San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, November 1, 2013

Bill Gross Goes Insane

I am no fan of Bill Gross.  He is heavily biased against stocks.  He routinely predicts that stocks are going to be bad investments.  By doing so he has caused many people to experience financial losses because they were out of the stock market.  His bias against stocks clearly has to do with his position as a bond fund manager.  In addition he seems to have only a rudimentary understanding of how the capital markets work.  Still, because his bond fund is the biggest in the country, he is considered to be a financial guru by many.  In reality he is just another business-minding, bleeding heart liberal.  How do I know this?  Because he said so.
Bill writes a regular newsletter for his underlings.  The newsletter was released yesterday and reported in the magazine Business Insider.  Here are some of the things Bill had to say yesterday:

"Having benefited enormously via the leveraging of capital since the beginning of my career and having shared a decreasing percentage of my income thanks to Presidents Reagan and Bush 43 via lower government taxes, I now find my intellectual leanings shifting to the plight of labor. I often tell my wife Sue it’s probably a Kennedy-esque type of phenomenon. Having gotten rich at the expense of labor, the guilt sets in and I begin to feel sorry for the less well-off....Instead of approaching the tax reform argument from the standpoint of what an enormous percentage of the overall income taxes the top 1 percent pay, consider how much of the national income you’ve been privileged to make....In the United States, the share of total pre-tax income accruing to the top 1 percent has more than doubled from 10 percent in the 1970s to 20 percent today....A fair economic system should always allow for an opportunity to succeed. Congratulations. Smoke that cigar, enjoy that Chateau Lafite 1989. But (mostly you guys) acknowledge your good fortune at having been born in the '40s, '50s or '60s, entering the male-dominated workforce 25 years later, and having had the privilege of riding a credit wave and a credit boom for the past three decades. You did not, as President Obama averred, "build that," you did not create that wave. You rode it. And now it’s time to kick out and share some of your good fortune by paying higher taxes or reforming them to favor economic growth and labor, as opposed to corporate profits and individual gazillions."

Wow! Bill is really saddled with a mountain of rich man's guilty, isn't he?  Let's consider his arguments for a moment.  First, Bill believes that extortionate government taxation is best described as "sharing a portion" of your income.  The last time I checked the Internal Revenue Service did not come to my door and ask me to share some of my money.  On the contrary, the IRS examines my every financial movement and then forcibly extracts an immoral amount of money from me to pay for government services that I also happen to consider immoral.  Somehow Bill has reworked the system in his mind so taxpayers are politely sharing some of their money with the government.  At this point Bill appears to be getting a bit detached from reality.
Because Bill believes that his tax rate has decreased somewhat in recent years he feels guilty that he is sending less of his money to Washington.  I don't know if his tax burden has been reduced.  Let's grant him that it has.  I will guess that his total tax bill has decreased from 48% to 45%, or something like that.  That extra 3% he gets to keep is making him stay awake at night as he ponders the "plight of labor".  I didn't realize that labor was experiencing a plight.  In fact, I thought labor was doing just fine.  Over the past ten years, per capita real disposable income has risen from just over $33,000 to just under $37,000.  Don't believe me?  Check out the link and you will see that I am not just making this stuff up.  How can "labor" be experiencing a "plight" when disposable income has increased nicely?  Bill doesn't say.  He just tells us he feels bad about "labor."  I am glad that Bill thinks about me, but he really shouldn't.  My wages as a janitor have increased nicely and the last time I checked I could not find any plight on my body at all.  It is easy to feel bad about an inanimate object like "labor".  Does Bill feel bad for any particular laborer?  He does not say. I wonder if he has voluntarily increased the amount he pays to his paperboy, trash man, grocery store clerk and fast food cashier?  He does not say.  He just feels bad.
Bill believes that he has "gotten rich at the expense of labor".  Here is where Bill best displays his economic ignorance.  Bill has not exploited labor.  Nobody who works for him has done so at the point of a gun.  If Bill does not like the fact that he makes more money than those who work for him he is free to raise their wages.  He does not say if he has done that.  I wonder if he has?  Meanwhile, those poor laborers who work for him have made more money over the last ten years because labor has become more productive.  Does Bill know this or does the ivory tower he lives in prevent him from seeing the non-plight of the unwashed masses living beneath him?
