First, though, I'll open with my closing thoughts on TC from yesterday. I'm trying not to pilfer too much from the fine works of Gary Fitzgerald over at the Official Site, but he identified some compelling camp battles that deserve additional discussion. Moving along to...

Third Cornerback: Springs is number one, Fred Smoot is number two. If all goes well this is really just a battle for the temporary 3rd cornerback, as ostensibly Carlos Rogers occupies that spot (or pushes Smoot down into it) when he returns. I will be watching Rogers' rehab and subsequent return more carefully than whether Byron Westbrook can outmaneuver enough people to stay on the roster or whether Leigh Torrence ends up beating out newcomer J.T. Tryon (Note: I've also seen it spelled "Tyron" a non-trivial amount of times elsewhere; why can't we get this guy's name right?). Speaking of him, he represents a huge source of entertainment for the blogging community as heaping-big word thus far is he has a black belt in Fred Smoot style karate smacktalk.

Fifth Wide Receiver: Gary calls Moss, Antwaan Randle-El, and our two draft picks Devin Thomas and Michael Kelly as the locks. I would be extremely disappointed if it hashed out any other way. That leaves a lot of guys (six as of this writing) competing for one final receiver spot, though teams do carry six wide receivers sometimes, don't they? (Gary says prolly not because we'll have too many TEs.) Especially in this kind of offense? Anyways, I love James Thrash but I think with each passing year the likelihood he still has gas in the tank decreases, and he was a beloved man by the former offensive staff, now largely departed. However, a guy like Thrash is unique from, say, Burl Toler (who Gary Fitzgerald likes, and he'd know more about this battle than I would) because I think Toler can be tucked away on the practice squad, but unless we add Thrash to the lineup he's not going to be with the team in any capacity. I'll throw my support for Anthony Mix, perhaps irrationally. We got pretty worked up for no apparent logical reason earlier this offseason simply because Anthony Mix represented the largest receiver we have on a unit that lacked as much both in perception and actuality. Let's not discount his size: 6'5, 235 pounds, making him closer to Chris Cooley's size than he is to Malcolm Kelly's (our 2nd biggest receiver). That also gives him 35 pounds on any cornerback on our team, which should give you a somewhat good indication of how he matches up against cornerbacks in Re: size generally in this NFL. Burt Toler, on the other hand, is the 3rd lightest person listed on the roster, heavier than only Leigh Torrence and Cedrick Holt. Let me repeat, though, that Gary Fitzgerald would know a lot more about this battle than I would, and if he likes Toler than I'd suggest you pay attention to that guy through TC as well.

Finally, Punter: I have no hate for Derrick Frost and feel bad that it's come to this, but my position is that this ain't no jockeying for position. Teams invest resources into punters infrequently, and our team invested substantial -- for a punter at least -- resources into Durant Brooks. You don't draft a punter to give your current guy something to think about; you draft a punter to punt for you come Sunday. Derrick Frost is a decent NFL punter who will likely find a home after this battle plays out, but Brooks is loaded with potential and talent and should have little difficulty earning the spot on this team. If he doesn't, that will reflect poorly on the team's decision  to draft him, duh. If this battle drags on too long, then I'm going to be flustered.

As intriguing as positional battles are every year, the biggest story, in my opinion, will be the new offense. Coach Zorn is the newcomer here and although he has no competition for head coach, yet, he is still measured by the past moving forward. If this offense shows up equal to or better than Gibbs and Saunders offenses of the past few years, all hail Jim Zorn. If we flounder it will be all eyes on him. The word out of training camp this coming week is going to provide much insight on just how near or far this team is from getting the new offense, and that's going to matter towards the W-L department down the road.

Jason Campbell likewise has no (real) competition for his position heading into camp, but he could a year from now, or much sooner. If he can't take the next step this coming season (and this all assumes he doesn't end up watching his idol throw fooballs for us instead) then the team will begin the move in a different direction, as we are now four years into the Jason Campbell experiment. He'll have much latitude this year, from me at least, but by 2009 I'm going to need to see some improvement to remain behind him. Many of you have expressed perfectly reasonable concerns with or committment to JC and I very much look forward to seeing those two camps of fans argue over him this coming season. Whatever position you may inhabit on that issue, let's all hope he develops into a star.

Enough of me, now to the blognets:

First and foremost, a gigantic welcome to Mark Newgent, newest member of the Redskins internet chattering class and lifelong fan. His new blog, DC Redskins Examiner, is going up on the blogroll to the left here shortly and I'm looking forward to visiting his site daily. Kudos to the DC Examiner for diving into this whole "internet" thing. He also linked here, which makes him good people. This blog is comma will be big time and I encourage you to make it a daily stop. Mark Newgent is no joke; assuming his work out of the gate is any indication, he can write.

Big news for me personally is that Ben is back and all makes sense now. He's been all over the potential Brett Favre to Redskins story, more more more:

I bet if you ask Jason Campbell if bringing Brett Favre onto the Redskins would hurt his development as a quarterback Jason would say hail no son. Wouldn't you like to learn a thing or two on the job from your idol before he retires?

That's an interesting take but I think a debatable one. I think Ben would be 100% correct if JC were younger than me but, alas, he turns 27 this December. The time is now for Jason, imo. (Elsewhere, check out Sportz Assassin's take on Favre here, at Fanhouse.)

I thank Lee Gibbons of The Redskin Report for his grace in not embarrassing me.

Greg Trippiedi talks defensive backs at Hog Heaven and notes, among other things:

Reed Doughty

Reed Doughty was the biggest surprise of the season last year. He’s got a reputation as a run stuffing safety, and the numbers certainly suggest that’s his craft: No. 2 among all safeties in yards allowed per rush attempt (3.8). The team probably feels he can be a run stuffing dynamo (thanks, Mel Kiper) for the next ten years for them.

