Oh, That Rush! He's Such A *Kidder!*

[Cindy C.]

Howdy!

> First off. As a list admin, I believe that this thread is too
>political.

Hey whoa!  

I didn't mean to violate any of the list rules here.  I specifically
recall the list administrators announcing a while back that there are
no banned topics on these lists.  Did this change?  If so, I will
offer an apology and delete my post.

Just for the record, I am no longer in list administration, so if
Amanda is telling me to shut up as a member of list administration, I
guess shuttin' up I'll be a-doin'.  Is that what has been decided?

You know, I don't understand this.  We are all adults here, and my
post contained no name-calling or anything like that.  We have
discussed issues related to race before on this list -- even when
there was a ban on political discussion -- anyone remember the
"N-word" thread last year, in which Amanda and I engaged in a
reasonable discussion?  I do.  We've also done the Dean Thomas issue
to death on the main list, and no one cried foul.  So what's changed?

Amanda:

> This is not a subject where discussion will engender *any*
>compromise or meeting of the minds. It is simply divisive.


Oh, I dunno.  

I'm an African American professional who has enjoyed some measure of
success in the work force.  I can tell you that I have received the
"McNabb" treatment on numerous occasions -- having my accomplishments
chalked up to pro-African American bias.  I think we certainly could
have a mature discussion here on the subject; those who can't be
mature and respectful could just skip, skip, skip.  I would especially
be interested to know about cultural differences -- would Rush's
statement have caused trouble in, say, Britain.  

Really now, there's no reason to come unhinged.

Me, I'm not looking for "compromise" -- this isn't a lawsuit or
anything.  I'm just looking for mature and entertaining discussion,
myself.  I would certainly hope that we're not limited to subjects
about which we are likely to come to a meeting of the minds.  How dull
that would be!


> I fail to see what having a partisan background has to do with it.
>I'm sure all the others have political beliefs. 

Unless they are brain dead, they probably have political beliefs of
one sort or another.  <g>  The other on-air talent, however, was hired
for their knowledge of football, whereas Limbaugh was hired because he
is a controversial and partisan figure.  

Should someone with a partisan or controversial background be hired to
do sports commentary to boost ratings?  Until now, it hadn't happened
before, so far as I know, and this experiment didn't turn out to well
for anyone.  I mean, I do wonder if people would have gone ballistic
if one of the other commentators had said the same thing.  Did people
react to the words or the speaker, and does it matter?  It's certainly
a question worth exploring, IMHO.  

It would also strike me as a little weird if ESPN hired, say Jesse
Jackson (or Jerry Falwell) to do NFL commentary.  Their expertise is
in a contentious area (respectively racial politics and religion), so
it would seem to be an odd choice.

> Back when  *I* learned to parse sentences, I could identify a
>subject, and the subject of Rush's derision was the media and their
>*non*impartial treatment of an athlete because of his color. 

Aw, come on.  If he didn't mean what many people believe he meant, why
not say, "Goodness!  I never meant *that!*  No, no."  

Me, I think the problem folks are having is simply that Rush was
saying that black quarterbacks and coaches are propped up by the
media.  And that's kinda offensive to me.

>He said nothing derogatory about McNabb at all. 

Well . . .  He said the guy was overrated and implied that this was
because of pro-black bias in the media.  That's not nice.

Cindy -- who thinks it sad that we can't discuss a topic like this
without people getting angry about it