Roberts' kids: Abortion foes?

Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.

Now we can reveal why the New York Times wanted to look at the sealed adoption records of John Roberts' two children.

Howard Bashford, the Times' double-secret investigative editor, says the newspaper believed it was "important for our readers to know the children's stance on a woman's right to choose."

TRENDING: Report: Trump is considering forming a new political party

"Choose what?" we asked, drawing a contemptuous look from Bashford.

"Abortion, of course," he snapped. "We think that what the children think will reflect the views of the Supreme Court nominee, and the public has a right to know what those views are."

"Well, what do you think you'll find?" we asked.

Bashford thundered, "Those records will contain incontrovertible proof that those children preferred adoption to abortion!"

Our regional newspaper covered the atom-bomb attack on Hiroshima with a lengthy, Page 1 story about how difficult things had been for the survivors.

On the op-ed page was a scholarly piece claiming recently unearthed documents showed Japan planned to surrender anyway. The article argued that the Japanese were ready to capitulate when the Soviet Union declared war on them after Germany surrendered.

And so the debate continues, 60 years after the fact, over whether deployment of the horrific weapons was justified. (Some may find credible the theory that Japan was ready to surrender, but was just awaiting the return of Emperor Hirohito's tuxedo from the dry cleaners.)

Academics can shuffle documents all they want and argue that a little more patience would have saved all those lives, but one fact – and the empire's attitude that it reflected – cannot be denied:

One atomic bomb didn't bring surrender. We had to drop a second.

We know TV news readers often receive "pronouncers" that tell them how to articulate foreign words, but apparently this was not the case with "Hiroshima." Virtually every broadcaster we saw pronounced the city's name with the accent on the second syllable. This produces a nicely syncopated sound, but, ladies and gentlemen of the microphone, the correct pronunciation has the minor stress one the first syllable and the major stress on the third.

Cheers for Florida State University President T.K. Wetherell and his defense of the institution's designation of its sports teams as "Seminoles."

The NCAA has said teams employing Native American nicknames may not participate in post-season tournaments, and Wetherell said he'll sue the organization for its "outrageous and insulting" policy.

"This university will forever be associated with the unconquered spirit of the Seminole Tribe of Florida," he said.

Seminole is, indeed, a proud name of a proud people. These Indians won the enmity of American southerners by taking in and protecting runaway slaves and by defending their agricultural lands, which the former colonists coveted. They gave ground grudgingly to American assaults, and later rebelled against demands that they move west of the Mississippi.

Though their leader, Osceola, was captured through treachery while under a flag of truce, remnants of the tribe hid in the Everglades and refused to sign a peace treaty, holding out until 1935. That's valor worthy of remembrance, and the Seminoles themselves have endorsed the Florida State nickname.

Under the NCAA's rule, nicknames or mascots seen as "hostile or abusive" would be barred from NCAA tournaments. Recalcitrant schools also would forbidden host NCAA championships.

This is the same outfit that tried to bar football players from dropping to a knee for a quick prayer after scoring a touchdown – as though the sight of an athlete acknowledging a power greater than himself were intrinsically offensive.

If the NCAA wants to go after really offensive mascots, how about the Fighting Irish (noted by Wetherell). This is a nickname that depicts an entire nationality as truculent and aggressive.

And how about any team called the Vikings? Those guys weren't the dairy farmers we know today. What could be more offensive than a team nicknamed for barbarians famed for murder, rape and pillage?

If you've ever seen the NCAA rule book, you understand that the rulers of intercollegiate athletics have developed a bureaucracy more Byzantine than the federal government. It's time to shake up these clowns.