Limbaugh has uttered racist comments, and Olberman hasn't. Yet you equate them.

Here's the real reason the NFL doesn't want Limbaugh as a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams (and why, by the way, the prospective investment group just dropped Limbaugh as a participant today): The league's players are 70 percent black and most of them don't want to play for Limbaugh. In this era of free-agency, that'd mean that St. Louis, already one of the worst teams in the league right now, couldn't improve itself by getting outstanding black free agents to come play for it. The group seeking to buy the team doesn't want that problem, and the league doesn't want another pariah team to go along with the Oakland Raiders, where nobody wants to go play for Al Davis.

There's poetic justice in this: Limbaugh has made enough money to be able to be a prospective investor in an NFL team by basically running his mouth in an intemperate way, frequently putting his tootsie in the waters of racist comments. And now, his jock-sniffing ambitions (remember, he had his 15 minutes on Monday Night Football and was--politics aside--godawful) have run aground on those same comments. And this isn't censorship; it's that hallowed free market in operation: Limbaugh would have been a money-loser for the Rams.

I think it's pretty clear that Irsay isn't talking about thought control, but simply that if you use speech the way Rush does, there's a material price to pay. And that's true: if you knowingly alienate with your speech such a broad range of people, including conservative, business-minded NFL owners who make their money on black athletes, you'll find yourself suffering the consequences.

Nobody's censoring Rush here. A private, incorporated league and its effective shareholders are saying they don't want somebody who represents what Rush represents. Rush can go on with his radio shows and his speaking tours and continue to say whatever he wants in our wonderfully free country. But just like any private university has the right to shun speakers who, politics aside, offer hyperbolic speech of zero to low substance, the NFL has the right to protect its brand from the taint of people like Rush. Like goxewu writes, it really is poetic justice.

That's the beauty of free speech: if you use your right to speech to put horseshit out there, much of the sensible world will hold you accountable for it. Let the neo-Nazis march through towne square so every paper in the region can record how ignorant and bigoted and silly they are.

For the record, can someone here cite Limbaugh's racist statements?

And "suo," your apologia for Irsay cites "us[ing] speech," but the problem is precisely that Irsay extended it to "thoughts." We laws that put limits on speech, but no law extends into people's minds and punishes them for thinking the wrong thing.

For the record, Limbaugh asserted without any evidence other than race-based stereotyping that Donovan McNabb was hired because of affirmative action. For the record, Limbaugh asserted that NFL games resemble rumbles between the Bloods and the Crips. That's not just insipid racism, that's insipid racism about the very players he seeks to control. They are absolutely justified in rejecting his ownership bid.

If you're going to defend freedom of speech, the least you can do is not be obtuse. And while you're at it, instead of relying on innuendo, just come out and say whether you think this is "thought control." To me, it looks like "etiquette." Players don't want this boorish lout to own a team and shape the league. No thought control there. Just power.

Irsay seems to have probably spoken imprecisely, saying "thoughts" but meaning "expressions." Funny how the English language lets that happen, English professor.

As for Bauerlein's professed ignorance of Limbaugh's racist comments: hey there professor who is always complaining students nowadays don't do their research, it's all over the internet! try a Google search for "Limbaugh" and "racism" before you pull that dodge.

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I'm not one of his fans. That he became a spokesman for the Republican Party is a sign of the Party's deficiencies.

But people who raise the very serious charge of racism should quote the words precisely, not paraphrase them.

As for rejecting Limbaugh, it makes good business sense. But the high principles of unity and sensitivity coming out of the mouths of NFL owners is hard to take. When one of them says, "Be careful what you think," we should all take heed.

Well, I took Chuckkle's suggestion and the first link reveals an article that begins exactly as follows, "I have been a faithful Rush Limbaugh radio show listener for almost 20 years. I have never heard Rush make one racist comment. As a matter of fact, I am a black man who has been inspired and encouraged by Rush on numerous occasions." Factoids about Limbaugh gathered from the leftwing blogosphere don't make a good argument.

#8 proves what? That one particular black man, who's listened to Limbaugh for almost 20 years, has never heard him make one racist comment? First, they guy didn't say he listened to every word Limbaugh said over the airwaves during those 20 years. Second, there were lots of people who'd known a defendant with the last name of Gambino who said that in all the years they knew him, they never heard him order the whacking of one solitary individual.