Bill believes that those in the top 1% of the income population are there because they are "privileged".  He does not define what he means by the term.  Nobody rises to the top 1% of the income population because they are "privileged".  People rise to that level of income because they serve consumers better than the other 99% of the income population.  Money comes to those who serve the consumers.  In the absence of coercion and government created monopoly you can rest assured that those who make the most are those who serve the most.  Somehow, in Bill's mind, that means those folks are "privileged".  Bill is totally disconnected from economic reality at this point.
Bill seems to be shot through with envy and self-loathing.  What does it matter to him if somebody else who is rich enjoys smoking cigars and drinking fine wines?  Yet he takes the time in his newsletter to mock those who do.  Why?  The only possible reason I can dream up is that Bill must be feeling guilty about his wealth and he is projecting his own self recriminations upon his fellow rich.  He wants them to all feel as badly as he does.  Misery loves company, and Bill seems to be a pretty miserable person.
Bill buys into King Obama's economic vision which declares that those who are in the top1% are not there due to their own efforts but they are there due to the efforts of others.  Because the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has continue to experience growth in Gross Domestic Product, Bill is upset that people at the top can make even more money than they could in times past.  Would Bill prefer a return to the days of the Great Depression?  Would he prefer to have the government nationalize all industry and guarantee that nobody made more money than anyone else?   Does he desire every entrepreneur to bow down to the holy throne of the government and confess that apart from its help he would be destitute?  I don't know what Bill desires.  I just know that he wrongly believes that those who are in the top 1% are there due to the efforts of others.  If others were working as hard and as smart as those in the top1%, they would be there with them.
Bill jumps off the rational cliff with his concluding statement.  He tells us that it is time for a change.  Bill believes that those in the top 1% need to "kick out and share" their "good fortune".  Since their efforts were not responsible for their wealth ("fortune", whatever that is, was), they should be generous and share with others.  Who should they share with?  That inanimate object called labor.  How should they share their money with labor?  Via more government taxation.  What a system.  Bill, like every socialist and communist in the history of the world, hates corporate profits.  He says that he favors "economic growth" but, at the same time, he despises "corporate profits".  That is not logically or economically possible.  It is schizophrenic.  I am worried about Bill.  He wants the government to confiscate even more corporate profits and give them to an inanimate object he calls "labor".  Poor Bill, he has really lost touch with reality.
If Bill wants to give all of his money away he is free to do so.  But like all good socialists Bill is more concerned with the government taking away the money of others and giving it to people and causes he believes are important.  Is Bill practicing what he preaches?  I have no idea.  But I do know that his desire to force others to bend to his will is pure communism.  Bill is nuts.  I think he has gone insane.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Soldier Worship Is Disgusting And Wrong

I was eating my dinner and watching the local television news last night when a story came on that I have seen at least a hundred times in the last year.  It featured a man from the Army who was coming home on leave for a couple of weeks.  He was dressed in full combat fatigues and "surprised" his kid brother at school.  They hugged and cried.  The camera turned back to the two air-headed news anchors.  The pretty-boy anchor exclaimed, "these stories never get old" to the pretty-girl anchor who vigorously concurred with his opinion.  They both had tears welling up in their eyes.  I almost upchucked my mac and cheese.
I opened my copy of the Denver Post this morning and the second page of the paper had a feature story about the same soldier I had seen on television the night before.  There was a big picture of the two of them hugging and crying.  There was a story about how the kid brother cried when he saw his older brother at school.  I just imagined all the folks reading the story getting all weepy-eyed and telling themselves that this is an example of good journalism.   I almost upchucked my oatmeal.
When did it become mandatory to worship soldiers?  When did soldiers become superior to all other citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika?  Many people like to say that "everything changed with 9/11".  I believe that is one of the dumbest things a person can believe.  Practically nothing changed with 9/11.  Our government is the practically the same, only bigger.  Our economy is practically the same, only bigger.  Our population is practically the same, only bigger.  Our military presence around the world is practically the same, only bigger.  Our imperialistic colonial designs on the world are the practically the same, only bigger.  For the most part nothing changed. 
One item, however, did change.  We moved from being a society that generally maintained a healthy skepticism of the military/industrial complex (as Eisenhower labeled it) to a society that generally worships all things military.  I suspect that change has something to do with the image of the twin towers falling to the ground.  That event really shook people up.  That event really made people want to go out and kill some foreigners.  That event became the justification for killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Pakistan.  That event changed the definition of "patriot" from one who loves his country to one who loves his military. 
