[rant] Rush gave racists a bad name by claiming that one of the better quarterbacks in the game got his position because the NFL and the press really wanted a black quarterback to promote. He hasn't been forced to apologize...yet. Instead his reaction to the negative press has been "see, I'm right, otherwise people wouldn't be getting so upset with what I said." Sure, Rush. You're right... we were just jerking our knees here.
Rush's brother has published a new book talking about how the "liberals" are ruining the country for Christians.
I've never thought much of Rush Limbaugh. He's mastered the art of convincing people by talking loudly and rapidly, IMHO. The fans who call into his show are called "Dittoheads." Need I say more?
As for the younger Limbaugh, I don't know much about him, but he was interviewed on Sean Hannity's religious broadcasting show (oh, sorry, it's called "the unvarnished truth show" or something like that) and I have to say that he was a little short on substance in his interview. Could've been Hannity's fault, at that, but still... The main point (that Liberals are "attacking" Christians and making the world safe for every religion EXCEPT Christianity) was accepted as a foregone conclusion by host and guest, so there wasn't really any explanation as to the theme of the book or specific examples of how the left is pulling the rug out from under Christians. Just that "THEY ARE!!!"
Well, I gather that anything that tries to allow equal time for other religious ideas is an attack on Christianity. But other than that??? Or, rather, that any program that bans religious presentations as part of government (paid for by ALL taxpayers) events or institutions is also an attack on Christianity.
Doesn't seem like a new theme, at any rate.
I'm so tired of these people. Honestly. I wish these beleaguered Churches would just give up their billions in tax exemptions and then look back to see how well we in America supported them throughout our history, even unto today.
Jerks!
And when was the last time a person was killed in America for being a member of a Christian sect? Oh, wait, Branch Davidians... IS that who was being persecuted? Those wackos?
Recent news seems to be filled with those het up on God's voice inside them doing things like killing abortion doctors or dragging homosexuals out to get beaten up. (Both perpetrated in Christ's name, I'll remind us all). Or the various parents killing all of their multiple offspring because they were afraid the devil might get them... Uh huhn...
Oh wait! I'm persecuting Christians by pointing out that SOME Christians do wacky stupid things in God's name, and I've failed to tar other religions (especially Muslims) at the same time...
Is that it?
Or is it that the nasty left likes to sneer when people claim to know what God wants FOR ALL OF US?
God wants white quarterbacks, for sure. Otherwise, why did He make so many of them white?
Darnit, there I go again. I'm confusing my Limbaughs.
Better get a scorecard. I can't tell them apart anymore.
[/rant]
[ October 01, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bob's back! I'm glad. I missed you.
quote:The fans who call into his show are called "Dittoheads." Need I say more?
Surely you're not suggesting that a group can best be characterized by the names they are called by those who don't like them?
quote:Recent news seems to be filled with those het up on God's voice inside them doing things like killing abortion doctors or dragging homosexuals out to get beaten up...
...and running planes into buildings, and kidnapping and raping teenage girls...
Maybe it isn't Christians with which you are fed up, but instead the scummy things humans do to each other. It just seems worse when its done by people who profess to know better.
I'd hug you, but would it irritate you? I don't want to do that.
[ October 01, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It not only seems worse. It IS worse. It's worse because those people aren't just in the position of "they should know better." They have put themselves in the position of saying they DO KNOW BETTER. And that they KNOW BETTER FOR ALL OF US.
(and K, I think you skipped a sentence in there along the way where I asked if maybe I wasn't being hard enough on Muslims. It's sort of ironic you bring that up as a defense of Christianity, though. That zealots from other faiths have done worse isn't a good enough reason to stop pointing out that self-righteous bigots in our own culture deserve our censure and ridicule, no matter what religious affiliation they wrap their biases in. The fact that Christianity is the domininant "religion" in the US simply means that it is the one most often cited when people try to justify their claims to moral superiority.
I've often thought that excommunication is a wonderful way for religions to purge themselves of the real wackos. I'd be really interested to see some of our larger faiths start sanctioning the truly insidious types out there -- the people who kill abortion doctors or slay their own children, or go on TV and radio and claim that God is going to send Hurricanes to Florida because Orlando allowed some rainbow flags to be displayed on public light posts.
I'm probably just the sort of person that Limbaugh was complaining about. I support Christianity as a faith but I do not support it as a means of public instruction (thus inserting itself into school curricula) or as a method of governance (thus inserting itself into modern law making or selection of leaders). I think if each individual votes his or her conscience, then that gives religion enough influence over every facet of life. We don't need more of it in secular institutions. And we don't need government to pay for or in any way sponsor non-secular institutions.
That's not an attack on Christianity unless Christians feel like they deserve an unequal voice in how the country is run.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
By the way...I'm not really "back" I just have a cheap internet connection from my hotel and some "dead time" waiting to make a call.
And hugs aren't bad. I've been known to misinterpret them, though. So unless you are looking for a marriage proposal, you might want to rethink this whole "hug" thing.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Katharina, its Rush who calls his callers "dittoheads".
I missed the Football Foot-n-mouth episode. I tried listening to Rush a few times. He divides people into three groups. The Right people, who agree totally with him. The Wrong people, who disagree on anything with him, so they must be completely and totally wrong on everything. The Undecided, who are really the Wrong people, but who are too cowardly to stand by their opinions, or the opinions he chooses to give them.
Oh, and watch your Rush-bashing/Christian Creep bashing. Some in Texas have been known to hang yankee's for that type talk.
[ October 01, 2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Rush Limbaugh, and his brother, Whatsisname Limbaugh, are idiots.
You know how I know? I live in their hometown. We have a mural about our city that includes the man. We get his weekly column in our paper. I tried reading it once, just to get a feel of what the other side is thinking. It literally made me want to throw up. Hatred, stupidity, and closed-mindeness dripping out of every pore.
And I live in the town that thinks he's a hero.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Bob- I think that what Kat is trying to say is that you are mixing up your cause and effect. The folks who want to tell you how to live will do so whether they be christian or no. The people who kill abortion doctors are killers whether they be christian or not.
It is an impossible expectation that any institution will have such a vast effect on its adherents that they will cease to do the things which humans have always done.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually they played the exact quote on the news. I wish I could type it word for word but what he said wasn't that Mr McNab got his position because he was black but that Mr McNab was over rated because The Press wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.
Which was really stupid for him to say because there are so many people out there that dispise him for his political beliefs that he could have said "The Raider's colours are Silver and Black" and they still would have jumped all over him for being racist. "SEE! He said Black! The Raiders are in Oakland! Oakland is mostly black! He hates Black People!!!!"
quote: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well," said Limbaugh, the outspoken conservative radio talk show host who joined ESPN this season. "There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
[ October 01, 2003, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Jaccare, I understand that, but its their Christianity (or Islam, or Wiccan or Communism or what ever "ism" they are following) that gives them the smug, "holier than thou" hypocritic attitude that Bob seems to find insufferable.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
What gets me is his focus on McNabb, who had a couple of bad games to start the year. There are several other starting QB's who are black (7, with 2 more out with injuries IIRC).
quote:``I don't think he's been that good from the get-go,'' Limbaugh said about McNabb on last Sunday's pregame show. ``I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
``I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.''