Perhaps sharps1874 should put down his rifle and proceed BEYOND the first link he encounters. (One of the virtues of the Internet is, after all, abundance.)

By the way, I heard the Donovan McNabb disquisition. And yes, it was racist.

Sorry, Mark, but nobody who knows Jim Irsay thinks he believes in thought control. As Chuckkle put it, he was speaking imprecisely, which is the way a lot of people speak. Rush Limbaugh has every right to be what he is, to say what he says, and to think what he thinks. In my opinion what he thinks is that conservatives are dumb enough to wallow in his divisive, vicious blather rather than to consider whether conservatism can afford baggage like this. And the NFL has a right to reject such cynical exploitation of many people fears and insecurities. Limbaugh, like Ann Coulter, could not care less about conservatism or the Republican Party, but like her, he does see a way to make money off conservatives who can't or won't see through the hypocrisy.

And conservative or liberal, he's not someone anyone should feel comfortable in bed with, in my opinion.

Go, Colts!

There is nothing about the Limbaugh controversy that has anything to do with censorship or mind control.

This is, instead, a matter of good manners and good marketing. The NFL is the most successful professional sports operation in the world, and the team owners, who are the only people whose opinions matter on this issue, are rightly concerned about how the sport's players AND fan base would react to allowing an open and unrepentant racist to own a team.

Moreover, in the real world, actions have consequences. Rush Limbaugh makes so much money that he is able to insulate himself to a large degree from the real world -- note how he seems to have managed to escape the consequences of drug charges that would have put most of us away for years -- but the one thing he can't insulate himself from, try as he might to run away from his own words and whine that he is the REAL victim in all of this, is his own mouth. That mouth is his "talent," and as Stephen King has observed, talent is a two-edged sword: It doesn't care whom it cuts.

Mark, here's a few links for you to check out in your journey of education about Rush. For starters, and this is probably the easiest to digest, Media Matters has a page running right now with a litany of Rush's recent statements taken from his TV and radio shows: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049

If you wish to get a tad more academic, take a look at David Neiwert's rather lenghty piece called "Rush, Newspeak and Facism" http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20Newspeak%20%20Fascism.pdf (it's a pdf, so beware the download).

Also, one of the significant differences between Rush and Keith Olberman is that Olbermann actually used to be a sports broadcaster, and Keith has never been sactioned (that I know of) by his network. Rush tried to be a commentator, but his taste for raciall-charged comments got him kicked off the show. And while Lopresti might be quick to call Olbermann "smarmy," there's a pretty thick line between smug or ingratiating, and out-right lying.

"There is nothing about the Limbaugh controversy that has anything to do with" actual racism, either. Racism is the belief that people of a particular people-group are inherently inferior in some way (or many ways). I've never heard Limbaugh say or suggest that he believes that. His comment at issue was meant to say that Donovan McNabb was professionally unqualified for his new job--therefore, there must be _some_ other reason he got it. Personally, I'm no longer as sure about affirmative action as I once was, but/and I insist that people can be sincerely and consistently in favor of civil rights for all and at the same time opposed to affirmative action. IOW, being opposed to or cynical about affirmative action is NOT racism.

And yes, to accuse someone falsely of being a Fascist or Nazi IS just as offensive as accusing them falsely of being a racist.

22113683 - can you honestly divine what Rush's intent was relative to McNabb? Rush has spent the better part of the past 9 months (in particular) fanning the flames of racial discontent. And quite successfully. Unfortunately for him and his ratings, Glenn Beck has been doing a better job. But Rush has been at it for longer (otherwise he wouldn't have the money to buy a team).

And in the NFL's defense, they may be hanging this on the McNabb comment, but there's clearly some bigger things they're worried about. Rush doesn't exactly have a sterling record when it comes to racial reconcilliation. Chances are, if he did become an owner, he would at some point say something if not outrigth racist, close enough. Rather than have to deal with that, it's easier for them to say No Thanks.

And I don't think you want to open the can or worms that is affirmative action. For the purposes of staying on point, let's focus on the issue of whether or not Rush's statements rise to the level of "racism."

Mr. Bauerlein's comparison of Limbaugh's comments to Olberman's has not been adequately addressed. It's a fair point that withstands criticism. Olberman has one advantage: he is not as directly associated with the NFL as Rush would have been as an owner. NBC has the right to decide what happens to Olberman. The NFL can try to persuade NBC to kick him off the show, but they can't bar him from commentating.

