BTW, the ridiculous response was to the fact that you have no facts to prove blacks responded anymore harshly than any other group of sportswriters or media in general.
As a general aside, I find it highly complimentary that you have a pattern of mimicking my word choice. I will use a word or set of words that you are unaccustomed to using, and then over the course of the next day or so, you will begin to introduce these words into your posts. It's funny because I have a friend who does the very same thing. Well, I guess you could call him a 'friend'. He's a PARAKEET
I didn't know your name was Webster. This is also a typical response, you berate the messanger who has unmasked you.
Heh, you tell me..??? Think man...why? Is McNabb better than McNair? Is there any difference between where they play? Tennessee demographics vs the Philadelphia demographics? McNabb, hasn't done as much as McNair in terms of career accomplishments. But he's the new guy. The new talent. Fresh talent. "Why the are only certain black qb's "hyped?" You said it, not I! Heh heh.... Ok, joking aside...to answer you question. Well, the topic IS McNabb, right? Please anwer my question: Is McNair is better than McNabb.
McNabb, hasn't done as much as McNair in terms of career accomplishments. But he's the new guy. The new talent. Fresh talent. So the question is, if black QBs are hyped for their novelty, and McNair has accomplished more, why has he never been hyped like McNabb? "Why the are only certain black qb's "hyped?" You said it, not I! Heh heh.... Yes, I did say it. If being black was a factor, then you'd see more black QB's hyped. The fact that McNabb is, but other black QBs aren't, indicates that it's not his race, but his unique abilities, that create the hype. Please anwer my question: Is McNair is better than McNabb. As a leader, probably. As a passer or runner, probably not. If you were going to hype one for his "blackness" though, the media would have hyped McNair several years back since he was in the league when black QBs were actually unique.
That's right. It's not his race. It's his unique abilities, that create the hype, then latter on, after he's known to the media, that's when the "novelty" is created. See? Selling papers, mag, Nikes, you name it. There are numerous of reasons. But that stuff happens. That's the world we live in. Dude, I don't make the rules. It's a cruel double-standard. I know that. Yep. That's the delima here. Because, your statement above regarding McNair is actually supporting Rush's view in a strange way. Remember, we are talking about McNabb, not McNair yesteryear. Know what I mean?
That's right. It's not his race. It's his unique abilities, that create the hype, then latter on, after he's known to the media, that's when the "novelty" is created. See? Selling papers, mag, Nikes, you name it. There are numerous of reasons. But that stuff happens. That's the world we live in. There nothing wrong with any of that. None of this has to do with race, which is exactly the point... QB's are hyped because of storylines, abilities, etc. Not "blackness". Yep. That's the delima here. Because, your statement above regarding McNair is actually supporting Rush's view in a strange way. No, according to Rush, McNair would have been hyped a couple of years ago because of the desire by the media to have a black QB succeed. The fact that he wasn't ever hyped, now or then, says the opposite.
Sorry, let me rephrase that. I meant "racial novelty." Selling for that reason. Marketing 101. Sociology. Psychology. It happens. You just might not be part of that demographic it's pandering to. But it's out there. McNair wasn't hyped? Well, that's very subjective. He was all over ESPN! Now, at the same time, Rush probably wont suggest that McNair was/is "hyped" because he thinks that McNair deserves all the credit. McNabb, on the other hand. He doesn't think deserves the credit, thus blames racial media bias. Like Jim Rome said, Rush is not necessarily racist. He's a knuckle head that is greatly influenced by this right-wing agenda. By the way, I can't stand the guy. Same with Bill O'Rielly.
this response is typical.. zero substance you just love to play supreme judge and declare everyone's(anyone not ultra-conservative) actions as political gain motivated. try again to address the point...it really isn't a hard thing to do...unless of course you have no leg to stand on.. what was Rush's aim if it was not to try to score some political cheap shot?
trader jorge you remind me of my friend andrew. the other day we were talking about the eagles offense before rush said all this stuff and he was saying how it sucked so bad because they have no receivers and that mcnabb was a good qb and he was gonna come around. then after rush said all that he completely changes and starts saying how mcnabb is overrated even after mcnabb had a good game. andrew is a die hard dittohead. i just found it funny how you sound exactly like him. maybe dittohead should just be changed to clone like with rome's listeners. its funny how you hear people on talk radio call in and talk about how mcnabb really is overrated and they all say the exact same things with the same argument.
Now that the dust has settled on this topic, I'm starting to see more pro-Rush articles. In my opinion these are completely justified. He said nothing racist and is being racially bullied by people who hated him before he even opened his mouth. This is from the NY Post: RACIAL WHINERS CALL PENALTY ON WRONG SIDE By ANDREA PEYSER October 3, 2003 -- It comes as no surprise that the politically correct hysterics who determine which opinions are forbidden to be uttered have effectively silenced Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, of course, resigned from ESPN amid an uproar that started when the conservative commentator dared say - out loud - that his media colleagues are "desirous" to see a black quarterback succeed in professional football. Well shut my mouth. Rush got it wrong! In fact, Rush got the sentence wrong by exactly one word. No observer of popular media - an industry dominated by left-leaning lemmings who believe in freedom of speech only when it benefits liberal ideology - can accurately say the media are "desirous" to see stellar performances by quarterbacks of color. The correct term to describe the media's interest in the subject is this: "obsessive." It isn't what Rush said that so offended the delicate sensibilities of those such as Al Sharpton, one of the biggest racists I know. It was that a man from the political right had the chutzpah to express any opinion on race, a subject that has been declared the sole property of liberal reactionaries. So what did Rush say? He expressed the opinion that quarterback Donovan McNabb was not doing well this season. Then, he suggested that media cheerleading on behalf of black quarterbacks may have A) helped McNabb get his job, or, B) fueled unrealistic expectations about his performance. Amid the din - Rush mentioned race! - there have been furious denials from reporters that anyone with a pen cares a whit about a quarterback's ethnicity. Well, that is a falsehood that anyone with access to google.com can explode in 10 seconds or less. Type the key words "black" and "quarterbacks" into the google search engine, and up pops a large selection of advocacy pieces from around the country, masquerading as objective journalism. These include a lengthy dissertation from the Los Angeles Times, which states as fact that blacks historically were denied quarterback jobs because "society at the time wasn't comfortable with African Americans as leaders." If this statement is true, and I have no reason to dispute it, then why deny saying it now? When a musically talented nitwit like Bruce Springsteen abuses his perch in Shea Stadium to call for President Bush's impeachment, it's his right to say it, and mine to object. But when a conservative asks a reasonable question from another playing field - was a man's promotion deserved? - it's akin to a thought crime, punishable by banishment. That's left-wing tyranny.
