Monday, October 19, 2009

IS RUSH LIMBAUGH A RACIST?

Since the story first surfaced that Rush Limbaugh was thinking about becoming a part-owner in a NFL football team, the accusations against him have been flying. Accusations are easy to make. Especially when you don't like someone. We've all been guilty of it at one time or another. Soon your mind wanders into irrational places. Why does he always go to his car for lunch? Is there a body in the trunk? What's with all those cleaning products in his back seat? Is he building a bomb? I'll bet he beats his wife.

I'm not saying that's what everyone that dislikes Rush is doing. I'm just saying it might not be a bad idea to check ourselves and see where the evidence actually takes us. Black people, in particular, have a perception of Rush Limbaugh that is based almost solely on how the Democratic Party and Liberal Media defines him.

"Self Indoctrination" is a term I like to use to describe what has happened to a lot of people's logic. Self Indoctrination is when you have isolated yourself from any views that may challenge what you already believe. You only hang around with like-minded people, you only watch T.V. shows that reflect your values, and you only seek out information that reaffirms your beliefs. Most importantly, you only listen to what you want to hear. When you apply this philosophy to how you view people who disagree with you, it can give you a distorted perception. Put it this way, how would you like it if the only information that people had about you, came from people that hated you? I think it would be fair to say that Rush Limbaugh is defined, for most people, by people who hate him. Is that fair?

The most vocal opposition against Rush owning a football team is based on the accusation that he is a racist. I won't even get into how crazy it is that the NFL is somehow moral enough to make that judgment when it's ranks are filled with rapists, drug addicts, wife beaters, dog fighters, and drunk drivers. Even if I were to make that comparison, it wouldn't justify having a racist in it's ranks to boot. What does concern me is; who is making this judgment, based on what evidence and by who's definition of what a racist is?

I've gotten challenged myself quite a bit over the past two years for what some people see as racist remarks that I view as justifiable questions. For example, I often challenge anti-gun types with data that shows that a disproportionate amount of gun crimes are committed in mostly black populated areas of cities. Liberals freak out on me and claim that this is due to availability (not true), poverty, and a lot of social ills that are not caused by the color of their skin. On that I agree. However, when I suggest that black culture may be a contributing factor. They instantly brand me a racist. Why is that? Don't a lot of predominate black leaders say the same thing?

Quite a bit of what has come out about Rush Limbaugh is along that same vein. I listen to him regularly (although he's yet to convert me) and have never heard him say that black people were anything but the complete equal to whites in every way. Does he say they've been misled? Yes. Does he say they have become too dependent on government along with a lot of their white Democrat counterparts? Yes. Does he criticize Jesse Jackson and other black leaders. Yes.

One of the main accusations that have been levied against Rush is his "Barack the Magic Negro" parody. This parody was sung by none other than Rev. Al Sharpton. If you remember correctly, this was during the time when Jesse, Al, Rev. Wright and a host of other black leaders were calling President Obama a sell out, before he won. Did I miss the part where Al was called a racist?

The bottom line on this is; I can't look into Rush Limbaugh's heart and tell you whether or not he views blacks and whites as being inherently different. The criteria for being a racist. But I can tell you it frightens me to think that someone, even Rush, can be denied their pursuit of happiness based on someone's perception of them. Particularly when that perception is built around people that simply dislike his politics. I can see no reason that Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be allowed to own a football team or anything else that he wants to own. If he's guilt of a crime that should stop him, then let him be charged.

In conclusion, I give you this impassioned statement by Bo Snerdley, Rush's friend and trusted assistant who just so happens to be black himself.

I'm sure that some of you will dismiss him as just an "Uncle Tom", but as I said before, without the other side, it's just "Self Indoctrination". H.C.

13 comments:

Paul said...

It seems to me that all the negative vibes this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has been spewing over these many years has come back to blow back on his face (A classic “Blow Back”). He always tries to give off the airs that he can have anything he wants but as we all witness those with more money and more influence tossed him aside like sack of potatoes and the ultimate insult was that it was done in public (money don’t buy you everything butterball).

Now of course he blames everyone else (Michael J. Fox, Perez Hilton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, ESPN, NFL, the media, basically people of color, the handicapped, women and gays) when of course all you have to do is listen to his show and plainly hear his daily prejudices filled sermons. So NFL, I salute you decision, job well done. And to the whaling cry baby perched on his self made pedestal, quit your whining it was your own fault. He is reaping what he has sowed, KARMA, "palin and simple" like his followers. Don’t we all feel better?

The H.C. said...

Hey Paul,
I get the "negative vibes" thing that your accusing Rush of. It does seem (at least to me)that there is an under lining tone of racism in his rhetoric. I guess my point is that I'm more afraid of the censors than I am of anything someone like Limbaugh can say. Perhaps your right, and it is Karma that he became so famous (infamous?) for his incendiary comments and then they came back to bite him. But the bigger question is, "Who are the 'powers that be' that are determining who can and can't own this or that?" It's easy to ignore an injustice when it happens to someone we dislike (like Rush)and then be outraged when it happens to us. For example; Seatle had some laws designed to stop crack addicts from congregating on street corners. That same law was used to stop demonstators against the World Trade Organization (WTO). A lot of our freedoms are taken from us under the guise of attacking someone the majority of us dislike. Thanks for commenting

Anonymous said...

