Some Redskin Cheerleaders Accuse Team of Pimping Them Out

Sort of. A few days old: Washington Redskins Cheerleaders Describe Topless Photo Shoot and Uneasy Night Out

When the Washington Redskins took their cheerleading squad to Costa Rica in 2013 for a calendar photo shoot, the first cause for concern among the cheerleaders came when Redskins officials collected their passports upon arrival at the resort, depriving them of their official identification.

For the photo shoot, at the adults-only Occidental Grand Papagayo resort on Culebra Bay, some of the cheerleaders said they were required to be topless, though the photographs used for the calendar would not show nudity. Others wore nothing but body paint. Given the resort’s secluded setting, such revealing poses would not have been a concern for the women — except that the Redskins had invited spectators.

A contingent of sponsors and FedExField suite holders — all men — were granted up-close access to the photo shoots.

One evening, at the end of a 14-hour day that included posing and dance practices, the squad’s director told nine of the 36 cheerleaders that their work was not done. They had a special assignment for the night. Some of the male sponsors had picked them to be personal escorts at a nightclub.

“So get back to your room and get ready,” the director told them. Several of them began to cry.

“They weren’t putting a gun to our heads, but it was mandatory for us to go,” one of the cheerleaders said. “We weren’t asked, we were told. Other girls were devastated because we knew exactly what she was doing.”

The Redskins’ weeklong trip to Costa Rica in 2013 — for which the cheerleaders were paid nothing beyond transportation costs, meals and lodging, the team said — provides a vivid illustration of how N.F.L. teams have used cheerleaders for far more than sideline dancers during games. Their treatment has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks since two former N.F.L. cheerleaders filed discrimination complaints and described a hostile work environment in which they were often dangled as sex objects for the titillation of male fans away from the games.

Interviews with dozens of current and former N.F.L. cheerleaders revealed a common perspective: They enjoyed performing at games, developing friendships with other cheerleaders and participating in charity work, which included visiting hospitals and going overseas to entertain military troops. But they were disturbed by some of the extracurricular requirements that put them in what they considered unsafe situations.

 I know I'm shocked, shocked to see the cheerleaders in titillating situations.

This account of the Redskins’ calendar shoot at the Occidental Grand Papagayo is based on interviews with five cheerleaders who were involved, and many details were corroborated with others who heard descriptions of the trip at the time. The cheerleaders spoke on condition of anonymity because they were required to sign confidentiality agreements when they joined the team.

“It’s just not right to send cheerleaders out with strange men when some of the girls clearly don’t want to go,” one cheerleader who was there said. “But unfortunately, I feel like it won’t change until something terrible happens, like a girl is assaulted in some way, or raped. I think teams will start paying attention to this only when it’s too late.”

The Redskins ain't been quite right ever since Dan Snyder bought them in 1999.

Wombat-socho has "Rule 5 Sunday: Camille Paglia Approved!" open for business at The Other McCain.

DOJ Declares Treaty with Redskins

Justice Department gives up Washington Redskins name fight

The Justice Department is giving up the legal fight over the name of the Washington Redskins.

In a letter to a federal appeals court, the department said last week's Supreme Court decision in Matal v. Tam in favor of an Asian-American band calling itself the Slants means the NFL team will prevail in a legal battle to cancel the team's trademarks because the name is disparaging to Native Americans.

I covered the decision previously in "High Court Rules for the Redskins" It was a unanimous decision, shocking only in the sensibility of the liberal faction.

"Consistent with Tam, the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Pro-Football," Mark Freeman, an attorney for the Justice Department's civil division, wrote to the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Redskins case had been on hold in the federal appeals court while the Slants decision was rendered. The Supreme Court found that Simon Tam could trademark the Slants as the name of his Asian-American rock band because it would be unconstitutional for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to discriminate against it, citing the First Amendment's free speech protection. The justices were unanimous in saying the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights.

So, to allow Tam to trademark the name, and deny Snyder would clearly be viewpoint discrimination, which, while widely practiced in the federal government, needs to be at least subtly hidden.