Where Doughty was more surprising was against the pass, where he actually had the numbers of a top no. 2 safety. Doughty ranked 26th in stop rate last year and 29th among safeties last year with 6.6 yards per attempt against the pass.

The training camp battle for Doughty's safety spot will be an interesting one to watch, but something to keep in mind throughout: no matter how it shakes out, Doughty will remain with the team. If he's the backup, if the defensive staff is convinced we have someone better, injury there won't kill the secondary. We know we can trust Reed to come in and play reliably, and that should never be discounted. It was circa 2006 when the defense was in shambles that an injured Pierson Prioleau necessitated the Adam Archuleta disaster, which turned into Troy Vincent into Vernon Fox into serious discussions of putting Shawn Springs at safety (even though we really didn't have the depth at corner to cover such a move). You're not going to win much of anything -- see, for example: 2006 -- unless you have injury insurance, and it's a good problem to have when your very capable starter from last year is being pushed for his position.

Over at Chris Cooley's blog (hat tip: Dan Steinberg), and I'm about a week late to this show, BEARD GROWING CONTEST:

I'm ready for a new adventure...Greatest facial hair of training camp is going to be this years motif. After leaving Wyoming for my summer vacation I came home with quite a start on my new project. It's been a little over two weeks since I've shaved and I'm as proud as I can be! One thing about my little endeavors is that it is much more fun if I can have a partner in crime, or as many participants as possible. So I've decided to start the Chris Cooley Beard Growing Contest.

Check the site for more details, all of which are awesome. I've already told my girlfriend (she said whatever, I suspect she doesn't take me seriously) that I intend to grow a mustache by the end of 2008, making me the only 25 year old in the continental United States with one. I look absolutely hideous without 1970s era facial hair, but with? Even more hideous, and it will be glorious. Pictures will be pending. In the meantime, I encourage all to participate in Cooley's Beard Growing Contest. Tickets can be won.

Speaking of tickets, CptChaosSidekick won the Redskins Rides contest. The good Cpt needs to email me so I can hook him up with those. For those of you who would likewise like to attend, perhaps with CptChaosSidekick, I'm told that more tickets will become available in the near future. Stay tuned, but while you wait you might keep an eye on Riggo's Rag, since free tickets will also be available there at some point. It is the blogosphere's position that no one should have to pay for tickets.

Homer McFanboy has an interview with Washington Times and Redskins 360 writer Ryan O'Halloran, who I read daily. Here's a teaser than I'll force you to go read the entire interview:

5. If you had to pick one Redskins player, who is most likely poised for a breakout season? Why?

Safety LaRon Landry. I got ripped pretty good for this last year but I think Landry is light years ahead of where Sean Taylor was at the same point of their career. Landry is athletically gifted like Taylor but, entering his second season, is already excellent at anticipating plays, making up for a teammates' mistake/blown assignment and sending messages with physical play. He might not make the Pro Bowl this season but he'll turn out to be the defense's best player.

David Elfin is also a Redskins 360 writer, and he has his take on Don Breaux retiring. I'm going to try and get an Ode post to Don up here later this week, as I think he's deserving of much more praise and admiration than he's received, given what he has done for/and thus what he means to Your Washington Redskins.

Finally, Chris Mottram is cool.

I've run out of time. Enjoy Training Camp; I'll be around to keep you updated to the extent that's possible, but don't be shy about posting FanShots or FanPosts. You never have to wait on me to get the word out on a story here at Hogs Haven. What I'm saying is, explore this space, register, comment, etc. This place is so much more entertaining when it isn't me talking to myself.

I'm going golfing. Enjoy all these tags.

CptChaosSidekick already has the story but it is consequential enough that I had to write up my own thoughts as well. Today is a sad, sad day in Redskins history, as the team (I'm sure reluctantly) cut the greatest backup FB who happened to play tight end in College in history. My fan-heart is broken into a million pieces as I try -- fail -- to comprehend the horror, the horror. Per the Official Site, emphasis added somberly:

To make room for Thomas on the roster, the Redskins released fullback Pete Schmitt.

This isn't actually a surprise to me, since not-too-long ago I asked a person of interest who would know something about it whether Schmitt had any chance of surviving the cuts, and was told matter-of-factly that he didn't. Deep down I knew it was always a long shot, but damn me for loving the underdog.

My support for Pete Schmitt is well documented. After this space's interview with Pete, the first Hogs Haven player interview, Schmitt struck me as a classic overachiever experiencing what many of us only dream of. He also drank Miller Lite and Gin and Tonics, which only endeared him to me more. And now, unfortunately, he's been cut.

Best wishes to Pete Schmitt and I hope he sticks somewhere. Apparently I didn't root loudly enough. I apologize.

I guess congrats are in order for Lee Gibbons of The Redskin Report. Although he didn't say anything, he could have as he called Nemo Broughton as the sure-fire starter over Pete Schmitt many months ago. As per usual, my prediction turned out to be bogus. Lee Gibbons is a reliable commenter on all things Redskins, and he's right once more.

The good news is that Devin Thomas is now signed:

The Redskins have signed rookie wide receiver Devin Thomas, the team's top selection in last April's NFL Draft.

Thomas was the Redskins' second-round draft pick, 34th overall, in the draft.

Thomas was at Redskins Park on Friday morning, along with his agent Drew Rosenhaus, to sign the contract. It is a four-year deal, the team has announced.

Redskins Insider has the semantics:

Thomas will earn a max of $4.8 million in his deal, with $2.75 million as his signing bonus, according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

I never thought the team would have trouble signing Thomas so I'm not dancing in the moonlight over this, but good on the team for getting him under contract meaning one less thing to worry about during training camp. Speaking of TC, it hasn't received the coverage it deserves here and I apologize for that. As CptChaosSidekick pointed out, the Official Site has their own training camp battles to watch this season. It is:

PUNTER: FROST vs. BROOKS

SAFETY: DOUGHTY vs. SCHWEIGERT

THIRD CORNERBACK

FOURTH DEFENSIVE END

FIFTH WIDE RECEIVER

If I were to rank them in order of interest I'd say: Defensive end, then safety, then cornerback, then fifth wide receiver, then punter. Why?

