Leaderboard

I do believe I remember that Mad parody too. But likewise can't find it now. Another one I can't find now is a side-splittingly obscene one: "...Slid her lips along his tent pole, Slid them up and down his tent pole, Fell back splattered on the mud floor..." Etc. Saw that in some hardcopy anthology years ago, in a used book store in Harvard Square. One of those things I curse myself for not buying at the time, now lost to the ages.

Channeling Paul Lynde

Bumping around somewhere in the back crevasses of my brain is the memory of a Mad Magazine parody of Hiawatha (seems like it was illustrated by Don Martin) but since your source has over-looked it and I can't find any pics to confirm its existence, maybe it's just one more hallucinatory brain fart in the final stages of my descent into senility. If so, that's sad because, if real, it would have had some goods points to stick in my memory so long. There are a few hints in net space of such a parody in the 100th Anniversary issue but no solid proof. Too bad 'cause it would have been nice to have re-read it (assuming its actual existence). I did love my Don Martin so maybe it's all to the best to live with my gently glowing memory of it rather than confront a disappointing reality.

I tried my best to look at both sides of the issue and try to balance out the concerns and rights involved. It is not totally clear but there is a strong argument that the origins of "redskin" came from Native Americans themselves as a self-moniker to differentiate themselves, and as such it was certainly not derogatory in its origins. Whether or not someone outside of that ethnicity should use that term as a general description is debatable but nothing should preclude them from doing so as long as not in a derogatory manner. At some point in time, it seems as though it came to have some negative connotations and/or a strong reaction against non-Native Americans using that term. Sensitive (politically correct) individuals likely would avoid using the term altogether. In this specific case (and likely in most other sports teams with Native American related terms), we are going back quite a long time to when those names came about. It should be clear that those names weren't used in a way that would somehow reflect negatively on the team but rather they were likely selected, in part, because of some very positive attributes that it evokes in peoples' minds by using the names. Does that still hold today? Do we somehow associate Redskins with sports that are loved by millions but also associate it in a negative way towards the NA? Or is there actually a positive link between the two...a spillover effect of sorts? Personally I don't see it as negative but then I am not a Native American and their concerns can't be ignored. Which leads me to wonder how important this issue is to them. A google search shows some surveys/polls that indicate a significant majority aren't offended. I can't speak to the scientific robustness of the survey/poll so I have to be cautious about that. I may be totally off base to say this as a generalization, but it seems as though most of this country pretty much ignores most things related to Native Americans. Couldn't we leverage the positive aspects of connection with loved sports teams to promote greater interest and attention to them rather than try to paint it as a negative? Many of the issues they face are very serious as I have discovered by doing a little searching on this topic. Here are some disturbing details: "American Indians have the highest suicide, teen pregnancy, child mortality and school dropout rates in the country. On large reservations, the extreme poverty rate is more than six times the national average, which is part of the reason why Indians have the lowest life expectancy, too." If we change the names, are we just sweeping things under the rug and ignoring them even more, if that is possible? There are definitely some things that should be done, particularly in dealing with logos and mascots to help promote a better positive approach. But I am more inclined to think that changing the name would be missing a great opportunity for improvements and could even make things worse in some ways.

I don't think the economic rights of the owner of the Washington Redskins extend to exploiting the image of Native Americans. I think it is important to look at the opinions of Native Americans themselves before coming to any conclusions. The National Congress of American Indians recently (October 2013) released a paper entitled, "ENDING THE LEGACY OF RACISM IN SPORTS & THE ERA OF HARMFUL “INDIAN” SPORTS MASCOTS". Here is a link to a PDF of the paper: http://www.ncai.org/attachments/PolicyPaper_mijApMoUWDbjqFtjAYzQWlqLdrwZvsYfakBwTHpMATcOroYolpN_NCAI_Harmful_Mascots_Report_Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism_10_2013.pdf I'm not offended by your opinion RA1. I think it's important to establish a dialogue about these issues in order to come to a consensus and to educate each other. In Canada, Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Metis and Inuit) have a special status that is protected by the Canadian constitution. In 1982 the Canadian constitution was amended to include section 35 which acknowledges our rights. It was a long hard battle by Aboriginal Canadian leadership. (NB the word "Indian", although a misnomer, is a legal word for First Nations people in Canada). Aboriginal has replaced "Native" as the adjective applied to us. However, the Aboriginal Canadian population in Canada (1.2 million) represents a much larger percentage (3.4%) of the overall Canadian population (35 million) than Native Americans in the United States. So our numbers and political savvy give us a lot a clout. Never a day goes by when some controversy about Aboriginal Canadians is in our major newspapers. Most of the controversies are a result of the bungling of our federal government ("Indians" are under federal jurisdiction in the constitution). The Canadian economy is resource based. Most of Canada is covered by "Indian" treaties which means that Aboriginal Canadians have sui generis property, treaty and aboriginal rights (e.g. the right to harvest and protect our culture) and therefore must be consulted and accommodated (e.g. revenue sharing). There are also large areas of Canada where there are no treaties and they are currently being negotiated. Thanks (Miigwech).

Sorry this is not for the Porn section. Unless maybe you are a robot! But interesting nonetheless, if you grok this kind of thing. http://www.animatedengines.com

Okay. Not sure for the reason. Maybe Cariocas really do love sushi; served in enough por quilos after all. Or maybe there are a lot more people here that like their sex the Greek way? But tonight's match from Natal between Greece and Japan is being broadcast live on three over-the-air channels, four cable channels and no kidding, 10 different HiDef channels.

Altaira: "Robbie, where've you been? I've beamed and beamed." Robbie: "Sorry, Miss, I was giving myself an oil job. How may I be of service?"

Very interesting even if not comprehensive list...where are my warp engines????

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, as it usually is, but I can't get behind the above statement. In my opinion, respect for others is the default position and disrespect should follow only when it is earned. It would sure make the world more pleasant. Ojibear makes some very good points. It's no burden at all for me to call folks what they'd like to be called, and not call them what they don't like to be called. Why wouldn't I respect such a request?

As anyone might imagine, I love engines or most anything with moving parts (that includes some of my favorite escorts). The steam engine captured my attention as a small boy and I even had a working model that used electricity to heat the water but the steam made the "wheel" go around. Obviously, the biggest drawback to the steam engine is the enormous amounts of water it uses. The fuel use is pretty economical. Bill Lear experimented with a replacement product that he called Learium which basically was a liquid product that could be used, condensed and then used again in a never ending cycle. Sorry to say they never overcame the technical problems. As a side note, a classmate of mine's father was one of the test recipients of the 1967 Plymouth that had a turbine engine. I was not old enough to drive when he showed it to anyone with interest at our school but I do remember hearing it run (fairly quiet in the grand scheme of things) but it could hardly get out of sight without needing more fuel, like all turbines today (so far). Best regards, RA1