This Week's Rude Awakening E-Mail

Feb 22, 2013 -- 1:57pm
Why in the heck are there 14 teams in the American League and 16 teams in the National League. Would't it make sense to take one team from the National League and move them to the American. Also right now there are 4 Divisions with 5 teams, one with six and one with 4. Then we could have a nice round total of six divisions with 5 teams each. Does anybody really give a rat's behind about the Astros - just move them from the National League Central to the American League West and everything would be hunky dory.
*-NY Yankees 95 67 .586 - 51-30 44-37 804 668 +136 Won 4 7-3
y-Baltimore 93 69 .574 2 47-34 46-35 712 705 +7 Lost 1 6-4
Tampa Bay 90 72 .556 5 46-35 44-37 697 577 +120 Won 1 8-2
Toronto 73 89 .451 22 41-40 32-49 716 784 -68 Won 3 7-3
Boston 69 93 .426 26 34-47 35-46 734 806 -72 Lost 8 1-9
x-Detroit 88 74 .543 - 50-31 38-43 726 670 +56 Won 1 8-2
Chicago Sox 85 77 .525 3 45-36 40-41 748 676 +72 Won 1 4-6
Kansas City 72 90 .444 16 37-44 35-46 676 746 -70 Lost 1 2-8
Cleveland 68 94 .420 20 37-44 31-50 667 845 -178 Lost 1 6-4
Minnesota 66 96 .407 22 31-50 35-46 701 832 -131 Lost 5 3-7
x-Oakland 94 68 .580 - 50-31 44-37 713 614 +99 Won 6 8-2
y-Texas 93 69 .574 1 50-31 43-38 808 707 +101 Lost 3 3-7
LA Angels 89 73 .549 5 46-35 43-38 767 699 +68 Lost 2 6-4
Seattle 75 87 .463 19 40-41 35-46 619 651 -32 Won 2 3-7
National League
*-Washington 98 64 .605 - 50-31 48-33 731 594 +137 Won 2 6-4
y-Atlanta 94 68 .580 4 48-33 46-35 700 600 +100 Won 1 7-3
Philadelphia 81 81 .500 17 40-41 41-40 684 680 +4 Lost 2 4-6
NY Mets 74 88 .457 24 36-45 38-43 650 709 -59 Won 1 5-5
Miami 69 93 .426 29 38-43 31-50 609 724 -115 Lost 1 3-7
x-Cincinnati 97 65 .599 - 50-31 47-34 669 588 +81 Lost 1 5-5
y-St. Louis 88 74 .543 9 50-31 38-43 765 648 +117 Won 1 7-3
Milwaukee 83 79 .512 14 49-32 34-47 776 733 +43 Lost 1 4-6
Pittsburgh 79 83 .488 18 45-36 34-47 651 674 -23 Lost 1 4-6
Chicago Cubs 61 101 .377 36 38-43 23-58 613 759 -146 Won 1 2-8
Houston 55 107 .340 42 35-46 20-61 583 794 -211 Lost 1 5-5
x-San Francisco 94 68 .580 - 48-33 46-35 718 649 +69 Lost 1 5-5
LA Dodgers 86 76 .531 8 45-36 41-40 637 597 +40 Won 1 8-2
Arizona 81 81 .500 13 41-40 40-41 734 688 +46 Lost 1 4-6
San Diego 76 86 .469 18 42-39 34-47 651 710 -59 Won 1 4-6
Colorado 64 98 .395 30 35-46 29-52 758 890 -132 Won 1 6-4
Gary Hosmer
Go Gators

We are not red that is the big problem. We have been called that for way to many years. I would a team feel if they were called the black skins.No one would stand for this.If the name was after a certain tribe it would not be a problem. We often forget Perry that 10000 of our people died on the trail of tears. Our women and children scalped by the whites . We did not scalp and as a member of the Cherokee Nation I am very upset with your show.


My gripe is that teams with names like Warriors, Chiefs, Braves, Chieftans etc which are, in my opinion, laudatory, have had to chang their names. The most offensive name of all is without question "Redskins" and yet they do not have to change their name. Redskins has always, always, been used in a derogatory manner, never in a positive light. So it's the hypocrisy which bothers me.