Defensive End: I'm of the opinion, having watched the unimaginable happen when the Giants beat the Patriots in the last Super Bowl, that defensive line is the single greatest equalizer in the game. Am I relying too heavily on one anecdote that probably doesn't capture the larger scheme? Who cares, it makes for easier print. Andre Carter and Phillip Daniels are secure. The real issue is the trio of Erasmus James vs. Demetric Evans vs. Chris Wilson and how that shakes out. The good news to keep in mind is that we could end up with two solid backups plus a situational pass rusher. One carry-over from the Gregg Williams era I hope Greg Blache keeps is rotating the defensive ends in and out to keep them fresh (also we like to line up Daniels at tackle sometimes). Even if Wilson or Evans or James don't end up as the clear-cut backup DE, they still could make the roster and get some PT.

Safety: This is the Doughty show. My real interest in this is to see just how much of an overachiever he is; obviously the team didn't show tonnage of faith in his ability to be the starter as we went out and brought in some people to challenge him for position. Having said that, I thought he played reliably enough last season and would love to see him win the battle this time around. I noticed that Sean Taylor regressed a bit when Ryan Clark left town. I don't know if that wasn't just the result of a general decline in the total defense. I think chemistry at safety matters, anyways, and LaRon Landry has more with Doughty than anyone else on the team.

More Training Camp thoughts will follow this evening, but for now I'm taking the lady friend out to dinner and a movie (I am so, so cool). Get your thoughts in the comments section before I return to put you all to sleep. Cheers and thank ye Football Gods we're so close to the season.

Unfortunate that it has come to this.

This is not a political or law blog so I apologize to the extent this post becomes about either topic. It's rare for my two passions the two things I do between beer and drunk time to collide, but a legal matter of some import to Redskins fans was recently decided upon. My hat is tipped to Michael David Smith at Fanhouse, who actually posted on the ruling earlier this week. In case you didn't know:

A group of American Indians has spent the last 16 years suing to get the Washington Redskins' trademark on the name "Redskins" revoked, contending the the term is offensive and that offensive terms can't be trademarked.

The latest ruling in the case was released on July 13th but adjudicated on June 25th. If you want the cliff notes version of the controversy, try this AOL article on for size, summarized thusly:

The Washington Redskins have won the latest round in a 16-year court battle against a group of American Indians, prevailing on a technicality that again skirts the issue of whether the team's nickname is racially offensive.

In a ruling dated June 25 and first circulated Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled that the youngest of the seven Native American plaintiffs waited too long after turning 18 to file the lawsuit that attempts to revoke the Redskins trademarks.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, the plaintiffs were miffed:

The lead plaintiff, Suzan Shown Harjo, said Friday the group will appeal.

"She ruled as we anticipated she would: for the loophole that would allow everyone to avoid the merits of the case," said Harjo, president of the Washington-based Morning Star Institute that advances Native American causes.

The plaintiff also had this to say:

"It's so ironic that they would like to get rid of this though the loophole of passage of time, when we're in our 16th year of litigation," Harjo said. "Unbelievable. If this (lawsuit) were a child, we would be preparing the child to go to college."

I wouldn't call it ironic so much as I'd call it tragic, a tragic waste of time. Let's discuss the timeline.

In 1998 plaintiffs Suzan Shown Harjo, Raymond D. Apodaca, Vine Deloria, Jr., Norbert S. Hill, Jr., Mateo Romero, William A. Means, and Manley A. Begay, Jr. filed suit with the Trademark and Trial Appeal Board. I didn't read the case because it's many, many, many pages long. But I did pay close attention to the data portion of the ruling. Petitioners (plaintiffs, whatever) provided a survey of the degree to which particular words offended Native Americans. The meat and potatos:

Individuals in both population groups were read a list, in varying order, of the following terms: “Native American,” “Buck,” “Brave,” “Redskin,” “Injun,” “Indian,” and “Squaw.” With respect to each term, participants were asked whether or not they, or others, would be “offended” by the use of the term and, if so, why. Dr. Ross testified that he chose these terms as representative of a spectrum of acceptability, positing that, in general, “Native American” would be likely to be considered acceptable and “Injun” would be likely to be considered pejorative.

Reasonable enough methodology, as far as I'm concerned. The results were absolutely fascinating. On the one hand was the control group of the general population reacting to a simple question ("is it offensive to you") to a few terms. Those results:

General Population Sample (301 sample size)

The numbers you see are the respondents saying "Yes, offensive to me." As you can see, the term "Redskin" was found to be offensive by 46.2% of the GENERAL POPULATION in America sometime before 1999 if you find the sample size reliable.

The fascinating part is what happened when the same question was presented to Native Americans. The results:

Native American Population Sample (358)

Keeping in mind that this was the Petitioner's Survey, you'll notice that, miraculously, the Native American population was less offended by the term "Redskin" than was the general population. Because I'm concerned that the point isn't hitting home, what I'm saying is: Per the petitioner's data Native Americans are less offended by the term Redskin than are non-Native Americans.

The actual law on Trademarks that could give rise to judgment in favor of the plaintiffs:

The relevant portions of Section 2 of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. 1052)provide as follows:
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it -

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute;

With lengthy discussions on the legal definition of "scandalous" and "matter which may disparage" etc. that I won't go into. The holding, in 1999, was a loss for the Redskins:

Decision: As to each of the registrations subject to the petition to cancel herein, the petition to cancel under Section 2(a) of the Act is granted on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute. As to each of the registrations subject to the petition to cancel herein, the petition to cancel under Section 2(a) of the Act is denied on the ground that the subject marks consist of or comprise scandalous matter. The registrations will be canceled in due course.

