Of Redskins and Irishmen

I never understood how people backed the Redskins name. It's so obviously racist. I've heard the argument that it isn't necessarily derogatory. Certainly it isn't "nigger" or "kike", and not even "wop" or "mick". But we don't have the "Cincinnati Darkies" nor the "Atlanta Whiteys". Why should we ever lump an entire group of people all in by skin color? You can do your own research on the etymology of the name, but it boils down to making a mascot out of an entire race of people by their skin color. I never understood that. It's (past) time for it to go.

I have mixed feelings about using Native American iconography at all. For example, I understand that Florida State has a very good relationship and open dialog with the Seminole tribe in using their name. I know that the University of North Dakota abandoned the Sioux name after it could not get approval from all neighboring Sioux tribes. ( I have to note here that 'Dakota' is literally one of the linguistic divisions of the Greater Sioux nation, so one of the suggestions in their entire naming controversy was to just call the teams 'North Dakota' as 'North Dakota Sioux' was simply redundant.) I can understand arguments both for and against the Blackhawks, the Braves, the Indians. Those aren't blatantly racist and contemptuous. I could even attempt to hear an argument for the "Tomahawk Chop" cheer of Braves fans. (I dunno. I'd listen, but I'm pretty close-minded to those particular shenanigans. "The Indians" kind of too - I wouldn't really understand the argument behind that mascot. I'd try. [No, I wouldn't.] I like that "Caucasians" t-shirt one can buy that mocks the Cleveland Indians.) Redskins, though, is a racist, pejorative term. It may not have started that way (again, feel free to do your own research) but it has been used that way for over a hundred years. Has to go.

In a Facebook post I brought up the fact that everyone seems to completely ignore "The Fighting Irish". It broke down into a thread about the merits or lack thereof of the Redskins moniker. I should know better. (I should know better than to say anything slightly political in a Facebook post. Though how this is even a political issue is absolutely stunning to me. [I should say, it WAS stunning until I thought about it more and realized I shouldn't be so surprised.] I should also know better than to say anything that goes a slight bit against the tide of the social discourse of the day, which has turned into more tide than actual discourse. Don't say anything against it nor even something tangential to today's topic - you'll just be trying to swim across an overwhelming current. Just nod your head and go with it.) The Rice name is Orange Irish. I'm pretty sure our family went over to the Emerald Isle and beat (and worse) the Catholic into servitude. So I'm not going to feign any sort of indignation at the name "Fighting Irish". What perplexes me is that I don't understand why people ignore the mascot of Notre Dame but are incensed that North Dakota would use "The Fighting Sioux".

The Fighting Irish is no less a pejorative than the Fighting Sioux (though both, to me, are much less so than Redskins). One of the stories of how Notre Dame athletes gained the moniker is that Northwestern students taunted their team with "Kill the Fighting Irish" during a game in 1899. (There have been many proud days in Northwestern history, but that doesn't sound like one of them.) Another is that Notre Dame's own coach used the stereotype when he said to his team during a game in 1909, this time against Michigan, "What’s the matter with you guys? You’re all Irish and you’re not fighting worth a lick.” In 2005 the NCAA went forward with sanctions on just about anyone with a Native American mascot including the Fighting Sioux of North Dakota, but said nothing about Notre Dame.

Anytime the NCAA does something about anything I first assume it's about money. Why doesn't anyone else take notice of it, however? What doesn't anyone, Irish or otherwise say, "Hey, why are you holding onto that old stereotype anyway?" (I have my personal suspicions.) You will notice that the media hardly ever adds the "Fighting" part in anymore, particularly NBC, simply calling them "The Irish" more often than not. But Notre Dame's athletics web page is titled "Notre Dame Athletics | The Fighting Irish". I realize that I've written a lot about Notre Dame now on the day the Washington Redskins gave up their mascot, but here's the reason - It makes doing something that is completely right, like standing against the Redskins name, look hypocritical. It smacks of political correctness instead of simply what it is - Correctness. I'm not suggesting that we change every athletics mascot name that might offend someone in someway. I'm saying that if we are going to have a conversation about removing racially or ethnically disparaging names and The Fighting Irish doesn't even enter the conversation, people need to ask themselves why.

Keystone XL

I'm hoping I can weigh in on the Keystone pipeline before Obama vetoes the bi-partisan bill authorizing its construction. This is one of those political issues that I think highlight how dysfunctional our federal government has become. The stance of Congress, mostly on the right side of the aisle with a couple handsful of supporters on the left, is that the Keystone XL pipeline, an offshoot, a shortcut, if you will, of the rest of Keystone that has already been built would make it easier to get oil down from Alberta, Canada, to the refineries on the U.S. gulf coast. The majority of Democrats, following the lead of the White House, believe that more time is necessary to study the environmental and economic effects of the pipeline before authorizing its construction. Note, no one is saying it should NEVER be built, only that we need to take more time to examine the impact of building it.