[ October 01, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: TheTick ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jaccare, I understand that, but its their Christianity (or Islam, or Wiccan or Communism or what ever "ism" they are following) that gives them the smug, "holier than thou" hypocritic attitude that Bob seems to find insufferable.
Well sure- they base their morality on some sort of philosophy and then become smugly "holier than thou". The point is that pretty much any group you can name has folks of this stripe. This is hardly a uniquely christian problem.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Bob: I didn't miss your statement - I was pointing out that just because you are aware of the accusation, it doesn't mean you don't do it, that the accusation isn't true.
I also wasn't defending Christianity as much doing exactly what Jacare said I was. All those horrible crimes listed have been part of humanity since it began, and while the nominal reasons change, I think it always will be. Even if a religion tries to stamp it out.
Rush calls his own callers dittoheads? My stars. Obviously, I've never listened to it.
Okay, I wasn't defending Christianity before, but I am now. Don't mix up the religion with the behavior of its adherents. The only way to scrub the scumminess out of all of humanity to do exactly what is both impossible and often decried - some sort of brainwashing and control. That doesn't happen.
This happens all the time - looking at the people who say they support a mode of thought or a philosophy or an organization and saying that the method must be bunk because the people are still acting like people. People will ALWAYS act like people, and that includes those who belong to a religion that tells them to knock it off.
You can disagree with, say, Rush because of what he says (and what he said was very racist), but not because your neighbor who listens to Rush backed over your mailbox and didn't pay for it.
What was it that Chesterton said? "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried."
The abortion-doctor and baby killers are not obviously not trying.
I'll be convinced that Christianity itself is the pernicious evil when it can be shown that it encourages as part of its doctrine unpleasant behaviors that are not shared by the rest of humanity.
[ October 01, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Katherina
What Rush said is not very racist. Say that the NFL should not let black players in at all becuase they are black is very racist.
On a scale of racism, this is about a 1 out of 10.
msquared
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh, and I've listened to Rush off and on for years and the "dittohead" thing refers to a call he had many years ago where someone lavished praise onto Rush only to have the next person who called say "Ditto everything that guy just said" so now, instead of wasting half the show with callers sucking up they just say "ditto" or "megadittos" or some variation there of.
Therefore: "Dittohead"
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: GOLDEN, Colo. - A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.
Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall, a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.
The 61-page booklets promote "jury nullification," a concept promoted by conservative groups that say juries have the right to not only decide guilt or innocence, but also whether laws are just and adhere to God's law.
See, that's what bothers me. When they use their God to justify their beliefs/actions.
I wonder how he'd feel if he got the ever-loving-bejesus kicked out of him and his attacker's jury "answered only to God" and aquitted him. (My God said he had it coming. ) Man, I'd seriously consider paying to see that jury verdict come in. (This week on Pay-Per-View: Jury nullification.)
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Hmmm... It's tricky, the whole fanatical minority thing. I certainly don't judge all of Christianity by the small minority who bomb abortion clinics or wave "God Hates Fags" signs outside funerals. But what does it even mean to judge all of Christianity? There are literally hundreds of recognized Christian sects in the world, each a little different. Looked at one way, it's not really meaningful to speak pejoratively about Christianity as a whole. But, looked at another way, you can't really say "judge our religion by its doctrine, not by its adherents" because doctrine changes from group to group. I feel like there must be groups that self-identify as Christian who advocate violence as a matter of doctrine, whose clergy preach intolerance and hate. Does that mean we should judge other, more peaceful, more loving groups by those actions? Maybe we need to just stop talking about Christianity as a single, cohesive whole.
I do find Bob's excommunication comment intriguing, though. It seems like at least some of the violent, hating people who call themselves Christians belong to a sect that doctrinally eschews such tactics. Is there, then, any reason for that sect not to excommunicate the offender? And, if not, does this actually happen? And, if not, why not?
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Just a general question.
If this is a 1 on the rictor scale of racism, can we at least agree that it was really rude?
Hmmm... well I'm trying to understand Rush's point of view on this. Why on earth would he say such a thing, even if he thought it was true?
Was it necessary for him to try and 'expose' the media's bias in this case? It's really nothing he can prove or substantiate.
For that matter, is it a bad thing for the media to want a successful black quarterback in the first place?
I played under a black quarterback when I was in highschool. Very talented guy. I know that if someone had said publicly that he was given more attention than he deserved simply because he was black, he would have been very upset. And rightfully so.
Is there any context in which Rush can say this and not be offensive?
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Rush's brother has published a new book talking about how the "liberals" are ruining the country for Christians.
I know a lot of people who think this way (like my whole family) and I used to buy into it, but I've figured out sorta how I really feel about it. The point is that the country is supposed to be a place where people can have whatever religion they want. But it's not a country where someone can force their religion onto anyone else. Unfortunately, in a way, this is what Christians are supposed to do, at least in the eyes of non-Christians. We Christians are supposed to take our gospel to everyone and do our best to get laws passed that reflect our value system. (Everyone does this to some degree, it's just that many Christians believe this is mandatory for us...and I'm one of 'em.)
It's no wonder things seem to be getting harder on Christians. We are fighting to make the country do what WE think is right, in a world where people are taught to be true to themselves, and that people who try to make you change should be stopped, because they don't love you for who you are. (Notice that I am trying to put the same neutral emphasis onto both points of view. This is me making an attempt at seeing things from far away.)
The point is that America is changing, and it is beginning to not allow the Christian way of life, meaning that we won't be able to go around telling people how to live for much longer. But let's get this straight. (The following is aimed at Christians who believe the above quote.) It's not the liberals who are screwing things up for us. We have chosen a life that makes us hated. Jesus said that to be His disciple, you should expect to be hated and persecuted. Why? Because we're telling people something that they don't really want to hear. It's our job. Throughout the centuries, life has been hard for Christians all over the world. It's nothing new. The only reason America has been so "safe" for Christians up til now is because the majority of Americans were Christians. In fact, the places that were safe for Christians in the past were also mainly Christian areas. Now they're not. Prepare to have to do what almost all Christians have had to do in the past, and that's go against the current. I don't know why Christians seem so set on blaming someone for making things tough on us, when they should have seen it coming. Not that I'm saying I agree with the way the world is, I just know who is in charge of this world, and I'm not talking about God.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
[ October 01, 2003, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Jacare,
and K, too...
If that's what you were saying, I totally agree. People wrap themselves in Christianity the way they wrap themselves in the flag (or other symbols that have a moral or ethical connotation in our culture) as a way to justify their actions to themselves and others. In the process, they devalue the power of the symbol (by virtue of doing bad things in the name of that particular institution).
But, that's not the point of Limbaugh's book, as I understand it. His point is that liberals are bashing Christians, not bashing people who CLAIM to be Christians.
And my point back to him is that I need some specific examples. The ones I can think up (where I bash people who are saying they are doing what they are doing because they are Christian) seem rather weak.
Pix, are you saying Rush's comments aren't all that bad? To me, they sound little better than the guy who yelled into the mic "Look at that little monkey go!" (wasn't that Jimmy the Greek?)
I jumped on it mainly because it offers proof of Rush's lack of a clue. If he can be so off base on this kind of thing (that ultimately doesn't matter) how off base might he be overall?
And I've heard callers to his show refer to themselves as "dittoheads," so I think it's a perfectly fine point of attack.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
Rush on Rush:
quote:Limbaugh didn't back down from his comments during his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday.