I find that result amazing, as did the Redskins and the NFL; they appealed arguing in part that the Trademark Board's finding that the trademark was disparaging was not supported by evidence. In 2003 Judge Kollar-Kotelly reversed the Trademark Board's holding.

The Redskins initially registered the trademarks in 1966, some 42 years ago. The original trademark challenge was issued around 1994. That is relevant and I will discuss more on that momentarily.

The court held in 2003 that the evidence the TTAB (Trademark and Trial Appeal Board) was not supported by the evidence and concluded, among other things:

The TTAB's finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. The decision should also be reversed because the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case. Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their First, Second, and Fifth Causes of Action. The Court denies summary judgment to Defendants on these Causes of Action. As the Court has no need to reach the constitutional claims raised by Pro-Football, these claims are rendered moot.

For now at least...

The case was remanded in 2005 by the US Court of Appeals D.C. Strangely they held:

Because we find that the district court applied the wrong standard in evaluating laches as to at least one of the Native Americans, we remand the record for the district court to revisit this issue.

I say strange because the District Court actually had two bases for its decision, of which the laches defense was just one. The other being that the TTAB's findings were not supported by substantial evidence.

Without getting into a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo, the premise of laches is: You snooze you lose. In order to file suit in this country one is required to do so in a timely fashion. So, if you harm me in a car accident when I'm 22, I can't wait 30 years to file suit (perhaps because you become rich, perhaps because I think it will make it easier to pursue claims against you since you are prejudiced in your defense by the passage of time and thus loss of memory from those who might testify, just sayin'). The Appellate Court's position was that one of the plaintiffs (Mateo Romero) was too young to file suit at the time the trademark was registered and thus the laches should have tolled until they reached the "age of majority" which is whatever age the state gives you adulthood at. I think in D.C. it is 18. They did not rule on the other plaintiffs, meaning their claim was, in fact, barred by laches.

That remand was the subject of the recent decision of June 25th, 2008, released earlier this week. The Judge, familiar and Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kettely, once more found in favor of the NFL. The Court held, among other things:

Finally, the Court also notes at the outset that its finding that Defendants' claims are barred by laches was an alternative holding to its conclusion that the TTAB's cancellation decision was not supported by substantial evidence. That primary holding was not reached by the D.C. Circuit on appeal, and represents this Court's resolution of the underlying issue of disparagement. As a result, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Court to-as Defendants suggest-“exercise its discretion to deny the defense” of laches in order to allow “the underlying issue of disparagement” to be resolved in this case.

As far as I can tell the laches issue is really irrelevant. If the appellate court is unwilling to reverse the lack of substantial evidence portion of the decision (and that is what has apparently happened) then it is really no matter whether laches bars the claim or not. Even were it allowed, the current holding is that substantial evidence doesn't support the TTAB's 1999 holding. So when plaintiff Harjo argues that the Court held "for the loophole that would allow everyone to avoid the merits of the case" plaintiff should thank the Court for doing so. The court did rule on the merits of the case in 2003 and found them lacking.

In any event, regarding the laches issue, the court held that even if you tolled young Romero's claim to his age of majority, he still waited too damn long to overcome a laches defense. Take it away, court:

As noted above, Defendant Romero waited almost eight years-seven years, nine months, to be precise-after reaching the age of majority before petitioning to cancel the six trademarks in question... That delay is “unusually long by any standard.” See Peshlakai v. Duncan, 476 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1256 (D.D.C.1979) (describing seven-year period of delay in bringing action under the National Environmental Policy Act). Pro-Football correctly notes that “the Romero Delay Period is similar to or longer than the delay in other trademark cases in which courts have applied the laches doctrine.” Pro-Football MSJ at 4 (citing... [A series of boring case law where 2-8 year delays in trademark challenges result in favorable holdings for the laches defense - ED.]).

Some of this is, again, just legal mumbo jumbo. What isn't, what the court is pointing out, is the obvious question: If it were the case that the Redskins trademark were so offensive when registered in 1966, why was suit not filed for some 30 years? If something actionable happened, it was waaaay back in the 60s yet ALL the plaintiffs waited years and years and years to bring suit. The one plaintiff who waited the absolute shortest time to file suit still gave it nearly a good decade before realizing just how disparaging the trademark is/was.

Whether or not one thinks this is a ruling on a "loophole" will depend in large part on whether one was a plaintiff in the actual case and, further, to what degree one cares for fairness in the judicial system. As the court pointed out:

1. Pro-Football Has Demonstrated Trial Prejudice...

First, and quite significantly, Pro-Football notes that Edward Bennett Williams, the President of the Redskins from 1965 to 1980 (when five of the six trademarks at issue were originally registered), died during the Romero Delay Period, on August 13, 1988. Pro-Football MSJ at 8. Pro-Football argues that the loss of Mr. Williams' testimony during the cancellation proceeding before the TTAB constitutes significant trial prejudice because his “testimony or recollections could have been particularly important to the Redskins' defense on the issue of alleged disparagement in the relevant time frame.”...

Next, Pro-Football argues that it has suffered trial prejudice as a result of Defendant Romero's delay because that delay “served to exacerbate the problems inherent in trying to construct methodologically valid surveys of relevant persons' attitudes concerning the Redskins Marks in 1967,” the central issue underlying Defendants' cancellation petition...

Finally, Pro-Football notes that the “undisputed record reflects that the Redskins Club is missing financial records from 1988 and 1991-1992 (as well as from periods before the Romero Delay Period), and that NFL Properties is missing sponsorship lists in connection with the Redskins Marks from 1967 to 1988.”