Redskins' owner Dan Snyder said last week he was "thrilled" by the Supreme Court's ruling, and lawyer Lisa Blatt said it resolves the team's dispute and vindicated its position. Snyder has refused to change the name despite intense public pressure, saying in the past that the name "represents honor, respect and pride" for Native Americans.

Now if the team can just win a few more games.

Wombat-socho chimes in with "Late Night With Rule 5 Monday: All-American Catgirl".

Can the Redskins Savage the Vikings?

The 5-3 Viking meet the 4-3 Redskins at Washington.

Redskins win the toss, and kick off to the Vikings. They go 3 and out. Crowder collects the punt around the 'Skins 30 yard line.

Garcon gets a first down at the 40ish, then a pass to Reed at the Vikings 35.

Crowder catches another one at the 20. Cousins overthrows in the end zone. Another run to the 11. Kelly crosses the 10 for a first down. Kelly to the 4. Incomplete pass as Cousins nearly gets sacked. Touchdown pass to Crowder. Penalty prior to kick, Offsides Vikings. Extra point is good. 7-0 Redskins.

McKinnon gets the Vikings a first down at their 41. Rudolph across the 50 on catch and run. And they lose 10 to a hold by their center. First and 20. Bradford sacked, 4th and long.

Crowder collects the punt at the 8. First down at the 24. Davis catches at first down at the 39. Garcon to the 48. Kelly runs for the first down. Kelly to the 47. 3rd and long, end of the first quarter. Paris catches the first down catch at the 38. Long pass to Davis near the end zone, and Davis gets the touchdown. Kick is good, Redskins 14-0.

Kowtowing to Kaepernick may have permanently damaged the NFL

There’s a price to be paid for everything — even for being politically correct in a “politically correct time.” A new poll shows that the main cause of the National Football League’s much discussed ratings drop is, in fact, the National Anthem Protests sparked by the very ignorant and callow Colin Kaepernick.

But here’s the really bad news for the NFL: some of the boycotting fans may never come back.

Watching sports is frivolity, a non-essential luxury, and people are creatures of habit. If fans stay away for a while, fill that time with other pursuits (perhaps more worthwhile ones), they may just find they don’t miss football all that much. Or they may watch more college ball and discover they like it more. Pro football isn’t indispensable.

Redskins Attempt to Skin Lions

As I come back for trying to get rid of Skye's ya yas for the afternoon, the 4-2 Redskins are playing the 3-3 Detroit Lions at Ford Field in Detroit. It's still 0-0 in the first quarter with about 4 minutes to go, and Detroit is down on the Redskins 30 thanks to a bounce pass off a Redskin. And they miss a field goal, and the Redskins take over at their 30ish.

So what's new in the Redskins name controversy, you might ask. Well, nothing, or more precisely a stall in the one item that was going forward as Timeout called in Redskins name case:

The Washington Redskins will wait a little longer before their day in court to try to salvage the team’s federal trademark registrations.

Wilson of the Lions just recovered a Redskins fumble (Matt Jones) in the end zone for a touch back. 0-0 Lions.

Redskins vs. Eagles

Just back from an attempt to get Skye's ya-yas out for the day, and I find the Redskins playing the Eagles, 0-0 at with 11 minutes left in the first quarter.

Meanwhile, very little progress in the Redskins name issue. Eagles' Allen Barbre, of Native American descent, on Redskins team name: 'I just don't say it'

Philadelphia Eagles guard Allen Barbre doesn’t call Sunday’s opponent by name.

"I call them Pigskins,'' Barbre told NJ.com.

The push to officially change the name of Washington’s NFL franchise has been led by more than 30 Native American organizations along with civil rights activists and politicians who feel “Redskins” is a racist and dehumanizing term. Redskins owner Dan Snyder has pushed back against those efforts, even doing so in court after the team’s trademark was canceled by the Patent and Trademark Office in 2014.

Fair enough. We call them the Dirty Birds.

For Barbre, the name is personal. He told the website that his great-great-grandfather was a Chief of the Tunica-Biloxi Native American tribe and his grandfather still lives on the Louisiana reservation.

"It's probably offensive to some people, and I can see why,'' Barbre told NJ.com. "It's certainly a derogatory term from back in the day, but I never put a lot into it.

