Comments on: 'Rush the Racist' Bidding for St. Louis Rams? http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/07/rush-the-racist-bidding-for-st-louis-rams/ The national media watch group Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:14:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Mark http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/07/rush-the-racist-bidding-for-st-louis-rams/comment-page-1/#comment-11374 Mark Tue, 05 Jan 2010 04:13:10 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13082#comment-11374 And for free: The Donovan McNabb comment: Donovan McNabb, in 2001 or 2003, was one of the better quarterbacks present in the NFL. Inconsistent, yes, overrated, yes, but undeniably a talented athelete. Besides, Rush wasn't wrong to say that McNabb had been overhyped; he was wrong in attaching to the American sports media some sort of design or conspiracy to move black quarterbacks up in line, ahead of white ones, for no legitimate reason. The conspiracy was fabricated, and using your spotlight as a celebrity pundit to invent and assign intention for the actions of dozens if not hundreds of others (especially when you know nothing of their actions, much less their actual intention) is a grave mistake he should have avoided. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/ Besides, hype of atheletes is pretty much the only thing I ever witness from the sports media. Look at all the talk about Brett Favre. Is the media trying to coddle Mr. Favre because he's one of the oldest QBs in the league? Age discrimination! The "media has been very desirous" that an old quarterback do well. And for free:
The Donovan McNabb comment:
Donovan McNabb, in 2001 or 2003, was one of the better quarterbacks present in the NFL. Inconsistent, yes, overrated, yes, but undeniably a talented athelete. Besides, Rush wasn't wrong to say that McNabb had been overhyped; he was wrong in attaching to the American sports media some sort of design or conspiracy to move black quarterbacks up in line, ahead of white ones, for no legitimate reason. The conspiracy was fabricated, and using your spotlight as a celebrity pundit to invent and assign intention for the actions of dozens if not hundreds of others (especially when you know nothing of their actions, much less their actual intention) is a grave mistake he should have avoided.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/

Besides, hype of atheletes is pretty much the only thing I ever witness from the sports media. Look at all the talk about Brett Favre. Is the media trying to coddle Mr. Favre because he's one of the oldest QBs in the league? Age discrimination! The "media has been very desirous" that an old quarterback do well.

]]> By: Mark http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/07/rush-the-racist-bidding-for-st-louis-rams/comment-page-1/#comment-11373 Mark Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:49:09 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13082#comment-11373 Jesse Jackson remark: Why stating that all composite images of criminals resemble Jesse Jackson is likely racist requires a bit of a looser train of logic to explain, but I don't think for a moment that I would err to mark this comment as bluntly offensive. Why would all criminals resemble Jesse Jackson? Maybe I've formed an incomplete list, but I'll try to gather together anything and everything Rush could have been referring to. All criminals or criminal descriptions look like Jesse Jackson because: 1. All criminals have moustaches. 2. All criminals have gray sideburns. 3. All criminals sort of have flat tops. 4. All criminals are 76.5" tall. 5. All criminals are male. 6. All criminals are black. 7. All criminal descriptions given to sketch artists have one or more of the above features, informed either by some sort of correlation between crime and any of the above attributes or demographics or by racially skewed perspectives of most Americans. I don't know the context of the statement, really, but I doubt number 7 is what Rush was getting at, even though a discussion of why crime is represented disproportionately in different demographics (and why we are so painfully aware of this trend) would certainly be interesting. I'D tune in, at least. Maybe I could even stand to stay. I think we can safely eliminate numbers 1 through 4. Number 5 is at least relevant to the conventional statistics I've heard about most convicted criminals being male. I don't think that Rush would have plucked JJ from the 3+ billion males teeming about as part of an attempt to joke about most criminals being male, though, and I frankly won't believe anyone who tries to blow life into such an anemic explanation. The only motivation I can see in this statement is that Rush sees most or all black people as indistinguishable. Unless there is some physical thing about Mr. Jackson that he coincidentally shares with most criminals, or unless there is some sort of fantastic context (like Rush cracking a joke about a series of composite sketches he saw that ACTUALLY look like Jesse Jackson because of other features than race, which would really be pretty funny (imagine a hardened criminal of 68 years sporting a moustache and flat top)), all I can even strain to hear is that Rush wants to say, abstrusely, that he either sees all criminals as blacks or all blacks as criminals. Either is pretty racist. At the very best, Rush is only saying that he can't tell black people apart from each other by sight, and he's going deaf, not blind. The missed connections must be further inside the head than in the eyes. Jesse Jackson remark:
Why stating that all composite images of criminals resemble Jesse Jackson is likely racist requires a bit of a looser train of logic to explain, but I don't think for a moment that I would err to mark this comment as bluntly offensive.

