Creative Commons License

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

PIV IS RAPE Not Really

PIV, or Penis In Vagina Sex, is always rape. Unless it's not, but it is. Always. Every time. Do you know why? Because we women are living in a patriarchal society that has sucked our brains out of our heads, and we can't say no to Penis In Vagina. I wonder if we can say no to Penis In Ear. Penis In Armpit? Penis In Navel.

This is a THING, ladies! It's a really bad thing, this whole Penis In Vagina. My GOD, since the dawn of time, we have been raped by Penis In Vagina Sex. Did you say "Ooo, I would love to," when your horrible, masculine husband suggested that, since the kids were asleep/at Grandma's/a friend's house, you should make whoopie? Guess what? Rape. Ripping off your boyfriend's clothes in the back of a car because he wore that after shave you love, and his hair looks all sexy, and he stared at you with lust and love in his eyes? You're about to have Penis In Vagina Sex, and will be raped.

There are brave women named Witch something who blog about Penis In Vagina Sex, and their (her) fans totes agree with her, and all men suck. Well, no, but good men can. Wait, that's wrong, too? Holy SHIT, it's all horrible. All Sex is bad, if you have a Vagina and the other person has a Penis. Those two should never, ever, ever, ever, meet. Because orgasms are impossible through Penis In Vagina Sex. Unless they're not. But what the fuck do I know; I'm a married slave.

You know what? This is a real thing, and this real thing is the stupidest real thing in the whole world. Rape is rape, sex is sex, and rape has nothing to do with sex. Men are raped, children are raped, women are raped. Women who consent to sex with men are not being raped.

My friend Melissa brought up a pretty good point when she read Witchy whatever's blog: abuse. Maybe Witchy was abused as a child, or was raped herself, and has transferred all her pain and anger into believing that all men are rapists. And if that's the case, she has my empathy. If it's not, and she's just blathering this Penis In Vagina Sex is always rape shit because she can, she's hurting rape victims. Really, she's hurting rape victims no matter what.

I've been raped. And I've had consensual sex. Not the same at all, ever, just no. So, whatever this is, this PIV Is Always Rape blerg, please stop. Your voices are small, but you make the rest of us (humans) feel really icky when we stumble across your rambling insanity. Go get well, if you need to get well. Do that instead of trying to radfemsplain how all Penis In Vagina Sex is rape. Please.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Donald Sterling has been a racist for a very long time

Photo of Donald Sterling and V. Stiviano from Business Insider

Donald Sterling, the owner of the L.A.Clippers basketball team, found himself front page news a few days ago. His mistress, okay look. I know everyone is calling her his girlfriend, but he's married, has been for 50 years, and he's having a very public affair. She's his mistress. Semantics lesson over, back to business. His mistress allegedly recorded Sterling while they were having an argument, during which he made some incredibly racist statements about African Americans. This tape wound up in the hands of TMZ, and up until Sunday morning, the outrage was aimed squarely at those statements.

On Sunday, the focus changed. It was revealed that Donald Sterling's wife is suing the mistress, alleging said mistress used sex to elicit expensive gifts from Sterling. This confuses me for a few reasons. First, why is Mrs. Sterling still Mrs. Sterling? The photo that has accompanied almost every article about this is of Donald Sterling and his mistress, sitting courtside at a basketball game. This is not a woman he was hiding in some bungalow, this is a woman he took out in public. One would think Mrs. Sterling would be ex-Mrs. Sterling by now, or at the very least, the estranged Mrs. Sterling. According the LA Times, Rochelle Sterling is described in the lawsuit as:
a married woman seeking to protect and recover community property in her individual capacity.
This implies to my non-legal expert brain that divorce may be on the horizon, but her husband has been "dating" his mistress for almost 4 years.

Secondly, is Donald Sterling the first man in the history of history to give a mistress shiny things? Of course not, don't be silly. Have you seen Donald Sterling?
This isn't Sean Connery, this is an average looking, older man. With a few chins. Jowls. Grey hair at the temples. Have you seen his mistress? Now, as much as it pains me to admit this, there are women who will happily leap into a relationship with a married man if he has money. Who he is doesn't matter, how he looks doesn't matter; what matters is wealth. Do we know that's the case with Ms. Stiviano, Sterling's mistress? No, but that sure seems to be what Mrs. Sterling is saying with her lawsuit. Her husband (who is, according to many, an extremely smart businessman) was so enamored of Ms. Stiviano that he allowed her to manipulate him into buying her cars, an apartment, and other gifts, because penis. Or maybe he just bought his pretty mistress presents because he has a shitload of money, and he was thrilled that she would be in the same room with him, naked.

