Interesting article just posted on Salon. An excerpt:
Jack, don’t need him too. I rechecked all the links, and found some were from longer than a week ago. Call me foolish, but reading so and so said this, with no link or date, just seemed a bit too fishy. If something’s too good or too bad to be true, I tend to question it, and I was wrong in this case, although I don’t recall ever saying it wasn’t true, just a cite older than a week ago.
Let’s reverse the situation. Let’s say a white tailback emerged in the NFL and had some success. Do you think he would be overhyped because of his success as a WHITE tailback?
I mean, isn’t what Rush is saying basically the whole idea behind the movie, The Great White Hype? The circumstances are different, because McNabb has better credentials than the boxer in the film. But in the movie, they made him out to be Irish, when he wasn’t and all that.
And didn’t Isiah Thomas say that if Larry Bird was black, he’d be just another good player? I don’t necessarily disagree with that.
This is really a topic for a different debate. Just to clarify my debatable contention: QBs should pass, not run. Running just gets you injured, as evidenced by just about every mobile QB in history. That’s more detrimental to a team than getting sacked on 3rd and long. Therefore, I do indeed discount rushing when evaluting QB performance, much like the passer rating system does. In the same vein, I discount HB passing (from option plays) when evaluating HB performance.
They will if he continues to have such a high passer rating. But I agree, this is mostly off-topic.
You’re right, I forgot that they shortened the season from 16 games to 13 last year. San Diego went 7-3 or better and failed to make the playoffs. Clearly, going 7-3 doesn’t win you the division.
I think you’re overstating Collins’ TD/Int ratio, which was 19/14 (plus 4/1 in the SF debacle), but otherwise, yeah, I concede. The NFL places importance on QB running. I don’t, but I don’t set the standards.
<back to topic>
I think the whole situation was unfortunate. I would have loved it to go more like:
Rush: blah blah overrated blah blah liberal bias toward blacks blah blah
Jackson: Looking at his performance, he is a good QB. The fact that you don’t see that shows us that you don’t know anything about football. The fact that you bring race into it hints that you might be a racist
.
Irvin: <Standing up> Come over here and say that again, fat man.
Rush: <gasp> <sputter> …backpedal…backpedal…
I wish he were still on…when was the last time you were so interested in that pregrame show? I’d’ve liked to see the guys tear him a new one every week.
I agree with Donovan in that the other guys on the show completely ignored his point. If ever they needed to debate a point head-on, as opposed to steering the conversation away, this was it.
**
Well, since you ask, I got it from Fair which claims to be an activist organization.
from their site: “FAIR is a media watch organization offering constructive criticism in an effort to correct media imbalance. We advocate for media access on behalf of those constituencies in our society that do not have the wealth to purchase their own TV stations or daily newspapers. We scrutinize media practices that slight public interest, peace and minority viewpoints.”
Now I have no complaint with their mission, but I hardly construe an activist cite with a stated agenda as an impartial source.
**
Really? They don’t claim to be impartial. As a matter of fact, they claim the opposite.
(that’s again from the FAIR.ORG cite. Since their stated intention is to be a counterpoint to right wing media and the bias they claim exists, one can hardly claim they are impartial.
They certainly do not.
I would agree that it was not hysterical, yet from the title and the opening paragraph they are clearly pursuing a conclusion.
Perhaps you could show me the balance in that article. If it was balanced one would think they would critique the arguments they are making against Limbaugh and give the other side of the story. That would be balance, wouldn’t it?
Do yo see anything like that in your article?
I believe you are mistaken. I don’t think that article can be construed as balanced while cogitating in good faith, and as for your statement that FAIR is impartial, you are going to have a tough time making that dog hunt when they themselves claim they exist to counter right-wing media bias.
It looks to me that you are mistaken, and getting huffy about it, which is not a good combination, IMO.
In any event, I’m sorry to waste your time.
**
I have read the links, and I continue to defend him, because I am certain that your conclusions are wrong.
I think deconstructing short phrases to discern racism is a useless exercise.
For example, I have heard and used the “bone in the nose” phrase to denote primitivism in a derogatory sense. The phrase is not necessarily a racist slur. In fact, I think it is seldom used that way.
Similarly, Limbaugh is often facetious. I am often facetious, and more than once I’ve had things I’ve said facetiously taken wrong.
Without context we do not know whether the 12% comment was straight up or if he was being sarcastic or facetious.