The entire point of laches is to prevent individuals from being prejudiced in their defense by the passage of time, and the Redskins apparently made a compelling case that they were, in fact, prejudiced by the passage of time. You can call it a loophole or fairness, same difference.

All of that is really beside the point, as that is just the legal battle that shouldn't matter a wit to the rest of us. In the title I called them "Judicial Overlords" only half-jokingly. I would suggest to reader(s), to everyone, that perhaps the judiciary isn't the best place to approach this kind of problem. The idea that the American Legal System is in a better position to tell us what to be offended by than we are is paternalistic and, at the risk of being hyperbolic, dangerous. Despite my lengthy citation to court opinions, nothing I read swayed my opinion one way or the other (besides the TTAB survey evidence, more on that momentarily). If I felt that Redskins was/was not an offensive team name before the holding, I haven't changed my opinion afterwards. Neither have the plaintiffs.

I've always been happy to state my position on the issue, summarized thusly:

1. I do not think merely offensive expression should ever be judicially censored.

2. If I were to waver on 1, it would only be under those circumstances where an uncontroversial fact finding showed that a clear majority of a particular group of people were offended.

3. And the group of people offended must and should be those the alleged offensive term is directed at.

Regarding the first, speech protections exist exclusively to protect those bits of expression someone, somewhere finds offensive. All the might and glory of the 1st Amendment will never need to be utilized to protect your right to use emoticons in text messages, or email pictures of puppies to your coworkers, or defend your right to wave a flag at a patriotic parade. Because, crucially: speech that doesn't offend doesn't require protecting. The expression I find actionable would be those that endanger people such as slander, libel, or shouting FIRE in a crowded area. The right only to express speech that doesn't offend is no right at all.

Regarding the 2nd matter, if offensive speech is going to ever be actionable, let's be clear that it is offensive to the point of harm. And only that language that is nearly or virtually despised and recognized as hateful, disparaging speech should ever qualify.

Finally, if language should qualify, it should do so through the voice of the alleged inflicted, and not from the peanut gallery. I really have no right to speak on behalf of Native Americans in Re: Washington Redskins, because I'm not a Native American. If the standard were any other way, it would absurdly result in the possibility that 100% of Native Americans could find the word "Redskins" perfectly acceptable, but if 100% of white people felt differently, we could decide on their behalf what kind of language is appropriate for them. That's paternalism, a good example of which can be found here:

It's not a convincing argument. A slur is a slur, and the fact that it was intended as a play on words doesn't change how it looks or sounds today. But Native Americans aren't bothered by it. Should we be?

The answer has to be "Yes."

(So be offended all you want, guy, the issue is whether Native Americans should be offended. You're just telling them that they can't be trusted to look out for themselves, pure and simple.)

Anyways, you may not accept my premises, but if you do, the conclusion is: even relying on plaintiff's evidence in this case history, the term Redskin is not offensive to a majority of Native Americans. That from above, but also aided by two other (perhaps less professional) studies performed in 2002 and ~2004. From a 2002 Sports Illustrated study, that I quote secondhand:

Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents--and 57% of those living on reservations--feel it's O.K. for the Washington Redskins to continue using the name. "I like the name Redskins," says Mark Timentwa, 50, a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington State who lives on the tribes' reservation. "A few elders find it offensive, but my mother loves the Redskins."

Most recently from a  University of Penn. Annenberg Survey circa 2005:

A new University of Pennsylvania's National Annenberg Election Survey shows that only 9% of Native Americans polled are offended by the name of US football team, the Washington Redskins. 90% said they were OK with the name. Little difference was found between men and women on the issue. The number of "offended" increased slightly among those with college degrees (13%), and those who identified themselves as liberals (14%).

I'm beating a dead horse here, but if Native Americans aren't offended, then I'm not going to get worked up about it on their behalf. It is, in my opinion, a moot point. Until someone can demonstrate with evidence that isn't anecdotal (ex: but I'm 4.6% Native American and I'm offended) I don't think the issue requires much revisiting. The absolute minimum for moral indignity on this issue is a majority of Native Americans to tell me that the term "Redskins" offends them. If highly offended and motivated plaintiffs who have now pursued a claim for over a decade can amass, at best, a survey illustrating a) that some amount less than 50% of Native Americans find the term offensive and b) that the general population finds it more offensive than Native Americans, then I'm simply not on board yet. Convince me.

My full apologies to reader(s) for this long, likely boring, likely ranting post. I view this country's increasing obession with being offended by language with some trepidation (did you notice?) and find it especially dangerous when exercised on other's behalfs. If I'm to be convinced that the term needs disbanding, I'd just as soon hear that en masse from the people allegedly offended rather than from the United States Government, its Judicial system, or white sports writers. Just my two cents.

Let me have it in the comments section, though.

For now at least, Your Washington Panda Bears! Redskins aren't going anywhere.

OMGoose I almost forgot. MDS, who alerted me to the story, had his own take:

Eventually, the Redskins and the NFL are going to have to accept the fact that legal technicalities aren't going to work forever, and that some judge is going to rule that "Redskins" is offensive and revoke the team's trademark. At that point, the team and the league will be forced to make a decision: Lose tens of millions of dollars a year in merchandising, or find a new team name.

There's not much doubt in my mind that at some point in my lifetime, the football team in Washington won't be called the Redskins.

I have enormous respect for MDS and really enjoy his NFL writings, daily, but must admit that we couldn't be farther apart on this particular issue. I do not think that the legal issue ruled on in this case was a "technicality" notwithstanding what the plaintiff had to say about it. I do not think the term "Redskins" or the trademark currently utilized by the team is offensive. I do believe that a majority of Native Americans agree with me. And, finally, I disagree that at some time in his or my lifetime we'll be enjoying the Washington Anything-Besides-Redskins. I felt that if there were a main theme to the last two holdings in the above procedural history, it really was that: This claim was filed too late and the plaintiffs (and thus the allegedly afflicted Native American population) are getting farther, not closer, to getting their way. Indeed, the evidence provided here shows that Native Americans are, over time, getting less offended by the term. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's my opinion that the longer this thing drags on, the LESS LIKELY it will be that the team has to change names.