Thirdly, sex sells, racism, not so much. Yes, the first few days, the racism was the seller, but now? Now the media has decided to not-so-subtly label Ms. Stiviano a "whore," focus on the lawsuit, and gosh, maybe the tape is fake (it could be), and gee, he's not that bad a guy. Except he is that bad a guy. The only website that has been covering Sterling's long history of blatant racism is Deadspin, and for that, they have my eternal devotion. While everyone else was screaming gold digger and lawsuit, Deadspin published this article. According to their research, Sterling, at least publicly, began his merry journey down Racism Road in 1983, with this statement to potential coach Rollie Massimino:
I wanna know why you think you can coach these niggers.
In 2009, Sterling was subject to the largest housing discrimination lawsuit payout ever, related to his attempts to evict African Americans and Hispanics from his property. Also in 2009, the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP gave Donald Sterling a Lifetime Achievement award. And they're planning on doing the same next month. I can't even...

So, here's a thought. Let's focus on the fact that Donald Sterling, a multimillionaire who seems to really hate brown skinned people, hates brown skinned people. If you think he's a dick for cheating on his wife, join the club. The cheating on his wife part isn't important, except to his wife, and I'm sorry for her pain. The important thing that happened here is a man who has been a flaming racist for the majority of his time in the public eye, has never been called out for it by national media. The really important part is the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP gave him a freaking award the same year he paid over $2 million after being sued for trying to evict brown skinned people from his rental property.

Ignore the shiny things, pay attention to the real problem here. Rich, white guy gets away with being giant racist for decades, and probably will again.

UPDATE: According to Bleacher Report, the NAACP will not be giving Donald Sterling another award next month.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

The Cadillac Escalade and the Jesus Fish

The Cadillac Escalade is a luxury SUV that looks exactly like a GMC Yukon. The reason for this is the Yukon and the Escalade are built on the same platform. The main difference is price. While the base price for a 2015 Yukon is around $46,000, the base price for a 2015 Escalade is a whopping $71,695. You can add bells and whistles, and get that up to almost $100,000. For a glorified truck.

The Jesus Fish, also called an Ichthys, is a fish Christians slap on the back of their cars, to show how super Christian they are. My theory is people do this because they aren't proving it with words or deeds, so wham, bam, thank you ma'am, look at my Jesus Fish. I believe this because the majority of people I've met with those fish on their cars were about as far from acting like Christ as a person can be.

Okay, now what in the world does a Cadillac Escalade have to do with a Jesus Fish? I'll tell you.

After dropping my son off at school, I was nearly t-boned by a Cadillac Escalade. The driver was chatting away on her cell phone, and didn't see my little Camry, which had the right of way. I wound up behind her, and noticed the rather large Jesus Fish over her taillight. And I got to thinking. If this woman followed the teachings of the person that fish represents, she would sell her Escalade, buy a Corolla, or a Kia, and donate the rest of the money to a homeless shelter. Or a home for victims of domestic violence. RAINN. Doctors Without Borders.

But she didn't. She bought an Escalade that costs more than most people make in a year. And she slapped that Jesus Fish on the back, because What Would Jesus Drive? Look, for all I know, this woman volunteers for Habitat for Humanity, or gives tens of thousands of dollars to amazing and worthwhile charities. The facts do not support that, and by facts, I mean the other people in this town I have met who drive luxury cars, go to church, and say some of the most offensive, racist, misogynist, sexist things I have ever heard.

The woman at the hair salon who drives a Mercedes SUV, talking about the Steubenville rape victim, stating that if girls didn't get all "tarted up," this (rape) wouldn't happen to them. The farmer, tooling around town in his Lincoln Navigator, pissed off at the "Muslim the White House," who never "served in Vietnam." Given how small our town is, I have bumped into both these folks in other settings, and the Mercedes has a Jesus Fish, while the Navigator has two bumper stickers: "Pro-Life," and "Marriage=1 man 1 woman."

