So, the Voldemort cognomen can make its triumphant re-appearance? :-)

At last, I can finally stop sobbing. Whew!

So what happens to the archives? Time to back up the NFL.com run?

"...Easterbrook, a Christian who worships in a joint Christian-Jewish congregation."

Interesting.

Re: #3

The same thought had occurred to me. Better safe than sorry, I'd say.

I really hate clicking on ESPN's website, so I don't welcome this development.

I generally enjoy TMQ, and I have no problem with him reworking the same schtick every week.

What I don't enjoy is the constant misleading by use of statistics, like arguing against 3rd and 8 blitzing by writing "On average, a pass play gains only 7 yards." Well, New York has an average annual temperature of 55 degrees, but you'd be crazy to go outside without a coat in January.

Worse are the flat out inaccuracies when TMQ is trying to make a point (mainly WRT running up the score), such as "(QB) continued to throw the ball all over the field despite being up 6 touchdowns," when freely available play-by-plays prove nothing of the sort happened.

really hate clicking on ESPN’s website, so I don’t welcome this development.

I'm trying to figure out which web site is worse(r): espn.com or cnn-si

my browser hates both of them

#7 - just trying to get a head start for when the columns return?

Sports Illustrated's site is no picnic either, but for some reason ESPN's is worse for me. I wonder if the publishers carefully consider how this might drive away readers, or if they do factor it, and simply find it remains a net benefit.

I don't have a Salon premium membership. The instructions say to click on the sponsor logo to read the article for free, but for the life of me, I can't find the "sponsor logo" to click on.

Am I blind?

Funny, as someone of Jewish descent, I did not find the remarks anti-semitic. I think he called out two people who profess to be Jewish on turning their back on their history... seems like he may have been fired because he went after the man who at the top of the company he worked for.

I have some philosophical issues with ESPN.com regarding their "Insider" articles, but it's not an overall bad site.

Then again, I use Firefox.

Re: #11

Are you using the AdBlock plugin (or something like it)? If so, temporarily turn it off.

So where do I go for his anual mock mock draft?

R #12:
I understand that Gregg Easterbrook is most likely not actually anti-semetic. Still, I agree with his dismissal because what he wrote was nevertheless wildly insensitive. This, not the Holocaust reference, is the offending remark:
Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence?

Within the cultural context that Jews are stereotyped as particularly avaricious, accusing two Jews of "worshipping money over all else," even qualified by saying that there are Christians who do it too, is a monumentally stupid way of making his argument. While I believe him when he denies the intent to imply that Jews are any more likely to be greedy, the fact remains that the "Yes, there are plenty of Christians..." qualification comes across as akin to "Now, some of my best friends are Jewish..." in terms of the intent to excuse trading in stereotypes.

...or I could read the article and get the answer myself.

the cynic in me, and mind you, it might just be me, has wondered for two years if TMQ was canned because his remarks were perceived as anti-semetic, or because his remarks were directed straight at Michael Eisner of Disney (which, as you all surely know, is the coprporate parent of ESPN).

One way or another it's a stupid thing to say. Why bring it up at all? I mean, the guy could've just said "is it right for anyone to make money off of idolizing violence" and been fine and made the same point.

Ah well.

Re 14: I turned off my popup blocker, and I'm not using any other adblocking plugin I'm aware of. I've also tried it w/ both firefox and internet explorer.

Is it possible I just don't realize where I'm supposed to click? What does the "sponsor logo" look like?

Not to relive a story from a few years back, but I think the question is, why bring up Jews in particular when criticizing Hollywood executives? I don't think there was anything overtly anti-semitic in Easterbrook's comments, but his comments came too close to a lot of negative stereotypes.

Easterbrook is a good skim--glance past the retreaded stuff, see if there's anything original and interesting.

Does anyone know how to disable permanently the speaker that is attached to ESPN's NFL/index page?

I've long believed that TMQ wasn't fired for being anti-Semitic, but rather anti-Eisner.

hold everything, the guy is getting 4 tix to the Superbowl & the final 4 among other major sporting events? Do you think he still reads FO at all? Not for nothing, but I love GE's stuff and if that happens to be worth say....a pass to the Masters, then so be it.

Not to relive a story from a few years back, but I think the question is, why bring up Jews in particular when criticizing Hollywood executives?