I've caught your attention with the free ducats advert. Additional information on Redskins Rides available here, and in summary below:

Easterns has partnered with the Washington Redskins to bring you Redskins Rides.  This event is taking place AUGUST 10TH 2008 at the Washington Redskins Park, 21300 Redskins Park Dr. Ashburn, VA 20147. 

Come out and meet some of the Washington Redskins, take pictures, get autographs, and see their rides! 

There will be food, a huge moonbounce for the children, live radio broadcast, live band and DJ, some of the coolest cars on display, and the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders!

Readers in the right hood at the right time will be pleased to also know that:

All proceeds will be donated to Charity.  Easterns cares about the community.

But will be especially intrigued by the prospect of free tickets, which I've been authorized to hand out via trivia competitions. Should this work out, we might have additional free tix to hand out to loyal, trivial(ly minded), and prompt reader(s). If you don't win tickets the first time around, it's up to you to make loud noises in this thread to ensure you get a second chance, as participation will be monitored closely.

So, without additional wasteful verbiage, I'm allowed to say that the first reader to post the correct answer to the trivia question below will be rewarded with TWO FREE TICKETS to Redskins Rides at the date and time listed above.

Question:

Which Washington Redskins Player was the first to feature in an Eastern Motors Commercial?

A very good discussion erupted in another thread. Allskins stated what many Redskins fans are probably thinking but unwilling to admit publicly summarized thusly:

We can make all of the excuses we want…he’s had differnt coordinators, he had differnt coaches, he had to learn different systems…..THAT IS PART OF THE GAME!!! He is the next great redskin QB the same way Ramsey was the next great redskin QB….We need to face the music and realize that we wasted a 1st round pick and not keep believing that he is the answer. I really hope that I’m wrong and this is his break out year because being a die-hard fan I’d rather be wrong and see our team get a ring this year than see all the “experts” get paid big bucks and we are sitting at home in January…..I just don’t get why our great Campbell gets outperformed by all of his competition….Just check the stats and tell me I’m wrong

That is probably a bit stronger language than I would use, as I think there are compelling reasons not to yet give up on JC as the future here with the team. But the stats is what they is and hardly tell the story of a can't miss quarterback prospect worthy of all our hopes and dreams. The truth for me personally is that I have a lot at stake with Campbell and should just admit that honestly. When this team was going down in flames with Mark Brunell at the helm circa 2006, I made repeated, strongly worded appeals for Jason Campbell to replace him.

The purpose of this thread is to keep the discussion moving forward, as I think it's a worthwhile one for Redskins fans to have. Indeed, fans are having it right now in Ben's Brett Favre post because one can hardly consider a future with Brett at the helm without considering the impact that will have on Campbell. And the degree to which one supports a QB change hinges primarily on how one feels about Jason.

Where I stand will probably be revealed in the link I provide shortly but I'm going to do my best to stay objective throughout this engagement. I think I probably put too much faith into Patrick Ramsey (as TexSkins is quick to remind me when we discuss the former Redskins QB) and supported him longer than the stats or his actual on-field performance justified. I wish to commit against doing the same with Jason Campbell.

In any event, I'm not the only one who hasn't given up on him. Per ESPN The Mag's Top 5 players who will "blow up" (whatever that means) this season:

JASON CAMPBELL, QB, WASHINGTON REDSKINS We like this for a lot of reasons: (1) his new coach is Jim Zorn, a good QB in his own right; (2) Portis/Cooley and company give him a bunch of weapons; and (3) we like guys from undefeated teams in college—oh wait.

I concur that playing under Jim Zorn will certainly help Campbell as much or more than any other player on the team. But now I flee this discussion and submit it to readers to sort out amongst yourselves.

Elsewhere (ATTENTION CHRIS MOTTRAM: The stalker is absotively posilutely not, not, not played out and don't you dare change) Jamie Mottram hollared at me about a Chris Cooley interview available here or something. (As per usual, CptChaosSidekick was on point -- he misses nothing.) I was going to post about it but then Mr. Irrelevant went all blogotastic on my face and beat me to the punch, which is just as well 'cuz I found his take delicious. Among other topics discussed:

3. Albert Haynesworth is a piece of shit. Well, he didn’t say that in so many words, but he did, when asked about dirty players, tell a story about Haynesworth blindsiding him on an interception return in the Pro Bowl. There’s a thin line between that and Sean Taylor laying out Brian Moorman, sure, but at least that dude was carrying the ball. Plus, punter’s drop like a house of cards. And, oh yeah, Haynesworth is the same guy who stomped on Andre Gurode’s helmet-less head.

Mr I. has some pretty phenomenal commenters who do good works. A representative sampling:

Nationalcoholic Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:58 am

In Haynesworth’s defense, who hasn’t thought of cleating a Cowboy’s face?

Also, pretty much everything The Mayor types makes me laugh robust-like.

Final word and them I have to return to taking care of my infirm girlfriend, I just want to shout at The Curly R's Ben Folsom for doing right in this space in my weekend celebration: I was at a wedding, I was indeed in it, but couldn't have asked for a better website caretaker in my absence. Maybe if reader(s) ask real super nice style he'll decide to stick around on a regular basis. In truth, I wish Ben would join me here permanently at Hogs Haven and have told him as much through email, though now make my intentions known publicly in the hopes he posts more more more here. He usually disagrees with me which is why he's usually right, and this place is in desparate need of correctness, as I can't be bothered to provide much of it. But you already knew that.