"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community."
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Well said Katherina.
But let's get back to Rush or the separation of Rush and Nate (or whatever his brother's name is). The last name says it all, either Limbaugh is a schmuck. Rush for being just who he is and his brother for suddenly pushing his own fame based on an idiotic statement made by Rush Limbaugh. Does anyone even think that for one minute Rush's brother would be getting any media airtime if Rush hadn't stuck his foot so deeply in his mouth?
Here's where I'd like to see Dennis Miller return to TV Football to replace Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh simply does not understand the game or any of its history. Miller, who drops names like Terrel Owens drops passes, at least had the historical knowledge of the game that the average or above-average football fan has. Rush is so out of touch that he thinks that black quarterbacks are still something of a novelty in the game. heck, the media pretty much quit acknowledging black quarterbacks for being black, in what, 1984 or so?
There's no media attempt to oversell McNabb's capabilities just to push a case for blacks being good quarterbacks. There's plenty of evidence that there have been good and bad black quarterbacks in roughly the same proportion of good and bad white quarterbacks.
If anything, he forgets that no matter the color of the quarterback (color, not race, we're all one race with different shadings), the media has a tendency to shout loudly about their local QBs successes and failures. McNabb was spoken so highly of before because he WAS that good and was an integral component of his team's prior successes. This year, he's really been THAT bad and his team hasn't found that much success. But who do you praise/pick on? The middle linebacker or free safety, or do you put the spotlight on the QB?
Bah, McNabb has been treated just like every other quarterback by the press. And if the press was so hot on "over-promoting" black quarterbacks, how come they never had much nice to say about Rodney Peete? As a Carolina fan, I knew he was a steady if mediocre player, and that's how they've always covered him. No sugar coating. Cordell Stewart was praised highly and then slammed just as hard.
Rush isn't a racist, he's just a big old windbag that would rather listen to his own voice rather than do his homework.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:"All this has become the tempest that it is because I must have been right about something," Limbaugh said. "If I wasn't right, there wouldn't be this cacophony of outrage that has sprung up in the sports writer community."
Oh, so everything Rush says that isn't surrounded by a calphony of outrage is wrong?
That's just to easy.
{edited to add quote}
[ October 01, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I found Bob's comment on excommunication insightful as well, and I've been looking for some data on what church excommunicate, how often, and for what. I have found nothing, so I decided to yell Kayla and ask for help. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The Catholic Church has historically been the people who "excommunicate" their people. Others just kick you out of the church.
You can be kicked out of the church, but that doesn't mean you are a non-christian. There is no over arching Christian conclave that has the power to kick people our of christianity.
Though some Baptists do think its them--hence their desire to reconvert all you heathen members of LDS.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think excommunication is probably limited to:
- Catholics - Episcopalians
I'm like 99% sure that Baptists have no mechanism to formally censure anyone, even ordained ministers. The various "conventions" might take a stand on some person or notion, but those judgements are non-binding on individual congregations.
I know that other sects have more centralized control over their clergy (dkw told me about Methodists having regional control, for example) so there would at least be a some way to censure a renegade preacher. But an individual who claims to be from one sect or another? I'm not sure. It seems like any sect that emphasizes ones "personal relationship with God" must, by definition, eschew any attempts to control its members' behavior.
Hmm...
I wonder if people start suing the church to which someone claimed affiliation after particularly heinous crimes committed in God's name, if we might start seeing a change in how seriously the churches pursue doctrinal exactitude.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Dan, I think you're missing some data.
Jehovah's Witnesses excommunicate people. The first JWs I ever met were excommunicated, and that was a wild experience.
Mormons also excommunicate - most often for sexual sins (unrepentant adultery).
That's all the anecdotal data I'm aware of, however. I was trying to find an outside source. My word, NO ONE WRITE ABOUT THIS. I can't even get something off of beliefnet.com. This is frustrating.
[ October 01, 2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
D'OH!
I forgot JWs and LDS. I've heard of excommunications there.
Scientology excommunicates too. Well...no, they just make people "disappear."
(I'm kidding!!!!)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I wonder if people start suing the church to which someone claimed affiliation after particularly heinous crimes committed in God's name, if we might start seeing a change in how seriously the churches pursue doctrinal exactitude.
How could you justify it? You might as well start suing state governments because the people involved were citizens of that state.
Does this mean if I go crazy and off my roommate, her family should be able to sue the Cards because I post on Hatrack?
[ October 01, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Nooooo Bob! Scientologists don't make people disappear, permanently.
They just take them out into the desert, show them the space ship and make them write a big check. Then they lightly scrub the brain with soap and water and return the person to normal society with eyes as wide as a spot-lit doe's.
[ October 01, 2003, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Well clearly Bob must be right about something. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
No offense, Kat, but if you took into your head to kill a bunch of people and then claimed that your decision was "faith-based" I think your victims surviving relatives would have every right to sue the church that you affiliated yourself with.
They might not win.
On the other hand, a jury might decide that your pastor and elders were 1% liable for not reining you in after noticing that you were acting a little bit odd lately. That could open the church up to all sorts of damages in a lawsuit. Assuming that it's legal to sue a church.
Which it is, obviously, or the Catholic US Bishops would've just ignored the parishioners over the sex scandals.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
In the past few years their have been several nominally LDS people who have made the news for fanatical violence including most recently the self proclaimed prophet who kidnapped and raped a teenage girl. In all the cases I remember, the wacko's had been excommunicated long before the crimes were committed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:if you took into your head to kill a bunch of people and then claimed that your decision was "faith-based" I think your victims surviving relatives would have every right to sue the church that you affiliated yourself with
Why?
If I went to a class and was urged to start killing people, then yes.
What if I went to church and there was a lesson on the basics of the gospel - love your neighbor, control your base impulses, and mourn with those who mourn. I went home and thought "But I want to kill my neighbor, and she's annoyed me and she didn't mourn with me, so she's not following what we learned in church, and God doesn't like people who don't mourn with those who are mourning, and she shouldn't be allowed to do it. In fact, she shouldn't be allowed to have the chance to commit a sin like that." I go next door and slit her throat, and claim that God approved of me.
That's the fault of the church? Where, exactly?
quote:your pastor and elders were 1% liable for not reining you in
You believe that the leader of my congregation is responsible for what I do?
Are you kidding?
The Catholic church is being sued because those who were committing the abuse were church employees, and they did it on church property and with the church's knowledge it was a risk. The Catholic church isn't being sued for the abuse committed by one of the lay people. In that case, they'd pay out any time any Catholic committed any kind of crime.
I can only see the liable thing if the action taken was either encouraged by the church or else allowed to happen through the church's negligence and tacit approval (i.e. putting a known pedophile in as Scoutmaster and sending them on a campout).
[ October 01, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: What if I went to church and there was a lesson on the basics of the gospel - love your neighbor, control your base impulses, and mourn with those who mourn. I went home and thought "But I want to kill my neighbor, and she's annoyed me and she didn't mourn with me, so she's not following what we learned in church, and God doesn't like people who don't mourn with those who are mourning, and she shouldn't be allowed to do it. In fact, she shouldn't be allowed to have the chance to commit a sin like that." I go next door and slit her throat, and claim that God approved of me.
That's the fault of the church? Where, exactly?
