriage of the
time.
Pocahontas was only 21 when she died, but many people are descended from
her son Thomas.

What was Powhatan

 

[Ignatius J Reilly]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly

No one is comparing the plight. We're comparing the slur. Neither blacks, Hispanics, or Asians had that indentical plight either, and it's not okay to go around using ethnic slurs towards them either.

There are no other team names in sport that have a name that comes close to a slur to blacks, hispanics or asians. There is one for Native Americans.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly

Yes, the Irish in America were discriminated against. It's forgotten as a lot of assimilation has taken place, but even though "No Irish Need Apply" hasn't been posted in over hundred years, we are not that far removed from JFK being elected President being a Roman Catholic marked a big step forward for tolerance in America.

Don't disagree. It's not the same as what the Native Americans went through. Again, I'm not fighting for Irish stereotypes in any shape, form or fashion. It is not flattering.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly

The bottom line is that if you're going to be ultra-sensitive about race, you need to streamline it and not tolerate any slurs equally. In the context of the Washington Redskins as a football organization, there is no intended racism. If you don't think the slur itself should stand, then take away any team whose name can be construed as a slur in another context.

I am not being ultra-sensitive about race, i'm just being the right amount sensitive.

As for as the unintended racism in the team name, those that offend don't get to define how they are interpreted. It's viewed as a slur, period.

Or do you believe that Dan Snyder calls Native Americans by his team nickname in person?

I don't think he would call them that, just like I don't think he would call a group of New Yorkers "Yankees" to their face. It's all context. Different contexts lend different meanings. 100% the NFL term Redskin is not intended to be racist.

We are going to agree to disagree. I think you're using the Sterling issue as a convenient and misleading way to springboard to get at another issue that you feel about, where pretty much the only similarity is that there is a racial issue involved and it is a professional sport.

I don't think you can figure how Goodell would respond to a voice recording of an NFL owner being an overt bigot, and I don't think you would know how the NBA would respond to a branded, NBA-life long team whose name some people, find offensive. To compare these two and conclude one league was totally sympathetic in their action and the next league is not is completely misguided, IMO. There's a lot of different ways to view these two things, and I for one would have kicked Sterling's butt to the curb and agree with allowing the Redskins to retain their brand. I think the situations are completely different.

That's the last I'll say about it.




This post was edited on 5/5 6:33 PM by Ignatius J Reilly

 

[VALonghorns]

good post Reilly...it is not rocket science

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by bigeye6912:
How about the Washington Cherokee? or the Washington Powhatan? That's a lot cooler and authentic than "native americans." I'm not sure which tribe actually inhabited the DC area, but the Cherokee were in Virgina.

some info from the web:

How do you pronounce "Powhatan?" What does it mean?
Powhatan is pronounced "Pow-HAT-un." ("Pow" rhymes with "cow," and
"HAT" rhymes with "cat.") Powhatan meant "waterfall" in the Virginia Algonquian language. It was originally the name of
Chief Wahunsonacock's home town (which was located near a waterfall.) Sometimes you may see it spelled Powatan or Powhatten instead.

Where do the Powhatan Indians live?


The Powhatans lived in Virginia, where they famously interacted with the
Jamestown colony. Some Powhatan descendants still live in
Virginia today. Other Powhatan Indians were driven northward and their
descendants live in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

What language do the Powhatans speak?

The Powhatan Indians speak English today. The Powhatan language,
also known as Virginia Algonquian, has not been spoken in centuries. Some Powhatan Indians continue to use
Powhatan today for cultural and religious purposes, the way Italians may use Latin words.
You can see some Powhatan words
here.

How was the Powhatan Confederacy organized? What was Powhatan government like?


Originally, there were many different Algonquian tribes in Virginia,
including the Powhatan, Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and Chickahominy tribes.
They shared the same language and culture, but each village was
independent from the others.
In the 16th century, Chief Powhatan united all these villages into the Powhatan Confederacy. Many villages
joined the Powhatan Confederacy willingly. Others were conquered by Chief Powhatan.

Who were some famous Powhatan Indians?

The most important Powhatan Indian was Chief Powhatan. His
real name was Wahunsonacock. "Chief Powhatan" was his title as the
leader of the
Powhatan Confederacy. Chief Powhatan was actually more like a European
king than a traditional Algonquian chief. In most Algonquian tribes,
village chiefs
came together in councils to make important decisions, and all the
chiefs had to agree to take an action. But Chief Powhatan was an
absolute ruler.
Village chiefs had to obey Powhatan's commands and pay tribute to him.



The most famous Powhatan Indian was Chief Powhatan's daughter Pocahontas.
A lot of stories told about Pocahontas are not true.
Pocahontas was only eleven years old when she met John Smith, and they
did not have a romance. The story about Pocahontas saving his life may
not
be true either. But Pocahontas really did marry another English
colonist, John Rolfe. It was the most famous interracial marriage of the
time.
Pocahontas was only 21 when she died, but many people are descended from
her son Thomas.

What was Powhatan

I think something specific to the culture in the area would be fine. The word currently in place isn't it.

 

[WTexasHorn]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Call yourself the Americans and don't change the emblem. What's wrong with that?

I'm not passionate about this issue one way or the other, but I do like this idea.

Or just do what the world famous McMurry University did and switch to the War Hawks (from Indians). Gotta be the best mascot change I know of.

 

[Ketchum]

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
I don't think he would call them that, just like I don't think he would call a group of New Yorkers "Yankees" to their face. It's all context. Different contexts lend different meanings. 100% the NFL term Redskin is not intended to be racist.

The disconnect we're having here is that you keep putting a name that some view as racist on the same level as calling someone a Yankee.

