What's in a name...

...says a lot about a name.

As a lifelong Washington Redskins fan, I have mixed feelings about the renewed push to force the National Football League franchise to change its name.

On the one hand, I'm not opposed to changing the team's name. The term "redskin," after all, is well-known as a derogatory racial reference. I can think of a more dignified name that brings honor both to the members of the franchise and those represented in the team's logo.

How about the Washington Braves? Before the Redskins moved to Washington, D.C., and before the team was called the Redskins, they were known as the Boston Braves. The name "brave" harkens back not only to the long established heritage of eastern American Indian tribes, but also gives honorable reference to the men and women over the centuries who have defended their country and the nation's capital in the name of essential liberty.

That said, I don't want to see the Redskins' logo changed. It is very dignified, and in my humble opinion, there is no better mascot to elicit strength and courage than an American Indian warrior.

Hmmm... the Washington Warriors? That's got possibilities, too.

Either way, I think the team needs to retain its American Indian mascot. To change the team completely would upset a lot of us Redskins fans who are not only fond of the mascot, but its color scheme, and all of the great professional players who performed under its badging.

On the other hand, I feel like we've been down this road many times before in the past. Politicians of some variety or another take an active interest in the team's name, push for change, and then drop it when more pressing or important matters concerning their re-election surface.

The issue of the Redskins' name has been a point of contention for many years. Concern waxes and wanes, comes and goes, and fluctuates like a case of indigestion. Once the sour milk has passed and we feel better, we forget about what upset our stomachs in the first place; until somebody opens the carton of sour milk again, and it hits our olfactory senses, reminding us of the stench.

Ours is such a fickle, fleeting society. Perhaps "hypocrite" best describes American popular culture. We express outrage over a name that we say is disparaging. Then we turn right around and use disparaging language toward our fellow man as casually as we say hello.

We get upset over a name that marginalizes people. But we don't show any concern over television networks, dating web sites, other media, and even financial programs that target specific individuals based on their skin color: Back Entertainment Television, www.blackdating.com, race-based scholarships, etc.

In fact, how unfair is it that the American Indian can clamor for a change in the name of a professional sports team, and it can get away with blatant racial discrimination? Read a want ad from tribal government, and you'll often see the phrase "Native Americans/Indians preferred."

I'm sorry, but how racially just is that? They'd rather have one of their own than lift their prejudices and intolerances toward anyone outside of their ethnic gene pool.

But I digress: Returning to the issue of the Redskins, I think it is ironic that some American Indian tribes are leading the charge to change the team's name when I see individual Indians wearing Redskins apparel and memorabilia.

In two visits to Albuquerque, NM, the most common sports team apparel I observed worn by local Indians was the Washington Redskins. I've seen Redskins apparel on local Indians here on Northern Nevada reservations, too. It is uncanny.

If the Washington Redskins are so offensive, then why do so many Indians choose to wear the team's apparel? Don't they know that "redskin" is an offensive name? Maybe they didn't get the memo from their representatives in Washington, D.C.

It seems obvious to me that we have greater problems in our country than the name of a sports team. Problems that involve a lack of a moral compass, degenerate behavior, and desensitization to violence. Personally, I think our efforts need to be focused on what is really wrong in our nation's cultural fabric, and fixing that. We can also choose to look at all of the good that members of the Redskins team do for their respective communities.

If the Skins do change their name, it will only bother me if their entire identity changes with it. As someone with a small percentage of American Indian blood in me (which goes back several generations) I can empathize with the way that a disparaging name is perceived.

But I also believe in the old "sticks and stones" saying I memorized as a kid. Seems like our culture has forgotten that important mantra. Instead, we let names irritate and agitate us when they shouldn't.

By the way: I refuse to refer to American Indians as "Native Americans." It insults me and every other non-Indian American who was born here, and whose generations before them were born here. I'm as much a "native" American as any full, half or quarter-blooded Indian is.

But that is a discussion for another time, and in another blog post. Stay tuned.

SITYS

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people."

Or so the clichéd and oft-quoted axiom goes.

Love it or hate it, there's a lot of truth in the saying.

Last week's knife attack at a Pittsburgh area high school that injured about 20 people is yet another clear reminder that weapons aren't responsible for human destruction, but rather the humans using them.

I hate to say this to those who have been stuck in the gun-ban gear, but, see, I told you so.

I've said multiple times before that if we ban guns, then those who are bent on destruction will simply find and use other objects to carry out their violent intentions.

This is the second major knife attack in as many years. The last one was at a Texas college in 2012.

Will our benevolent leaders and government authorities ever be convinced that we cannot legislate our way to solutions to an intrinsic, pervasive cultural problem?

Banning firearms certainly didn't prevent the knife attacks from being carried out. And, banning knives now won't prevent another student from assembling a pipe bomb and stashing it in his locker until he is ready to detonate it in between classes when the hallways are crowded.

We cannot merely treat the symptoms and hope to cure the disease. But that is exactly what civil leadership is doing when it proposes legislation to limit or restrict weapons. If we ban this weapon, then that one, and then another one, then all we are doing, in effect, is treating the symptoms of a much deeper disease. The real problem is never addressed; only its effects.

If we are ever to get a handle on the why's and how's of solving America's violence problem, then we must summon the courage to probe deeper than the surface. Far below in the depths a cancerous tumor grows. We cannot see it. We can only see its effects on the surface of the body.

It is much easier to treat the symptoms, and feel better about ourselves that we were able to do something, than it is to dig underneath only to find things that we don't want to see.

But it is imperative that this be done if we are going to meet the problem head on, and have any hope of getting a handle on it.

This means having to reflect on society and our culture as a whole, to see the bigger picture hidden under layers of bandages that we've placed over the wound that is now infected.

We thought we could just put a Band-Aid over the wound to cover it up, so that we wouldn't have to look at its ugliness. And when that bandage became soaked with blood, we just replaced it with another. And another. And another. Until the wound became infected and now the problem is more wide-spread and life-threatening than it was at the beginning.

America's self-serving and humanistic culture has much to do with the deterioration of morals and values that place a premium on life. People today are not much better than wandering zombies; hollow bodies without any internal substance. Life to them has been all about the acquisition of materialism, stroking the ego, instant gratification, and the pursuit of power, position and money.

Many people today lack a moral compass. Their spirits are all but dead, and the only thing that separates their actions from those of animals is that humans know when they are doing wrong.

But when the messages we receive from popular media is that nothing really matters, then who cares? What does it matter? We are born, we live, we die and feed the worms.

Until or unless Americans summon the courage to attack the viruses of apathy and spiritual agnosticism, we will never find the deeper answers to the problems that are seemingly out of our limited line of sight.

There will be other mass violence attacks: Be them with guns, knives, bombs, vehicles, or vials of deadly germs. We cannot afford to focus on the symptoms any longer. To rid our body of the cancer within, we must attack it straight up and head on. We must be prepared for how uncomfortable and difficult cancer treatment can be. But to do nothing to the tumor only encourages it to grow.

Our nation cannot bear the consequences of doing nothing for much longer. If we are not careful, we risk imploding and collapsing from within.

There is no greater enemy to the self than the self. No weapons necessary save for the destructive thoughts of pride, ego and apathy.