As I recall, the main reason why he brought up that Eisner and Weinstein were Jewish was not the money thing, but rather that, as Jews, they should be more sensitive to cavalier portrayals of wanton violence, because of what Jews went through in the Holocaust.

I agree, though, that his point could have been made perfectly well without dragging religion into it, and without directly insulting his "boss".

I actually kind of enjoy his formulacism (is that a word?) I agree with some of it, though his selective use of statistics do annoy me a bit, as does his apparent dearth of knowledge about real science that nevertheless fails to prevent him from pretending to be an expert. But anyway, it's fun when I notice a game where someone wins by doing things that Easterbrook hates (e.g. blitzing a lot, or punting to pin someone deep and then getting a safety, etc.) and then see what he has to say about it in TMQ. Unfortunately, he seems to be doing that less lately--just ignoring things that don't agree with his philosophies. He's still a far better read than, say, Peter King or Pete Prisco.

I would've put the over/under on how long the thread would go until the "is he really anti-semitic?" discussion at 15 or 16, so it's a good thing I didn't bet on this.

#25: And that's just what upset some people: the suggestion that Jews in particular, more than anybody else, need to be more attentive to censoring themselves.

The irony is that Easterbrook always writes about how under the First Amendment any fool can say anything he/she wants, but that there are still consequences for what he/she says. Well, whether he was insulting his boss directly or writing things easily interpreted as anti-semitic, he got to deal with the consequences of his free speech.

Anyway, I'm glad he's back at ESPN, since NFL.com evidently censored him more than ESPN will (like the R*dsk*ns bit, with which I completely agree with him).

But wait, was TMQ ever at ESPN in the first place? The way they simply erased all traces of his presence without any sort of explanation or even acknowledgement of the action led me to believe that we were all supposed to come to the conclusion that we were just mistaken, and he was never there in the first place!

I was just curious to see if ESPN would be able to bring itself to issue an apology. I was disappointed to see that admitting fault was beyond the capabilities of such a big corporation. No, they can only deny existance and admit that they lost profit.

Anyone willing to take bets on how long it'll be before they send TMQ down the memory tubes again? I mean, as long as he refuses to become apolitical, it's only a matter of time before he steps on some toes and is disposed of once again in a very Orwellian manner.

I can't find the sponser logo either. Can anyone post the information somewhere else?

Try clicking on my name. That should hopefully do the same as clicking the ad. If not, go to the article and in the upper right, under the banner ad, look for where it says Sponsor with an arrow pointing right. Click on the image to the right. (Right now it says Tassimo.)

The quote that J (#16) brings does not look familiar to me. I have a definite memory of a Holocaust reference in a "those Jews should know better" vein.

Bringing the Holocaust into any discussion of professional sports is incredibly bad taste. That does not make it a firing offense, though I must admit, I stopped reading TMQ for several months afterwards.

I also find the timing of this discussion remarkable, having just returned home from a Holocaust memorial service.

16,

I understand your complaint, and agree that his remarks were "insensitive," but his punishment was totally out of line. Firing a writer because of an opinion he or she expresses is completely antithetical to the principals on which this nation was founded. Frankly, I think we are all getting way too sensitive.

Re: #32
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=868

That's Easterbrook's apology in The New Republic Online from after he'd been let go. He quotes the offending part from his collumn a few 'graphs down. It might not seem familiar because the Holocaust bit got more play, but the "worshipping money over all else" is the part I find insensitive.

Re #30:
I've figured it out. If you're using Norton Internet Security or some other such program, you need to turn off the "ad blocking" function.

I made sure to give FO (and Extra Points) a shout-out in the Letters section attached to this article.

But I didn't say anything there I haven't said here before: reading the FO readership's comments on TMQ and MMQB is a thousand times more entertaining then either of the articles themselves.

I'm just glad that I know that he's switching this time, instead of being in the dark about it for a while. That was the annoying part, that ESPN didn't even say he was fired (that I can recall), he was just gone all of a sudden. Of course, that brought me here, so it wasn't all bad.