"As a matter of fact, though, I just don't say it. I don't use the word.''

At this point the Redskins are 3-2, better than I expected. The Eagles are 3-1. Still no score with 5 minutes left in the first quarter.

Barbre said he hasn’t discussed the Redskins’ name with family members and there's more than just what a team calls themselves that irks him.

"There really isn't a lot of respect for Native Americans,'' Barbre said. "I'm talking about the country as a whole. Native American history, I mean, there's no month celebrated, there's not even a day. We have Columbus Day, but there's nothing to do with Native Americans. I feel there's no respect given there.''

What do you want respect for? High rates of alcoholism and poverty? High crime an domestic abuse rates? The Redskins name is intended as respect; respect of an honorable foes fighting ability.

White House Aid Allegedly Assaults Autistic Redskin over Shirt

White House Indian education official accused of assaulting Native American over Redskins

The incident allegedly occurred when Barrett Dahl, an autistic college student from Oklahoma, showed up at a powwow in Washington wearing a Redskins football jersey, which he told Oklahoma's News 9 he viewed as source of cultural pride. Within seconds of sitting down, Dahl said, he was approached by William Mendoza, the executive director of the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education.

"He comes to me and calls me the name weetard not retard, weetard. 'You're a weetard for not understanding Redskins is offensive,'" said Dahl, who is a member of both the Choctaw and Sac and Fox Nations. He said Mendoza continued, "Where are you from? You're so stupid and uneducated. You don't understand Redskins is offensive? And I tell him I'm from Oklahoma as I'm very proud to be and that's when he spits on me."

I'm hoping there's a video of the episode, because the two sides have very different recollections of what happened after Mendoza accosted Dahl for the allegedly offensive shirt.

An attorney for Mendoza, Mark Zaid, said Mendoza was traveling and unavailable for comment. However, he said that according to notes Mendoza had provided, Mendoza had approached Dahl to ask about the shirt. He said Dahl replied, "I don't have to [expletive] explain [expletive] to you. If you want to step outside and take this outside, I'd be happy to explain it to you."

 I'm shocked that his note put his story in a favorable light.

The two disagree on who started the subsequent physical altercation. Afterward, Dahl had to undergo multiple surgeries for injuries to his hand. Dahl said he hopes to recoup the thousands in medical expenses by suing Mendoza, while Zaid said that Mendoza is interested in suing Dahl for defamation.

Looks to me like Mendoza hit his head on Dahl's hands pretty hard, any number of times. You'd think a White House adviser would have more sense than to engage in fisticuffs with the public.

Smithsonian Romanticizes Indian Oyster Industry

A typical Native American oyster deposit, or midden,
dating to about 1,000 years ago. (Photo by Torben Rick)

Ancient Native-American Methods may be Key to Sustainable Oyster Harvests

Despite providing food for humans for millennia, little is known about Chesapeake Bay oyster populations prior to the late 1800s. Using fossil, archaeological and modern biological data, the team of scientists was able to reconstruct changes in oyster size from four time frames: the Pleistocene (780,000–13,000 years ago), prehistoric Native American occupation (3,200–400 years ago), historic (400–50 years ago) and modern times (2000 to 2014).

We do know, however, that there were huge populations, as there are massive deposits of "fossil" oyster shell in parts of the Bay.

They found that while oyster size fluctuated at certain points through time, it has generally decreased over time and the average size of modern oysters is significantly smaller than oysters from the 1800s and earlier.

Once the industry was big enough to require the current three inch minimum, it became rare to oysters much larger. In pre-colonial times, oyster beds were probably only intermittently fished as the inhabitants were semi-nomadic.

“Our work demonstrates the importance of working across disciplines and using the past to help us understand and transcend modern environmental issues,” said Torben Rick, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and lead author of the research. “In this case, paleontology, archaeology, history and marine ecology all provided unique perspectives on the difficult puzzle of restoring Chesapeake oysters. Ultimately, they issue a challenge for us to make important and difficult decisions about how to restore and sustain our marine ecosystems and organisms.”

Blah, blah, blah. Send us more money.

