OK, folks, we’re seriously getting into some ridiculous territory here with this imperial presidency, already. Obama has shown that he doesn’t mind using executive branch edicts to impose his will on the rest of us, so why should this be any different. Let’s sanitize the language, removing all traces of objectionable, biased, colorful (pardon the expression) or offensive (in WHOSE opinion) speech. The Washington Redskins’ name has been deemed by the U.S. Patent Office to be objectionable and disparaging, and that office has revoked the organization’s trademark for the name.
Come on, use your imagination.
The New Jersey Giants and the San Francisco Giants better watch their humongous asses. Their name is disparaging to sufferers of acromegaly, a condition that is not fun at all. This is a serious thing. Do not use the term giant. You may call your team the San Francisco Vertical Hypertrophers.
Lookee here, San Diego Padres! Sexists! What about the Madres? And what about non-Spanish speakers? You better be careful with that monocultural crap there in San Diego. Keep it gender neutral but bilingual (of course). The San Diego Parents/Parientes is the preferred moniker.
And damnit, the Canadians do NOT get a pass for the Toronto Blue Jays. That’s racist! It discriminates against scrub jays and other kinds of jays. Blue Jays didn’t ask to be blue, either. Using a pigmentation reference in the name is asking for trouble — like Redskin! No, no, no! In some circles, a J-bird may be taken to mean a Jewish bird. No, no, no! Forget birds — too dangerous. Go with prominent features of the city. I can think of any, so they’re the Toronto Why Nots (which rhymes with their football team, the Argonauts — who along with Jason never did find that golden fleece).
The Pittsburgh Pirates and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers? Naming teams after maritime marauders, plunderers, thieves, rapists, and killers seems to be just a bit offensive, doesn’t it? I’m all for naming them the Pittsburgh Peonies and the Tampa Bay Begonias. Flowers are not offensive to anyone!
The Chicago Bears? Hell, a bear in gay parlance is a big, hairy gay guy with a beard. But what about the slight, wispy, effeminate gay guys? Aren’t we slighting them by lionizing the bears? (Lionizing, get it?) No, we need to be all-inclusive, so call them the Chicago Male Escorts, which is gender orientation neutral.
It’s pretty bad when a professional sports team has to carry around a name derived from a sexual position. The Dallas Cowboys have that problem. It would be much less offensive to some religions if we called the Dallas Celibates.
St. Louis and Arizona both have Cardinals. We’ve established that red pigment references are offensive. So would be a reference to a highly ranked official in the Roman Catholic Church. That’s why we need to change the Cardinals to the Kumquats. That way, we’re boosting the ego of the lowliest of all citrus fruits.
The Los Angeles Kings? Man, that’s playing with fire. King is a masculine noun. That’s too preclusive. At least their farm team, the Manchester Monarchs, had sense enough to make their regal name gender neutral. But now, we need to go the other direction to appease the feminists and compensate for their backlash. Revoke the trademark and allow them to rename the team the Los Angeles Queens. This will yield the collateral benefit of allowing the gay lobby to call the team their own.
I believe it will be OK for the Cleveland Indians to keep their name just as long as they trade in that smiling red-skinned logo for a Sikh with a turban. Chief Wahoo will become Chief Sabu. I think we can allow that under the cultural diversity clause, whereas maintaining the “Indian” reference to Native Americans would be as disparaging as Columbus actually didn’t intend it to be over 500 years ago.
You know how I get in the summer. Nothing much to write about. The other blogs publish something every time Franklin farts, but I post only facetious, self-amusing crap. Well, the part about the imperial presidency isn’t amusing, but I digress. Hurry, football season!