Re #33:
In terms of the founding principles of our country, I think you're a bit of a mistake. Our 1st Ammendment protects the freedom of speech from infringement by the government -- it has nothing to do with a writer's employer ceasing to wish to employ a writer based on the things he/she writes. ESPN/Disney wished to sever their connection with a writer who was supposed to be the "thinking man's" football columnist who seriously damaged his credibility as a "thinking man" by making the boneheaded mistake of writing something so clearly interperatable as anti-Semitic. This is not only a right, but an obligation. In a way, the "free"ness of the speech is limited when it's paid for -- the paychcheck Disney cut Easterbrook can be seen as an endorsement of him. The fact that the NFL then stepped up and chose to employ him is a nice elucidation of how the free market economy can protect free speech: anyone who can get lots of people to read the opinions he/she expresses will find someone willing to pay him to express those opinions.

Re: 3
Is there software that easily accomplishes this task?

For example, NFL.com recently took down all of their Game Log data from 2003-2005. How can I download all of the content from that site and re-create it on my local harddrive?

Oops. In my above post, #38, I meant "you're making a bit of a mistake," not "you're a bit of a mistake."

I had no intention of implying that the author of #33 was in anyway a "mistake" having anything to do w/ the founding principles of our country. I don't even know what that would mean.

> For example, NFL.com recently took down all of their Game Log data from 2003-2005. How can I download all of the content from that site and re-create it on my local harddrive?

FYI-- you can still access all game data (including the Gamebook) for 2002-2005 under individual team schedule links:

http://www.nfl.com/teams/schedule/PIT/2002
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/recap/NFL_20020909_PIT@NE

Re: #38

I still think ESPN fired him more for the act of criticizing Eisner than for the actual content of the criticism.

Yeah, if Easterbrook had directed those remarks to Gerald Levin, when he was CEO of Time/Warner, I doubt that Disney would have taken action.

Re: 42
In 2003, Eisner was already dealing with the accusations of micromanagement and ineptness from Roy Disney and other key members of the Disney board. Eisner had bigger fish to fry than worrying about some cult NFL writer with a readership literally less than a percent of that of the major papers and magazine in which he was routinely savaged.

The reason why Easterbrook was dismissed so sumarilly was that ESPN had taken some major flak for being slow to react after the Limbaugh/McNabb fiasco.

I first heard of FO from TMQ, so I am forever thankful, however repetitive or misleading some of his columns have become

Re: 28. I think I remember TMQ saying he backed off his stance on the Redskins because of some poll that showed that most Native Americans weren't offended by the moniker. For one possible reason why some might not find it offensive, follow the link to an interesting write-up about the history of the term and its association with the team

Re: 32.
"Bringing the Holocaust into any discussion of professional sports is incredibly bad taste."
This is how I felt about using the half time of a football game to commemorate those who died on 9/11.

Well, J, assuming Roy Disney was correct in his assessment of Eisner, this is exactly how Eisner would have been expected to react. If one kept up with the details which came out of the lawsuit which Jeffrey Katzenberg won against the Disney Company, one might conclude that there isn't much in terms of petty behavior which is beneath Eisner. This isn't to say that you are definitely wrong, merely that the worst interpretation of Eaaterbrook's firing, in terms of how it reflects on Disney Company management, cannot be completely discounted.

I really really hate it when they put extra points links to registration sites.

#48, it's not a registration site, you just have to watch (or not watch) a commercial in order to get access for the day.

32 & 46:
The reference wasn't in one of his TMQ columns - it was in a "blog" entry on TNR.com about violence in the movies. One of the reasons why the firing seemed heavy handed was that it was for comments made in a completely different venue. It's not as if he bashed Eisner in a column that was published on ESPN.

That said, it was still pretty dumb.

46. That's an informative article, though what a word meant in the 18th and 19th century has only a tangental relationship to whether or not a person would be offended if called that today.

If anyone here made a similar comment about their boss in a blog, they'd get fired too.

PV: Right, I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it is interesting that apparently the Native American coach of the Redskins didn't mind the name, or maybe he did, but couldn't find the "Thanks for the honor, but you're a racist" card section at Hallmark.
George: I wasn't talking about the Eisner stuff.

#52 Is making a negative comment about your boss in a blog really legal grounds for termination? If someone got fired for that reason, it seems as though they could take legal action.

Nope, I think employers in most states can fire employees for publicly or privately criticizing their bosses, unless it can be established that the employer treats certain classes of people differently.

Re: 54
The First Amendment only guarantees freedom of speech from negative governmental action. If you make a negative comment about an employer on a blog and your employer sees it, you can absolutely be fired for that. Right or wrong, an at-will employer can fire employees for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not a legally protected reason (i.e. race, gender, religion, etc.).