#13 is entirely correct in his/her assessment of the McNabb situation. If anyone recalls, McNabb was, at the time, receiving quite a bit of criticism regarding his qualifications as a quarterback. Rush expressed his honest opinion of why McNabb was given more time than a struggling quarterback usually receives in the NFL. The comments weren't driven by racism.

As for the NFL's right to "protect its brand from the taint of people like Rush," #3, what about Michael Vick? Would the NFL have reinstated the monster if he were white? I'm not sure, but I lean towards "no." I'm beginning to think that the NFL did Vick and all black youth a terrible disservice by allowing Vick to return.

I dislike Limbaugh intensely and am happy to see him lose out on this, but considering many of the other NFL owners, (see http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-07/out-rushing-rush/), Limbaugh would fit in nicely.

However, the NFL is all about looking sweet and mainstream to support the huge bottom line of each franchise. This is yet another instance of the league's blatant hypocrisy. The prime example is, of course, the NFL's adamant opposition to sports betting which is the activity that has made the league as popular a money machine as it is. No gambling/fantasy leagues, no interest.

See also http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100013647/the-rush-limbaugh-media-lynch-mob/

Fairness is fairness, even when you can't stand the guy.

"Here's the real reason the NFL doesn't want Limbaugh as a part-owner of the St. Louis Rams (and why, by the way, the prospective investment group just dropped Limbaugh as a participant today): The league's players are 70 percent black and most of them don't want to play for Limbaugh."


Yeah. I'm sure all of the players are going to say, "Sorry -- I don't want your 10mil. You said a naughty."

This issue has nothing to do with players or fans. It has to do with the organization attempting to police politics. It happens in academia all the time; that's why so many of the respondents here think nothing of censoring Rush Limbaugh, but would have a hissy if someone shushed Al Sharpton (if that's possible).

kffdn - Again, I have to ask the question, how do you know what Rush's intentions were? He's got a pretty extensive history of saying if not racist, borderline racist comments. As for the Vick analogy - I was actually one of those who thought he should be kicked out for good. That said, I also had to consider the notion that he did his crime, and he paid his price, and we actually do live in a society where folks (even convicts) should be entitled to a second chance. He's doing his community service work, etc., I figure we give the guy a chance and making things right. Yeah, what he did was criminal, but it was also stupid (which seems to be a recurring theme with a lot of young players - get some money, get into trouble doing something stupid).

And edubrul, I for one agree that it's a tad two-faced for the NFL, but I figure at least they're starting somewhere. Besides, it's no loss for Rush, he'll be making hay over this for years. I'm waiting for him to say something along the lines of "If I was a Black man..."

Have we gotten to the point where no one understands the difference between "censor" and "censure"? Nobody I know of is advocating that he be censored; Limbaugh has the same right to free speech as any other citizen of the U.S. There's not even any official censure here, but Jim Irsay, like anyone else, also has the right to speak his mind about Limbaugh and his hateful, disgusting exercise of his right.

Limbaugh is fond of saying that words have meaning and actions have consequences. He's right about that. Now he can reflect on the meanings of his words and the consequences of his actions. There's a huge difference between reckless generalizations about people on the basis of their skin color, political beliefs, and so forth, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, specific criticism of specific people on the basis of what they have said and done.

dank48 - thank you for pointing out that differentiation. I do think it's a more appropriate word to use in this case. Kind of surprised Mark B. didn't see it sooner - English prof. and all... (kidding!)

Prof. Bauerlein: with respect to Irsay's word choice, having to 'watch our words...and our thoughts,' it still seems to me that what he's really talking about is watching what we say, the idea of being punished for what we think being a ridiculous one, since we don't have the ability to read each other's minds. And indeed watching what we say and recognizing that there are material consequences for what we say and how we say it, even when what we say is correct, is very, very important. And I would absolutely distinguish here between censorship--prohibiting speech--and showing disfavor toward someone whose speech you disagree with in manner and/or content. Of course, I'm cynical enough to believe that the NFL, which is certainly full of hypocritical and monstrous owners, is shunning Rush as a business deicsion. But I'm not about to feel sorry for Rush on this account; as has been pointed out, he makes his money by being inflammatory--it's his talent--so I won't cry for him when he can't have his cake and eat it too.