The NFL owner's are an exclusive club. In the end, the owner's, make the decisions. They pay the commissioner to do the dirty work.

Just like the owner's do in their 'real jobs': They have lackies to remove the trash, say 'we're not hiring', and otherwise scrape the dog feces from their Italian soled shoes.

I'm not a Rush 'fan', but there are so many things that are unsettling about this situation, I have my concerns about where we are heading.

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
I'm really reaching on this post since I know next to NOTHING about sports. However, I figgered that since it had an element of politics in it, I might be able to contribute something of value...so here goes.

"The NFL owner's are an exclusive club. In the end, the owner's, make the decisions. They pay the commissioner to do the dirty work."

It was all around gutless of the owners to be brow-beaten by the leftist MSM and then send out their mouth piece to excuse it. I guess I understand that the NFL is a private organization and can do as they please, but they do live on the public dole a little since stadiums are built with tax payer dollars, security is supplied, parking etc. It's an interesting point of discussion as to how much public money makes you public? The University where I work gets only about 27% state funding and very little Fed money but somehow can still be yanked around on Gay issues, Separation of Church and State issues, etc. by the government.

"I'm not a Rush 'fan', but there are so many things that are unsettling about this situation, I have my concerns about where we are heading."

I'm not a fan either. Extremism politics from either side focuses too much on distortion of the truth, fear mongering and blind allegiance for my taste. I agree this is very "unsettling" for a lot of reasons. Is this a message being sent out that if the Main Stream Media dislikes you they can stop you from enjoying the things you like? Can they, and will they, destroy you in the public eye? (I think we know the answer to that one!) Will they bar you from financial transactions? Investigate you like Joe the Plumber? Attack your family like Sarah Palin? This isn't a matter of whether or not me and you like Rush, that's mute. The question is; Is this how dissentors to the powers-that-be will be treated? Public debate and opposition is crucial to a functioning Democracy (Federalist Republic, whatever.) I'm very worried where this is heading and wondering if I'll be denied loans or advancement if I'm a thorn in the side of Obama or Biden or Bush or anyone else with the power to attack me.

Anonymous said...

"...wondering if I'll be denied loans or advancement if I'm a thorn in the side of Obama or Biden or Bush or anyone else with the power to attack me."

Of course.

But you knew that anyway.

Pssst: Ya got me confused with Andre...

The H.C. said...

Hey Hack,
Sorry I confused you and Andre, it was only in the heading. At least I mixed you up with someone intelligent! That has to be a positive, right? God, I'm getting drifty in my old age. all Apologies.

Andre said...

HC, I think you confused Hack and me because you've been waiting on pins and needles to hear my response.

*Snicker*

I'm sorry to say that my response won't be earth shattering. Quite frankly, I could care less about Rush Limbaugh and his pursuit to own teams who have as much ability to win in the NFL as an all-girl school (though St. Mary's School for Girls has a better chance of winning the NFC West than the St. Louis Rams). Besides that, at the end of the day, Rush will still be a $400 million man, paid handsomely for a person with no formal education, a drug addiction, and an array of opinions as wide as his waistline. Owner or not, the dude will be A OK.

But to address the issue:

(1) NFL teams - with the exception of the Green Bay Packers (who I believe is a publicly traded organization) - are private organizations. I've argued countless times before that it's well within their right to deny fraternity to anyone they see fit. Much like the Philly pool club who decided not to admit minority kids, the Rams are justified in not wanting to open their private doors to simply anybody.

That goes back to my views about freedom of speech and the consequences thereof. Limbaugh acts of our free speech. I get that. But he's only constitutionally (or reasonably) protected from reprisal by the government based on his choice to exercise free speech. Those same courtesies aren't afforded all across the board. Simply put, Limbaugh shouldn't get waterboarded and detained for his views (though some of his opponents would argue to the contrary). But as a consequence, he MAY lose out on the opportunity to own a football team.

(2) Still, a part of me was a little bummed that he didn't get the team. I can think of few better ways to entice enough black athletes to stand up and do something more useful with themselves. Several athletes already went on record saying they'd rather sit out that play on a Rush team. While I think political activism from athletes and entertainers is somewhat of an outdated concept, maybe it could've been the start to a different kind of consciousness from those folks. It was VERY encouraging for me to see athletes making a statement (though I wonder if they would've REALLY given up multi-million contracts on priciple alone).

Andre said...

"Limbaugh acts of our free speech. I get that."

That was the SLOPPIEST line I ever wrote. I don't know how I did that. Two words were out of order and one of the words was a typo. That line should've read:

"Limbaugh acts out of free speech. I get that."

I'm responding at 8 in the morning, so maybe that explains things. :)

Andre said...