Several weeks ago he took issue with a caller who claimed that Clarence Thomas was not a “true black man,” and Limbaugh made facetious comments to show the falsehood of that stance. Had those comments been taken out of context they could be used to construe racism. In context, they themselves were actually a charge of racism against the caller for suggesting that being black necessitated certain attitudes or viewpoints.
It was pretty similar to what Limbaugh said on Sunday. My conclusion from Sunday’s comments is that they are being deliberately misconstrued to create the charge of racism.
I don’t have to dispute them. If you wish to state as a fact that Rush is a racist you will need to prove that.
A couple of quotes without context do not prove that charge.
I will sadly admit that there have been occasions in the past when I have said things that were much worse. Nevertheless, I do not feel those lapses make me a racist. They mean that I am flawed.
So, let us assume for the sake of argument that the context of your quotes is the worst possible one.
Big deal. Jesse Jackson said “Hymietown.” That doesn’t invalidate the good things jackson has done for equal rights. It means he fucked up.
Rush’s stance on civil rights issues is what’s important, and Rush has taken an interesting contrary stance on several issues related to civil rights that I believe are very valid. In any event his stances do not denote racism.
For example, Rush has argued that the ruling that a black must be interviewed for any open head coaching job in the NFL is clearly racist.
While the intentions are good (get black coaches who are a minority in a position where they can compete for jobs,) the effect is exactly the opposite.
Any black coach being interviewed, he argues is put in a demeaning position by this rule. A white coach knows that he’s there because he is being considered for a job. A black coach must wonder if he’s there as a token formality.
It is also demeaning to the black coaches that do exist and have earned their jobs through merit, and calls into question the integrity of future black hires. Any balck coach hired in the NFL today has the shadow hanging over his head that he can be criticized as only having his job because they were forced to interview him.
Finally the rule is also an implied charge of racism against the owners, as it suggests that they would be normally unwilling to interview black people for consideration as coaches.
I think this is a cogent and well-thought out analysis of the situation that Rush has made. I believe that such a notion does not denote racism.
It is consistent with an ongoing political theme of Rush’s that overblown racial sensitivity is condescending and racist itself.
To avoid being racist, the statement should be “we’re interviewing a guy.” If the statement becomes “we’re interviewing a black guy,” the reason behind, the intentions are moot. It is now a racist situation.
Rush has argued that black head coaches are quite capable of competing for and getting the jobs they deserve. A rule forcing them to be interviewed implies otherwise and is demeaning to all concerned, and creates an environment of racial tension.
Rush wrote much of what I paraphrase in an OP-Ed in the WSJ a few weeks ago.
On most other racial interviews he is consistent with the philosophy and thinking I have described here. I do not beleive this construes a racist mentality and I think that his stance on issues is the benchmark by which one must consider whether or not he is racist.
Next to that, deconstructing partial phrases without any context is about as reliable as consulting tea leaves.
Because I think your charge is wrong. Because it is not crystal clear.
What does seem exceeding likely and borne out by the evidence is that there is a large group of people with the specific agenda of attacking and discrediting Rush Limbaugh. I find the fact that his comment went three days without comment before the scandal was created rather telling. I feel the way that it has been misconstrued to denote racism to be telling. I find the timing of this recent drug scandal rather suspicious (I have no idea or comment on it’s truth.) Rush has a lot of enemies, and they work had at getting him. Some do it fairly, some do not.
The charge of racism is unmerited by the facts and his history on the stances.
Ahem! cuauhtemoc, one of the world’s most discriminating liberals was indocrinated by a feedstore owner. You just never know.
Below are just a few of the examples that I found that sustain the idea that a “bone in the nose,” when used to denote primitivism in a derogatory sense refers to dark-skinned people. To say that it is seldom used as a racial slur seems disingenuious:
http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/stereotype-images.html
http://www.faceliftsa.com/John%20and%20Joan.htm
http://www.sowatzka.com/antique4SALE/MedicineMan.html
http://www.kissdominion.com/MEGATEST.HTM
http://www.rockabilly.net/articles/sjhawkins3.shtml
But in the long run, I would agree with you that we can’t just analyze a few quotations. If Limbaugh had said only a handful of racist remarks over the years or if he had said only this one remark this week, we wouldn’t have much room to call him as a racist.