Another thing that changed after 9/11 was the consideration and public discussion about whether a war of aggression against another sovereign nation was actually a "just war".  Prior to 9/11 there were at least some pockets of people who would question the propriety and morality of SDA military engagements (I can't call them "wars" anymore because the SDA no longer fights wars) around the world.  The war in Vietnam was perhaps the greatest example of the citizenry of the SDA questioning the moral propriety of killing Vietnamese people in a war that was allegedly fought to protect SDA national security.  Most people, quite properly I believe, came to realize that the war in Vietnam was immoral.  We had no right to kill Vietnamese people who posed no legitimate threat to SDA national security.  When those soldiers who had been fighting that immoral war came home many of them were harshly received by the SDA public.  I am not advocating the harsh reception of soldiers but there are certain logical necessities that must be considered here.
I begin with one presupposition.  A just war is always defensive in nature.  It is impossible to engage in a just military action when the motivation for doing so is anything other than protecting the citizens and property of one's own country from a real, tangible threat from another foreign country or organization.  Saint Augustine first elucidated the principles of a just war and I, along with most civilized peoples since that time, agree with him.  The only people who have routinely rejected Augustine's doctrine for a just war are pacifists and leaders of countries with imperialistic designs on the world.  Pacifists, of course, believe it is wrong to kill even if it is in self-defense.  Imperialists believe it is always right to kill because they are exceptional and doing good things for the people they are occupying.  
If a military action is unjust then it necessarily follows that those who are prosecuting that military action are behaving unjustly.  If a military action that is unjust ends up killing a citizen of a foreign nation who was not a threat to SDA national security then the soldier who killed that foreign citizen is guilty of murder.  There is no escaping this logical necessity.  The soldier cannot claim that he was "only following orders".  No man is morally exempt from the consequences of his actions, especially when those actions involve the killing of another person.  Simply put, if the military conflict is just, the killing is justified.  If the military conflict is unjust, the killing is murder.
Soldiers who kill the citizens of other countries for just reasons should be welcomed home without dishonor.  Soldiers who have killed others in order to defend the national security, people and property of the SDA have done the citizens of the SDA a difficult and dangerous service and should be recognized for their service.  However, if the military engagement has been unjust, those who return from the killing fields are murderers and should be arrested upon their arrival on home soil. 
We can see that the most significant question here is whether a military conflict is just or unjust.  The absence of discussion about the propriety of our military conflicts today is what is so surprising to me.  I have read nothing since 9/11 that even addresses the question if the various SDA military engagements around the world are just or unjust.  I have seen no news report on television, even on Fox News, that discusses the moral propriety of  the SDA military actions around the world.  I have heard no argument put forward asserting that the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan are just.  Conversely, I have heard no argument put forward asserting that they are not.  It is as if a gigantic gag order has been put upon the issue and nobody is permitted to even bring the topic up.  This should not be.  This issue must be discussed.
At the very least we should put an immediate halt to all soldier worship.  That is the only reasonable thing to do.  We have not determined if what these men and women are doing is just or not.  We cannot logically receive all of them home as heroes when we have no idea if what they have been doing is heroic or not.  Ultimately, given the present gag order on the issue,  I guess it comes down to each person's subjective appraisal about the moral propriety or impropriety of each military conflict.  Your own personal answer to the just war question should determine your own personal response to returning military personnel.  From what I can see around me every citizen of the SDA has come to the conclusion that all military actions since 9/11 were morally justifiable and legitimate acts of self defense against a legitimate foreign invader who had the means, motive and opportunity to deliver significant harm to the people and property of the SDA. 
I am fed up with stories about returning servicemen.  My eyes do not well up with tears when the camera catches them surprising their families here at home.  I do not salute them in public and I do not shake their hands.  I do not thank them for their service and inform them that I believe they have kept me free.  On the contrary, I believe the actions of the SDA military in Iraq and Pakistan have been unjustifiable and have significantly undermined political stability around the world.  I believe their actions have endangered my life and made me less free.  Go ahead, accuse me of being unpatriotic because I refuse to engage in soldier worship.  I believe it is disgusting and wrong. 