The team also found that Native Americans’ method of selecting and hand-collecting oysters likely resulted in more consistent average sizes and fewer very small individual oysters. People were likely removing oysters from the reefs in a way that was biased toward medium-sized oysters without decreasing the average size of the oysters in the harvested populations.

Yep, when you have to walk out into shallow water and pick up oysters by hand, or even dive, you tend to pick up the big ones. Why not?

It's interesting though, one of the primary methods of harvesting oysters in the Bay, tonging, is not particularly high-tech (all you need is a couple of long sticks and a baskets). Why didn't the Redskins Indians Native Americans invent and  adopt them? They weren't any more stupid than white-eyes were they? Probably because their populations never got high enough to seriously deplete the shallower and more available oyster beds.

With limited variability in oyster size and abundance, and no strong evidence for a size decline from 3,500 to 400 years ago, the Native American Chesapeake Bay oyster harvesting appears to have been largely sustainable, despite changing climatic conditions and sea-level rise. The teams point to four supporting factors:

• Water depth and technology restricted Native Americans’ harvest primarily close to shore
• Oysters may have been harvested intensively at particular times of year and less so at others
• The density of the human population was drastically lower than today
• Broad-spectrum human diets that had a mix of marine and terrestrial resources

What! Sea level rise occurred before coal fired power plants and SUVs? Whodda thunk?

Where we differ from the Indians is largely in point 1 and 3. Our oysters are available wherever they grow (although they rarely live deep in the bay due to low oxygen), and our population is huge by comparison, and if even a small percentage of them have a taste for oysters, they can make a lethal dent in the population of not carefully restricted. The Indians didn't really care about "sustainable" animal husbandry. They were perfectly content to stampede entire herd of Bison off cliffs, gorge on the good parts and leave the rest to rot. They got away with it because 1) There was no federal government to stop them and 2) There weren't enough Indians to make a dent in the Bison.

We can't really go back to the romantically "sustainable" oyster fishery of the Indians without all but ending the industry forever, and even then, it's unclear if the Bay in it's current state can support oysters in that number.

Wombat-socho brings us "Rule 5 Sunday: O Girls!" from Balmer.

Redskins Refuse to Resent Name Appropriation

New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name

Nine in 10 Native Americans say they are not offended by the Washington Redskins name, according to a new Washington Post poll that shows how few ordinary Indians have been persuaded by a national movement to change the football team’s moniker.

Nine out of ten! Where's the outrage!

The survey of 504 people across every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

Among the Native Americans reached over a five-month period ending in April, more than 7 in 10 said they did not feel the word “Redskin” was disrespectful to Indians. An even higher number — 8 in 10 — said they would not be offended if a non-native called them that name.

But activists vowed to fight on until everyone was offended:

 But Suzan Harjo, the lead plaintiff in the first case challenging the team’s trademark protections, dismissed The Post’s findings.

“I just reject the results,” said Harjo, 70, who belongs to the Cheyenne and Hodulgee Muscogee tribes. “I don’t agree with them, and I don’t agree that this is a valid way of surveying public opinion in Indian Country.”

Two other key leaders in the name-change movement did not challenge the validity of the poll, and instead issued a joint statement calling the responses from Indians “encouraging.”

“Native Americans are resilient and have not allowed the NFL’s decades-long denigration of us to define our own self-image,” wrote Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter and National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jacqueline Pata. “However, that proud resilience does not give the NFL a license to continue marketing, promoting, and profiting off of a dictionary-defined racial slur — one that tells people outside of our community to view us as mascots.”

Compare to another case of outrage:  Charlotte Observer: Girls must overcome 'discomfort' at seeing male genitals in locker room

The left says "our outrage must be respected, your's must be overcome", because, Shut Up!

Wombat-socho brings us "Rule 5 Sunday: O Girls!" from Balmer.

Court Case Favors Redskins

The Slants

Feds Thumb Nose at Court in Slants Case, Court Says “Oh Hell No”

In a nutshell, Ron convinced the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc that, as the court held: “The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks.” Accordingly, the court found that the provision in federal law that allows the USPTO to deny or cancel a trademark as “disparaging” is unconstitutional. The decision will undoubtedly serve as a help to the Redskins in protecting their trademark, and is a landmark First Amendment case.