But Limbaugh not only talks like a duck, he also looks like a duck, walks like a duck, drinks like a duck, stinks like a duck, quacks like a duck, dreams like a duck, thinks like a duck, philosophizes like a duck, runs like a duck, sleeps like a duck, swims like a duck, eats like a duck, waddles like a duck, grows feathers like a duck and sniffs under his wing like a duck.
Furthermore, I used to have a duck and my mother before me.
We passed the state of quibbling over his duckdomness years ago.
Wow. If an athlete wins a league MVP award, can he be considered ‘just another good player?’ I hated Bird when he was in his prime (give me Julius and Mo and Andrew Toney, et al), but that’s mainly because he did much of the damage (mostly with the little things). Methinks that Isiah was merely practising some gamesmanship, talkin’ shit. How many other players of his era said anything remotely similar? Larry Bird played the game on another plane.
Apologies for the hijack.
Zoe:
Looks to me like your examples are less than conclusive on the subject, but:
[quote]
But in the long run, I would agree with you that we can’t just analyze a few quotations. If Limbaugh had said only a handful of racist remarks over the years or if he had said only this one remark this week, we wouldn’t have much room to call him as a racist.
[/quote[
…since you seem to agree with my main point I am not inclined to argue.
Who is this '“We?” “We” could denote reasonable people who seek the truth and have evidence to back up their assertions of duckiness.
If so, I would like to get with the times and have my opinions updated so I can join this group of enlightened fellows.
However, until this “we” reveals their alternate reasoning for their conclusions there is nothing that seperates the reasonable informed “we,” from the knee-jerk opinionated without reason we.
I would like to assign you to the former category and join you in your enlightenment.
First though, shouldn’t you show the evidence upon which you have decided years ago that Rush is a racist?
In light of his myriad offensive comments, why don’t you prove that he isn’t a racist.
Basically what you’re saying is that your opinion is sterling and right and others must present absolute evidence, with no interpretations or opinion of any sort to refute you. In fact nothing short of a burning bush and a tablet inscribed by Yahweh himself will suffice in order to disagree with you with any level of credibility.
I think I’m just going to call you Saran Wrap from now on; you’re so transparant.
I swear if Rush Limbaugh shot a girl scout in the head on live TV and then snorted meth off her lifeless body you’d beg us to “wait for the facts.”
**
Why should I? You’re the one making the statement. It’s up to you to back it up. I can’t prove a negative.
No matter how offended you and the professional offenderati get it doesn’t alter the target of your offense.
You can’t make somebody a bigot by getting offended at them.
Just because you’ve come to the table empty doesn’t mean you should go begging.
I can’t help it that I’m right, and you don’t have anything credible to substantiate your knee-jerk opinions and pronouncements of racism. My being right is hardly and argument against me.
If you have something reasonable to justify your stance, I am all ears.
On the other hand, if you just want to engage in rhetorical masturbation, I don’t feel compelled to join your circle jerk.
I find this to be a rather common argument when somebody has absolutely bupkiss but not the integrity to admit.
That’s because the truth is crystal clear.
[/quote]
**I swear if Rush Limbaugh shot a girl scout in the head on live TV and then snorted meth off her lifeless body you’d beg us to “wait for the facts.” **
[/QUOTE]
Again, your ignorance is not my fault, and I see it as little apology or explanation for the casual throwing of racist accusations.
But, in point of fact, you are completely wrong. I am on record that I beleive the drug accusation seems credible.
Just because you’re a knee-jerk hack who assumes his conclusions without evidence, don’t try to project your deficiencies onto me.
Empty?
It is my opinion, as well as several others, that Limbaugh is a racist. We judge this by the the things that he said. The argument is that he has made bigoted remarks to callers (“bone in the nose”), that he propped up denegrating stereotypes in order to riducule (“loot the theatre and blow it up”), that he insulted an entire group of people by saying, basically, they all look like criminals (“every police sketch looks like Jesse Jackson”), not to mention his general intolerant agenda. We look at theses facts and say, “Golly, that sure makes him look like a racist.”
Your retort: “No he’s not.”
Nice job. Why don’t you just go blow him and get it over with.
Change “tailback” to “cornerback” and you;re talking about Jason Sehorn. But perhaps his overhype came from playing in New York?
Isiah Thomas has not shown himself to have particularly good judgment over the years, either, but he’s definitely still carrying a load of sour grapes over the way his ‘80’s Pistons teams got schooled by the “racist” Celtics. So what if Bird, McHale, Ainge etc. won multiple titles and Detroit didn’t? They were white. That got them labeled as racists in much of the black community that was unaware of their progressive history. But, still, I’ve never seen or heard anyone agree with Thomas’ “just another player” comment.
