Skip to main content

Kudos to Phil Simms for taking a stand on the Washington controversy

I, for one, would like to tip my cap to CBS NFL analyst Phil Simms, who, on Monday, said that during Week 4's game between the New York Giants and Washington, he likely won't use the term "Redskins" during the game.

When speaking to the Associated Press about matters, Simms said, "My very first thought is it will be Washington the whole game."

He added: "I never really thought about it, and then it came up (the Week 4 game) and it made me think about it. There are a lot of things that can come up in a broadcast, and I am sensitive to this."

To his credit, NBC NFL analyst Tony Dungy later said that, "I will personally try not to use Redskins and refer to them as Washington. Personal opinion for me, not the network."

Last year, NBC's Bob Costas had a halftime segment regarding the team's nickname. Part of that segment went as follows:

"Think for a moment about the term 'Redskins,' and how it truly differs from all others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed toward African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, 'Redskins' can't possibly honor a heritage, or noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It's an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent."

While many other analysts have contended that they will continue to use Washington's nickname in their broadcasts, Simms and Dungy stepping out from the crowd and taking a stand on matters is a big step forward, and it may only be a matter of time before other analysts follow suit. So, once again, kudos to both Phil Simms and Tony Dungy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/simms-dungy-redskins_n_5688907.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"