In that context, no, it's not the fault of the church. I think Bob is talking about crazy religions like those that say, "kill all that don't convert to your religion." He's not saying ALL religions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Nick, what about the "reining you in" part?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
They are also being sued for a concerted effort on the part of the church to not just hide the incidents but to hide the perpetrators of the crime by shipping them off to distant dioceses rather than handing them over to the authorities. And apparently, they did it knowingly.
I'm not bashing Catholics, just a group of people within the heirarchy who placed themselves above the law and actively shielded people they knew to be pedophiles. I've wondered why no one was ever charged with aiding and abetting or obstruction of justice in these cases?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Kat,
A jury could easily decide that your defense (your faith led you to your crimes) means that your church bears some of the blame for your actions.
Especially if there's some evidence that they knew you weren't quite right and did nothing to correct your mistaken beliefs.
I'm not saying this isn't just another example of tort liability gone haywire, but I could see it happening without too much of a stretch. And I could see a church losing too.
I'm also not saying that I advocate it or that it would make much sense. I think that when people sue record companies over lyrics (no matter how much they might sound like a direct incitement) it's just bad law. It's people going after the deep pockets because they know that if they sue the perpetrator of a crime they are likely to never get any money. Shoot, that person is probably already broke from paying for the defense in a criminal trial. And if they were found guilty, they aren't going to be out there gainfully employed so that wages could be garnished. Nope, you don't sue the criminal for damages. You sue anyone who might've influenced that person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Especially if there's some evidence that they knew you weren't quite right and did nothing to correct your mistaken beliefs.
But that's assuming that someone else, an organization, is responsible for what I, an adult, think.
What would it take to do something? Teach lessons on loving your neighbor? Once a year, have a rundown on the ten commandments and say "Yep. Still valid."?
Because I'm pretty sure most churches do that - teach good ways to be. If they don't, then it isn't something the church covers, in which why are they being held responsible? I mean, I belong to professional organizations, too. Would it be a good idea to sue them?
Anyway, if it ever happened, there's your example of an attack on the religion instead of the person. There's a perfect case of blaming and holding responsible a religion for the crazy and unChristian actions of the one of their adherants. If it happened, it would prove every one of the beleaguered Churches justified in their complaints.
-----
I can understand the temptation - rich, organized, formal, and, from a certain perspective, smug. A perfect target. Still not right, though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There is the environment, all these beliefs and ideas being circulated around in a circle of people. I can never understand why it is that a group of people will condemn gay people or people who get abortions or a whole host of other people and yet turn around and think it's perfectly alright to create a climate to make it so much easier to kill and hurt people and then turn around and say that it's God's will. Not very moral. Not one bit. What would really be moral would be to do the right thing, no matter what, even as morality shifts and change. To really LOOK at these ideas spread around in a religion.
You cannot know how angry the actions of the Catholic church in light of these acusations make me.
And Rush Limbach is an annoying moron.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Why do people hate Rush so much? In the book Reservation Blues the main charcter takes a shot at Rush when he actually says, "If God were good, why would he create Rush Limbaugh?"-Thomas Builds-the-Fire
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Because that's a legitimate question?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Because Rush says moronic things and thinks he's right every five seconds?
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
quote: And my point back to him is that I need some specific examples. The ones I can think up (where I bash people who are saying they are doing what they are doing because they are Christian) seem rather weak.
He does give many examples in his book. One that I know is about a ten years old boy who was taught that he should give thanks in prayer before every meal was suspended from school for bowing his head in silent prayer.
Another, two sisters had their bibles confiscated and thrown in the trash in front of the rest of the school. They had brought them to read silently to themselves durring recess.
Now, I do not agree with all that Limbaugh postulates but, this holiday season watch and see how often "Merry Christmas" is said during the station identification. I bet you will never see it. But in contrast, you will see "Happy Hanakah" and "Happy Qwanza".
This is an example where it is okay to mention other religions but the christian is taboo. I don't care. Religion to me is personal and I could care less if "Merry Christmas" was ever said in a public forum. As long as people allow me to worship as I want I waill be happy to reserve it to appropriate places, and not scream it at the top of my lungs. But, kids should be allowed to silently pray at lunch in school.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: this holiday season watch and see how often "Merry Christmas" is said during the station identification. I bet you will never see it. But in contrast, you will see "Happy Hanakah" and "Happy Qwanza.
To be completely fare, you should count the number of hour and 2 hour long Christmas specials in contrast with the number of Hanakah and Qwanza specials shown during the month of December. Can you honestly believe that Merry Christmas doesn't get said on network television?
I am very wary of trusting the anecdotes Limbaugh prints in his book because many of them have been proven to fraudulent. The type of actions you report are clearly illegal. Schools have been sued (by the ACLU no less) for similar actions and lost. The number of verifiable cases where non-christian children (or children who are not members of the major local christian sect) have been persecuted in school far out number the verfiable cases of persecuting the christian majority.
[ October 01, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Head Ditch Digger (Member # 5085) on :
This christmas specials are usally, "frosty the snowman" and other dealing with Santa Clause. Not about the birth of Christ. And yes, I took the challange last year. I could not find one of the networks who would put "merry Christmas" or play music that would be consider religous. The music was holiday music not Christmas music.
Yes there are Christmas stories that try to convey the "Christmas Spirit". I think all should be equal and time should be given to all. But watch the little blurbs during the comercial, what are called the station Identifiers, they usuall double with adds for the upcoming news, they will not say "Merry Christmas", at least not here in Pheonix.
Again I say, I don't care. I am all for the seperation of church and state, but that does not mean that I can't read the bible or pray silently in public, that is my right.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think you are hunting for bias. Do they show the Charlie Brown Special? Do they actually tell you anything about Judaism in the Happy Hanukah spot? Do they do anything at all during Yom Kippur or Ramadan? I hardly think it shows anti-christian bias when the station broadcasts an hour long Merry Christmas special and then flashes Happy Hanukah on the screen for 5 seconds during station ID. I think if you were to count the seconds during which genuine christian messages were conveyed on network television verses the seconds dedicated to any aspect of any other religion, you would see where the real bias lies.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I would like to point out that the context the character's comment was made in was him actually questioning the existence of God, it was not a joke on his part.
You can argue that someone is an idiot all you want but its simply a matter of differing political views.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I'm siding whole-heartedly with HDD on this one. If you want to have your head handed to you anymore, start by saying, "Hi, I'm a Christian."
Honestly, most Christians could care less what others profess as their beliefs and wish you well in pursuing your life and dreams. But try and mention that you are of the Christian faith and you are blamed for everything in sight AND they tell you to stay out of their business and to quit telling them what to think.
It's just incredibly tough to publicly be a Christian nowadays. But, I guess, when has it ever really been easy to follow that path? It was never meant to be.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: "Look at that little monkey go!"
Actually, that was Howard Cosell. And, while they said it was racist, I strongly disagree. He used the same phrase about white players multiple times, and it was a common phrase about his grandchildren.
Jimmy the Greek's huge mistake was the following comment.
quote: "The black is the better athlete," The Greek said. "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started."
