Two takes, or takedowns, on 'Redskins'

I ate at Sambo's as a kid and also thought the restaurants were done about the time my high school was ordered to change its nickname from Warriors to Wildcats.

So you can imagine the double-take when I walked down the street in Santa Barbara a couple months ago and found this:

http://www.sambosrestaurant.com/

 

I know nothing of that Sambo's, but one of the few times I miss covering NASCAR is the Saturday night of the Dover race.

Mmmmm Sambo's.

http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3712190808

 

Would you like to go Bojangles and eat some fried chicken?

Seriously, this place blows my mind.

 

Okay, second attempt ...

Checking in from Jacksonville:

 

yes, fool: they'll scalp me. thanks for showing us how clever you are.

 

good one, 2muchcoffeeman.
On University Blvd, right. That's right around the corner from my mother-in-law's house.

 

Redskins get to keep the trademark on their offensive name:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of Native American activists who claimed that the Washington Redskins' team name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601298.html?wpisrc=nlmost

 

If the name Redskins is so offensive, why is it when I'm traveling through New Mexico I see more Redskins jackets/hats/t-shirts than Cowboys, Cardinals or Chiefs if you want to stick with the Native American theme?

I'm not against changing the name but that's a fact.

 

Ignorance. Just like the analogy in the above question.
An educated adult, one with objectivity and the ability to think critically, should be able to differentiate between the words "Cowboys," "Chiefs" and "Redskins."

 

That's actually anecdotal evidence, which is not fact.

 

If the team was the "Kansas City Redskins" the Supreme Court would have heard this case.