Add USA Today to the growing list of media outlets smearing Rush Limbaugh as a racist to support their opposition to Limbaugh becoming an NFL team owner as part of a group bidding to purchase the St. Louis Rams. In a column featured on page 3 of Monday's Sports section, Drew Sharp, a columnist for the Detroit Free Press -- which like USA Today is owned by Gannett -- declared “the NFL should pass on Rush.” Sharp argued:
The league cannot be that hamstrung in finding deep-pocketed financiers that it's left with no alternative but embracing someone whose occupational practice is making people feel more comfortable within their own prejudices.
Two paragraphs later, Sharp bemoaned: “Limbaugh's quest to buy the St. Louis Rams simply becomes another act in the football freak show.” And he concluded: “When you really think about it, Limbaugh's bombastic style perfectly meshes with a league mind-set that's already sacrificed its scruples.”
From the top of Sharp's October 12 column, “Rush decision matter of pride and prejudice.”
The NFL should pass on Rush.Nobody's suggesting that Rush Limbaugh doesn't have the right to pursue an NFL franchise. They're his millions and he can spend them any way he chooses, but that doesn't mean the NFL must accept the conservative political entertainer's check. The league cannot be that hamstrung in finding deep-pocketed financiers that it's left with no alternative but embracing someone whose occupational practice is making people feel more comfortable within their own prejudices.
Of course, I also thought the league was better off walking away from Michael Vick.
But cash trumps conscience in the NFL, cultivating a petri dish of assorted polarizing characters who've either done or said things that made us cringe. Yet the intermingling of those prickly personalities is somehow more easily justified within the realm of entertainment if it keeps the NFL profit flow fluid.
Limbaugh's quest to buy the St. Louis Rams simply becomes another act in the football freak show....
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That's plagiarism of
October 12, 2009 - 15:53 ET by mattmThat's plagiarism of Rosalyn Carter who said that about Reagan
They are the #!&$^#&!# bigots! I am SICK OF THIS!!!!!
YOU LIBERALS ARE THE RACISTS, THE BIGOTS AND THE HATE-MONGERS!
Carter made people
October 12, 2009 - 20:22 ET by Chris NormanCarter made people more comfortable with their incompetence.
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
It has been a couple of days
October 12, 2009 - 15:54 ET by EdhenryIt has been a couple of days since racism has been played.
So, Rush makes lefties more comfortable when carrying out....
October 12, 2009 - 16:01 ET by R D Helm...genocide against unborn black children?
Of course, Rush wasn't around when Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood in order to limit their numbers.
-Dave
It's OK to be a racist if
October 12, 2009 - 16:09 ET by mattmIt's OK to be a racist if you're a liberal. Didn't you know that?
Concur with your
October 12, 2009 - 20:11 ET by BDConcur with your assessment. After all the statement of:
really applies so much better to the liberals. After all, the liberals seek to feel comfortable with the prejudice against black persons to the point that they seek set asides and other Equal Opportunity programs to penalize one set of racial groups while catering to another.
Liberals also seek to feel more comfort with their prejudicial feelings towards those of conventional religion such as Catholicism and the various forms of Protestantism. THey LOVE to treat those groups poorly and seek vindication at all costs in doing so.
Limbaugh racially pejudiced? Not even close to the failings of his foes.
Bigotry and Racism Redefined
October 12, 2009 - 16:15 ET by Kingfish17Forty years ago, you were a racist if you were of the opinion that black/brown people should not be treated the same as white people.
Today you are a racist if you believe that black/brown people should not be given an advantage over white people.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
"MSM Only Weapon"
October 12, 2009 - 16:18 ET by mad53PASurprise, Surprise!
The smear merchants are out in force, using the only weapon they have to get back at Rush. Lies, Half-Truths, Smears, none of which can be proven.
This is nothing more than attack for the sake of attack, since they can't win in the court of a free exchange of ideas.
"Nobody Hates Like a Liberal"
Tired of Race
October 12, 2009 - 16:27 ET by Kingfish17I don't believe there are "races". As I've gotten older I've come to believe that if you took everyone in the world and lined them up from dark to light that there would be no recognizeable place in the line/spectrum where anyone could say: "This is the dividing spot between black and white" or "This is the dividing spot between brown and black". The concept of race should be a concept of the past, but it persists to this day because race is an industry that perpetuates power and money.
When I get a phone call survey about whatever, I usually don't hang up, because I know what's coming. I look forward to it. The third or fourth question usually asks me my race or if I am an Hispanic. I calmly explain to the person asking the survey questions that they are working for a racist organization and that their employer is perpetuating steryotypes about race. I also tell the person asking the questions that since they are engaging volantarily in these sort of questions that they are part of the racial steryotyping problem and are not helping with the solution.