Why would all criminals resemble Jesse Jackson? Maybe I've formed an incomplete list, but I'll try to gather together anything and everything Rush could have been referring to.
All criminals or criminal descriptions look like Jesse Jackson because:
1. All criminals have moustaches.
2. All criminals have gray sideburns.
3. All criminals sort of have flat tops.
4. All criminals are 76.5" tall.
5. All criminals are male.
6. All criminals are black.

7. All criminal descriptions given to sketch artists have one or more of the above features, informed either by some sort of correlation between crime and any of the above attributes or demographics or by racially skewed perspectives of most Americans.

I don't know the context of the statement, really, but I doubt number 7 is what Rush was getting at, even though a discussion of why crime is represented disproportionately in different demographics (and why we are so painfully aware of this trend) would certainly be interesting. I'D tune in, at least. Maybe I could even stand to stay.

I think we can safely eliminate numbers 1 through 4. Number 5 is at least relevant to the conventional statistics I've heard about most convicted criminals being male. I don't think that Rush would have plucked JJ from the 3+ billion males teeming about as part of an attempt to joke about most criminals being male, though, and I frankly won't believe anyone who tries to blow life into such an anemic explanation.

The only motivation I can see in this statement is that Rush sees most or all black people as indistinguishable. Unless there is some physical thing about Mr. Jackson that he coincidentally shares with most criminals, or unless there is some sort of fantastic context (like Rush cracking a joke about a series of composite sketches he saw that ACTUALLY look like Jesse Jackson because of other features than race, which would really be pretty funny (imagine a hardened criminal of 68 years sporting a moustache and flat top)), all I can even strain to hear is that Rush wants to say, abstrusely, that he either sees all criminals as blacks or all blacks as criminals. Either is pretty racist. At the very best, Rush is only saying that he can't tell black people apart from each other by sight, and he's going deaf, not blind. The missed connections must be further inside the head than in the eyes.

]]> By: Mark http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/07/rush-the-racist-bidding-for-st-louis-rams/comment-page-1/#comment-11372 Mark Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:09:27 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13082#comment-11372 To clarify: The statement also marginalizes the non-black residents of East Saint Louis, but seeing as building a rail bridge to a town of 500 or less would *actually* be an absurd waste of money, the statement, in my interpretation, is most strongly diminuative of black East Saint Louisans. To clarify: The statement also marginalizes the non-black residents of East Saint Louis, but seeing as building a rail bridge to a town of 500 or less would *actually* be an absurd waste of money, the statement, in my interpretation, is most strongly diminuative of black East Saint Louisans.

]]> By: Mark http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/10/07/rush-the-racist-bidding-for-st-louis-rams/comment-page-1/#comment-11371 Mark Tue, 05 Jan 2010 03:04:43 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=13082#comment-11371 East Saint Louis comment: "... East St. Louis[,] where nobody goes." As of the 2000 census, over 31,500 people live in East Saint Louis. Conceivably, all of the people who live in East Saint Louis go there. I don't know any of statistics with which to corroborate, but I would bet that seeing as East Saint Louis begins where the heart of downtown Saint Louis ends along the river, many of the residents of East Saint Louis would probably be very interested in using transportation to and from Saint Louis for commuting and the like. Well, then what's the problem with saying that "nobody goes" to East Saint Louis, other than the fact that it's almost certainly a factually inaccurate statement? The residents of East Saint Louis are about 98% black. Insinuating that no one lives in (by stating that no one goes to) East Saint Louis overlooks about 31,000 black Americans that live there. At its best, the statement betrays a point of view woefully unaware of anyone dissimilar to Rush himself, but in context (ridiculing/laughing at the plan to extend the MetroLink rail service to East Saint Louis), I would say it clues us in on just how valuable Rush thinks primarily-black cities are. East Saint Louis comment:
"… East St. Louis[,] where nobody goes."
As of the 2000 census, over 31,500 people live in East Saint Louis. Conceivably, all of the people who live in East Saint Louis go there. I don't know any of statistics with which to corroborate, but I would bet that seeing as East Saint Louis begins where the heart of downtown Saint Louis ends along the river, many of the residents of East Saint Louis would probably be very interested in using transportation to and from Saint Louis for commuting and the like.
Well, then what's the problem with saying that "nobody goes" to East Saint Louis, other than the fact that it's almost certainly a factually inaccurate statement? The residents of East Saint Louis are about 98% black. Insinuating that no one lives in (by stating that no one goes to) East Saint Louis overlooks about 31,000 black Americans that live there. At its best, the statement betrays a point of view woefully unaware of anyone dissimilar to Rush himself, but in context (ridiculing/laughing at the plan to extend the MetroLink rail service to East Saint Louis), I would say it clues us in on just how valuable Rush thinks primarily-black cities are.

]]>