Re 54: People are getting fired for things they write in blogs - click on the link for one article.

Oops, that was the wrong link. This should be the right one.

My biggest problem with ESPN's handling of the situation was with how they terminated Easterbrook. One day he was part of Page 2 and the next he was gone. No explanation or anything. Even his archived material was scrubbed from the site; It was as if he just popped out of existence. At the very least, a notice saying that TMQ would no longer appear for so-and-so reasons would be nice. It was very similar to how radio stations can just change format overnight and no one is the wiser (i.e. WHFS, for those DCists)

On the plus side, that episode led me to FO, so I guess it's all good.

Dear FO faithful,

My 2003 unedited blog entry that started all this was deeply wrong on the point everyone talks about. Antisemitism is a real danger in the world today; whatever can be seen or misinterpretted as abetting antisemitism should worry any person of good will. Over and over again I have cried that I once wrote something, however brief, that failed the test of alertness to this real danger.

Since however some FO readers have mistakenly asserted this, let me clarify that I did not in any way compare the Holocaust and sports. Come on! My 2003 sentences, bad as they were, never mentioned sports.

In 2003 I spent a few minutes writing a few unedited sentences asking whether the glorification of killing in cinematic entertainment is a good idea. Hour after hour, day after day, year after year, I have apologized for my choice of words. I was wrong. Can't you conceive of a second chance? Please at least don't attribute to me something that did I not say.

Gregg

Gregg:

I'll forgive you for your mistake, if you apologize to redskins fans for years and years of badgering about a non-racist nickname.

I grew up a couple blocks from that Bradley Hills church by the way, nice neighborhood huh?

P.S. I'm glad ESPN realized their mistake, good luck.

#61: There's an argument for and against that.

As for the first amendment thing, people are right- the first amendment only gaurantees that the government won't interfere unless your speech is obscene or dangerous. Most states (and I believe the federal government through their big ol' commerce clause stick) have enacted laws that hold private employers to a similar but lesser standard regarding employee treatment, hiring and discharge, similar to the discrimination provisions in Title VII.

But, then again, employers can usually find something to point to- no one's perfect- that isn't viewpoint discrimination. I'd imagine that even if they didn't, Gregg figured or was told by his brother that it wasn't worth the hassle (and if there's one thing you can count on Judge Easterbrook for, it's an economic analysis....).

Fnor:

Like the fact that the term 'redskin' originated from Native Americans themselves?
Link in name.

BillWallace:
Sure thing bigot.
Link in name.

This is some seriously bizarre news. How on earth did this happen?

Oh yeah, does this mean the column is going to become readable again? I'll need an answer on this one. :P

I agree that the main impetus for Easterbrook's dismissal was probably that he targetted Eisner.

He said if he thinks of some improvement he'll do it, but that every year he asks himself if he's running out of things to say -- "That doesn't seem to be a problem, does it?" -- and if the column has become formulaic.

Au contraire.

RE: 60

Gregg: Your website still says you write for NFL.com. Just letting you know.

http://greggeasterbrook.com/other.html

How long before TMQ becomes 'insider' content that you have to pay for?

#63: The First Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth, under the equal-protection clause. It's as binding on state governments as it is on Congress.

#64 and 65: What does the etymology of the word prove?

I found that link a little disingenuous, to say the least.

George Preston Marshall's team was the last one in the NFL to integrate, for the reason that he wanted his franchise to be the "Southern" team for the league. That is one of the reasons he blocked expansion to Dallas (until Tex Schramm cot the rights to a certain fight song, whereupon Marshall conceded). To claim that he was racially neutral or sympathetic is wrong.

Also, isn't it just as likely that the name "Boston Redskins" was picked to refer to the town's baseball teams -- the Red Sox and Braves? That is, after all, how the teams came to be called the Giants, Bears, Lions and Steelers (a pun on Pirates, which was the franchise's original name).

Ominous. Just as nation seems to finally be recovering from its retro manly-man drunk. Does this mean they're going to bring back Limbaugh, too?

for years and years of badgering about a non-racist nickname.

C'mon. The fact that there was a legal case filed, which the protestors originally won, shows the fact that while it might not be racist enough for it to get stripped, calling it non-racist is definitely silly.