To me, this is like megachurch pastors. Living in multi-million dollar homes, driving their own luxury cars, maybe flying about in a private plane. It makes no sense to me that a person can live an obscenely wealthy lifestyle, while claiming to follow the message of Christ. I don't mean a Christian cannot, or should not, have money. That's not my point. But aren't we called to "sell all you have and give it to the poor?" Obviously we can't do that, sell everything we own. We need a roof over our heads, we need clothing, we need money to survive. What if what we're supposed to do is not live an ostentatious lifestyle, drive a normal car, give back to our community, and to charity?

Maybe I'm being a little judge-y, and that's wrong. It was the combination of the near t-boning, the cell phone, the $80,000 SUV and the Jesus Fish that sent me into a tizzy. As I wrote above, for all I know, this is the most charitable woman in the world. And as I wrote above, the other folks I've met in this town, who also drive luxury cars, and "love" Jesus, do not support that theory. I'll be honest: if she hadn't almost driven into my car, the combination of Jesus Fish and Escalade would have still made me wonder, but I probably wouldn't have written this. Or maybe I would have, because in my head, I still can't make sense of owning a car that costs that much money, and claiming to follow the message of a homeless Jewish carpenter.

Sunday, April 6, 2014

How Things Work

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. This past week has been an adventure in terror for those of us who understand How Things Work on the interwebs. Our first example is a fake piece, with a fake photo, about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. A website no one had ever heard of published an "article" (pile of crap), claiming George Zimmerman had created, and sold, a painting of the young man he killed, Trayvon Martin. Accompanying this disaster was a photo shopped image of Zimmerman's "painting" of the American flag, with the flag's image removed, replaced by an image of Trayvon. And people believed it, reposted it, typing all in caps what a monster Zimmerman is, etc. Whatever Zimmerman is, he didn't paint Trayvon Martin, no one bought the painting, and according to a few people I know, the website no longer exists.

For our second example of How Things Work, let me present you with the following photo:
This was posted on an alleged pro-Michelle Obama Facebook page as an actual photo. It's not. That's Angelina Jolie's leg. If you think the First Lady of the United States of America would pose like this, you deserve to have your internet service canceled, your keyboard unplugged, and be forced to stand on a street corner, holding a sign that reads "I have no idea How Things Work."

The third example comes to us courtesy of my friend and fellow Forward Progressive writer, Jason Dye. Jason, who is a braver person than I, found himself on Todd Starnes' Facebook page, wading through a toxic sludge of comments on a post about immigration. Violent people, with no idea of How Things Work, commented that they will "shoot to kill" undocumented immigrants on sight. Todd Starnes, who loves the First Amendment when it lets folks who seem desperately in need of therapy scream they want to kill people, didn't remove the post, or the horrible comments. So Jason wrote an article about the right wing's newest scare tactic, including Starnes' post and the comments in the piece. My guess is, like many right wing pundits, Todd Starnes thinks Jason is a horrible person for using Starnes' own words (and inaction regarding incredibly violent comments on his Facebook page) against him.

Finally, we apply How Things Work to The Bachmann Diaries. The latest installment features a dream Shelly had after eating pork and downing a bottle of Riesling, her frustration with Minnesota's Safe and Supportive Schools Act, highlights her desire to be Queen of Godlandia, and shares her dislike of Marcus's new mustache. It's satire. The Bachmann Diaries have been satire since I first came up with them almost five years ago, while watching "Patty Cake Cats" on You Tube. For those of you who have been reading them from the beginning, you may recall I had Shelly kill a standard poodle named Geronimo, and bury the corpse under a bird bath. And yet, there are quite a lot of people who have no idea these are fake. Those people feel the need to "correct" the things that are wrong (ON PURPOSE) in the Diaries, or tell me the Diaries are "mean," or (this is my favorite), I should write a disclaimer on every, single one. I guess the description included in my author bio on Forward Progressives-The Bachmann Diaries: Satirical Excerpts from Michele Bachmann's Fictional Diary-isn't clear enough?