HC,

Your question about public funding of private institutions is not off base at all. That phenomenon has been the case for years now. But it's been argued that over the past 20 years or so this issue has gotten much more attention in the political debate and in the public eye...so much so that sports teams are now absorbing much more of the cost. It still paints a disturbing picture that any support of sports teams (outside of ticket sales, merchandise, and concession...where consumers CHOSE to spend their money) still comes from the average taxpayer. So on that, you and I definitely agree.

But unless we can rely on the government to consider ALL organizations who receive public funds a public organization, the Rams are perfectly within their rights not to allow Rush ownership. Let this be a lesson to anyone with future ownership aspirations.

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
Yeah, I'll admit I was kinda waiting for your opinion on this one.

"NFL teams are private organizations."

True to an extent. They run a monopoly which is subsidized by public municipalities. In your example of the Philly Pool kids-how would you feel if the pool (while run private) was built using tax-payer funds?

"(Limbaugh is) only constitutionally (or reasonably) protected from reprisal by the government."

That's the part that scares me. The government deciding what is and isn't free speech based on which side of the debate your on? Could you apply this thinking in an example to the other side? I firmly believe that free speech has it's limits, but changing or adjusting the rules, not based on any S.C. precedent, to punish people you simply disagree with? It's the process that bothers me. Jesse or Al using the media and their government connections to threaten people into submission. Is this based on Free Speech and it's limits, or just someone using their power to silence and punish someone they ideologically disagree with? Was this public outrage (which WOULD be the consequences to your speech that your referring to) or the left using it's character assassination machine?

Andre said...

"Jesse or Al using the media and their government connections to threaten people into submission."

Can you provide examples of that? As far as I'm aware, all Jesse, Al, etc. are good for is making noise. I wouldn't consider them well connected to the government.

HC, I don't think it's as simple as you make it. Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. are not being strong-armed into submission. If anything, their voice is magnified after incidents like this (I'm sure Rush is using his rejection as an opportunity to boost his already high ratings). They're not victims here. They're not suffering from governmental reprisal...they're not watching their shows getting uprooted because of Fairness Doctrine-type legislation. The FCC isn't censoring them or cutting off their mics mid-sentence (a tactic commonly practiced by our dear friends over at Fox News). The only thing that happened to Rush is that the St. Louis Rams didn't want anything to do with him because of the negative publicity he stood to bring them. For all we know, Rush could've put in successful bids to buy any other team. For all we know, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson could've been denied the opportunity to buy teams for the very same reason Rush was.

Simply put, this isn't a witchhunt against Rush for his beliefs. And even IF IT WAS, he's a $400 million guy. He'll live. The people you SHOULD be concerned about are political prisoners and other folks who get REAL rights trampled on everyday. Damn the spoiled brats who have their feelings hurt.

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
There has been a lot of examples of Jesse and Al extorting (my word) money from corporationsby using their media and governmental conections. example; http://www.zimbio.com/Freddie+Mac/articles/220/Jesse+Jackson+Extorts+Money+Fannie+Mae+Freddie
The way this works is they find some fault in hiring or firing practices at Fannie, Freddie, Pepsi, or McDonalds, etc. and then they demand contributions to their foundations or they'll go public. The problem is, the companies are afraid to go public even if innocent. Although some have-like Pepsi site;http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/06/21/261713/index.htm What you need to understand is that white people and white owned corporations are afraid of even being accused of racism-whether it's true or not. The media is complicit because they don't want to be next on "The List". Accusations of racism, like child molestation, hurts you badly even after your exonerated.

As far as Rush or Hannity. I couldn't care less about them and your absolutely right that they aren't victims and profit from ANY controversy. Hell, knowing Rush, he was hoping for this. It's more the modus operandi that concerns me. I simply don't want people punished (again my word) in any way in an effort to silence them. Make your opposing point known, that's fine. But punishing people for their views in an effort to shut them up completely is wrong. You know I very much dislike Bill Maher, but I wouldn't want to stop him from living next door to me even if I could. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If Jesse and Al were denied something for their views I would be equally upset.

Andre said...

HC, in making my intial response, I don't think I really answered your question about whether Rush is racist or not. Simple answer: who cares? At least, as it relates to being able to own an NFL, it doesn't matter. When it comes to his day-to-day on air diatribes, it might matter. But when it comes to NFL, meh.

I still maintain, though, that the owners can act within the interests of their organizations and the NFL brand in general. An article on ESPN highlighted many of the Limbaugh-isms that sealed his ownership doom. Suprising to me (actually, not really), Oxy-Limb and his supporters want to blame everybody else.

The fact is: Rush is lightning rod who - I think - purposely and unapologetically says stuff to provoke reaction. He became a multi-millionaire doing this. Giving him ownership allows him unlimited ability to be obnoxious. Unlike the players - who can really get the hammer dropped down on them for doing boneheaded stuff, Rush would have been virtually untouchable. Not a good look as the NFL is making strides to become an international product.