#15 kffdn:

The idea that Vick would not have been let back into the NFL if he were white is preposterous and itself verging on the level of racial idiocy of Rush's comments on McNabb. Vick was allowed back into the NFL not because he's black, but because he's at least demonstrably contrite and he's a big money maker who puts fans in seats. Let's consider that Rush doesn't apologize when he does something wrong; that would go against his whole persona and amount to career suicide. Loudmouthed shock-radio twits piss us off on purpose so they can make more money, and they make more money doing that than saying they're sorry and they were wrong so they can be let back in. The NFL is a business, a very successful one, and it knows how to practice cover-your-ass. If Vick had pulled a Duke lacrosse move and said 'f*ck those dogs, I'll skin 'em alive' after the fact, the NFL wouldn't have let him back. Rush is unapologietic and unyeilding, and until he prostrates himself before the NFL like Vick did, he won't have a shot at a team.

I will also point out that the Rams are the only team in the NFL whose PAC gives more to the Dems than the Republicans. They're the NFL's sole 'liberal' team. There's obviously an ideological component to Rams ownership that incentivizes them to not sell to someone like Rush. I doublt that if Dick Armey wanted to retire tomorrow he's sell Freedomworks off to MoveOn.org.

marktropolis- My sentence on Rush's intentions was too strong. I don't believe Rush's comments in this instance were driven by racism, but by his sense that there may have been some reluctance among the league, the media, and the public to question McNabb's talent and motivation because of his prominent role as one of the few black quarterbacks in the league.

I'm interested in your response to my question regarding the Vick situation? Do you think the NFL would have reinstated a white Michael Vick? Keep in mind that many have long questioned Vick's ability to be a successful starting quarterback in the league, so it's not as if the league were turning away a franchise player of elite talent.

kffdn - I'm not a football expert. But for the time being I'll defer to suomynona: there had to be a financial incentive for the NFL to reinstate him. And yes, given that he served his time, was contrite, and is continuing to publicly make amends, I don't think his race is relavant. I'm open to being wrong.

That said, I think comparing Rush and Vick is apples and oranges. One is an example of someone using racially charged language - and there's actually a record. One is the possibility that a decision was made based on race, but there is no evidence. Just suspicion.

suomynona - I wasn't aware of that last piece about the PAC. But to add another layer, not only is there an incentive to NOT sell, there's clearly incentive there for Rush to buy the team and change the direction of that PAC.

Not that Rush would do something like that...

Mr. Bauerlein, I am a registered Republican who absolutely does not want to see Rush Limbaugh involved in anything where he would have a public voice, including his current employment. Actually, I should say that I am still registered as a Republican, but since 1996 have been forced to vote for Independent, Third Party and Democrat Candidates - largely because of Rush Limbaugh and currently elected Republicans who blindly worship Limbaugh and/or are emboldened by his hate speech, his divisiveness and his strong penchant for radical extremism. He has stripped the party of hundreds of thousands of moderate republicans, like me, who will never embrace the flag of hate, racism and extremism that Rush exemplifies. Rush has done more to reduce my once great party to a band of non-thinking, non-electable, non-compromising non-independent acting extreme right wing drones who today have a strategy of just saying "NO" which they apply to every conceivable situation, even when we/they occupied the White House. I stopped listening and considering anything Rush said since 1996. So have countless nunbers of conservative Americans who want reasonableness, compromise and good will in our elected officials. Rush will not allow that to happen wherever he is situated. He made his multi-millions by preaching hate and divisiveness, by appealing to mans lowest instincts - so why would he stop doing this, wherever he is situated. I want my party back, the Republican party of inclusiveness, that I once was proud to support. Now, I am embarrased to say I am/was a Republican - and almost everyday, the current caste of right wing nuts embarrass me more. Please Mr Commissioner, I beg you. Do not allow Rush Limbaugh to contaminate the NFL.

Yes, marktropolis, that was my first thought when I read the news: I wouldn't put it past Rush, or any of these political hacks for that matter, to take a shot at snuffing out a pro-Dem organization. Thinking more thoroughly about it, and considering how little the Rams PAC donates in toto compared to, say, the Chargers, the ability to change the political direction of the organization would have to be a little bonus, and not a primary reason for making a move to buy the team. But one never knows...