On the other hand, if you believe soldiers are heroes, please explain to me how the various wars the SDA has fought around the world since 9/11 are morally proper.  Really, I would like to know your argument.  I would like to change my opinion.  I would like to wave the flag and sing the national anthem and salute soldiers on the street and swell with pride when a fighter plane flies over. Mostly I would like to believe that those photographs I see of dead Iraqi and Pakistani people are photographs of the enemy that deserved and needed to die because they were a threat to my life and property.


Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Environmentalists Hypocritically Oppose Energy Independence

We are living smack-dab in the middle of one of the most exciting times for the energy industry in the history of this country.  Don't look now but we are getting amazingly close to becoming energy independent.  That's right.  It won't be too much longer before we are actually exporting oil and gas to other nations.  How did this come about?
Every King since Eisenhower has delivered a speech, usually while running for office, in which he promised to enact government programs that would bring about energy independence.  When making those speeches all of those crazed fools ignored obvious geological and economic realities that made energy independence impossible.  All of them ignored the simple fact that government cannot do anything productive, especially something as productive as energy independence.  As a result the Socialist Democracy of Amerika never even came close to becoming energy independent.
The political hay to be made with such speeches had to do with the Middle East.  Red blooded Amerikans don't like those nutty foreigners who speak a nonsensical language, wear strange clothes and appear to be walking about with diapers on their heads.  Saying things about how the illegal and immoral cartel of oil producing countries (OPEC, for short) were ripping off honest, hard working Amerikans would always guarantee some votes.  Talking tough about putting them in their place by becoming independent of their oil exports always played well to those of us who want to envision all international relationships in terms of some sort of war.  The problem was, however, that it was just not going to happen.
Enter the free market and the technological developments that come with it.  Thanks to new drilling and extraction techniques, oil fields that had been given up as depleted are now producing oil and gas once again.  In fact, they are producing oil and gas in such quantities that we are on the fast track to producing more than enough for the current needs of SDA consumers.  Add to this technological revolution the fact that new oil and gas reserves have been discovered right at the time the doom-sayers all insisted we had reached "peak oil" and you have a fine prescription for energy independence.  You had better get used to the idea because it is coming, whether you like it or not.
That brings me to the point of today's post to this blog.  Leading the charge for energy independence over the decades have been various groups of environmental wackos.  They have spoken in glorious terms of the importance of being free from foreign influence in the energy markets.  They have told us that our national security was dependent upon becoming energy independent.  They have told us that energy independence was one of the most important things to be attained in this country if we wanted to have a prosperous future.  And now we come to find out that all of those assertions were nothing more than self serving lies.  Why am I not surprised?
Here we are on the verge of energy independence and guess who is opposing the expansion of oil and gas operations, the very thing that is delivering that independence?  You guessed it!  The environmental wackos.  An article in yesterday's Denver Post reported that, "an environmental group is asking the US Bureau of Land Management to impose strict limits on oil drilling in designated sage grouse habitat east of  Douglas....habitat zones such as the Douglas sage grouse core area are a key part of Wyoming's strategy for keeping sage grouse off the threatened or endangered species list."  So there you have it. Sage grouse are neither threatened nor endangered, whatever that means.  But just to make sure they do not become threatened or endangered at some point in the future the environmental Nazis have successfully petitioned the BLM to prevent gas and oil development in the area.  What is really going on here?
Let's admit it, shall we?  The environmental police do not really care about the environment.  If they did they would not be such utter hypocrites.  They say they love birds but they are in favor of wind farms that kill birds by the millions.  They say they love species of animals, like sage grouse,  that are neither threatened nor endangered yet they favor putting wind farms in their habitat that most certainly disrupt their travel and mating patterns.  They say they love Mother Earth and then turn around and scar her beautiful face with miles and miles of solar panels stretched out over the ground like some gigantic canker sore.  The amount of logical contradiction and hypocrisy that emanates from the environmentalists is staggering.  So what are they really about?
Environmentalists are fundamentally statists.  They believe in and worship state power.  Each particular group of wackos has adopted its own pet project that it wants the government to support.  Whether it be wind, solar, water or bio-fuel, they all share in common the belief that the taxpayers should subsidize their pet projects in order to attain the pipe-dream of energy independence.  They believe that it is a small price to pay for national security.  And, of course, they will all secure plush positions in the new government bureaus that are created to develop each economically ridiculous plan.  They pose as patriots as they vainly attempt to convince the sane among us that it is a good thing to pour billions of dollars down rat holes that will never produce a megawatt of profitable energy. 
