For years I’ve wondered why only nine out of 10 dentists recommend Crest. Who doesn’t and why?
According to “Statista,” in 2011, there were 193,000 dentists in the U.S. That would mean 10 percent of those who don’t recommend Crest — 19,300 of them — could fill Madison Square Garden, provided they pay Jimmy Dolan’s “facility fee.”
That’s a lot of dentists. What’s their beef with Crest?
Naturally, that brings us to the continuing debate about “Redskins” as an NFL team’s nickname. A new Washington Post poll produced results showing that 90 percent of 504 Native Americans asked don’t mind that name for the team.
That also means that 50.4 of the North American Indians polled — we all know folks who are part Indian — found the nickname offensive.
From that, we’re to surmise that “Redskins” shall remain an acceptable nickname for Washington’s NFL franchise.
But here’s the question I’d ask all except Native North Americans: If you knew someone to be an American Indian, would you address him or her as “Redskin?”
I’ll take a stab at it: Most would answer, “No.” Why? Because they wouldn’t risk offending that person; They’d know that “Redskin” would be wrong.
It’s not a political issue or a matter of runaway political correctness. Rather, it’s a socially practical matter.
Would team owner Daniel Snyder and Commissioner Goodell — both proponents of keeping “Redskins” — address an American Indian as a “Redskin,” as in “Nice to meet you, Redskin?”
Not a chance. So why risk offending someone for no good reason? That, to me, is the NFL “Redskins” issue. It has nothing to do with polls or political correctness and everything to do with common sense and decency — like holding the door open for the stranger behind you, which, by my estimate, nine out of 10 people do.
The practicalities of life seem to be the first eliminated from public debate. We see thousands of college students gathered at Bernie Sanders rallies, the “young vote” always targeted as a matter of populist politics.
While I admire Sanders’ energy and resolve, I’d be interested to hear from his young supporters in, say, 15-20 years, when many to most have monthly bills, mortgages and taxes to pay, not to mention children to support.
As one’s responsibilities grow, one’s politics are likely to shift — not as a matter of ideology but as one of practicality.
In other words, regardless of the toothpaste we choose and polls we conduct, why, as a matter of personal dignity, mutual respect and just plain right from wrong, would we continue to call an NFL team a name that we wouldn’t call the humans for whom it’s named?
Futbol or freak show?
Most of us have mustard older than the Red Bulls-NYCFC “rivalry,” yet “fans” of both fought outside Yankee Stadium before Saturday’s match. Had to, it was obligatory; that’s how European, Central and South American booze-muscled soccer slugs behave.
As for the game, at 7-0 Red Bulls, it was a freak show. It even featured a weekend afternoon rarity: people seated in Yankee Stadium’s plush, up-close first-base-line seats, which Saturday provided an “end-zone” view from behind a goal.
As for FOX’s telecast, the audio was horrible, as if crowd noise and chants were piped, non-stop, through the PA system to simulate crowd noise of big games played on other continents. But even those matches don’t produce endless droning, chants and song.
After FOX inserted the taped view and sound of microphone-attached NYCFC coach Pat Vieira, play-by-play man John Strong exclaimed, “That was awesome!” It was? Couldn’t hear a word Vieira said.
NHL refs take their sweet time to learn what they already know
Reader Bob Weiss: “If the replay guys can’t see that it was an obvious bad call after the first slow-motion replay, there should be nothing left to review.” Amen!
Now the NHL’s eager to dry dock its game with replay rules, as if four on-ice officials aren’t enough.
Saturday on NBC, after the Blues took a 1-0 lead in Game 4, the Sharks issued a crapshoot replay challenge — one the NHL blindly invited as it led to a review to examine what happened well before the goal was scored: whether the Blues entered the offensive zone offside.
At first look, second look, third, fourth, fifth and sixth looks — and in wide, close-up, both sides-of-the-ice, ice-level and above slo-mo and freeze-frame looks — it was obvious there was no obvious infraction.
Yet play stopped for four minutes before the call was upheld.
And now, 30 years after “instant” replay review was introduced — and 29 years of “ironing out the kinks” — the NFL’s preparing to overhaul its replay rules. When I nod my head, you hit it.
With Mets-Brewers tied in the ninth Saturday, Milwaukee’s Jonathan Villar hit a long double that Keith Hernandez suspected should’ve been a triple. Hernandez wanted to see if Villar hustled the entire way, called for that tape until it appeared. Villar, in fact, ran hard on contact.
In a style-over-substance, “The game has changed” era that regularly leaves players and teams a base short, Hernandez’s call for that view was not only worthwhile, such views now should follow all similar episodes.
And, certainly, Hernandez will now be as eager for us to view tapes of Mets suspected of jogging or posing their way a base short or into an out. Right?
Yesterday, after tape showed chronic minimalist base-runner Yoenis Cespedes jogging to first on a bloop that would become a double, Gary Cohen and Ron Darling excused him on the repetitive but irrelevant grounds that “he thought” the ball would be caught.
Mom used to say, “If you have to ask, you already know.” That question, again: Tampa Bay, down two games to one to Pittsburgh, scored an early goal and led 2-0 after one Friday. From NBCSN’s studio, anchor Kathryn Tappen then asked Mike Milbury, “How important was that, for Tampa Bay to get off to a quick start?” Milbury said — ready? — very important.
With Daniel Murphy batting against the Marlins, Saturday on FOX, his season’s stats appeared: .391, 6 HRs, 27 RBIs. The next graphic showed his numbers with runners in scoring position: .395, 1 HR, 19 RBIs — proof that it’s easier to produce RBIs when runners are in scoring position! Who knew?
Perhaps Phil Mickelson’s enormous gambling debts were the result of his close, first-name relationship with legendary tout, Mike Francesa.
In the Preakness, Francesa, who threw out Nyquist in the Derby, touted 3-5 Nyquist.