It's more fun then just hanging up. And hopefully the person asking the questions will rethink what they are doing.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
yes, there are races
October 12, 2009 - 17:10 ET by Mike76Yes, there are races, and racial differences, some of which are profound, and just because there is some blurring, doesn't mean that "race" doesn't exist.
What you're saying is seems to be like this: because there is blurring between the colors yellow and blue around the green spectrum, it means yellow and blue doesn't exist.
The only time liberals seem to care about racism, is when white people exhibit it, or when they imagine that white people exhibit it.
Liberals aren't against racism. they could care less about, say hispanic on black crime. And they sure look the other way about black on white crime.
Liberals are against white people. Liberals are anti-white.
Mike76
October 12, 2009 - 17:18 ET by MrShyThat last line (2 sentences) .... so true.
My white liberal brother hates me, and himself, and everyone, sort of (except his daughters and wife, I hope!) and so much of what oozes from him is this guilt and self-loathing, about being relatively well-off and healthy and happy... so, he thinks he should be UNhappy. It's a sickness, I tell 'ya. But then, he's one of a kind, even for a liberal.
MrShy
October 12, 2009 - 17:32 ET by Mike76Heh, I bet the last place where your brother would ever live would be an 'ethnic" neighborhood. Am I right, MrShy?
Please educate me, Mike76
October 12, 2009 - 17:45 ET by Kingfish17How many races are there? Three? Or hundreds? Or thousands?
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
my answer
October 12, 2009 - 18:35 ET by Mike76I'll answer your question, but I also have a question for you, Kingfish. Do you believe that there are persons that can be considered Caucasian, or Negroe, or Asian?
I have a pretty good idea where you're trying to go with this, but I'll answer to the best of my knowledge. I think there are three primary catagories of race, Caucasian, Negro and Asian. I believe that there are a couple of exceptions, but this is the general rule. Everything is a blend of these three, or they are "pure" more or less. For instance, I think Mestizos are some blend of Caucasian, Asian and Negro, that over time stabilized.
Within each categories, I suppose, there could be considered sub-categories, such as Anglo-Saxon, German, Irish, and so on. Same with the Asian and Negro races.
I'll say it another way: Humans are mammals, and like, say, tigers and lions, are subspecies within the bigger group of "felines,"so there are subspecies within the bigger group of "human beings." This is what I believe to be true.
I don't know how many races, or species, or subspecies, if you prefer, of human beings there are.
Thanks for answering
October 12, 2009 - 18:43 ET by Kingfish17I used to believe that Caucasion, Negro, Asian stuff, but I no longer believe it. I think it's just an artificial grouping of humans into three categories that don't fit well when you look at many individuals. All animals, including humans, could be bred to isolate certain characteristics. That's what people did with dogs to create the different breeds. The same thing happened with big cats, as there is evidence that most of the big cats can interbreed.
But I don't think Scottish Terriers are a different "race" of dogs then a Greyhound. They just look different and have different physical characteristics.
We are all just one big race. The concept of three races is an historical one. There just as easily could be five races or 100 races. It's just some artificial groupings that someone devised a long time ago.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
reply to KngFish
October 12, 2009 - 19:27 ET by Mike76You didn't answer my question, although I do believe you'd be able to tell the difference between a Caucasian, a Negro, and an Asian.
I do have trouble with the definition of the two words, "race" and "species" as the seem to overlap, along with "classification."
Apparantly, there is a whole biological classification system, but I'm not familiar in it's application, so I did use words inaccurately in my last post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg
I understand what you're saying, and I think you got the jist of what I meant. I do believe that there are different species or "races" within the group called "human beings," as I indicated, and it's not artificial or a "social contruct" as some call it. It's funny, but I used to think of it as you do now.
So, Kingfish, we disagree. At least we were able to be civil about it.
Species vs Race
October 12, 2009 - 21:04 ET by Kingfish17I always understood species as a group of animals that could interbreed. If this is correct, then the "human race" would be interchangeable with the the "human species". If that's the case, then the subsets of Caucasion, Asian, and Negro become mere artificial groups created by man to differentiate appearences. The "scientists" who came up with the classical "three races" could have just as easily come up with five races, or twenty, or just one.
With regards to answering your question more directly: You and I might be able to sit down with some pictures of people where we would agree apon an artificial category of race for a particular person. But there would also be plenty of examples where we would not agree on how a particular person should be categorized, and there would be other examples where we would both agree that a particular individual couldn't be labeled or categorized. This sorting of individuals only further strengthens my argument that racial categories are purely artificial and man-made. (Species is a man made construct, but it is based in science.)
