Bravehearts No Less Offensive Than Redskins To Consistent Liberals

It is rumored that the Washington Redskins might be renamed the Bravehearts.

It is argued that the name upgrade is necessary because the name “Redskins” offends particular demographics.

But what about those that the new name might offend?

For example, Jews might not find the name all that kosher since one can't help but think of images of Mel Gibson upon hearing the name “Braveheart” because he starred in the popular movie of that title.

Secondly, shouldn't those calling for a return to civility and the renunciation of overly enthusiastic political responses and rhetoric be offended by allusions to this movie?

One of the film's major themes is that there are things worth fighting for even to the extent of what might be considered violence.

After all, critics of the Tea Party approach to the budget crisis on Capitol Hill constantly remind that compromise with one's fundamental beliefs and principles is the only way to prevent the entire nation from collapsing all around us.

Thirdly, shouldn't those such as the President that believe it is the role of the state to comprehensively control and monitor every last aspect of your existence oppose the name Bravehearts since the movie suggested that one of those things most worthy of laying one's life down for is one's very freedom?

By Frederick Meekins