Here's another pro-Rush article from Slate.com Rush Limbaugh Was Right Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black. By Allen Barra Posted Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 3:33 PM PT In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback." If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons. Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well." "There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback. McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003. In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it. The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this? Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage. In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period. And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson. In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is. Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.) So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black. (Please, I don't need to be reminded that McNabb's situation is not so difficult or important as Robinson's—I'm talking about a principle.) Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be. Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what they did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?
People are hyped for whatever is distinctive to them. Being a white quarterback is not distinctive while being a black quarterback still is. This was the most significant part of Rush's point. Part of McNabb's hype is due to the color of his skin. That is racist; recognizing so is not.
This article is representative of my views on this subject. And guess what, it was written by a black man . He is a very distinguished author in case some of you are unfamiliar with him. Enjoy. Racial Censorship By Thomas Sowell It is one of the sad signs of our times that a furor was created because Rush Limbaugh expressed an opinion as to why a particular quarterback seemed to him to be over-rated. In his view, it was because the powers that be in professional football were anxious to have a star quarterback who was black. If this was a criticism of anybody, it was a criticism of the powers that be in the National Football League. Nevertheless, people have gone ballistic, just as if he had criticized blacks as a race. But you have to twist the truth like a pretzel to reach that conclusion. Rush's resignation from ESPN may stop the dogs from barking at his heels and all this may soon be forgotten -- but it shouldn't be. Hyper-censorship about anything in any way involving race is a danger to this whole society, on matters far more weighty than football. When the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan first warned of the social dangers in the decline of black families back in the 1960s, and called for government policies to help deal with these dangers, he was attacked viciously for saying something that everyone now recognizes as true because the problem has grown even worse than it was when he issued his warning. The denunciation and demonization of Pat Moynihan marked a major turning point in public discussions of racial issues. From then on, the test of what you said was no longer whether it was true but whether it was politically correct. This silenced the faint hearted -- which is to say, most of academia and virtually all of the media. Today, if you want to read an honest assessment of the black colleges, you have to go back to a 1967 article by Christopher Jencks and the late David Riesman in the Harvard Educational Review. If you want to read an honest assessment of the black middle class you have to go back to a 1962 book, "Black Bourgeoisie" by E. Franklin Frazier, one of the leading black scholars of the 20th century. So enshrined has racial censorship become that it can literally become a federal case if you want to give IQ tests to black children. Professor Nathan Glazer of Harvard has suggested that research on race and IQ should stop. A long time ago, it was said that the truth will set you free. But today the idea seems to be that only the right spin will set you free. And the right spin of course means the left spin. Facts can be ignored but their consequences cannot be escaped. If the facts don't matter, this means that the people who are going to have to pay those consequences don't matter. None of those who demonized Daniel Patrick Moynihan has paid any price. But the black community has paid a terrible price because the problem he tried to point out was swept under the rug. Broken homes and children raising children have produced poisonous consequences, from educational failures to drugs and murder. A highly developed and highly rewarded racial grievance industry benefits from its ability to intimidate, silence and extort. But there is always a price to be paid. That price is paid by American society as a whole, but especially by minority communities that the grievance hustlers claim to be helping. In the current tempest in a teapot over what Rush Limbaugh said about the National Football League, neither ESPN nor Rush himself will pay any serious price. He doesn't need the job and apparently feels he doesn't need the hassle. The question of the validity of what was said has already been lost in the shuffle. In a sense, that doesn't matter. What matters enormously is whether or not people lose the freedom to say what they think. That loss is a loss to all of us, those who agree and those who disagree. Even wrong ideas have a contribution to make, when they provoke open discussions and investigations that end up with our knowing and understanding more than we knew or understood before. People's lives are being saved today by medicines based on a knowledge of chemistry that developed out of alchemy, a centuries-old crazy idea of turning lead into gold. What contribution has the enforced silence of censorship ever made?
What truths, what facts, and what consequences, is he talking about. The fact is that Rush didn't back his statement up with any facts. And for the zillionith time, we know what Rush said, it was a criticisim of the media. It was still an idioic statement.
pgabriel, I tried to make sense of what Rush said, and I've come to a conclusions. See if this is accaute.... * "McNair is deserving of all the credit and media attention." * "McNabb is NOT deserving of the the credit and media attention." Now, if that's all Rush said, it would be safe... But then he interjects, "McNabb's only reason for media attention is due to racial media bias." Make notice of the word, "only." The fact that he brough up "only" suggest that absolutism (He completly ignores the fact of McNabb's talent). The fact that he brough up "race" suggests jealousy against blacks (favoritism; related to Affirmative Action). His views are extreme.
Great find, bigtexxx. I wish you had waited to disclose Sowell's race. It would have been interesting to see him trashed, too.
