Post a response to this discussion thread
I don't see where the idea of a "hate crime" is mentioned in the typically shrill reporting in the story. I wonder why grundle-James used that phrase in his subject line, since it isn't in the story?
Actually, all that's being looked at is the possibility. When pushed to the extreme edge, even the Fox reporter admits (reluctantly, but it IS there) that all that happening is the possibility that team mascot names might be deemed offensive. The unsubstantiated speculation that is rampant throughout the story (reflecting Boss Murdoch's take on things, no doubt) is not reflected at all in the statements from the Civil Rights Commission. I wonder why Fox chose to report the story as it did?
And I wonder why the story quoted Roger Clegg, who authoritatively states that team nicknames aren't offensive to Native Americans, while actual, live Native Americans state that the imagery connected with those nicknames certainly is offensive, citing the example of the Cleveland Indians' Chief Wahoo.
While the article doesn't answer any of these questions, the mere fact that grundle-James posted it seems to confirm previous observations that he's a loathesome, racist, sexist clod.
Post a response to this discussion thread