Also, the fact that the Washington's nickname wasn't intended to be viewed as racist doesn't really matter. Original intent doesn't really matter in this instance. It IS perceived as racist, and again, the offending don't get to tell the offended how they should feel.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
We are going to agree to disagree. I think you're using the Sterling issue as a convenient and misleading way to springboard to get at another issue that you feel about, where pretty much the only similarity is that there is a racial issue involved and it is a professional sport.

Both of the issues in discussion are currently THE social/racial issue of the moment... right here and now. Ignoring the relevance of both issues in an attempt to suggest there is no connection is another disconnect we have. It's completely relevant. It's not like I'm talking about an issue that I'm digging up. it's being talked about everywhere right now and the NBA's lack of tolerance on these issues in comparison to the NFL's attitude is a stark contrast.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
I don't think you can figure how Goodell would respond to a voice recording of an NFL owner being an overt bigot, and I don't think you would know how the NBA would respond to a branded, NBA-life long team whose name some people, find offensive.

Goodell has pussyfooted on the Washington team name issue for years.

The NBA has shown zero tolerance for any racism.

Let's stop pretending modified ideologies don't exist.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
To compare these two and conclude one league was totally sympathetic in their action and the next league is not is completely misguided, IMO. .

To ignore that their actions reflect the inconsistencies in this discussion is twice as misguided. The NFL is not as strong on the matter as the NBA and their actual actions support this.

Originally posted by Ignatius J Reilly:
There's a lot of different ways to view these two things, and I for one would have kicked Sterling's butt to the curb and agree with allowing the Redskins to retain their brand. I think the situations are completely different.

That's the last I'll say about it.

I believe your great, great grand-children will not understand your position in 100 years.

In 100 years, the generations that be will wonder why we allowed the racist team nickname to exist for so many years.

As Peter King said today, some are currently on the wrong side of history at the moment.

 

[ATXHorn4425]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by ATXHorn4425:
Just my two cents, but we need to stop the culture of having to conform to a small but vocal minority of people that get their panties in a wad about everything. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans don't care. People get offended by stupid stuff all the time. Sometimes, its not the Dan Snyders that need to conform, but the vocal minority that wants to get all pissed off about something that just isn't offensive to a reasonable person.

Or we could just change the team name and do it because the people who are offended do matter. Because it represent a great stand for principles of what is and what isn't tolerated in terms of racism.

Wouldn't it a better tribute to call the team the Americans. If the point is to celebrate the heritage, why not find a tribute that isn't viewed as racist by some?

I don't think we should change everything that offends a few people, sorry. If this was actually a big deal, it would have been changed a long, long time ago. But the vast majority of Native Americans don't care, and neither do the rest of us. The problem with using your moral outrage on non-issues like this is that eventually the public gets PC fatigue, and then real problems become harder to solve. Save your indignation for something that actually causes harm.

 

[jspirohorn]

Is it seriously that hard not to call someone a name they do not want to be called?

 

[Baguette]

Originally posted by Ketchum:

Originally posted by Baguette:
No, they're telling Wittek he'll have to compete with Ash for the starting job, and may the best man win.

I think they are likely giving him more indications that he has a strong chance than just showing up and competing. This dude could have gone to a lot of places and he's choosing this one without visiting others for a reason that's better than a chance to compete.

Originally posted by Baguette:

You seriously think they've already given Wittek the job when they know full well that Ash may prove himself to be the better QB!?

I never said that.

Originally posted by Baguette:
Finally, both Strong & Watson have some very good things to say about Ash {as do your colleagues Jason S. and Dunlap}. No, they haven't committed to him being the "official starter" but they have been slow to name anyone as a starter as they want these guys competing like crazy right to the end.

Strong does not list QB as a position of strength currently. This is the last thing he said about his quarterbacks after the spring game.


"We don't need a great player. We just need someone to take control of it."
Whatever praise you think he has given Ash is washed away by the lack of confidence he has in his ability to take control of it.

Originally posted by Baguette:
Methinks Ketch your perspective on Ash is not entirely objective as is your reaction to those who feel P.C. is wrong, if not downright dangerous when its held above truth & accountiblity

You think I'm not being objective with Ash? lulz

Originally posted by Baguette:

{i.e, "You must be a racist if you are critical of Obama}.

Originally posted by Baguette:
with regard to the Redskins. I can bet you this chorus of changing the name is coming much more {at least its genesis} from the white, far-left crowd that it is the native indians

Just be better people and do the right thing. It's that simple. Open your mind and stop thinking of politics and Obama and far-left crowds.

Just be better. Don't use a racial slur or a word that others find offensive.

In 100 years, I feel like there are going to be a lot of people looking at these conversations and wondering why in the world this is such a tough conversation to have. this isn't rocket science.

"Don't use a word that others find offensive!?? Wow! That list would go & on ad infinitum/ad nauseum My point that P.C> is usde far to often to silence thoughtful, honest debate or to silence those that may disagree with you. And yes P.C, has been used as a great, manipulative tool to coerce & progandize the hell out of so many issues that desperately need the airing of both sides of the argument {something the press seems incapable of doing these days, and something the White House uses selectively...like when it suits their own poilitical agenda}. To not do is wrong, if not downright dangerous to democratic principles.
And one last thing about Ash---I agree with you-if I were in Ash's shoes I'd take the cynical view & be insulted and pissed as hell {blood boiling over} and consequently that much motivated to take make sure I take control of the team, bury Wittek, and lastly to prove to Strong he was misguided not to have more confidence in me !! However, I still think that no matter what he's telling Wittek, Strong is also looking for insurance lest Ash go down. I've said it before and I'll say it again......Ash will start Aug 30 because he is the best man, and will carve up opposing defenses. He most certainly has flashed the tools to do exactly that, and I seriously doubt Strong is blind to that. He's just blind to the possiblity that an introvert such as Ash can lead his team by example & grit.