In fact, I think the case is still pending. The latest news I could find about it is here from last year. That PDF is out of date.

If it was clearly non-racist, I doubt they would've won the 1999 decision. They did. There's clearly controversy about it.

Pat,

I don't really want to get into this fight, but do want clarify something re: your statement: The Redskins logo was determined to be politically insensitive (which it could be argued is true).

It was not, and could not be, racist, as racism is the notion or suggestion of racial superiority. It may be splitting hairs to some, but wait until you're called a ''racist'' just for saying something politically incorrect.

This doesn't even address the question: who gets to be the grand arbiter on what's racist, outside of self-admitted claims? Is Chappelle's Show? Opponents of affirmative action?

This is not to solicit a debate, I'm just clarifying your post. ''Racism'' is a construct and a state of mind. A logo (and a team name) cannot, intrisically, be racist. Sorry.

Congratulations, Gregg, on your triumphant return to ESPN, and enjoy the games.

I don’t really want to get into this fight, but do want clarify something re: your statement: The Redskins logo was determined to be politically insensitive (which it could be argued is true).

Fair point. Note that I was just copying previous wording. :)

Actually, the proper term would be "disrespectful" or "contemptable" - that's what the Lanham Act avoids protecting.

But I think it's entirely fair to say, at least as long as that case is still standing, claiming that the 'Redskins' name isn't disrespectful is disingenuous.

And therefore, it's perfectly fine to make fun of the fact that people want to change the name, because that's what he's doing.

That's kinda why I find Bill's comment funny: TMQ was agreeing with him that it's silly. His argument for the full name was essentially "well, if they're complaining about 'Redskins', why aren't they complaining about 'Washington'? Isn't saying that the team is from Washington is disrespectful to the actual people from Washington, considering the team does not practice nor play in Washington?"

Hence, Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons, to make everyone happy.

RE: 75

Well, one thing we know that's racist is Affirmative Action itself.

Pat: 'TMQ was agreeing with him that it’s silly.'

That point never occured to me. I guess you might be right, which makes my comment kind of stupid. Although I do vaguely remember reading GE write about how the name needs to be changed.

On the topic of the name itself, I think the key point is the issue of how the team actually got his name. If the story that Marshall named it in honor of the coach who may or may not have actually been a redskin is true, and at the time in the 1930s the word was not pejorative, then I don't believe the claim to have it changed has merit.

It was very similar to how radio stations can just change format overnight and no one is the wiser (i.e. WHFS, for those DCists)

Well that's because all radio sounds the same. Duh.

Carry on.

Although I do vaguely remember reading GE write about how the name needs to be changed.

Oh, he did. But a lot of TMQ's writing is taking a flawed idea that looks like it has some merit, running it to a ridiculous extreme, and then parading that idea as a valid idea. (Basically, the basis of a strawman argument, except he's using it to show how silly the original is).

Which is what I'm pretty sure he was doing there. Otherwise I'm pretty sure he would be suggesting something other than "indigenous persons" which isn't exactly complimentary, either.

TMQ avoided using "Redskin" because he believed it to be offensive:
"Redskin" is a derogatory term; today's fans may not mean it that way, but that is the word's origin" (linked).
Elsewhere: "The back end: R*dsk*ns is a slur. Fans don’t mean to denigrate anyone, of course; fans view the name as mere tradition. A slur it is, nonetheless. What if the mere traditional name were the Washington Darkies?"
Although I can't find the column, he later changed his mind on this, citing some poll about most Native Americans not caring, or something along those lines.

I always thought Greg's blog entries were calling out Hollywood executives for be hypocrites when it comes to religion. They praise their god in public but then produce an ultra-violent movie like Kill Bill or The Passion of Christ because it is a moneymaker. Greg used the same criticism when talking about Mel Gibson producing The Passion of the Christ. The Jewish line was there because the executives happen to be Jewish (not anti-Semitic) and not because his point relied that they were Jewish (anti-Semitic). A fine line, which a reader could fall on either, side easily, thus the controversy.

#22 Israel. I assume you are talking about the ESPN In Motion thing there on the right. If you have Firefox, you can download the AdBlock extension, which has a feature that allows you to right click any Flash file (which is what that is) and block it. There may be a way to do something similar in IE (maybe with the hosts file?), but I wouldn't know how to go about that.

Who cares, TMQ is full of shit.