Despite the best efforts of Extreme Skins, Chief Zee lost the Most Fierce NFL Mascot Competition to Poe the Raven of the once-irrelevant now-hated Baltimore Ravens. Son of a bitch.

Final vote was 52% in favor of Poe, 48% in favor of Chief Zee. Congratulations CBS Sports, you've managed to split this already horribly divided nation once more. Inexplicably Poe the Raven, who I had not even heard of until this competition, defeated the greatest sports fan in the history of the NFL. I would lament through poetry but it's been done.

It's not worth thinking about.

So, in other "news," let's talk about the running backs. Washington Times goes first spoken through their new fan blogger, Robert Janis, trying to identify the greatest Redskins RB of all time. After much deliberation, his list:

So taking into account the stats, the honors/awards and having seen each one play, here is my selection of the best Redskins running backs in order:

John Riggins -- It really couldn't be anyone else. Watching that touchdown run against the Dolphins to win a Super Bowl is enough to make him #1.

Larry Brown -- The stats prove it, the awards prove it and his running style proves it. He could have played for a few more years if George Allen didn't over use him. 

Steven Davis -- No doubt a surprise to you. Definitely a surprise to me. But his stats make him worthy -- yards and touchdowns -- and he went on to prove himself with another team -- Carolina Panthers.  I don't think Turner and Marty knew how to use him. And Spurrier let him go for a guy name, what? Trunge Candidate??

Clinton Portis -- His numbers are good and he's still playing. And he's a good team leader. I think he keeps things lose in the locker room. I just wish that he could add a Super Bowl to his resume.

Ernest Byner -- I debated placing Byner third or fourth. After all he did help us reach and win a Super Bowl.

I don't beef with the list and would say that after Riggins, Brown, and Davis (and it shouldn't surprise anyone -- he was a great Redskins RB), I'm not sure I either am capable of contributing much to the discussion or willing to do so. That's the cream of the crop with everyone else just looking up, for now, as far as I'm concerned (CP isn't distant). I think Terry Allen might be better than Ernest Byner as well.

Elsewhere, at ESPN, Jeremy Green has running game rankings for all the teams. I can't afford the entire article, but the one showing up on this link happens to have a Redskins blurb. Enjoy:

12. Washington Redskins

Clinton Portis is one of the most underrated RBs in the NFL. In six seasons, he has topped the 1,200-yard mark five times. The only season he didn't top 1,000 yards was in 2006, when he played only eight games due to injury. Though nicked at times, he has shown the toughness to play through injury. One of his biggest issues has been fumbling and he put it on the ground six times last season. In 2006 with an injured Portis out, Ladell Betts totaled 1,154 yards. He struggled last year because he didn't get enough touches, but he is one of the better backups in the NFL.

Don't disagree with much here, either. If one of the backs is going to get criticized for fumbling, though, it should be Betts. Portis drops the ball around once every 77 carries, Betts around once every 55 carries. Beyond that fumbling issue, the question raised here implicitly is whether Betts will improve as his touches increase, which is predicated on... his touches increasing. I think they will, but can anyone put to print a reasonable explanation as to why that will happen this year? I need help in the comments section, as I have no reasonable basis for that belief that I'm currently capable of articulating. And yet, my gut sayeth: Betts must have more carries.

What caught my eye more than the ranking is the heading of the list, which reads:

Rankings show just how far some running games have fallen

Of course this isn't true. What rankings show are just one person's interpretation of the results, either future-predicted or past-in-review. What shows how far a team's running game has fallen or not are actual results. I only point this out because I'm as guilty as anyone of overstating the importance of lists when, YARLY, they don't mean much of anything.

The amount of money I'm willing to bet that Brett Favre will be a Washington Redskins next season = zero, pending some really alluring odds that could make me rich rich rich so long as I box it with equally unlikely scenarios such as the Patriots sacking Tate Glasscock in the endzone to ultimately win 8-6. What am I talking about? Glasscock.

The only reason I mention this Brett Favre to Redskins nonsense is because it is now the 2nd time I've heard it, though don't ask me to recall from whence it came in the first. All I know is, an anonymous gambling entity (I call him Gamblor!) known only as "LazerWager" makes the case in strong terms. See for yourself:

While most sports journalist and radio hosts are hyping the Minnesota Vikings as Favre's next team, LazerWager suggests the Washington Redskins are the perfect fit for Favre's return this year. 'Favre has too much respect for his former teammates and fans to join a rival from the NFC North. And the Packers don't want to face him two times this season,' stated DelGato.

Washington's roster provides plenty of targets in Chris Cooley, Santana Moss and Antwaan Randle El. All three receivers caught 50 passes or more for at least 700 yards, even with Jason Cambell and Todd Collins splitting time at the quarterback position.

One might go on to say especially with Todd Collins splitting time at quarterback as he was a full 2 yards an attempt better than JC last year, which may not sound like much but is a magical number of magnitude that also partially distinguishes the career of Joe Montana from that of Chuck Fusina. Who knew?

None of which is said to dog Jason Campbell, or Chuck Fusina for that matter, but let's not forget that Todd Collins was very much the cause and not a hinderance of having three receiving targets accomplish arbitrary goals that may interest only those of us who write Redskins blogs as a hobby.

More than what Santana Moss, Antwaan Randle El, and Cooley accomplished, the devil or angel on Favre's shoulder shouldn't forget that we also drafted a few really tall, really hyped kids in Devin Thomas and Malcolm Kelly. Brett loves to throw passes into coverage and against many nickel and dime backs that won't necessarily hurt him so long as the people on the receiving end are as large, strong, and sure-handed as two of our 2nd round picks. Fred Davis? He's not small.