I want to make another point about comparisons between Rush as a potential owner and Vick being let back into the NFL after what he did. The NFL has lots of players who've done in my opinion much worse than what Vick did. Dogs are cute and all, but there are more than a few guys who have multiple charges on record for things like domestic violence and assault against other human beings. Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg by accident at club and will serve more jail time than Vick for illegal possession. Pacman Jones has been in and out of the NFL for his onvolvement in felony vandalism, assault, and shooting cases, and the league continues to have him back. White players like Bill Romanowski and Jeremy Shockey have been involved in drug and domestic violence scandals, often with fewer public consequences than when black players are caught with trunks full of weed or taken to jail for a night after swinging on their wives.

Within the power structure of the NFL, there are too many players who do too many bad things to count and are handled quickly by the League. Much more so than owners and potential owners and front-office people, these players are both censored and coereced into apologetics by their owners and by the league when they do something wrong in order to have a chance at keeping their NFL careers. Players are played like pawns, so to speak; they act out, their agents work with their owners to write an apology speech, and then they get back on the field. Owners rarely get censored; they do the censoring and they run the show. So there's a big difference between the NFL letting back in under heavy conditions all of these players whose actions they systematically squash by forcing them to publically apologize and do community outreach work, and a potential owner being shunned by the league for his speech and behavior. Vick and Rush (even as a potential buyer) are on two totally different planes in the power structure, and really aren't comparable as a result. But if anyone thinks black athletes get the benefit of the doubt when they screw up because they're black, just read the sports pages, which love to demonize young black men acting badly.

I'm sure if the NFL could control who NBC puts on its pregame show, it might try to ban Olbermann. But it only exercises its repressive power over ownership, and I doubt if it would allow Olbermann to be an owner, either.

Minnesotan doesn't understand free agency.

The better/best players--whom are what St. Louis needs--can dictate to varying degrees with which teams they'll sign. "I'll sign only with a contender," the better/best player tells his agent. "Trade me only to a warm-weather team," says the better/best player in his last contract year before free agency (when the team can get something in return for his leaving). And their wishes are met. Putting St. Louis off-limits is no sacrifice, since there are about 30 other teams who'll gladly sign them.

Yeah, there are players who wouldn't turn down $10 million from a partially Limbaugh-owned St. Louis team--except that what's on offer to the level of player going there isn't likely to be anywhere near $10 million.

So, with the better/best free-agent and about-to-be free-agent players avoiding St. Louis, they'd remain in the toilet, something that no potential ownership groups wants.

A question: Why do people here think that the question about citing Limbaugh's racist statements was a challenge and a denial, not a sincere request to lay out the words in cold print for all to see? I have no interest in defending Limbaugh, but shouldn't we see exactly what he said?

I've never listened to Limbaugh at any length -- I found him too boring -- so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of what people say he has or has not said. David Zirin, however, a sportswriter whom I respect and who has little that is good to say about the NFL owners, has cited the following comments by Limbaugh:

"We didn't have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

"The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons."

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

[To an African-American caller in the 1970s], "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

[Upon hearing that Spike Lee said that black schoolchildren should take off from school to see the movie Malcolm X], "Spike, if you're going to do that, let's complete the education experience. You should tell them that they should loot the theater and then blow it up on their way out."

According to Zirin, Limbaugh called "Barack Obama 'Halfrican-American' and [said]: "In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, "Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on".... We need segregated buses--it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama's America."

You can find Zirin's full article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/my-response-to-rush-limba_b_321290.html

For the article from 2000 that provided many of the quotations, you can go here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2549

Quote Bauerlein:

"A question: Why do people here think that the question about citing Limbaugh's racist statements was a challenge and a denial, not a sincere request to lay out the words in cold print for all to see? I have no interest in defending Limbaugh, but shouldn't we see exactly what he said?"

Well Mark, it sure sounds like a challenge because apparently you never bothered to do the most elementary research on the issue which has been widely discussed for some days now. Why didn't you just google to find out what Limbaugh had said?

And the reason it sounds like a denial is that you didn't do your homework! As if it couldn't possibly be true of Limbaugh. You seem to hold the undergrads you endlessly criticize to a far higher standard than yourself. Smells like hypocrisy to many readers.

But of course you also said:

"I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I'm not one of his fans. That he became a spokesman for the Republican Party is a sign of the Party's deficiencies. But people who raise the very serious charge of racism should quote the words precisely, not paraphrase them."