George Zimmerman did not paint Trayvon Martin, the photo of Michele Obama (with Angelina Jolie's leg) is fake, President Obama is not releasing tens of thousands of "criminal immigrants," and The Bachmann Diaries are satire. This is How Things Work. Hopefully, next week won't be this awful, but given that we're dealing with the internet, it will probably be worse.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Goodnight, sweet Zachary

Zachary Dutro-Boggess was a four year old boy on August 12, 2012. Two days later, he was dead, beaten to death by his mother and her boyfriend. Zachary's body was covered in bruises, indicating he has been abused many, many times. On August 12, his mother, Jessica Dutro, told her boyfriend Zachary was acting gay, and according to police, the two adults beat Zachary that same day.

We as parents are given our children as gifts. We are charged with their safety, their health, we are responsible for helping them navigate the path from childhood to adulthood. That's our job. Jessica Dutro failed, not only as a mother, but as a human being. She killed her own son, a toddler, because she thought he was gay.

I looked at my son today, after reading that Jessica Dutro was found guilty on April 2 of murder. I wondered how anyone, especially a parent, could look at their own child with anything other than unconditional love and joy. Dutro's mindset is foreign to me, because when I see my child, all I see is love. He is the greatest event of my life, and I am eternally grateful for the opportunity to raise him. Jessica Dutro looked at her little boy with hate and bigotry, and tore his body apart with violence.

He was a little boy. A beautiful little boy, with big, brown eyes, and pudgy cheeks. How a mother could look at the face of her own child, and do to him what Jessica Dutro did to Zachary, makes me believe in evil. Susan Smith, Diane Downs, Jessica Dutro. Mothers who saw their own children as inconveniences, who didn't give them a safe place, or love, and didn't think twice about killing them. Tell me what that is, other than evil.

Oh Zachary, I'm sorry. Your life was supposed to be filled with joy, and giggles, and tickle-fests, silly movies, and love. Instead, your mother chose to murder you in cold blood because of what she thought you were. I don't know if I believe in Heaven the way it's portrayed by religions, but I know this: Zachary is somewhere safe, and filled with sunlight and music and love. Because he didn't get that here, from the one person who is charged with providing all of it for him.

Zachary may not have ever read (or had read to him) "Goodnight Moon," but I read it to my son every night when he was Zachary's age. I hope someone reads "Goodnight Moon" to Zachary forever.

Goodnight, sweet Zachary.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

International Day Against Victim Blaming

Today, April 3, is the International Day Against Victim Blaming, sponsored by SlutWalk. If you're not familiar with SlutWalk, they are an organization whose goal is bring attention to, and combat, violence against women, and the blaming of victims of sexual assault for our own attacks. The first SlutWalk took place on April 3, 2011, in Toronto, and since then, the movement has gained momentum all over the world.

We hear it all the time. What were you wearing, were you drinking, well, why did you go up to his apartment, a gay man can't be raped, men don't even get raped. Rape your own toddler? Probation, because you won't "fare well" in prison. Rape an intoxicated teenager? Maybe a CNN reporter will bemoan your fate, while ignoring your victim.

Look at what's happening in Brazil. According to a survey released last week, 58.5% of the respondents believe that if women knew how to "behave," there would be less rape.Even more shocking, 65% of the respondents believe that women who wear clothes that "show their body" deserve to be attacked. The worst part? More than two thirds of those respondents were women. From an article by The Washington Post:
News of the Institute for Applied Economic Research survey fueled an existing movement and unleashed a tidal wave of new outrage. It crested with the hashtag #ninguemMereceSerEstuprada — “nobody deserves to be raped” — and crashed across all forms of social media. Many tweeted photographs as emotive as they were triumphant. Depicting women in various states of undress, they juxtaposed sensuality with strength. Some women were topless, expressions austere, clutching a poster condemning the survey’s results.
Remember the 11-year old girl in Texas who was gang raped? The New York Times ran an article on that horrible tragedy, using some pretty provocative language, seeming (at least according to other media outlets) to blame the victim. Mother Jones ran a fantastic piece, pointing out the many ways the Times piece tried to excuse the predators. Mac McClelland, the author of the Mother Jones article, eloquently states that the Times reporter is just that-a reporter, not a pundit, and as such, has a responsibility not to write things like this:
The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?
An eleven year old girl somehow "drew" eighteen young men into gang raping her. Resident Sheila Harrison is upset about the rapists, but not for the reason you might think:
'It's just destroyed our community,' said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. 'These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.'
Mrs. Harrison went on to blame the victim's mother:
 'Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?' said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. 'How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?'
A court overturns the conviction of a man who raped a woman with cerebral palsy, because she didn't fight back enough. In January of this year, a female politician in India blamed rape victims for their own assaults. She later apologized, stating that was "her own opinion." Rick Perry refuses to adopt federal standards, aimed at combating rape in prison.