And your last point about being civil. Thank you for noticing and the same to you! I think when there is a break down in civility it tends to hurt one's argument, so there is no upside for being uncivil.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
I think they came up with
October 13, 2009 - 07:45 ET by Mike76I think they came up with the three races, since the three they picked have the most in common with each other - a Japanese has more traits in common with a Chinese, than say, an Anglo-Saxon, who has more in common with a Teuton (German) than with a Zulu, and so on, is my understanding of the model. I'm assuming you probably aware of this.
Maybe "they" didn't come up with the three, (Wikepedia lists 5 and 9) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)
- but I did, or use it as a general model. I can't remember when or where I first read it, but I base most of my belief on personal observation, more than any sort of "scientific" study I did. The "three" seem to be a good working model.
But yes, you are right, there are people who are difficult to categorize. I am thinking of certain light-skinned Hispanics, who to me, could pass for white. But I don't think it cancels the existence of the concept as I stated. Both the "hard to categorize" and the "easy to categorize" are true, or seem to be true, to me.
I'm assuming they probably were attempting to categorize man in the same way they categorize plants, insects, mammals and so on. I'm thinking out loud here.
Well, KingFish, we just don't see this in the same way. How about we agree to disagree, and leave it at that?
You must live your life based on the fears of liberals!
October 12, 2009 - 18:20 ET by cbrown90There is a subset of the liberal class that behaves like your mother. They worry about things all the time. As a child you had to live your life based on the worries and fears of your mother. You couldn’t climb very high in that tree because it scared your mother. You couldn’t ride a motorcycle because it would worry your mom every time you rode it. Even on the Brady Bunch- Greg wasn’t allowed to play football until he convinced his mom that he wouldn’t get hurt. When he did break a rib- his mom was quick to say I-told-you-so! The happy ending came when Greg caved into his mom’s fear and stopped playing football. He become the team photographer- the team hanger-on- the team nerd. A happy ending for all...sort of. His mom got her way and, at least, Greg got his mom off his back!
Liberals are worried all the time. They seldom laugh. They seldom are long term happy-too much to worry about. When you solve one problem, like hunger in America- the new worry becomes “food insecurity.” Like your mom, their worries have to be your worries too. They feel guilty about racism- you must feel guilty about racism, also. It’s not enough that you simply are not a racist- you must worry about it. Global warming, true or false, man-made or not, they worry about it- you must worry it. You must suffer the same as the liberal suffers. It’s only fair.
The Limbaugh article makes perfect sense for the liberal. Their fears are “reality” for them. They worry about racism, real anymore or not, you must worry. If you’re not worried, then there can only be one reason- you’re a racist and Limbaugh tells you you’re O.K.
cbrown90
October 12, 2009 - 18:25 ET by MrShy"There is a subset of the liberal class that behaves like your mother. They worry about things all the time."
Oh, is THAT the truth. :p
I don't need Rush to make me comfortable
October 12, 2009 - 18:53 ET by jefflebowskiI can remember all by myself how I loathe liberals!
Angry White Dude
www.angrywhitedude.c...
It's the MSM which traffics in prejudice
October 12, 2009 - 20:04 ET by nkviking75From the American Heritage Dictionary in Yahoo's Education section:
"Prejudice: Definition 1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts."
Sounds like the perfect description of the stuff in which mainstream journalists traffic. Any time the subject is Limbaugh, it's obvious that the press makes only minimal effort to do real research into what Limbaugh has said. Perhaps it's the MSM which makes us comfortable with our prejudices.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
I just saw that idiot on
October 12, 2009 - 20:16 ET by samhermanmdI just saw that idiot on Fox News, and he is capable of remembering soundbytes and his own writing but incapable of intellectually defending them. Just because you wear a suit and talk a good game does not mean you know what you are saying. Drew Sharp is another half-wit sports reporter trying hard to hide how dumb he is.
NB gets it wrong.
October 13, 2009 - 07:59 ET by BlueCat57Hmmm. Looks like it is Brent Barker that is bringing racism into this discussion.
Sharp actually used the word "prejudice" not "racist." There is nothing wrong with "prejudice" or being comfortable with my own.
I am prejudiced about just about everything. I prejudge liberals, politicians and NB bloggers. I'm prejudiced about which part of town I go into after dark. That's why I'm still alive.
Limbaugh does make people comfortable with their prejudices because he informs us that we are not alone in our beliefs. I often wonder if it is just me who thinks a certain way. Limbaugh shows me that I am not alone.
So Brent, make sure you're talking about the same thing Sharp is before you start blasting him. You're prejudices are showing.
~Actually
October 13, 2009 - 08:20 ET by choselife3x"Prejudiced" is in common use as a synonym for "racist", correct or not. And "racist" is how most people will interpret it's use.
Kossacks hate me. And yes, it does feel good.