I don't necessarily think Limbaugh was wrong. On the other hand, black athletes haven't had the same support system that whites have. Sure, doesn't anyone wonder why some of the best athletes in pro football are black, but all the quarterback all-stars are white? The quarterback position is the "thinking" position. Do you really think a coach wants a black kid in that powerful position, the team leader? I don't think so. It's also the reason there aren't enough black coaches. Know what? I think the league should be doing more to get blacks in the quarterback position and coaches office. The boy's club mentality, however, is "Hey, we made them coaches and quarterbacks and they just can't cut it." I wonder how many of you could walk into a trade type job (blacksmith, electrician) and figure out what to do without help, or "help" but not the kind that they other apprentices get. (See, they've been apprenticing since they were born, and they get training 24/7, while you get attention only begrudgingly.)
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually, Kayla, Donovan McNabb, the quarterback in question, was a two-time Pro Bowl quarterback. And I don't believe he was the first, by a long shot.
And the head coach position in professional football... well there are 32 teams..., only 28 of which have been in business for more than 10 years. Most head coaches are brought up through the coaching staffs of teams or are hired out of head coaching positions from College teams. Other hirings are takeaways from one pro team to another. I hate to say it, but it's a rarified atmosphere in that job... 32 head coaches out of 260 million or so Americans... And yes, there have been a number of successful black coaches. But they, just like the other coaches, got there for one reason and it had nothing to do with race. It had everything to do with ability and experience.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh, I get it. Limbaugh. Rush. Duh, only took me 7 times. Yeah, I don't get him. The only time I honestly tried to listen to him, he told his listeners to turn down the radio and then told a joke so filthy, and my brothers were like "we thought he was just kidding about turning down the radio." So he totally lost my respect as any kind of guardian of decency, which he was supposedly trying to be. Anyway, I only read the first post and I probably won't be back to read anymore, but here's a hug for (((Hatrack)))
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Most head coaches are brought up through the coaching staffs of teams or are hired out of head coaching positions from College teams.
Gee, I wonder why there aren't more black college coaches.
quote: When Notre Dame and Michigan State played in September 2002, Tyrone Willingham (ND) and Bobby Wilson (MS) were only two of four black head coaches at the 117 major college football schools. Fritz Hill at San Jose State and New Mexico State coach Tony Samuel are the other two.
A USA TODAY examination of Division I-A coaching staffs reveals little reason to anticipate a significant change any time soon among major college head coaches. More than 43% of players at that level are African-Amercan, but there are only four head coaches. The 117 schools listed only 12 African- Americans as coordinators--assistant coaches in charge of offensive or defensive units.
quote: The unprecedented data presented in this report proves what we‘ve known anecdotally for years–that black coaches face higher hurdles in becoming head coaches in the NFL and are held to a higher standard when hired,“ said Cyrus Mehri, of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, a leading civil rights and employment discrimination law firm that prepared the report. —These inequities in hiring practices are serious and we think are worthy of the NFL‘s attention,“ said Mehri.
quote: Black Coaches won 1.1 more wins per year than white coaches. • Black Coaches made the playoffs 67% of the time versus 39% for white coaches. • In their first season, Black Coaches average 2.7 wins more than white coaches. • Terminated Black coaches won an average of 1.3 more games than white counterparts (in their terminated season).
But black coaches are not rewarded for their superior performance and often find themselves the victims of a —quick hook.“ Art Shell was fired after two straight winning seasons. Ray Rhodes was given one season in Green Bay. Tony Dungy was fired after transforming the Tampa Bay Bucs into a playoff contender.
Sop, you said, " And yes, there have been a number of successful black coaches."
I beg to differ.
quote: Since Art Shell became the first black head coach of the modern era with the Raiders in 1989, there have been five: Dungy, Edwards, Shell, Dennis Green and Ray Rhodes. Terry Robiskie was an interim coach with Washington for three games in 2000. There have never been more than three black head coaches in a season.
The question then becomes, how do they get "experience and ability?"
I know football, boys. Don't mess with me. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
My two posts from ornery...
While Rush Limbaugh is not a racist for the reasons murdok states, he is a racist in this context. Lets say I say "Jews cheat on exams, therefore we shouldn't accept Jews at harvard university," (yes, this happened) and then someone says to me "But so do christians, so by your logic we shouldn't accept christians either," and I say "don't change the subject," I'm being anti-semitic... because I recognize a flaw and take action against it, in Jews, but not in other peoples. Likewise, what Limbaugh is seeing is a reaction that sports commentators have to successful quarterbacks... they over value the quarterback because the team is successful. Limbaugh sees this, in fact, he comments that McNabb is being given extra credit because the Eagles have gotten so much better in recent years, that Limbaugh does not think is due to McNabb. The same exact phenomenon has happened with Tom Brady... he's not REALLY a fantastic quarterback. He's good, but not great. Same deal with McNabb... he's good, and can run AND throw the ball, but John Elway he is not. So, because commentators overvalue McNabb, Limbaugh, because of his political orientations, says that he's overvalued because of his race... when in actuality, McNabb is part of the subset of quarterbacks who are good, but lead teams that are either great, or become significantly better then they were, for which the quarterback is labeled as "Great" by sports commentators. So, I do see these comments by Limbaugh as racist... because he plays the race card, when the explanation for why McNabb is overvalued by the media can be seen by the way the media does exactly the same thing with white quarterbacks in similar team circumstances.
And...
If I am right, and quarterbacks on good teams get overrated, and its a given that McNabb is overhyped by sports broadcasters, and its a given that the eagles are a better team since mcnabb has been playing for them, then rush is being racist by choosing to focus on mcnabb being black and overrated, when all other quarterbacks in his position, regardless of race are hyped as mcnabb as. For a perfect example of the type of quarterback I mean, think about Tom Brady. Anyrate, if all quarterbacks in group A are all overrated, McNabb is in group A, then McNabb is overrated because he fits the characteristics of group A. In other words, if Rush wants to say that McNabb is overrated for other reasons, he has to prove that McNabb fits the criteria for being overrated for being in a group that is NOT group A. Instead, Rush chose to say McNabb is overrated because he fits criteria B, without mentioning the fact he is also part of group A. He's excluding a possibility, because it doesn't meet his premises, which is that the media is rascist and so wants to see a black quarterback suceed. By doing so, by not mentioning the group to which McNabb belongs, and which provides the explanation for McNabb being overrated, and choosing to instead focus on McNabb's race, he is being racist by exclusion. However, I can't be sure of this, because no one has asked him about white quarterbacks who are also overrated. Rush could have escaped this fire by saying "McNabb is singled out of special hype above and beyond what quarterbacks on good teams normally get because sports broadcasters want to see a black quarterback do well," thus acknowledgeing that McNabb is hyped for reasons other then his race.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Rush's comments were definitely racially insensitive but they were neither racist nor necessarily incorrect. Personally, I don't agree but its entirely an opinion for an individual. Basically he thinks a sort of affirmative action is being taken by the media. The fact that he believes this has earned him a resignation.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Donovan Mcnabb is not overrated.
Posted by Godric (Member # 4587) on :
He drops back! Sees a minority wide open! The pass -- Incomplete! Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Excellent research Kayla and I honestly thought there were more black coaches in the pro football ranks. Perhaps it's just a matter that those who were there stood out more than other coaches in my mind.
On the college level, well, college is a whole different ball game and I really don't follow college football. Pro football and college basketball are my personal choices.