First, let's get one thing right out of the way: the Republican argument that it will create 42,000 jobs. That's the figure thrown out there all the time by those on the right. It isn't a made-up one, but the report they are citing says that money spent on the the pipeline would help sustain 42,000 jobs. In the short-term it would create about 4000 construction jobs. Other jobs would be created both directly and indirectly by the construction, but not 42,000. Some of those jobs involved actually already exist, are filled, and are being paid today. So, while I'm sure that while locally it will help economies where it is being built, the construction isn't really going to have a big impact on the national job market. That was just a nice story for Republicans to throw out there when unemployment was so high.

I certainly wouldn't dispute that there are environmental issues at play with the construction of Keystone XL. However, assessments of its impact have been going on for five years now. The government itself published its "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement" this time last year. Note the terms Final and Supplemental. It's supplemental because the government wasn't happy with the assessment created by a third-party that they allowed the owner of the pipeline to commission, which said that no significant environmental impact would occur. Guess what the government's independent assessment stated. That's right, that the pipeline and construction of the pipeline would have no significant environmental impact. Well, there was money well-spent. And how can the president insist that more study is needed when they've been holding on to the "Final" impact assessment for a year now?

In fact, Obama himself fast-tracked the construction of phase 3 of the pipeline in 2012. (The XL extension is phase 4). He made a big proclamation to the people of Oklahoma how he was going to cut through the bureaucratic red tape to get that phase built. We already have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline criss-crossing the U.S. It isn't the pipeline nor its construction that is really at issue in regards to the environment. It is oil sands.

Oil sand, as the name suggests, is oily (really bituminous) sand. Like its stony shale cousin, only recently has the technology made it profitable to try and extract oil from. The extraction of it is more akin to strip-mining with pits and tailings, than it is to an oil well. Also, it burns with higher carbon emissions than lighter crude oil, but much less than those given off by burning coal. Environmentalists real concern is that the pipeline will give easier access to Alberta's oil sands reserves and expand its extraction.

Two things about this: 1) Canada has been expanding the oil sands extraction regardless of access to the pipeline. That has been driven by the high price of oil and better and better technology. With the oil price plummeting, extraction may not increase, but you can bet, at some point, that oil is going to come out of that ground. 2) Currently those gulf coast refineries already refine oil from oil sands, only that oil comes from Venezuela. Venezuela is one of the largest exporters of crude oil in the world. Their government is also a repressive, socialist one that has consistently labeled capitalism and the U.S. specifically as its great enemy. The U.S. imports about 300 million barrels of crude oil annually from Venezuela. Even with today's price, that's $15 billion U.S. dollars flowing to Venezuela annually. Why would we want that money going to Venezuela instead of Canada?

Finally, as I said before, that oil is going to come out of the ground in Alberta one way or another. They are still expanding their operations up there. How does that oil get to the refinery now?, you might ask. Because it IS still going to refineries. The answer is by trucks and trains. Go ahead and Google "train derailments". Go ahead and Google "Lac-Mégantic". Tell me that moving that oil by train is somehow safer than by pipeline. I don't even need to start on truck accidents. We had one here just north of Brighton, carrying diesel rather than crude, that closed the interstate yesterday. What emits more carbon into the air, pumping oil through a pipe or moving it by truck or train?

This is federal government bullshit on both sides. Okay there's some job impact but not significant enough to say that the pipeline is definitely in the national interest. There is some environmental impact but not enough to say it isn't in the national interest. This issue is simply a political card that the two sides are wielding against each other. I, like most other Americans according to polls, believe the pipeline should be built. Yes, we have low gas prices now, but the market will adjust. When prices go back up, we'll be bemoaning the fact that Alberta is sitting on a ton of crude they can't move fast enough. However, whether it makes sense or not, let's stop with the bullshit coming out of Washington.

What Does That Have to do With the Price of Oil?

One thing that I really haven't heard anyone talk about concerning this precipitous drop in the price of oil is how OPEC hasn't cut their production. In years past when the price of oil threatened to drop liek this, OPEC would only need to threaten to cut production to keep prices stable. Now, even in the face of plummeting prices, OPEC has said they will not cut production. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-14/u-a-e-says-opec-won-t-change-output-even-if-price-drops-to-40.html)

The result of this is that Russia's economy, so dependent on oil, is going right down the crapper. (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/RUBUSD:CUR) I don't think this is any accident. Of course, one can only speculate the conversations that go on behind closed doors between U.S. politicians and Arabian sheikhs, but certainly no one is in any hurry to throw Vladimir Putin a life ring. For as much as Putin kicked around Obama this summer, maybe Obama deserves some consideration for throwing a haymaker of his own.