Under pressure from Major League Baseball, the Cleveland Indians announced this week that beginning in 2019, they’ll retire the Chief Wahoo mascot—the cartoonish, red-faced figure that’s meant to depict a Native American chief—but only from on-field team uniforms.
“We have consistently maintained that we are cognizant and sensitive to both sides of the discussion,” said Paul Dolan, the owner of the team. And in fact, they are trying to please “both sides” by retiring Wahoo on the field, but not from merchandise sold by the Indians organization, allowing it to keep profiting from the logo.
Opponents argue that these depictions “honor” Native Americans, but studies have shown that stereotype-based mascots and related imagery in sports have real, damaging psychological and social consequences for Native Americans—and they especially impact the development and self-esteem of Native youth.
In a statement, MLB, which will no longer be selling Wahoo apparel in its official shop, said the mascot “was no longer appropriate.” Was it ever? Native Americans have been calling for the removal of Wahoo for decades, most recently with the #NotYourMascot campaign. And while this move is a step in the right direction, activists were quick to point out that the team name itself needs changing, too. (There’s a movement in Cleveland to change the name to the Spiders, the name of the city’s baseball team in the late 1800s.)
There’s a certain football team that I’ll only call “the Washington team” that might want to revisit its branding next.
AP Photo/Mark Lennihan Customers use an ATM outside a Bank of America branch in New York trickle-downers_35.jpg B ank of America has recently faced a backlash over the elimination of a basic checking account that required no monthly fee or minimum balance. The eBanking account, introduced in 2010, allowed customers to waive the monthly fee if they only used digital banking services. In 2013, Bank of America began slowly moving depositors from the eBanking account to a standard account that came with a $12 monthly fee (waived if a person has a monthly direct deposit of at least $250 or $1,500 in the account). That process was just completed, and the free eBanking account is no more. The elimination of the basic, no-fee account has sparked anger from people who see the move as pushing low-income people away from traditional banking services. A Change.org petition currently has over 50,000 signatures for Bank of America to bring the account back. Low-income people do tend to use...
As time winds down for Congress to pass a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown, Republicans have another plan in the works—not only to place the blame for a shutdown squarely on Democrats but to blame them for a failure to fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
Early Friday morning, House Speaker Paul Ryan had this to say:
Republican Representative Martha Roby of Alabama had this to say:
ICYMI: Last night I joined @HouseGOP to shed light on the unfortunate games that are being played w/ CHIP funding. Many families I represent in AL depend on CHIP, & I know there are many others across the country who would suffer tremendously if CHIP funding were to expire. pic.twitter.com/BTIDtRXusz
It’s a clever, albeit diabolical, strategy. CHIP is an extremely popular program—88 percent of Americans say it is important to reauthorize the health insurance program. But it couldn’t be clearer that House Republicans are using CHIP’s popularity as leverage against the Democrats, hoping that by including CHIP’s reauthorization in the spending bill that Democrats will be forced to vote for it.
BTW, the answer to the question "Why hasn't GOP funded CHIP" is now clear: They were always using it as a hostage/bargaining chip. They appear to view children's healthcare not as a good policy, but as a thing the other side wants that they will use to extract value.
Given many Republicans’ views on CHIP in the past, one tends to side with Hayes over Ryan and Roby.
While it’s true that the program largely enjoys bipartisan support (Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and his good friend Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah sponsored the creation of CHIP in 1997) there are many Republicans who are ambivalent about the program and support it grudgingly. A standalone bill that funds CHIP would easily pass, especially considering CHIP expired in September.
But it’s not as if all Republicans have always supported health care for low-income kids. In 2009, President Obama signed a bill that expanded the program to cover an additional four million low-income children; for the most part, the bill passed on party lines. Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa said the program would be the “foundation stone for socialized medicine in the United States.” President George W. Bush had vetoed two similar expansion bills in 2007, believing, as Bush said, that those measures went too far toward “the federalization of health care.”
Compared to poor adults, most people view poor children as worthier of government assistance. Though CHIP may resemble just another abhorrent entitlement program for some conservatives, the reality is that Americans say that want to support poor kids. (The same often cannot be said about supporting poor children’s care providers, their poor parents or guardians: witness the current state of the Medicaid debate.) That’s why Republicans have moved to use CHIP’s reauthorization as a political football to try to bring the Democrats to heel on other issues, including DACA. How the Democrats respond will be instructive: Will they cave into the pressure in an election year or will they forcefully refuse to compromise on protecting DREAMers?
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin A man holds up a sign of a sign as people risk arrest protesting the Republican tax overhaul bill on Capitol Hill T he activist I’m speaking to outside the office of Republican Representative Mimi Walters of California lives in New York and comes down to D.C. every so often to get arrested. Well, the plan isn’t exactly to get arrested—the plan is to speak with representatives and have them commit to prioritizing their constituents. In this instance, that means voting against the Republican tax bill. If representatives won’t meet with activists or if they won’t pledge a “no” vote, that’s when the civil disobedience—and possible arrest—comes in. The civil disobedience is pretty simple, the activist tells me. You sit down in the hall, get arrested, go to jail, bail yourself out. In the middle of our conversation, there’s a sudden boom of voices at the end of the hall. “Kill the bill, don’t kill us,” a group of maybe 100 demonstrators, many of them disability...
Alex Edelman/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Demonstrators rally against the GOP tax plan in front of the U.S. Capitol T he House and the Senate have reached an agreement on the final GOP tax bill and plan to vote on it sometime next week. However, there’s still aggressive mobilization against the legislation, fueled by progressive organizations like the Not One Penny and Stop the #GOPTaxScam coalitions; Indivisible; and Americans for Tax Fairness. These groups are working hard to disrupt a tax agenda that overwhelmingly favors the wealthy, even though in all likelihood the bill will pass. Tim Hogan, spokesperson for the Not One Penny campaign, says that regardless the outcome of the bill, this mobilization is a victory “in the court of public opinion.” Indeed, Americans are strongly against the bill: a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that nearly half of Americans who are aware of the legislation oppose it. And tax policy activism—a rarely- seen phenomenon—has played a role in raising...