I'm sure he didn't. Rob Mentzer of Daily Herald Media (Look Rob, I didn't refer to it as a newspaper!) and I debated the Native American Mascot Bill on Twitter last night. My position throughout this debate has been that Democrats wanted to ban outright all mascots but didn't have the nerve to do it. So they pretended to put in a system that fairly allowed a challenge and defense. It does no such thing. Once a mascot is targeted, it is a forgone conclusion it will be removed by the state. Rob's completely circular argument started with the notion that a kangaroo court is acceptable as long as it's seldom used and that's where he ended. So, unlike Rob, it's clear to me who won.
By the way, I didn't dodge Rob's question about the cultural value of the mascots, I didn't see the whole thing when I responded. So Rob, here's my answer:
I think some have more than others. I'm not all that comfortable with "Redskins" but surveys show even Native Americans aren't terribly offended by it. I think "Chiefs" does celebrate Native American culture. And Rob, this law will allow that judgment value on a case by case basis, where the existing law pretends to allow for that judgment. This is what checkmate looks like Rob, although I'm a bit nervous about chess metaphors these days.