Art Shell is the one that stood out in my mind the most for his success. But when you coach for the Raiders, you work for an evil genius and things can be really, really strange there. Shell's firing still makes one scratch their head.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh is being investigated for allegedly buying thousands of addictive painkillers from a black-market drug ring.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I heard on the radio this morning that Limbaugh has resigned from ESPN.
AJ
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have to say I don't think Limbaugh's comment was meant against blacks. He was speaking against liberal media bias.
This is a tricky thing to say. I don't like Limbaugh, and I can't think of a single thing he's said I agree with. But media bias is obvious to anyone who works for it or reads/watches it carefully. Where I disagree with Limbaugh is that he believes the liberals have taken over. Me, I think the capitalists have. Media, especially mass-market media, will always go for the story or picture or video that will get the most viewers, i.e. generate the largest advertising audience or tastiest demographics. If stories about minorities succeeding get more ratings, you'll see more stories about minorities succeeding. Simple as that. It's not a racial thing, it's a money thing.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Does anyone know if McNabb himself commented on this? I think his perspective ought to be the most important one.
[ October 02, 2003, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You scooped me, AJ[edit:among others.] E! just had a banner that said Rush resigned from ESPN and refused to apologize for his remarks.
As far as "dittoheads" goes, I've often heard Rush listener's portray themselves as "dittoheads" on his show. "I'm a long-time dittohead, first-time caller, Rush." and "Megadittos, Rush!" Sheep.
[ October 02, 2003, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I did hear a coment from McNabb on NPR last night. He basically didn't say much.
His coach had the best response I've heard though... "Rush who?"
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't really know what I think about the remark specifically. I agree it was relatively mild, and I'm very surprised that anyone is surprised that Rush said it. Not because Rush is inherently racist, but because he is inherently controversial. I thought that was why ESPN hired him, to create controversy and add "flair" of a sort. I think Rush resigning was also extreme.
I view the entire thing as a tempest in a teapot.
AJ
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Morbo,
As some one who has listened to Rush, the term Dittohead was coined by a caller. He had just heard the caller before tell Rush how much he enjoyed the show and this guy started out by saying "Ditto what the guy before said." This lead to Rush telling people to say Ditto about any compliments and to just get to the point. The purpose was to get by the usual "Love your show, long time listener, first time caller" stuff that most caller say when they first talk to the host. It grew from there.
Just becuase someone says Ditto, does not mean that they agree with all that Rush says.
McNabb in No Hurry to Get Apology from Limbaugh Thu Oct 2, 3:04 AM ET Add U.S. National - Reuters to My Yahoo!
PHILADEPHIA (Reuters) - Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb (news) has said that he was not interested in an apology from television analyst Rush Limbaugh who made controversial comments about him on Sunday.
Reuters Photo
Limbaugh, who joined ESPN's Sunday morning NFL pre-game show coverage this season, said McNabb was not "as good as everyone says he has been" and that "the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
The comments sparked raging debate in many areas of the United States primarily due to the racial implications involved. Limbaugh, a conservative syndicated radio commentator, resigned from the ESPN job late Wednesday.
"An apology would do no good because he obviously thought about it before he said it," McNabb told a news conference on Wednesday.
"He said what he said. I'm sure he's not the only one that feels that way but it's somewhat shocking to actually hear that on national TV."
At the conference, McNabb said the race comments were uncalled for and sent a poor message to young African-Americans about how they are perceived.
"It's pretty heavy, something obviously that I've been going through since I was young," McNabb said.
"You figured it would have been over by now.
"When you sit there and pinpoint a guy because of the color of his skin, and not really pretty much on his performance or the things he's been able to do while he's been in the league, that kind of makes you look like you're the bad guy."
quote:it's somewhat shocking to actually hear that on national TV.
That's how I feel about it, too. From a certain point of view (Rush's I guess), the opinion was on the lighter side of the intolerance spectrum. He wasn't wearing a white hood when he said it or anything.
But it's incredibly insensitive, personally insulting to McNabb, and just all around stupid. Even if he really *did* think that McNabb's success was born of affirmative action-styled media coverage, there's just no point in saying it on national TV.
He wouldn't have mentioned it at all if he didn't think there was some amount of injustice involved in McNabb's perceived success. Of course I completely disagree with that, too, but the point is that the NFL is a wholly inappropriate place for Limbaugh to be waging his war against affirmative action.
[ October 03, 2003, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
Well now it doesn't help if I edit!
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Why not? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If a Black player said, "White people just can't play football as well as us," no one would notice and no one would care. You can argue all you want that McNabb is that good but his comments weren't racist. It really isn't any more than saying Babe Ruth was a better homerun hitter than Hank Aaron. I could say that Aaron was better because he hit more homeruns but that doesn't make the statement any more than an opinion and one which should be acceptable.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
McNabb is not under-rated, he just is in a slump. It happens to everyone. For those who think he's not that good, go back and watch some games from last season, and especially the season before. Or you can just watch him next Sunday.
He was able to basically create an offense out of nothing. He's usually the leading rusher on the Eagles along with being one of the most highly rated QBs in the league. He's smart, big, fast, and can make plays.
As far as a bias, I think that's pretty silly. McNabb is not the first good black quarterback, in fact he's not even the first to play for the Eagles!
If there is a bias, its because McNabb is a really great guy, a media darling. Last year he donated over $100,000 to Syracuse athletics for some new renovations. He gives good interviews, and he's one of the most exciting players to watch in recent years. I'd love to hear Rush's thoughts on Vick.
Anyway, I'm not sure if the man was racist in his comment, but certainly it was stupid and just plain wrong.
(BTW, I think Elway is one of the most over-rated players in history. Terrel Davis and the other 10 pro-bowlers on each of the Denver superbowl teams made him look far better than he was.)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ahh, so in prior years when the broncos fielded crap, elway looked good because he was surrounded by other pro-bowlers...?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Look, Rush was brought onto ESPN to be controversial...about football, and he was. His comments were about football and only football. If a presidential candidate said the Cinncinate Bengals were going to win the Super Bowl we wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, not elect him because of it. People are making a huge deal out of the fact that Rush has the wrong opinion about football.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, they're pissed that he brought race into something thats totally not racial.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Rush is hardly a racist. He's a moron sometimes, an ideologue all the time, but he is by no means racist. The black commentators that sit in for him when he's on vacation would probably confirm what I'm saying.
None of which means he couldn't have approached this question differently. I think he really believes that what he asserts is true about the media's treatment of McNab genuinely is a fair assessment of the situation. Unfortunately for him, his overblown style allows for no measured, neutral discussion of his views, so he comes off as racially insensitive.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: "Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares."
quote: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
quote: Spike Lee urged that black schoolchildren be given time off from school to see his film "Malcolm X": "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater, and then blow it up on their way out."
quote: "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
quote:"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let the stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."
Yeah, he's hardly a racist.
[ October 02, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Quotes 2, 3 and 4 are attacking the liberals While the first and the last one seem absent of context Rush often will make the most reckless of comments that viewed in their context seem much more acceptable
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
His argument is that the media brought race as a factor, if he's correct then its not his fault he pointed it out. In fact it may very well be accurate to the extent that the media does want to see Black QBs succeed. I definitely see several articles a year about how many Black QBs are in the league. Personally I doubt whether McNabb is overrated because he's Black and I definitely don't think he's overrated. Still its just a sports opinion and hardly political at all. Rush Limbaugh is being hanged or something that is incredibly minor compared to any number of more racially insensitive comments made by Whites and Blacks. This simply another case of the liberal media out to lynch a conservative.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Oh please. He hung himself. It was bound to happen once he got an audience that doesn't want to listen to his political opinions.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Here's something I'v ewondered about while reading this thread.
