dc.

By the way - my comments have nothing to do with your race or claim to being part Cherokee... But I am a cynic in that one. One of your grandparents is 100% Cherokee?

So I could call you an Asshole and you couldn't get offended because we'll... Part of you is one. Right? But more seriously, classic case of not understanding privilege above. First and foremost, I couldn't care less about who is offended if anyone. I care much more about what is simply and plainly right. The term is and was a racial slur traditionally used in a derogatory manner. We don't get to just decide otherwise. A friend on here once argued that, "when I hear redskin I don't even think of native Americans anymore " ... Therefore the term doesn't matter and we can move on. It would be nice if history and morality worked that way, but they plainly do not. What that statement reflects is really the sentiment that, "I forgot my past transgressions, so should everyone else." It's a hoax and a fallacy. In fact, what that really represents is that we clearly do not even engage our understand our own past week enough. Personally I think we should all think of the atrocities committed against native Americans every time we hear that word. Instead we run from it. We get to say, "oh it doesn't matter!" Ignoring the term's past is a privilege of not having to face the consequences of it because, well, we are in charge. But ignoring the terms meaning is mainly us covering our own asses and the truth of our history of destroying those cultures. Comparable to "whiteskins?" False on many levels. It's more comparable to using anti Semitic terms and saying, "oh I didn't know these were offensive anymore!"

I don't disagree with your take, but you have to get school board and state board of education and state legislatures to actually mandate and enforce that... And in many places they won't! Go look up the Texas school board text book debates... Unbelievable and scary. They not only legitimately edit science to include controversy, they change history texts to show balance. I think I even remember one example where they wanted the civil rights movement to have "more balance" ??

You're totally right on the reasons and motivations... But the scary thing is education can't fix it when: 1. Parents teach students to ignore certain lessons they disagree with (silly but can't tell you how many times students say, "actually..." and then recite crap talking points from their favorite politicians.) 2. Education is getting lobbied to death too! Scary to see how many states are trying to require creationism be taught with evolution as competing theories or climate deniers being taught along side science. I even have to continue teaching disproven economic theory because of "balance" (there's more validity there as economic theory is far less secure than natural science, but still frustrating). I know you certainly weren't talking just about education on these issues but also simply critical thinking, but even that is so hard to teach because of these other factors. It's really wild the preconceptions students bring into class and how stubbornly they hold them regardless of evidence. Most can't even effectively play devils advocate, which requires at least acknowledging other views... I could continue on a massive teaching rant about bad teaching, but I'll spare you all.

Science whats?

This segment I watched started every question with a serious lead - unbelievable almost- about how bad or untrustworthy climate science is, making it just so easy for the other speakers to just agree with such dumbness. Meanwhile, my favorite was the host holding up a graph of global temp and simply saying "temps were high here and here and here and really high here" as if he even understood what he was looking at...

Watching a bit of Fox News today (I know - but one must know his enemy)... They were discussing climate change and asking why climate change believers must be so critical of dissent... They concluded it must be because climate change scientists must want to control our lives and must fear true discussion. I still don't understand why some don't understand that scientific fact is not really meant to be debated the way that so much else is. At a certain point debating science about climate is like debating Galileo on heliocentrism, "why must I believe?" Some great article recently on evolution that says as much about how "debates" like those featuring Bill Bye recently are actually hurting science by making the other side seem like a valid side worth discussing in debate!

More laughing that you demand evidence, then ignore it. Claim opinion as fact without providing your own evidence. Whine that others are immature while calling names. Claim others are off topic when the last football related sentence you wrote was two pages ago. And my favorite, decide when other opinions are valid based on when they choose to reply - as if the whole point of a message board was for the old messages to disappear like phrases in a real conversation. Just to stay on topic: your question to start the thread was "why?" The answer is that the millionaires in front offices know better than you about how good CJ is. (See what I did there?)

You can be sure many individuals and networks will hold to their views for a good while and even deny advertising dollars... But as it normalizes, it will simply look different

And just for my own conscience: I don't use and never will... But in terms of other people's choices, why do I care?

Jon Stewart shows the hypocrisy of alcohol vs. we: http://youtu.be/zHPGvKGgHKk Just thought this was appropriate for this discussion...

Simply handing away a 5-0 lead with awful defense and dead bats. Way to go. I only find solace in Pedroia's bald spot. His big "safe" sign upon crossing the plate... wooooo for you, Dustin. What a play you made?

Step 4.

Here you go again making rules about who can join a conversation being had on a public forum.

Would that be because there are none?

Please point me to one comment of topic.

You must have a different definition of explain than the rest of the world... You simply state things and expect others to take them as given. That's not how it works. And I'm sorry you don't understand that your words should be logically consistent, not just in one post but from post to pay and that to thread, but they really should. I understand your "point" - I'm just telling you it's horribly unconvincing, if not downright silly. Also - negative ten for repeating step four without even noticing. It wasn't even a creative turn on the same old play.

Musing... The IBEW (international brotherhood of electrical workers) is running an ad promoting their US-first production lines and how good those american workers are. I think they've lost a bit of their original purpose.

Second argument in a row where I point out your logical fallacies and you respond by saying I must be on drugs. Do you have other plays in the book or just the same. 1. Make outrageous claims without any grounding. 2. Ignore any logical evidence to the contrary 3. Avoid rational discussion under the guise of "everyone has their own opinion, man" 4. Resort to name calling. Did I miss a step? Oh right, challenge those who you really can't stand to a fight. If you don't like when others have an opinion and disagree... Go elsewhere.

Here's my contribution on CJ and his raw deal: It's not one because he's been score by GM'S and player personnel depts to be toast. And you can doubt that but if you doubt it, you're doubting the scouts you love so dear. And it's still crap to say GMs just know every guy they want. How? Hint: starts with s and ends with couts

And I'm saying that's a load of crap.

You don't think scouts play a role in signing vets? Bull beyond bull. Scouts play a role in all parts of the league... How do you think teams gather info on which vets for their schemes? You think the GM has time to personally scout every possible free agent? Who helps teams prep for games week to week? You think coaches compile and break down all that video on their own? Scouting is behind all of it. Vets as much as rookies if not more so. Certainly different scouts, but still scouting. No one has paid CJ because every about who watched him his last two years in the league said the same thing: toast. And yes, probably adding to that were the personal and personality issues, but as you said in the last argument- that's part of scouting! You may well be right - he might have something left. But I'd you think he hasn't been hired and that scouts have little to do with it, you're lost on how pros evaluate talent. BTW - guess who'll be at every CFL game CJ plays? Scouts from almost every team and pro scouting service - for CJ and any other signs of life.

Seriously, do you not see the hypocrisy there? Scouts are scouts. If they thought he could contribute they'd pay him just like if they thought a rookie could contribute they'd draft him. It's the same process, but with a vet they have MORE info. And they still don't want him. Shouldn't you trust that more? If not, then you're arguing exactly what I did in the other thread: talent evaluation in the NFL - even of vets with years of experience- is flawed by a system that has few checks. You are arguing for confirmation bias right now - that once someone said he couldn't play, everyone went that way and refused to see another outcome. Certainly there are other outcomes and they show that talent evaluation is flawed by flawed data -- in this case you are arguing that flawed data is the weight put into his "character" ... Never discount one part of the process!!

I know the ICC helped a ton. I remember having multiple interview in that area when I graduated from college... before the ICC I was going all the way out 70 to some Hicksville highway and trying to slide down next to 270... Ugh

It's not technically ESPN but an advertising/marketing firm they work with. My cousin actually works for them and has helped w some of the productions. Amazing what they come up with ... but put enough heads together and you get some wild ideas.