It does not take a PhD in economics and political science to see what they want.  Environmentalists, although divided over so many environmental issues, are in total agreement about one thing....they all despise free enterprise with a passion.  In other words, environmentalists hate personal freedom and love government intervention and control of the marketplace.  If environmentalists really wanted energy independence why are they not only not celebrating, but actually opposing, the very activity that is bringing this dream to fruition?  Answer:  because those who are making us free are not from the government and they are making a profit while doing it.  That is totally unacceptable to environmentalists.  The truth about environmentalists is that they do not really care about the environment at all.  They care about expanding the power of the state.  They care about using the state to keep profit seeking businesses from making a profit. They are all socialists and communists.  They run under the cover of being environmentalists in order to advance their envy filled anti-business propaganda in a vain attempt to avoid being exposed for the lying hypocrites they are.  Consider them exposed.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Air Force Academy Honor Code Is A Hypocritical Joke

Last Saturday the Denver Post ran a story about a change to the oath of affirmation in the Honor Code sworn by cadets at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.  In another wildly absurd example of political correctness the AFA decided to make the final part of the oath optional.  The final part of the oath asserts, "so help me God."  In the belief that untold dozens of cadets might find the use of the name of God in their oath offensive, the decision was made to allow the cadets to drop that part of the oath.  The decision was justified by the telling the taxpayers, who support this organization, that "agnostic and atheist" cadets could find the oath "offensive" and should not be "forced" to utter the forbidden words.  Has everyone gone crazy?  The cadets at the AFA are supposed to be the best, brightest and of the highest moral character of anyone in our society.  Have these brilliant future leaders not spent one second of their lives pondering the nature of an oath?
The whole point of an oath is to invoke the presence of a higher power to bind the person swearing the oath to obedience.  One never swears an oath to himself nor does one swear an oath to an inferior being.  I think we all understand that oaths are always taken in the alleged presence of a superior being.  Now we can dispute whether that particular superior being actually exists, but that is another matter.  Ultimately all people believe in some form of a superior being.  For atheists that superior being, at least in my experience with atheists, is the State.  So an atheist could freely and properly finish his oath of affirmation to the Honor Code by saying, "so help me the State."
Similarly Buddhists could invoke the name of Buddha, Hindus could invoke the name of their favorite multiple armed deity, Wiccans could invoke the name of the Mother Earth and Indians could invoke the name of the Great Spirit.  Everyone would be happy.  I suspect there is the remote possibility that one or two cadets presently at the academy could actually fall into this category. In the spirit of fair play let's allow them to invoke the name of the deity of their choice.  But let's make them invoke the name of some deity.  After all, it is an oath that is being sworn.
Harry Puncee of Lakewood wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post today in support of the new AFA policy.  He wrote, "an oath must be self-contained within the individual's value system and unalterably linked to their personal sense of honor."  That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.  Think about his argument for a moment.  Harry believes that an oath must be "self-contained."  In other words, the oath goes no higher than the person swearing it.  I swear by myself that I will do this or that.  What an absurd notion.  Furthermore the oath must be consistent with the individual's "value system", whatever that is.  My value system says that it is a good thing to beat women and have sex with underage children.  My "personal sense of honor" says that if I do not beat at least one woman per week I have disgraced myself.  It also says that I must have sex with an underage child at least once a month.  So I will now take an oath and affirm, by myself, that I will beat women and have sex with underage children.  Harry thinks that is a pretty good oath.  Nonsense.
Actually Harry's opinion about what an oath is is not far from the practical truth at the AFA.  I had the misfortune of becoming personally involved with a cadet at the Academy several years ago whom I believed was in violation of the AFA Honor Code.  I had downloaded and read the very short and simple Honor Code and I could conclusively prove that the cadet was in violation of his oath to uphold it.  This cadet professed to believe in the God of the Bible and had sworn, as they all did at that time, to uphold the Code by the help of God.  After swearing that oath he proceeded to get a young woman pregnant.  She was complicit in the pregnancy but she had not sworn an oath to the AFA to behave with honor (she had sworn an oath to the church of which she was a member and the matter was handled by the church elders). 