Although I think rumors of Favre-to-Washington are greatly exaggerated, don't interpret my repeating them as evidence of me wanting Jason Campbell anywhere but as the starting QB of the Redskins. Like Tandler, I have my questions in Re: Campbell, but remain optimistic that he's the player who serves to gain the most from having Head Coach and former QB and former QB Coach Jim Zorn tending shop. My concerns with Jim Zorn do not involve his ability to develop zee quarterbacks, a skill he's proven almost beyond reproach, but rather with ability to captain the entire ship, for which he's as proven as this author.

Hey so what about that Brett Favre guy, yea?

I promised I would return yesterday yet, here I am world, and there's nothing happening with Your Washington Redskins. It was a busy, crazy week for me. Rather than apologizing for not being around to post all the super-nuts-cool things that were happening, I'll do you a favor by not boring you with details on why my week wasbusy and/or crazy.

If you can call this news:

Actually everything Chris Cooley does is badass, so I will call this news. Hey everyone, Captain Chaose got hats, family, friends. My fav is the yellow striped one because it reminds me of the sweet Johnny Chimpo Afghanistanimation from Super Troopers. In other news, I'm almost completely blind.

Chris Samuels loves ballet school haaaaaaaaaaaah! (But seriously, that's good people on him. We support giving back to communities and applaud Samuels for doing so.)

Hat tipped to Football Outsiders for pointing me to Pete Prisco's Top 50 Players. The following Redskins made the list:

He also has a "Just Missed" section. The following Redskins made that list:

I'll address that later this week, as I think there are a few Redskins deserving of mention on at least one of those lists.

This offseason thing? It lasts forever.

Eric Karabell (hat tip to Extreme Skins) of ESPN has the Fantasy scoop (or does he?) on... the offensive line?

On the line: Keeping tackles Chris Samuels and Jon Jansen healthy is critical, especially with Campbell being a bit fumble-prone. Jansen missed the entire season because of a dislocated ankle, while right guard Randy Thomas has not been durable. It's an old, brittle line learning a new system it might be able to thrive in, although that shouldn't hold back Portis. The defensive line welcomes former Viking Erasmus James, but he's not guaranteed to start. Andre Carter can be an impact guy in deep IDP leagues, but for the most part, fantasy owners need not worry about this defensive line.

Despite the fact that the article hails from ESPN's 2008 Fantasy Football Draft Kit, the author obviously went off the fantasy sports reservation, because I've never played a fantasy football league where the offensive line garnered points. Maybe he's focused on the indirect effects a struggling line has on your RB and QB and everyone else. Who knows?

There is no news, so we'll talk about the defensive line, I suppose. Issue is which or whether either of James or Chris Wilson will make the team. I have absolutely no read on how this non-battle has played out so far, as there's sufficient print supporting both of them to give me pause. For instance, you can read about Erasmus James at ESPN or Wilson at TSN:

PERSONNEL ANALYSIS: Two backups could play prominent roles for the defense this season. Chris Wilson is a lightweight in terms of bulk, but the DE comes off the ball with a great deal of explosion. He's quick enough to get around most offensive tackles, and fast enough to get to the QB before the pass is thrown. Defensive coordinator Greg Blache plans to play to the individual strengths of his players, and that could mean Wilson gets more snaps in passing situations. ...

I think I've said it before, but if the team wants to keep both Wilson and James it could mean the end for Demetric Evans. We've got a lot of Defensive Ends, including recently signed draft pick Rob Jackson, undrafted FA Dorian Smith. Not everyone can make the team.

They weren't kidding about Wilson being on the small side, either. The team lists him at 240 lbs, which makes him the smallest by over 10 pounds. Then again, Carter was the 2nd smallest on the line last year but by far the most productive. From the looks of it, lean and mean is the strategy for rushing the bad guy's passer.

Situational defenders are great so long as the starters remain healthy.

There really is nothing going on right now, these are the offseason doldrums. Enjoy.

Monday Morning Punter of KSK sends Deadspin's Will Leitch off appropriately, pointing out:

I'm glad to be here at the latest Blogfrica Circle Jerk. Seriously, if we spent any more time discussing ourselves, we'd get a cease-and-desist from Mark Cuban.

And yet, Will Leitch is an important enough fixture in what it is we do that I can't resist talking about him even after reading that QED moment from MMP. I'd ask reader(s) to forgive me, but I don't have any.

I love Deadspin, read it daily, have for years. Will has presented good sports stories with glibly glibness that was simply the glibbest work about, and it spoke to me. I imagine it spoke to a lot of my ilk who: a) loved sports, b) felt that seriousness reporting over an inherently childish topic (my bat is bigger than your bat) was worth discouraging, c) agreed that sports entertainment is best done democratically and d) still laughed at dick and fart jokes.

Will Leitch is leaving Deadspin for apparently greener pastures (I question the possibility of that) at New York Magazine, huzzah. He couldn't resist because:

It wins National Magazine Awards.

Alright.

And although Will promises to continue writing at Deadspin, it will never be the same without his ward oversight. Leitch was never a sports fan who happened to  be a good writer, he was always an amazingly talented one who happened to write about sports. I would say his move to the New York Magazine (or wherever) was anticipated, because he was simply too talented to be wasting his time on some blog -- gross. But that can't be true, because he turned Deadspin into every bit as much a prestigious writing institution, at least among a non-trivially sized demographic that happens to include me, as any rag he'd later join.

Now for the part that Punter predicted, where we can't help but talk about ourselves. Everyone who reads this site knows what Deadspin is and exactly seven people who read Deadspin know what this site is, so know how ridiculous I feel congratulating Leitch, as if he knew or cared or needed the likes of me to say cheers and tits. But the two praises I'll sing for Deadspin are:

1. Connection with his site is largely the metric by which the rest of us scrubs measure our success. A good day of blogging is one where Leitch says your name. Good blogs have their names said.

2. I can't recall him ever linking here.

If you can judge character well, you'll never fail.

Whatever and wherever he writes, I'll keep reading. Best of luck to Will Leitch.