Quarterback versus the Pass "Rush"

[Berzerker]

Tingkai -

What Limbaugh did was play the race card which is a stupid thing to do when talking about pro sports these days.

What is "the race card"?

Every team has cheerleaders disguised as sports writers. Players of all colours routinely get over hyped.

Race is a non-factor and only an idiot like Limbaugh would use race to criticise someone.

So overhyping does occur? Aren't the potential motives of these overhypers open to scutiny even when skin color is a factor? I've heard black commentators refer to how white players/athletes get hyped in sports where whites have lost dominance, boxing being the most obvious. That wasn't racist, it was true...

[Imran Siddiqui]

When a black guy is in a position dominated by another race, the same phenomenon.
We have to remember Rush wasn't talking about today's black QB's, some of whom are reaching the pinnacle at that position.
He said "from the get go" meaning there was hope of a star QB in the making in McNabbs early career.

I agree. I think that there may be a very slight (not as much as Rush thinks) bias in the media towards black QBs. Me and Japher just took more than a few that are overrated, and I believe the reason may be because for a very, very long time it was said that blacks couldn't be QBs because they weren't intelligent enough. I think it may be a slight overcompensation for that. I also do think that some sportswriters want to see a black QB win an MVP award to erase the idea of the black QB not being smart enough for the job.

You make a great point about boxing. I've heard Rush's comments, almost exact, in dealing with white boxers. Basically some commentators will say that certain white boxers are overrated and it is because they are white. The fact that certain players can still be labeled the 'Great White Hope' indicates Limbaugh's comments aren't that out of line... at least if you are refering to white people.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Tingkai -
What is "the race card"?

The race card is introducting race into something where racism did not exist. Limbaugh has poisoned something that was a utopia, something that was an example that we should strive for.

Twenty years ago, racism was widespread in professional sports. Back then people said the Japanese didn't have what it takes to succeed in MLB. Blacks didn't have the smarts to be an NFL QB. Blacks and Asians didn't have what it takes to be a great NHL player.

By 2003, we knew these attitudes were crap. We saw the successful Japanese MLB players. We saw great black QBs. We knew that blacks and Asians could play hockey.

We had reached a point where athletes were judged on the cold hard objective stats.

If someone had said two weeks ago that McNabb was over-rated, we would have looked at the stats, and what we saw on the field. We probably would have said that people think McNabb is good because the Eagles went to the NFC championship. But only a nutcase would have looked at his skin colour.

Limbaugh changed all that with his poison. He played his audience and tapped into their hatred, and that was the hatred against affirmative action.

He said people are promoting McNabb because he is black and they want to a black QB to succeed. What he was really saying is that black QBS are being promoted beyond their ability by affirmative action.

And people bought it hook, line and sinker, because it played their deep hatred against AA.

Look at what happened in this thread. People were more than willing to believe the poison.

And that's what pisses me off. We had a fragile utopia where people where judged on their individual abilities, and it has been destroyed by Limbaugh's poison. Instead of looking at McNabb the quarterback, people see him as McNabb, the black guy who is getting an unfair advantage.

But we can fight the poison. Don't buy into the sh!t that McNabb is over-rated because he is black. IF he is over-rated, it is because the Eagles went to the NFC championship, plain and simple. Judge him on the objective stats. Judge him on his ability to create magic on the field. Don't judge him on his skin colour.

[Ned]

Tingkai, You make valid points here. This points out why Rush should not have been fired, but should have been subect to grilling by Jackson, Irvin et al. on Sunday's broadcast.

[Tingkai]

I'd fire him because we don't need his poison, and because he doesn't know football.

His whole Sh!t theory that sports writers want to see a successful black QB is idiotic. Warren Moon won five CFL championship, he was an NFL QB for something like 15 years (and no one lasts that long if they're just average), and Moon was in the top 10 for stats for something like eight years. For Limbaugh to say what he said, shows that he don't know nothing about football.

[Ned]

Tingkai, So fire him but not debate him? Tingkai, you really do not understand the basic concepts of free speech.

As to whether McNabb is overrated, I saw him destroy my Chicago Bears in a playoff game. I have no illusions that McNabb is good.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
Tingkai, So fire him but not debate him? Tingkai, you really do not understand the basic concepts of free speech.