The AFA Honor Code is very simple.  It says, "We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate among us anyone who does.  Furthermore, I resolve to do my duty and live honorably, so help me God."  So let me ask you a question, what is the honorable thing to do when you get someone pregnant?  I know that the consciences of so many people today are seared beyond the ability to answer that question.  Most folks are so jaded their response would be to get an abortion and forget about the whole affair.  Try to remember the old days, before abortion was a constitutionally protected right, and see if you can conjure up the memory of what people used to do when they got someone pregnant.  See it.  There, looming in the fog.  Yes, there it is.  They married the person!  They did the right thing and they married the person they got pregnant.
God shares that opinion as well.  The Bible clearly states that when a young man gets a young woman pregnant, and neither of them are married to someone else, they are to get married.  Both the young man and the young woman in this situation agreed that God's opinion was that they should get married.  So, what do you think they did?  The AFA cadet refused to marry her because his contract with the AFA did not allow him to be married.  If he got married he would have to leave the academy and a very lucrative career as an Air Force officer.  He was not willing to do that.
Incensed at the rebellion from what both the cadet and God believed to be the right thing to do, I contacted the AFA Chaplain to get further advice on what to do.  The lady Chaplain explained to me that cadets get young women pregnant all the time and there was an unwritten procedure that was followed to allow them to stay in the academy.  They could enter into an informal agreement to get married four years later, after his time at the academy was up.  In the meantime they had to pretend to not know each other.  The cadet could not send any money or material support to his future wife or his actual child.  Then, in one of the most bizarre twists of illogical thought I have ever heard in my life, the Chaplain informed me that the cadet would be in violation of the Honor Code if he had contact with his future wife or actual child.  According to her, the cadet was upholding the Honor Code by staying true to his promise to not get married while a cadet.  Actually impregnating someone was not a violation of the Honor Code!
As it turned out the cadet and the young woman never got married.  As it turned out neither the cadet nor his family sent a nickle of support to the young woman and her new born child, thus engaging in an act of theft in direct violation of the Honor Code.  As it turned out, after the cadet graduated from the AFA he did everything in his power to avoid paying child support to the mother of his child, thus engaging in another act of theft.  As it turned out the cadet went on to a lucrative career in the Air Force.  As it turned out my taxes are going to pay his salary and, in the future, his pension.  The cadet did all of this while telling himself that he had upheld the Honor Code of the AFA.  All of this took place in the AFA and everyone associated with it believed that the behavior of all parties, except my own (I was threatened with a lawsuit for even bringing the issue up to the academy), was of the highest honor.  That is why I say that the AFA Honor Code is a hypocritical joke.  All of those idiots and fools who take it are lying hypocrites.  That makes them perfectly fit to serve as officers in the military of the Socialist Democracy of America.  In fact, it makes them all perfectly fit to run for political office after their hitch is up.

Monday, October 28, 2013

The Washington Welshmen......I Like It!

I can't believe the furor that has been brewing over the use of the term 'Redskins' for the Washington DC football team.  Has everyone gone mad?  The Washington Redskins paid a visit to Denver yesterday to play the Denver Broncos.  Oops, sorry, I suspect I just offended an entire species of animals that like to hang out in stables and go for the occasional walk with a human on their back.  Too bad. Deal with it.
A group of loud mouthed malcontent Indians (or at least they claimed to be Indians, a lot of them looked like Gringos to me)  from the American Indian Movement (AIM) showed up at Mile High Stadium yesterday to protest the game.  Not surprisingly a photograph of the event showed an overweight Indian squaw with her clenched fist stabbing the air while carrying a sign saying "Change" while she screamed shrilly into the air.  I sure am glad I didn't go to the game yesterday.  I have already lost enough of my hearing.  Exposure to the sounds coming out of her mouth would undoubtedly have resulted in more damage to my ear drums. 
The local Chief of AIM was shouting at the crowd and declaring that "the Redskins name is demeaning and conjures the brutal history of American Indian slaughter at the hands of European colonists. It's not just about a team mascot, it's about a whole system of racism against us and our kids. This is our homeland.  We have the right to demand to be treated with respect."   Wow.  That is a mouthful.  Let's have a pow-wow and see if we can come to a peace treaty, shall we?
So let me get this straight.  When white European colonists (like my Welsh ancestors) came to this land they set about to immediately slaughter the Indians.  They saw how much wampum the Indians had and they wanted it.  They also realized that the Indians were in no position to defend themselves against the superior weaponry of the Europeans.  The Indians did not fight back.  The end result was they were almost annihilated by the evil white people from Europe.  Prior to the arrival of the evil whites from Europe all Indian peoples had lived in harmony.  They had enjoyed the highest standard of living in the known world and no Indian ever committed a crime against a fellow Indian.  It was almost like heaven, until the white man showed up.