Go Redskins!

In his talk, Ron told the assembled crowd what the USPTO had done in response to the Federal Circuit’s decision. The answer: precisely nothing. This is, of course, entirely unacceptable — and Ron hinted that he was going to take action, although he couldn’t talk about the specifics just yet.

Indeed he had. On the day after he spoke to us, Ron filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which you can read here. And on the very same day, the Federal Circuit issued an order to show cause. [UPDATE: A commenter corrects this to “an order that the USPTO respond to the petition.” Here is a link to the order. Thanks to commenter mh.] They have until this Tuesday to explain why they have taken it upon themselves to defy the court’s order. Marc Randazza at Popehat compares the USPTO’s inaction to Bartleby’s refrain: “I would prefer not to.”

Guess what, USPTO guys? Your preferences are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment. Ron Coleman is holding your feet to the fire, and on Tuesday I will close my eyes and savor the aroma of your burning foot-flesh.

As I noted yesterday morning in the IRS case, the federal bureaucracies no longer fear any legal authority outside their own leadership, who has the power to make their lives miserable if little else. A court rules against them? Big whoop. No one get fired or  punished. Hell, they probably get promotions.

Wombat-socho offers "Rule 5 Tuesday: All Easter Sweets 75% Off" this week.

Can the Redskins Send the Packers Packing?

Today, along about 4:40, the 9-7 Redskins take on the 10-6 Green Bay Packers at Fedex Field in their first post-season game since 2012, when the rookie RG III led them to their first playoff since 2007. Can Cousins keep the magic alive?

In the meantime, have you ever wondered how the Packers got their name? Me too. It turns out they were named after the Indian Packing company, an early investor.

Ah, another racist name, in disguise!

In 1919, Curly Lambeau decided to start a football team in the small Wisconsin town of Green Bay. Akron, Canton, Dayton, Hammond and Muncie all had teams, so it wasn't a stretch for Lambeau to start a franchise in his hometown. He just needed some funding to get off the ground.

Lambeau of Lambeau field fame, I presume.

At the time, Lambeau was earning $250 per month as a shipping clerk at a local meatpacking company. He convinced his employer to put up $500 for jerseys and equipment and also got permission to use the company's athletic field for practice. With all that support from the packing company, it was a natural that the team call itself the Packers.

They could have had a coyote as their mascot.

The affiliation with the Indian Packing Company soon ended and before the team's first official NFL season, the company was absorbed by the Acme Packing Company. For a time, the team wore "Acme Packers" on the jersey. In each official NFL season, the team has been known as the Green Bay Packers. Both companies would soon be out of business, but the name stuck.

Can the Redskins Count Coup on the Cowboys?

The 8-7 Redskins take on the 4-11 Cowboys at the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas in the last regular game of the season in one minute. Since the Redskins fans tend to regard the Cowboys as the ultimate rival, one would hope they could win this one. The Redskins have already won their division, and will get at least one playoff game.

Cowboys take the kickoff in the endzone, and will start at the 20. Three and out. Punt goes out of bounds at the 28.

Cousins completes on his first pass to Jordan Reed at the 39ish, first down. Garcon goes for 4. Fourth and not enough, they elect to punt. Fair catch at the Cowboys 6 yard line.

Now, how is the Redskins naming fight going? Well, the SJW Crybullies won a round when
Goshen's mascot now officially RedHawks after district dropped Redskins moniker

Minutes before tip-off of the Hacienda Holiday Tournament, announcer Mike Kemper introduced the Goshen High School varsity girls basketball team.

“Now, it’s time for your lady Redsk...” he said, correcting himself mid-word and finishing with “RedHawks.”

Can the Redskins Re-Pluck the Eagles?

The 7 and 7 Redskins take on the 6 and 8 Eagles tonight at 8:30ish. They beat the Eagles back on Oct. 4, and tonight's game is crucial to any Redskins playoff hopes. The Washington Post is starting to say positive things about Kirk Cousins, so maybe a little skepticism is in order.