Of course nothing will happen since 90% of Congress have season tickets and don't want to offend Snyder or whomever owns the team these days



Colleges and Universities
1930 Football ticket stub depicting the former Stanford Indian mascot


Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. ."[28]

Also in 1994, St. John's University (New York) changed the name of its athletic teams from the Redmen to the Red Storm after the university was pressured by American Indian groups who considered Redmen a slur. [29]

Miami University began discussion regarding the propriety of the Redskins name and images in 1972[30], and changed its team nickname to Redhawks in 1996.[31]

Seattle University changed the nickname of their mascot from Chieftains to Redhawks in 2000.

[36] Subsequently all of the colleges previously using the nickname Indians change them; Arkansas State University to Red Wolves, Indiana University of Pennsylvania to Crimson Hawks, McMurry University to War Hawks, Midwestern State University to Mustangs, Newberry College to Wolves, University of Louisiana at Monroe to Warhawks, and Catawba College to Catawba Indians with approval of that tribe. [37] The College of William and Mary (The Tribe) changed its mascot to the Griffin to keep feathers in its logo. Both Alcorn State University[38] and Bradley University kept the nickname Braves but change their mascots, while the Chowan University Braves became the Hawks. The Carthage College Redskins became the Red Men, and the Southeastern Oklahoma State University Savages changed to Savage Storm. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Fighting Illini kept the nickname as referring to the state, not Native Americans, but stopped using the Chief Illiniwek image and mascot in 2007. The University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux has stopped using their name and logo after many appeals, negotiations this several tribes, and the involvement of the state government.[39][40] Four additional colleges originally on the "hostile and abusive" list: Central Michigan University (Chippewas), Florida State University (Seminoles), Mississippi College (Choctaws) and University of Utah (Utes) were granted waivers to retained their nicknames after gaining support from those respective tribes.


Gary Hosmer
Go Gators



While I often agree with the views you have presented on the program, on this one you are absolutely wrong. Moreover, I found each of the explanations you offered to be wholly unpersuasive and, to some degree, indicative of the thinking that led to the adoption of these offensive names in the first place.

As an initial matter, I think it is important to make some important distinctions. To me (and I believe to many), naming a team after an actual tribe to honor that tribe is quite different from naming a team after the caricaturization of a group (or a common physical attribute of that group). Thus, in my view, "Florida State Seminoles" is not offensive, whereas "Redskins" and "Screaming Savage" (the ACTUAL NAME of the retired Braves logo) are both offensive -- the former blatantly so because it is a reference to the physical attribute, and the latter because is a stereotypical distillation of the Native American which, not coincidentally, was the very stereotype used to justify their genocide. By the same token, Chippewas, Sioux, Mohicans, Blackhawks and the like are acceptable in my view (provided, of course, the associated imagery is not caricaturized or stereotypical). As you well know, several of these teams have close relationships with, and the blessings of, the tribes they represent. I would even go so far as to say particular roles within the tribes (i.e., Braves, Scouts, Chief, etc.) are also acceptable.

"Redskins", however, is very different. It is an obvious reference to a physical difference between those being ostensibly "honored" and those assigning the name, and not in a flattering light. Such references rarely are. The name is akin to naming a team after the noses of certain minority ethnic groups, the lips of others, the eyes of yet others. It is NOT honorific. It is objectification and caricaturization, plain and simple. Suppose you wanted to honor the contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen by naming a team after them. Would you name them the "Blackskins" or the "Airmen"? Which makes more sense and which suggests something more sinister? Which is honorific and which is demeaning?

I am not convinced by your argument that "Redskins" is honorific. I will grant you that the logo is outstanding -- a representation that suggests pride, regality, and strength. The name, however, undercuts and overshadows all that the image conveys and, basically, sucks. For the Redskins organization to trot out dozens of high school administrators as if to say "See, a lot of people are doing it, so it's ok" is shameful. The number of people engaging in an activity does not determine the rightness of that activity. But more importantly, it is offensive in itself to claim that one is honoring a people about whom there is so much to admire by making reference to something as base their skin. Out of all of the awe-inspiring attributes one can choose to convey admiration for Native American people, the only one they could identify was their skin color?