Once the evil white Europeans slaughtered all the Indians they stole their land and set up a system of racism designed to disrespect the few survivors that had somehow managed to escape the holocaust.  Integral to this insidious plan of systematic racial exploitation is the use of terms like "Indians", "Redskins", "Seminoles" and "Braves" as mascots for sports teams.  The continual public display of Indian words in association with sports mascots is disrespectful and needs to be stopped, by government action if necessary.  I think I understand the situation now.  Let's consider it for a moment.
If the mere use of a name in the context of a sports mascot  is sufficient reason to conclude that that name is being used pejoratively, it necessarily follows that all mascot names are being used in a negative fashion.  In other words, the stated intention for the use of the name is irrelevant.  All that matters is that the word is used.  For example, the Wake Forest Deacons is a perfect example of a religious slur designed to demean and disrespect the office of Deacon and the men who fill that honorable office.  The fact that the Deacons are referred to as the Demon Deacons is especially grievous.  Deacons are typically honest men dedicated to the service of their local churches  To declare that they are actually in service of Satan is the greatest act of disrespect that could be cast upon them.  If I was a deacon, and I am not, I would then be immediately cast as the victim of this racial and professional slur.  As a result of my victim status I could go around to Wake Forest sporting events and protest.  I would expect press coverage of my outrage and I would also expect King Obama to come out in my favor on the issue.
According to the overly sensitive protectors of self-esteem, the use of anything as a mascot is inherently demeaning.  Broncos, Rams, Buffalos, not to mention Cornhuskers, Aggies, and Horned Frogs all should take great offense at their use as a sports mascot.  If I were a corn husker I would get in my tractor and immediately drive it down to Omaha in protest.  If I were a horned frog I would immediately go do something that horned frogs do when they get angry.  Everybody and everything should be very angry.  In fact, the more I think about it the more I realize that there is only one group of living beings that is not offended by being used as a sports mascot.  There is only one group of people that do not get offended when their names are used in public.  That group is the Welsh.  Let me tell you about us.
Welshmen are desperate for attention.  Usually the only attention we receive is when somebody accuses somebody else of "Welshing" him.  That is not good for our self esteem.  But it gets worse.  We have been oppressed by practically every political and ethnic group in the world.  Alternately the British, Scots, Irish, Swedes, Danes, and those hated Norwegians (Vikings I believe they were called) have all oppressed the docile Welsh people at one point or another.  As a result of this continual victimization we have been basically unable to fashion an honest projection of our culture to the world.  Other than developing a reputation as scoundrels, liars and cheats we have done nothing to project our truly glorious nature and culture to the world.  Being recognized as a mascot for a sports team would be a great way to get the Welsh word out.
Welshmen are not easily offended.  In fact, you have to work really hard to offend a Welshman.  Maybe it is because we are a bit slow.  Or maybe we are really dumb.  I suspect that I am just too dumb and slow to know.  Whatever the reason you can feel confident that whatever you call us will not bring about an organized protest against the use of our name.  Feel free to name your team the Welsh Weirdos or the Welsh Drunkards.  Wild Welshmen or Wacked-Out Welsh would also be fine.  As far as we are concerned you could call us the Stupid, Dumb, Lazy, Fat, Ugly, Malodorous Welshmen and we would be fine with all of those monikers.  Just make sure you get the word 'Welshman" in there somewhere.
I have seen numerous media reports that the overwhelming majority of people (usually in excess of 90% of those polled) have no problem with the use of the term 'Redskins'.  That includes polls taken of people who identify themselves as Indians.  I guess most people have a bit more common sense than the folks who carry membership cards to the American Indian Movement.  Most people have the common sense to recognize that teams choose mascots to represent them that they believe convey the image of integrity, strength, power and success.  Hence, having a redskin as a mascot is actually a sign of respect for the Indians.  After all, can anyone think of a mascot that is chosen specifically to be derogatory toward that group, other than the drunken Irishmen? 
So, in the final analysis, we can see that this is a tempest in a teapot.  Reasonable people realize there is nothing to talk about here.  But unreasonable people, like politicians, Kings, special interest groups and the media who follow them, still believe there is a story to be told.  To them I offer up the Welsh moniker.  Use it.  The Washington Welshmen!  I like it.