Eagles from the 20. Pass to the 38 for a first down. And then another at the Redskin's 45. Another first down. Then Redskins encroachment penalty. And then a pass to the end zone draws an interference call, and the Eagles make a TD from the 6 yard line. Kick is good, 7-0 Eagles.

Meanwhile, there has been a major development in the Redskins name controversy. You may remember how the FTC (encouraged by public statements from Preznit Obama) decided to revoke the Redskins trademark rights on the name Redskins? A ruling in favor of an Asian rock band called "The Slants" puts the FTCs ruling in jeopardy, when U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the government cannot ban trademarks just because it determines them to be offensive:

In a major decision that could bolster the Washington Redskins’ legal defense of its name, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the U.S. government can’t ban offensive trademarks, arguing that the practice violates the First Amendment.

Redskins from the 20. They go three and out.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington came in a case involving an Asian American rock band called the Slants. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had rejected a trademark for the Oregon-based musicians because it considered its name a slur. But the majority of the 12-judge court concluded that no matter how disparaging the band’s name may be to Asian Americans, the First Amendment still protects the musicians’ speech — “and the speech of other trademark holders.”

Can the Redskins Buffalo the Bills?

The 6-7 Redskins take on the 6-7 Buffalo Bills at 1 PM in Landover. I missed the kickoff by two minutes. But so far, there's no score, and Washington is driving towards a goal, near a first down at the Bills 19 yard line. Now down to the 3 for a first down and. . . Cousins pass to Reed for a touchdown. Hopkins kick is good. 7-0 Redskins.

Bills take the ball at the 20, and make a first down on the first play.  Now 3d and 5. Busted play, but Taylor scrambles for 4+. Chains come out, and it's a first down  at the 43.

And now, what's brewing in the SJW quest to rename the Redskins?

GROUP PROTESTS REDSKINS NAME, MASCOT BEFORE BEARS GAME

A group gathered before Sunday's Chicago Bears game at the museum campus to protest the Washington Redskin's mascot.

A "Change the Name" rally was held near the Field Museum.

Several Native American groups have been pushing the NFL to change the Redskins' team name and mascot.

Can the Redskins Dwarf the Giants?

We just got home, and at half-time the score is 4-6 Redskins 17, 5-5 Giants 0, so it looks distinctly possible.

Andre Roberts takes the 2nd half starting kick to the 18 yard line. Reed catches a pass to the Giants 45, for a first down.


A reminder, the Giants are one of the weird teams that don't have their own cheerleaders, but share the Gotham City Cheerleaders with other sports.

The Redskins fail to advance and turn the ball over to the Giants at the 45 on downs.

Giants advance to the Redskins 9 yard line. Redskins call a time out. Giants to the 4. Then the Redskins intercept in the end zone.

Redskins to their own 39 on a pass. Morris to the 45. Fail to make the first, but pin the Giants at the 13 on the punt.

ESPN Claims Redskins Name Has Outlived Its ‘Expiration Date’

We’ve known for years that the liberal media loves to foment fear, anger, and disaster only to later shrug their shoulders, turn their palms skyward, and wonder what everyone is freaking out about, as the anger of the opposing sides that they have fueled turns over into a wildfire of uncontrollable rage and conspiracy theory.

Giants fail to go anywhere, kick it away, and the Redskins start at the 19. Three and out. Giants take the punt near the 20. Eli sacked on third down, and the Redskins take the punt out to the 50.

Until now, I thought that was strictly a mainstream liberal media thing.

Now we have tangible proof the sports media is just as guilty. On Monday’s edition of Around the Horn on ESPN, analyst J.A. Adande was asked whether he bought or sold Redskin Jason Hatcher’s claim that calls --specifically an illegal hit call on Redskin Chris Culliver-- were due to bias on the part of officials toward the Redskins name

Adande: I’m selling the nickname being the reason for that call but I’m buying that as being an example that maybe that nickname is passed its expiration date. If the players are thinking that, then guess what? Maybe Dan Snyder should change it so they won’t have calls go against them for no other reason, like it’s really offensive to a lot of people.