Is it only racism if you say someone got something they didn't deserve because of race? Would it also be racist to say someone *didn't* get something because of race?
I mean, every time anyone throws the race card... is that not an indictment of their opponent as racist? And, in calling someone a racist without any proof, or just because you believe it is so... does that then make you a racist, because you're saying that the other person's color is blinding him or her?
Moreover, do you have to have a position of power to be racist? White racism against blacks is most commonly talked about, or whit eracism in general... because white people generally tend to be those in authority (or at least viewed as such). But what about the black man who says all whites are racist? Is he not stereotyping all whites, and is he then not being racist himself?
Some people will read racist intent into everything, regardless of what is said. They see hte world in colors, constantly. Are these people racist?
I know this is a little tangential to the Rush debate, but this thread got me wondering.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Only whites can practice racial hate Because they hold the power of the state When other groups produce such racist slurs It's due to their oppression by the man And they should not be judged as harsh
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Everybody's talking in hypotheticals, but they're forgetting that the opposite was said, by both Dennis Rodman and Isaiah Thomas, about Larry Bird. No heads were served up on platters, no resignations were called for, and although Thomas, at least, later apologized, his apology basically consisted of, "It was a joke!"
But in that instance, as in this one, it cracks me up that people were accusing Rodman and Thomas of being biased when, in fact, they were trying to point out bias on the part of others.
This would be like me accusing Orson Scott Card of being a Mormon science fiction writer, and therefore, since I brought it up, I must be a Mormon science fiction writer.
Don't I wish.
Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
Just hearing the name "Rush Limbaugh" makes my blood pressure go up. He is a poltroon and a bully of the worst kind. He is a rabble rouser of the worst kind, playing on peoples emotions and fears similar to what Joseph McCarthy did with his witch hunt for "communists".
Hmm, could Demosthenes have loosely been based on Limbaugh?
Aside: when I did a Google search for Demosthenes (to verify spelling) the first reference that appeared is for "Shadow of the Hegemon.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I believe Ender's Game was written in 1978 (the year I was born!) long before Limbaugh was famous. That is if I'm not mixing my books, and Valentine and Peter are mentioned in there as Locke and Demosthenes.
AJ
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
The hard cold fact of the matter is that Rush Limbaugh is WRONG.
Donovan Mcnabb has led his team to the NFC CHAMPIONSHIP twice in the last two years, only to lose to the soon to be Superbowl Champs. (agreeing with Xavier) I've seen Donovan Mcnabb single handely put his team on his back and win the game more than a handfull of times.
People can say that "He's no Elway" but remember, it took Elway like 12 years to win a Super Bowl, and McNabb has been in the league about 5, so comparisons are silly at this point.
How many Quarterbacks that have been playing for the last 4 or five years have been playing BETTER than McNabb? Maybe two or three, right?
So placing Mcnabb 4th amongst about 100 starting QB's makes him the ELITE of his class.
So Rush Limbaugh was flat out totally wrong.
That's what makes this whole issue so idiotique.
Maybe if he would have chosen Dante Culpepper he might have been more correct, but he chose one of the BEST QB'S in the game and then tried to credit his success as a creation of the "liberal" media to "create" a good black QB.
Rush was wrong, and his comments were just stupid.
...but then this brings us back to the basics, if you are a live and die hard flinging right winger and see Rush Limbaugh as some genius (like newfoundlogic) you'll be able to rationalize it anyway you like.
"Oh look at how the liberal media is hanging another conservative for speaking the truth!"
...but if you're on the sane side of the fence, you'll realize (what you probably realized a long time ago) that Rush is just an idiotique blow hard that says what he needs to say to keep his loyal fanbase happy.
To me, Rush Limbaugh is no more of a wiseman than Howard Stern. The two guys are peas in a pod.
Now, Rush can look like a Martyr crucified by the "liberal media" to all his diehard conservatives. Yippeee!
I find it hilarious...
...a total scream that it looks like Rush Has been knee deep involved in a Oxycontin ring.
Oooooopsy. You mean to tell me Mr. "Don't do drugs" was a f-ing illegal pain killer addict, buying mass quantities through illegal drug dealers?
HA HA HAH AH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHHHHHAHAHAHA
That's American's for you.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
<T>
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Interesting article on Slate, with the first actual hard statistics I've seen in the discussion http://slate.msn.com/id/2089193/
quote: Rush Limbaugh Was Right Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black. By Allen Barra Posted Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 3:33 PM PT
In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback."
If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons.
... McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003.
In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it.
The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this?
Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage.
In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period.
And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson.
There's more at the link.
AJ
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Who cares if Rush Limbaugh was wrong? Since when did we lynch people because they were wrong about sports? Next people are going to start claiming Bush is a bad president because the Texas Rangers are a bad team. You can say Bush is a bad president because he's a conservative but don't say its because he owned a bad baseball team. The same goes for Rush, say he's a bad personality because he's conservative, but don't say its because he's supposedly an idiot about sports.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
Bush is a bad pres. because he owns/owned a baseball team that didn't make the world series this year! Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Knee-jerk and utter reactionary tripe this is Right-wingers obviously racists must be if they Mention or talk about race at all; Hating must suck, or no?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Even if Rush is right about black quarterbacks, picking out McNabb in this way is just rude. It's like going up to a black student at an affirmative action university and telling him, to his face, "You are only here because of your race." Or worse yet, going on national TV and saying "Bob Sax is only at University X because of his race." That's very bad manners.
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
I am not enthusiastic enough about either Limbaugh or football to care much about this subject. But I will say this: If there is to be a scandal about this, there should also be a scandal every time some liberal says that the only reason Clarence Thomas made it to the Supreme Court was because he is black.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
He was talking about McNabb's talent in particular at the time though. He couldn't say, "Well there are some Black quarterbacks who are overrated by the media because they are Black." *wink wink* There are only so many Black QBs in the league and don't say that its because of racism because there are few white receivers and defensive linemen. There are few white basketball players and very very few Black hockey players. That's just how it happened to be.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If there is to be a scandal about this, there should also be a scandal every time some liberal says that the only reason Clarence Thomas made it to the Supreme Court was because he is black.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.
It seems to me like the only reason he made it to the SC is that he's willing to make outrageous rulings. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Bush is a bad pres. because he owns/owned a baseball team that didn't make the world series this year!
What team does he own?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I have heard a lot of people claim Clarence Thomas only made the bench because he was Black. I expect the next the justice appointed will be Hispanic and the fact the he/she is Hispanic is the reason why they'll be there.
That was a joke in reference to my post and he owned the Texas Rangers.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote: Even if Rush is right about black quarterbacks, picking out McNabb in this way is just rude. It's like going up to a black student at an affirmative action university and telling him, to his face, "You are only here because of your race." Or worse yet, going on national TV and saying "Bob Sax is only at University X because of his race." That's very bad manners.
Does this post not bother anybody else as much as it does me? Should the guys who do commentary on sports shows temper what they say to accomodate players feelings?
