Typical Horse Crap from WAPO

As we could expect from the Washington Post, comes this (courtesy of Breitbart Sports):

The Redskins' hometown paper has long called on the team to come up with a new nickname from its editorial-page perch. But the newspaper that brought down Richard Nixon hasn't been as effective in bringing down "Redskins." Impotent to get ownership to change the name, the editorial page has decided to stop using the word that they have long called on the team to stop using. And in true grandstander fashion, the Post uses the forbidden word to headline their editorial boasting that they refuse to use the forbidden word any longer. That's not a promising start to the Washington Redskins becoming the Washington Redacteds.

The Post announces that "the matter seems clearer to us now than ever, and while we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves." Presumably, the 79 percent of Americans who disagree with the Post don't represent "thoughtful opinion," to say nothing of "common decency." 

This is so much BS, I don't know where to start. Let's see, should there be a movement to demand that New Orleans change its name because the "Saints" might be offensive to atheists? What about the Miami "Dolphins"? Isn't that an exploitation of a mammal that can't defend itself from accusations about being a violent football player?

Then again, how long might it be before all the leftists in this country take exception to the name of the New England "Patriots?" After all, doesn't that promote the ideals of the racist, slave-holding Founders?

Perhaps we should conjure up an appropriate nickname for Team ISIS. What might you suggest? How about the ISIS Wapos?

Wise Advice From Chris Rock

In light of the events in Ferguson, Missouri, I thought it appropriate to share some advice from Chris Rock:



Hat tip: Tony V

Unfettered Access to Life's Continuum

Two iconic people, two memorable deaths.

Life is experienced in the here and now, yet we attach such significance to one life over another.

Why?

Are our own lives so insignificant that we must attach a vaunted status to those we do not know, except in movies? Must we trivialize our own lives to think that others are more-esteemed than ours?

Robin Williams died in despair, thinking that the only way out of his life (as it existed) was by his own, self-prescribed death. What a waste of God's gift of life!

Lauren Bacall died as luck would have it, not by a means prescribed by her, but by one that was written by another Hand.

As fellow travelers in this thing we call life, we will always experience both ends of the human continuum. What matters most is to understand that there is a beginning and an end. We can control the end, if we choose, but we can't control the beginning, at least not by our own hand.

Is the ending of life on either end less tragic than the other?