Ned, we have different concepts of free speech. You believe that evil can be debated and destroyed. That's a very 19th century liberal concept.

I say the 20th century shows the danger of allowing poisonous speech to flow free. Demogogues know how to tap into basic fears and to fan the flames of hatred. We should not tolerate that, just as we do not tolerate slander and libel.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Ned
Tingkai, So fire him but not debate him? Tingkai, you really do not understand the basic concepts of free speech.

Free speech? No one was limiting Rush's right to spew whatever vitriol he wants. Just as ESPN has the right to force him out whenever they want.

Rush can say whatever he wants, and is lucky enough to have his own radio show to do it. But ESPN wanted no part of it. This doesn't have anything to do with free speech being compromised.

[Japher]

believe the reason may be because for a very, very long time it was said that blacks couldn't be QBs because they weren't intelligent enough

Just want to point out that Brooks got the lowest score on the "IQ" test that NFL has you take on entrance (for head injury reasons), for the year he entered... I do not think this statement is entirelly false. Yet, at the same time, I think football is a game of instinct as much as a game of intelligence.

Rush should not of been fired because he was required to submit his comments (including this one) for review prior to showing. It is just as much the network execs fault as it was Rush's and they just used him as a 'scapegoat. If ESPN does not want to allow freedom of speech then they don't have to, but they need to hold all those accountable for this action and just not the spokesperson... To me it would be like if David Schwimmer said "******" on Friends so they fire David even though it was written in the script.

[Caligastia]

Heh, looks like I've been posting in the wrong thread.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


Free speech? No one was limiting Rush's right to spew whatever vitriol he wants. Just as ESPN has the right to force him out whenever they want.

Rush can say whatever he wants, and is lucky enough to have his own radio show to do it. But ESPN wanted no part of it. This doesn't have anything to do with free speech being compromised.

I just saw a blurb from Wes Clark who was saying that "We are not a country that suppresses dissent" and other words to that effect. Of course he is talking about the CIA agent leak issue.

However, just yesterday

Clark was prominent in calling for the firing of Limbaugh!

Hypocrit!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Ned, we have different concepts of free speech. You believe that evil can be debated and destroyed. That's a very 19th century liberal concept.

I say the 20th century shows the danger of allowing poisonous speech to flow free. Demogogues know how to tap into basic fears and to fan the flames of hatred. We should not tolerate that, just as we do not tolerate slander and libel.

Yes, we have very different concepts of free speech. I hold to the concept that people have the right to express even the most outrageous of ideas and that we all have a duty to defend that person's right to say it. I believe that there is not middle ground on this issue. There is no grey area where we can suppress the opinions and voices of some. I believe in a free society and in free speech.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


Free speech? No one was limiting Rush's right to spew whatever vitriol he wants. Just as ESPN has the right to force him out whenever they want.

If ESPN fires Rush because of demand from prominent Democrat politicians is this not a violation of the constitution? ESPN may have right to fire him as they please, but not as a result of coercion from politicians.

[Jac de Molay]

If ESPN fires Rush because of demand from prominent Democrat politicians is this not a violation of the constitution?

They can fire him because of that, or they can fire him for having a booger hanging out of his nose on camera. Neither constitutes any Constitutional violation whatsoever. His right to free speech is mutually exclusive of any decision ESPN has on his employment status.

just saw a blurb from Wes Clark who was saying that "We are not a country that suppresses dissent" and other words to that effect. Of course he is talking about the CIA agent leak issue.

Clark's referring to suppression of dissent by government, vis a vis the Bush administration. This has nothing to do about a private company's decision regarding perceived offensive behavior in the workplace. Shame on you for not recognizing the difference.

[Ned]

Jac, I know the legal distinction between government and private action and how it affects the constitution. However, what I was asking about is a grey area. Suppression of political opinion as a result of threats and calls from political candidates.

In "democracies" of SW Asia, it is common practice to suppress opposition parties by filing libel suits against political oponents. No one who observes the result of this "wholly private" action can doubt that the main threat to free speech comes from political candidates that try to suppress the speech of their political opponents.