Your argument regarding intent is similarly unpersuasive. Words matter, and we should not act as if they don't. Through this argument, you sound like those who sling the n-word around without hesitation, claiming that they intend the word to mean something far different from its history (and, sometimes, even its present). My response is always, "Well, what do you intend that word to mean? Then use those words instead."

Additionally, I note that you took a call from a caller who took no offense to the term "Redskins", but who was admittedly only part Native American. First, the term itself and the logo clearly do not refer to someone who is only part Native American, so to solicit the opinion of someone to whom the slur is not directed sheds no light on the issue. As a Black man (who, by the way, is part Cherokee), I am not qualified to speak on the offensiveness of slurs directed towards Asian people, or Latino people or Slavik people, etc. However, you then doubled down on this condescending tactic by proclaiming that, if the majority of the people decide that something isn't offensive, then it shouldn't be deemed offensive. Perry, you couldn't be more wrong. You are talking about the caricaturization of ethnic MINORITIES through references to their ethnic attributes that many of them say are offensive, but your response is that the majority gets to decide whether it's offensive?? Do you hear what you are saying? Really? I think a valuable part of belonging to this world body politic is understanding and respecting the views of others, as opposed to requiring the imposition of the views of the group to which, conveniently, you belong. (And please, don't give me the line about Italians as a group versus the Polish versus the Irish, etc. We are talking about ethnicity, not nationality).

Unfortunately, most of what is dismissed as "political correctness" is having to contend with the voices and viewpoints of those who did not have a voice previously. While I am no fan of PC run amok -- and certain of it is and has -- I do believe it has merit in some instances, such as this, even if it means that you have to unlearn many of the lies you have accepted, through no fault of your own. That was just the way the world was defined by those who chose to acknowledge some voices, chose not to acknowledge others, and then assigned definitions and "truth" based on those choices. Don't perpetuate that mistake. By the way, they are Native Americans because they are the native people of the Americas. They are not "Indians" solely because Christopher Columbus thought he had landed somewhere wholly different. To acknowledge that costs you nothing, but may mean the world to them.

In closing, USC sucks. Thank you.

One thing both of you guys are missing is "Do I really want someone else's blood all over my house?"
It's easy to say you'd shoot an intruder through a door, or if they're stealing your tv, but would you really want some dead bleeder in your bathroom? Or living room if they're on their way our of your house? If the bad guy (who is screaming like a woman, mind you), has already barricaded themselves in your bathroom, wouldn't you rather call the police than shoot up your own house? It's very dangerous to fire bullets, especially in a house as they could go through walls into other houses.
Btw if you can't tell the difference between your 120 pound girlfriend getting up to pee in the middle of the night and a 220 pound hulking intruder trying to make you shorter with his machete, you really need some new perspective.
Enjoy cleaning the blood off of your floors!
Vayehi yom shishi, yom huledet et Ilan.
Some people have a way with words, others not have way.


Georgia Castle Law 16-3-23,


Love the show! Is there any way the list of 3 and outs can be posted on the site page? Or maybe even you FB page??

My wife and i both play and miss them sometimes.
Take care.
Hey Rude

I think they should lower the hoop to about 6 ft and have midgets do the slam dunk contest.













this is why a team from this fraudulent conference has won a title 7 years in a row. Think about it, Bama got in because Oregon and K-state lost to legit teams while Bama played the helen keller school for the blind and deaf that same week.

But I know SEC fans will disagree because they'll feed people with some bs about top to bottom…but I mean really think about it…could an sec team go to los angeles on a Saturday night or eugene, Oregon and win…but I guess its easier to schedule Georgia State or Long Beach State


I wonder how come nobody is pissed at that Blade Runner track star…….still mad at Michael Vick but not this guy…..




Thanks to the botched pedicure, she wasn’t able to go toe to toe with Serena.



Rex Ryan

Return to: Christopher Rude Blog