Fuck you. The woman in India, Rick Perry, the judges who overturned a rapists sentence, Sheila Harrison, The New York Times, the 65% of respondents in Brazil, just fuck you. You are the reason predators think they can rape with impunity, you are the reason people like me and so many of my friends were scared to go to the police, you are the reason we have the International Day Against Victim Blaming. 

Today, we are called to speak out against victim blaming, and that's why I wrote this. Every day, all over the world, men and women are raped, and in every case, someone thinks that's okay because the victim is somehow to blame. What was I wearing? Surfer shorts and a tee shirt. Fuck you.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

How to be poor in America

Being poor in America is tricky, as I found out early Wednesday morning. It seems Stuart Varney's belief-the poor here aren't really poor because they have stoves and cell phones and refrigerators-is a belief shared by many. Including the wife of one of my closest friends.

My friend's wife detailed an experience she had at the grocery store. She was standing behind a woman who was trying to purchase items using her WIC (a government program aimed at helping women, infants, and children) card. According to my friend's wife, the woman had an I-Phone, and her two children had an I-Pad. Without knowing anything about the situation, without knowing one thing about the woman, my friend's wife posted she's never wanted to "smack a bitch" so much in her life.

I responded, gently. I asked why she wanted to "smack" the woman, how she knew anything about her, and that perhaps judging someone without any inkling of their life wasn't the best way to go. She dug in, defending herself, pointing out she had lived in "ghettos," surrounded by drug dealers, and knew a scammer when she saw one. I dug in a bit myself, never rude, never really confrontational, because this was someone I cared about, and she is married to one of my best friends.

The comment of mine that sent her into a very interesting place stated that maybe I was seeing this differently because I'm a writer, and have to research information, or perhaps it was because I've been that woman. My friend's wife responded very sarcastically that everyone should be as "PC" as me, and strive to be as nonjudgmental as I am. She finished that with a smiley face, which when put at the end of such a hostile statement, is glaringly passive aggressive. I was gobsmacked. I wrote "Wow. Seriously?" And I sat there for a moment, wondering how this had happened. Then I unfriended her.

That hurt. Again, this is the wife of one of my closest friends, and I am sure I will hear about it at some point. But I couldn't just sit there, and watch a thread that was filled with derision and hate go unanswered. My reward was to be made fun of because I do try and refrain from making snap judgments, and I do try and give folks the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that woman was a scammer, maybe she wasn't. There is absolutely no way to know that just by standing behind her in the checkout lane.

But being poor in America is indeed tricky. What I believe people want to see from America's poor is a sackcloth and ashes kind of lifestyle. If you're poor, you wake up every morning, crawl out of the abandoned car you call home, put on your burlap sack, wrap your bare feet in old newspaper, and shuffle down to the local mission for your one meal a day. You can never have anything new, or nice, or un-poor-like, you can't have a cell phone, or a computer, you must be emaciated, your children must be dirty and hungry and cowed. And if you're caught having anything nice, you must spend the next 15 minutes of your day, justifying and explaining that nice thing.

Which is why I unfriended the wife of one of my closest friends. I've been poor, and I had a few nice things, thanks to my parents. Birkenstock shoes, a Coach bucket purse, a top-of-the-line car seat for my son. When I took a break from crying because my ex-husband and I didn't ever have enough money to pay the bills, I liked putting that Coach purse on my arm. For a few moments in an otherwise horrible life, it gave me a bit of a reprieve. My guess is, if my friend's wife had been standing behind me at the checkout counter the days I had to give food back because I couldn't afford it, she would have looked at that Coach purse, and wanted to "smack" me.

Some friends of mine have posited the internet does something to certain types of people: it takes away their empathy, their heart, their capacity to filter themselves, to have any sort of internal moral compass. My friend's wife is a charming, lovely woman, a great mom, and a great wife. Wednesday, I saw a part of her that floored me. So much hate, so much scorn, towards the woman in the store, and towards me. As much as it hurt, and it really did, I had to do this. I had to remove whatever she's becoming from my life.