Cousins play action pass to Reed at the 40, first down. Unofficial scrimmage as the Redskins reach the 35, flags thrown. Offsetting personal fouls, 2nd down. Start of third quarter. Morris runs for a first down at the 22. Illegal motion Redskin, penalty declined, 4th down. Redskins attempt field goal from 33 yards. Kick is good, 20-0 Redskins.

I guess “a lot of people” qualifies as nine percent in the world of J.A. Adande? Nine can be a lot, I guess.

But more importantly, why is the notion that bias amongst the officials towards the Redskins is some far-fetched idea? Former official Mike Carey asked and received permission from the league to not officiate Redskins games. Specifically, because he felt the name was offensive.

Giants take the kick in the end zone and start at the 20.  Hall tackles the receiver at the 50 illegally, and gets 15 tacked on. First down at the 34. Manning sacked at  to 40 on third down. Ruben Randall catchs a TD pass on 4th down and 16 yards. Kick is good, 20 -7 Redskins.

If an official cares enough to ask off Redskins games because he thinks the name is offensive, why is it crazy to think a call or two might go against them for the same reason?

No one knows why the official threw the flag on Chris Culliver. The call was atrocious. But so were the calls that went called and uncalled when the Lions played the Cowboys in the playoffs last year. Is the league anti-lion?

But what we do know is that the sports media’s cottage industry of Redskins hate has now officially succeeded in making bias from the officials a credible claim.

Redskins collect the kick off and advance to the 36 yard line.  9 minutes remaining. 4th and too many. Redskins punt. Giants rake over at the 23. First down at the 35. 4th and 2. Giants go for it pass to Ty good, first down at the Redskins 33.  Giants TD pass to Beckham, amazing catch. Kick is good 20 - 14 Redskins with 5 minutes left.

Opinion: Time Has Come for Redskins Name Change

Rick Telander November 2015

. . .on Dec. 13, the Bears play the Washington Redskins.

There already are media outlets that refuse to say that nickname, simply referring to the team as ""Washington.''

Redskins take the kickoff at the 24. Pass to Reed out to the 48. First down. Morris take most of another first down, Giants call time out. Morris runs to the Giants 39, first down. 2 minute warning and 2nd and 9. Redskins run the clock down to 29 seconds, and punt, and stop the Giants at the 6, penalty to 16. 12 seconds left. Manning pass for 1st down. 7 seconds. Giants play hot potato on last play, but drop it. and time expires.

""Redskins'' is a pejorative term for Native Americans, an offense to the many tribes that call this country their native land. And there is no other way to slice it. It isn't a harmless term. Americans of Irish, Scandinavian or British heritage who say monikers such as Fighting Irish, Vikings, Pilgrims or Fighting Methodists (Northwestern's old nickname) are just dandy with them don't have a fair argument to make.

The history of Native Americans in their own land - they are the only people here who aren't immigrants, remember - hasn't been a kind one. Much has been taken from them rather than given - or even allowed.

Redskins win 20 -14, and go to 5 and 6 for the season. Giants drop to 5 and 6.

Redskins is a crass, demeaning nickname. Its origin as a word is debatable - some scholars say it originally had no negative connotation and even derived from Native American language - but it no longer is benign.

Because of this, it should go.

When words become offensive because of historical and cultural evolution, they can be retired without anyone feeling guilty. Do we mindlessly use ""retarded,'' ""spastic'' or ""crippled'' to describe people these days? No.

At any rate, the Washington football front office has said it won't change the name.
Owner Daniel Snyder, voted in a recent Sports Illustrated poll as ""the most hated owner'' in the NFL, has said: ""We'll never change the name . . . NEVER.''

That's pretty adamant. And sad.

Yes, there is tradition in a treasured sports name. But ask the Baltimore Colts, Houston Oilers and Los Angeles Rams how tradition worked out for them. Change happens.
Now, my personal story:

When I grew up in Peoria, there were eight local high schools. None was as feared and respected in sports as nearby Pekin. And Pekin's nickname was the Chinks.

It had to do with the alleged fact that this town in central Illinois was exactly opposite geographically from Peking, China. Of course, this wasn't technically true.

Wombat-socho provides "Rule 5 Sunday: Tigers On Top" this week.