Would it be equally rude for, say, Ebert to write a review of a film and say, "But as long as idiots keep paying money to see (Insert Annoying Actor's Name Here) filmmakers will continue to crank this garbage out." What if the Annoying Actor is watching? What if his mother is? Isn't that like barging up to a kid in front of all of his friends and family and saying, "The only reason anyone would like you is if they're stupid!"
Maybe it is, but that's what criticism is. That's what commentary is. It's analyzing or taking in a peice of art or a situation, and then providing insight or judgement on what you've observed.
Do we really want to call it "rude" if the subsequent judgements might offend the person in question? Should unfavorable opinions not be voiced, out of concern for the other?
Is this post rude, because I feel Destineer is wrong, and I'm posting that where he can see it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think Rush should have said what he thought. That's what they hired him for, right?
I'm also not sure why anyone would bother to tune in to hear what he thinks about sports, other than in hopes that he'll say somthing dumb or contraversial. He's no real sportswriter, after all.
Given this, I don't think he needed to resign.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
According to what everyone on Sunday NFL Countdown said they had, "No idea." and he "betrayed our trust." Posted by unohoo (Member # 5490) on :
I think the only good thing Limbaugh did was resign. It is very telling that he singled McNabb out not for his performance, but specifically because he is black.
quote: "When you sit there and pinpoint a guy because of the color of his skin, and not really pretty much on his performance or the things he's been able to do while he's been in the league, that kind of makes you look like you're the bad guy."
If he had instead said that he thought that McNabb was overrated and that his performance was not up to NFL standards that would have produced the controversy for which he was hired. Instead, he choose to play the race card. If he hadn't resigned, he should have been fired for being devisive instead of controversial.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Oh, my goodness, how embarrassing. I JUST got the "Fools Limbaugh in" joke.
Like, duh.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pssst. Here's a secret.
Rush didn't get into trouble because he brought race up in a sports program.
He got into trouble because he brought politics up in a sports program.
Many people who watch sports do so to get away from everyday stresses of life, and politics is a very stressful part of life.
Rush's comments were not so much racist as anti-Affirmative Action.
I did not listen to the show, but it sounds almost as if he was asking for someone right then to debate with him on that point so he could get into a Affirmative Action Cheats Good White People argument.
None of the other commentator's took his bait, so now he goes off and pouts, being the victim of "Liberal Media Bias" and all the "name calling Liberals" who call him a racist for making a simple remark.
Poor abused Rush.
To his fans he remains the victim of liberal witch hunting.
To his detractors he remains the fool in conservative clothing.
To his bank, he is Mr. Limbaugh of the big checks.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So Rush was just supposed to say he's overrated and not provide an explanation?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, he COULD have provided an explanation that fits more of the available facts. That is, that he's overrated because he plays for a high quality team. This not only fits McNabb's case, but many other quarterbacks as well. As well, by choosing to go the route he did, he ignores quarterbacks such as Michael Vick, and Warren Moon... black quarterbacks who are NOT overrated, and have done extremely well in pro-football.
In other words, his explanation makes no sense unless he's trying to either race bait or media bait.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
His argument was that the Eagles weren't doing well because of McNabb, but because they had a good team and the media made it appear that it was because of McNabb because the media wants Black QBs to succeed. Who knows what he would have said about Moon and Vick because at the time he was just talking about McNabb and the Eagles. Maybe he wouldn't have had a good explanation but that would just be because he was wrong not because he's a racist.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
A Limbaugh update: he has admitted to an addiction to pain killers.
The difference between me and Rush, I don't believe that someone's addictions are the source of political commentary or humor. I do applaude him for getting medical treatment and working on kicking the addiction.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dan dear, I think there is more than that difference between you! Liz
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Words Rush might be dining on these days:
“[He’s] another dead drug addict.” - Rush Limbaugh on Jerry Garcia, 8/11/95
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
It is not possible to have a civil discussion involving race. Only one side of the discussion is allowed in public. The other side is attacked as racist.
It should never be okay to give advantages or take them away based on race.
When the NFL makes rules that require teams to interview black applicants for any coaching job, the NFL makes race a BIG deal. Jesse Jackson is one of the forces behind the rule about interviewing blacks. The NFL has allowed his brand of racism to creep into its rules and practices.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Elizabeth, that reminds me of the old saying: Keep your words sweet, you may have to eat them. I don't care one way or another about Rush's comments that forced his resignation as a sports commentator. He has had many comments on his radio show worse than that without any uproar. It was a mistake to hire Rush as a commentator just as it was a mistake to hire Dennis Miller for Monday Night Football. Neither was a match for the job.
I despise hypocrites, and Rush's cheerleading for the drug wars while becoming addicted himself is puzzling. I wonder if he'll soften his stance on addicts when he gets out of rehab. Somehow, I doubt it. Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Ill stand by the MahaRushie to the end. He is a good man, who happened to get hooked on a drug when he had a terrible knee surgery.
-Rhaegar
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Is there a moral difference between getting hooked on a voluntary recreational drug, and getting hooked on a potent medically prescribed drug?
I haven't made up my mind. Persuade me.
AJ
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The difference is how and why you got addicted. There's a difference between taking drugs to ease physical pain and taking drugs because you are having a hard day and don't feel like doing reality. It's a difference of attitude.
OTOH, I don't know anyone who is an addict via physical pain, so maybe I'm totally off base.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I wonder what Alucard would say. From what I hear from my friend who is a pharmacy tech, getting hooked on painkillers after a surgery is pretty commonl.
AJ
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: One study found that only 4 out of about 12,000 patients who were given opioids for acute pain became addicted. In a study of 38 chronic pain patients, most of whom received opioids for 4 to 7 years, only 2 patients became addicted, and both had a history of drug abuse.
The issues of underprescription of opioids and the suffering of millions of patients who do not receive adequate pain relief has led to the development of guidelines for pain treatment. These guidelines may help bring an end to underprescribing, but alternative forms of pain control are still needed.
Curious... does anyone think that Limbaugh should be punished by drug laws? (The same as everyone else, or MORE, since he so publicly upheld them?)
On the one hand, I'd rather see folks get rehab than jail. On the other hand, I hate double standards, and I don't like to see the rich and famous get rehab while poor folks get jail...
(A personal rant: idiots like Limbaugh who abuse prescription drugs annoy the hell out of me... my sweetie was in an accident last year, and was in a lot of pain, and unable to sleep because the painkillers she was on weren't enough. I would've gone out to get her Oxycontin... but thanks to idiots like Limbaugh who abuse Oxycontin, I had to wait until the morning to pick up a prescription for Oxycontin from her doctor...) (You can't even get a prescription for Oxycontin phoned in, you have to give a signed prescription to a pharmacist...) [/rant]
Posted by Hazen (Member # 161) on :
As I understand it, they rarely punish people for getting addicted to painkillers like this. So treating Limbaugh like everyone else would be not prosecuting him.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Perhaps, Hazen. I will watch and see what happens to his housekeeper very closely, though.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Bob's back! I'm glad. I missed you.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
I wonder how many of you could walk into a trade type job (blacksmith, electrician) and figure out what to do without help, or "help" but not the kind that they other apprentices get. (See, they've been apprenticing since they were born, and they get training 24/7, while you get attention only begrudgingly.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)