When I was poor, I didn't wear a burlap sack, or wrap my feet in newspapers. I have a feeling that in the mind of my friend's wife, and so many other people, that means I've never really been poor. And it also means that the vast majority of Americans who need government assistance to live aren't really poor either. My friend, Mary wrote it's the "If they have less, I can have more more more" mentality. The saddest part of this entire day is, I think Mary's right.

I don't know if that woman is scamming, and neither does my wife's friend. I do know that making a judgment about someone simply because they have a cell phone, or their kid has an I-Pad, is representative of a belief system I cannot understand or embrace. I never will.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Cancel Colbert, but keep the Redskins?

Googling the term "redskins" results in reference after reference to the "derogatory" and "offensive" nature of the the word. The Washington Post called redskins a "grotesque pejorative." And yet, until quite recently, most people didn't have a problem with an NFL franchise named after a "grotesque pejorative."

Well, most non-Native American people. Luckily, privileged liberals have jumped onto the bandwagon, and whenever they're not distracted by how awful President Obama is, or how Monsanto is Satan, they are out there, making sure that Stephen Colbert's show gets canceled. Wait, what?

First, I'm sure you're glaring at the screen, yelling at me for using the phrase "privileged liberals." Allow me to describe this person: They dropped out of college halfway through their first year to go make sculpture out of aluminum cans and their own feces. They thought about being a lawyer once, and now know more about law that an actual, practicing attorney. They're sanctimonious, condescending, always believe they're the smartest person in any conversation, and you find yourself wanting to slap them. If they're online, they're even worse. This is not libertarian code-speak, these are actual people. Conservatives have them as well; the difference is a privileged liberal thinks they are intellectually superior to everyone, while a privileged conservative thinks they are morally superior to everyone. Either way, bloody annoying people.

Enter Stephen Colbert, satirist, television host, COMEDIAN. On March 26, as part of the Colbert Sport segment (those T's are silent), Monsieur Colbert handed Dan Snyder a package filled with shame and scorn.
Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins, in an effort to distract people who suddenly noticed the name of his team is racist, formed The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. Because nothing says "I feel your pain" more than putting Gary L. Edwards in charge of an organization, since he has a such a great track record no, not really. Go ahead-click the link, learn a little something about Mr. Edwards.

Sir Stephen told his audience he had also formed a charity, in response to attacks from attackers about his character, Ching Chong Ding Dong, The Ching Chong Ding Ding Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever. Comedy Central sent out a Tweet, without a link to the segment, which no one apparently thought to find and watch, and we were off to the races. The hashtag #CancelColbert began to trend, privileged liberals who again, up until recently, had no problem with the use of the word "redskins," were suddenly screaming for Stephen Colbert, a comedian and satirist, to be fired. 

The Tweet on its own sounds horrible. The SEGMENT, which as I stated above, wasn't watched by many of the people demanding a comedian be fired, is hilarious. Dan Synder created this charity as a shiny thing, a way to switch the conversation about how awful the Redskins name is to how wonderful and sparkly his new charity is. Which was the entire point of Stephen Colbert's shtick. 

Stephen Colbert pretends to be a conservative in order to skewer conservatives. He pretended to agree with Dan Snyder in order to show the glaring hypocrisy of Snyder's actions. As usual, some just didn't get it. Including some of my friends. But this guy gets it, and I applaud his view.

The Washington Redskins have been The Washington Redskins since 1933. Native Americans have been protesting the name in large numbers since the 1980's. While there are debates about the meaning of the word "redskin," I think if the people that word is used to represent have a problem with it, the NFL and Dan Snyder need to take their concerns seriously. I would also like to point out that The Washington Redskins are not comedians, they are an incredibly profitable sports franchise. Stephen Colbert is a comedian, and it's part of his "job" to push the envelope, to be outrageous, and to use satire and snark to point out hypocrisy on all sides.

Colbert addressed all of this on his program Monday, and made what may be the best comment about Twitter, the media, and poutrage in the history of the world:

Colbert closed the segment by saying he was reluctantly ending the "worldwide operations" of the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever and was donating its funds to Dan Snyder's foundation.
"Which Twitter seems to be fine with because I haven't seen s-- about that," he said.

Watch Stephen Colbert's response here