I'm a little tired of white people determining what is and what is not offensive to other races. Logically, they should only really know what offends them. And, I've read in this thread that a lot of native-americans like and even root for the Indians, AND, they enjoy the connection.

So, how about this:

All Native Americans over 16 years old should vote in an election. If over 50% think the Indians should change their name, the Indians should change their name. If more than 50% think the Indians should stay the Indians, a bunch of white people would probably blame republicans for rigging the voting.

(I think it makes sense to let them decide, no? I mean, we've imposed our will enough, no?)

King:

Why are the Indians any worse than the Vikings? (if it's because of our historical connection, I suggest a mass exodus back to Europe would be a better gesture than restitching baseball hats - that is - if you really cared about it, as opposed to just delivering liberal lip-service)

they aren't crazy, they're just liberal

misty fog turns into clear shot of King in front of his computer. Voiceover:

:: Nothing was on last night. I watched Ken Burns's 'The War' and it was amazing. Really amazing. Didn't watch any sports, don't have jack to talk about. Shoot, it's not Friday, I'm not excited about the NFL this week, the BCS thing is a mess - but what can I argue about it? Nothing. Nothing I can stand by in a few weeks. Did I finish off the turkey breast? Preview a playoff game? Nah, I'm excited to watch it, but not excited enough to preview it. Basketball? Of course not. Hockey? ibid.

hmm. This is tough. I wish my column were called 'Sports When I Feel Like It'

Hmm, people were up in arms about wahoo yesterday. My readers always get worked up about race. Half the class will back me, the other, well, the letters are going to pile up... ::fingers patter keyboard:: ..."

I can't really blame you, King, but why not take it a step farther?

If this is something you are passionate about, you should do something. Talk to that KC writer, talk to all sportswriters you know. Have them all write about this issue on the same day - nationwide. That would get Congress talking, no joke. Think about it, all sportswriters writing about this issue, it's head of the Drudge Report by 7am. Obama and Hillary and Nancy and John et al will be flapping their gums by lunch. And, you know what? The Indians would change their name voluntarily - or congress would score a slam-dunk. (uhh, threaten the anti-trust monopoly status or whatever, it isn't that far-fetched)

Howaboutit?

(the sportswriters would do it, because a newspaper can't fire them for something so politically correct)

Our country is ripe for stuff like this. Think about it. Imus says something 'racist' and the PC police doom him to hell. Hardaway says something about homosexuals, he is immediately doomed to hell by the PC police. Those Jena kids nearly beat the life out of a white kid, the prosecuter is sent to hell. We're a kneejerk PC society, might as well make it work for you in this case.

I can understand all the arguments in this thread. I originally areed with Parson Jim. Completely.

Then I thought, okay, so maybe children with two parents fare better than children with one. But, those single parent kids still fare. That child is still a life in this world. And, who are we to judge this woman for wanting and having a baby?

Life ain't that long (reference the car-alarm sentece). This woman did what she wanted. To hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. It is completely within moral and societal bounds for her to have this child, love this child, and raise this child.

Congrats! Good luck.

have been really bad. I can't figure it out. I watch meaningless Reds games throughout the year, and I can't remember one game in which the zone was nearly as bad as Every playoff game I watch. What is up with this?

Joe Torre. The best analysis I've heard about the situation came out of Jor Morgan's mouth. Really.

Manny's ball should have been a homer. There is no doubt in my mind.

Really? Why? It looked pretty clear to me on the video replay that the ball hit the top of the fence and bounced back into the field of play. That's not a home run. The top of the fence is in play. A home run is over the fence.

It will be very difficult to describe this without using my hands or drawing some diagrams.

So, I offer this:

If a ball hit the front corner of the top of the wall, it makes sense that it could bounce back. If it hits the back corner of the top of the wall, it should bounce or glance over. This one hit an edge which was past the wall and it bounced back. My thinking is; the only way that ball could bounce that way is if it hit something past the wall. Because it sure didn't hit the front corner.

It's a weird design at that stadium.

Okay, just do this. Make two fists. Put them together, facing each other. Kind of interlock your knuckles. Okay. Look straight ahead/down at them. The left hand is the wall. The right is that weird area in Cleveland that keeps the fans away from the wall. Manny's ball hit your right middle knuckle and bounced back. I call that a bomb. It was hit over the wall, hit an edge, and bounced back. (i hope that translates)