Gang, it’s high time to let Limbaugh fade into the obscurity and oblivion he deserves.
**
Yes, and those quotes have no context and are subject to a variety of interpretations.
Plus, if you are the sort that will take a few suggestive sentence fragments and call a man a racist, than you’re standards are unreasonably low.
I’ve said things worse. Tell me honestly, have you?
These are slim pickings for the seriousness of the charge you level.
[quote]
not to mention his general intolerant agenda.
[quote]
Yes, I’ve noticed the it not being mentioned. He has a 15 year history on these issues and is consistently an arguer for race blindness and equality.
So, if you are capable of demonstrating his bigoted agenda, I’d love to hear it.
It sure looks like you want to call him a racist and are willing to do so without reason.
Perhaps one day you have such an accusation levelled at you from such scant reason.
You’re the one jerking people off.
We’ve come to the point where I’m not going to waste further time with you unless you actually do your homework and attempt to demonstrate Rush’s racism in a substantive fashion.
Unbelievable.
A few? What’s the count that he has to reach before I can render my opinion?
And what other interpretations could some of those quotes have? I suppose him saying, “Have you ever noticed that every police sketch looks like Jesse Jackson,” was really a condemnation of police artists, right?
No. Because I’m not a racist.
What language do I need to type in for you to see the reasons that I, and others have been laying out. The man fucking spews bigoted opinions. That’s my reason.
**
I have, and if you want to keep on saying, “oh that doesn’t count,” then I hope you’ll stay true to your word and shut the fuck up about it.
Jack:
Yup. A few. It’s the same 4 or 5 quote fragments over and over again. Despite the different sources that have been given they all seem to originate with the FAIR report. Most interesting is that on page 2 DMC provides five or six cites of Rush’s racism in the papers. These reports are startlingly similar, in some cases they are virtually the same. It seems pretty clear they’re a cut and paste job from FAIR and several of them cite that.
Four of five out of context quotes originating from a dubious source aren’t with diddly.
You can have your opinion. The question is is it worth anything? Unless it’s founded on something reasonable, it’s not.
You’re just saying the same thing over and over again. I’ve already addressed this. Without the context, you don’t know. He may have been facetious. What did he say before and after this? You need to know to understand what he meant.
You don’t. You don’t seem interested in knowing.
English will work fine. What bigoted opinions? What prejudiced or bigoted stance has he taken on an issue?
Please tell me you have something besides regurgited FAIR propaganda.
No you haven’t. You’ve regurgitated FAIR’s dubious press releases.
I know I said I wasn’t going to waste further time on you, but it’s amazing to me how firmly and indignantly you stand on a house of cards as if you’ve constructed some august edifice, and I’m curious to see if you will have enough integrity to actually examine Rush’s stance on Racial issues or if you will just standard there adopting the tradittional wrong-indignant-stupid stance of ignorant morons the world over.
Got any factual rebuttals of FAIR, or just more invective, pal?
Just keep up the spin, maybe sooner or later it’ll sound less like bullshit.
So let me get this straight. I claim that Rush Limbaugh has, at the very least, racist tendencies. As weight for my opinion, I cite several comments he made that are bigoted … “bone in the nose” - “loot the theater” - “police sketches/Jesse Jackson”, I’ve lost track of the others.
You say, “Oh, you don’t know the context of those statements. They are really bigoted.”
Fine. Show me the context. On the surface those all sound like bigoted statements to me. Prove to me that they aren’t. What is this context you’ve dragged around like a horse carcas.
Don’t tell me, it’s up to me to prove that they are actually bigoted and don’t just sound bigoted.
I’ve offered my reasons. You’ve given me your excuses, but I’ve yet to hear you back them up. Talk about a house of cards.
I refer you to the duck analogy.
**
I don’t say they are really bigoted. I say I don’t know. You’re the one making the argument. You’re the one that has to demonstrate racism.
**
It’s up to you to prove your assertions. I’m sorry you find this unfair. Asking me to prove a negative is an unreasonable request. Repetition doesn’t make it reasonable.
Construing racism by deconstructing sound bites sans context is rhetorical masturbation.
It’s simply not a reasonable basis from which to make the accusation you do.