Yet as a pundit shouldn't you know something about Limbaugh? Even if you disagree, "know your enemy?" Listening to him from time to time seems like a prerequisite to being able to make apt punditry. And it doesn't take much listening to get the drift. How much detail about his exact position on gender equality issues do you need to know for a guy who never says "feminist" but always "feminazi"?

Next time put down the bong, spend some time listening to the guy before you speak, and do a little research before your knee-jerk alarms.

CHUCK KLEINHANS

Of course if Kanye West, Cornell West, Anthony Appiah, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and any number of other individuals who have been known to make racially charged comments, wanted to be part-owners of an NFL team they would be voted down. Yeah right.

We wouldn't want to do anything that might harm the otherwise pristine image of the NFL.

As with the Vick speculation, it's simply ridiculous to put together a handful of black celebrities and celebrity academics who otherwise have nothing to do with each other and speculate that were they in the same situation as Rush Limbaugh that their bids would go over without a hitch. What exactly is the basis of this suggestion, other than the innuendo that because these people are black they would get special treatment, while Rush would not because he's white?

Think about what you're implying. It's the same kind of innuendo that clouds Rush's many racial comments: I'm not racist, really; I'm just saying white people get screwed all the time and blacks get off easy. And it's not that I believe that all blacks are supposed to be unruly, violent criminals from the 'hood; my 'Barack the magic negro' song is just a 'parody' about Obama being 'inauthentically' black because he's 'not from the hood' and doesn't talk like 50cent. These kinds of comments aren't as overtly bad as what you'd find on a white supremacist web site, but they're obviously grown out of assumptions that at best fuel racial animosity and opposition and at worst reflect some flatly racist sentiments, like 'slavery wasn't all bad' and 'autentic blackness' means gangs, looting liquor stores, and coming from 'the 'hood.'

The commenters here are so caught up in Rush Limbaugh that they missed the point of the post. It wasn't about Limbaugh's racism. It was about powerful people letting rejection of racism spill over into thought control. So it was up to the Rush-interested folks to do the homework, and finally unemployedacademic provided some disgusting quotes.

Some of the Limbaugh quotes are flat-out racist, but I don't even think the NFL needs to level the charge of racism to refute his bid for ownership. Goddell's language, while probably referring to charges of racist commentary, criticizes Limbaugh for being 'dirisive.' After having been dropped from the group of potential Rams owners by the group itself and not by the NFL, Limbaugh has used his airtime to suggest that such things are an example of what happens in "Obama's America," where, as he's already said, the white kids (Limbaugh) get beat up by the black kids (the NFLPA) while everyone cheers. Race issues aside, he is flatly dirisive; and you can't have an NFL owner going off like that everytime there's a disagreement between the front office and the player's union. That happens like every week. But this is the kind of person Limbaugh is. Racist or not, he's just a prick. The NFL doesn't need to play the race card, nor does it need to tolerate Limbaugh's BS. I'm still not seeing where thought control comes into play here.

I am, to employ the critical euphemism, "disappointed" in Prof. Bauerelin's comments #s 30 and 35. Chucckle is unfortunately correct is saying that Prof. Bauerlein is trying to manage a "dodge."

In the OP, Prof. Bauerlein says, "In addressing Limbaugh's comments about race and sports..." This phrase indicates that Limbaugh has indeed made comments about race and sports (otherwise, the qualifier "alleged" or something similar would have been used). Since Prof. Bauerlein acknowledges that Limbaugh has indeed made comments about race and sports, and since Limbaugh is a pundit who's all over the media, one would assume that Prof. Bauerlein--himself a pundit on whom some small obligation for a modicum of research (in journalism, they call it simply "reporting") falls--was aware of those comments when he posted.

It's disingenuous in the extreme, then, for Prof. Bauerlein to feign no knowledge of the comments, and when anti-Limbaugh commenters allude to them without quoting them directly, to challenge them to provide direct quotations from Limbaugh. And it's even more disingenuous of him to pretend--as if he were conducting a seminar with undergraduates--that he was only testing the commenters to see if they could actually come up with something.

In short, if Prof. Bauerlein did know of Limbaugh's comments on sports and race, e.g., those supplied in #31, then he should have not performed the charade of asking that the anti-Limbaugh commenters provide them. (In other words, cut out: "Yeah, I know, but was only seeing if YOU really knew.") If, improbably, he actually didn't know of Limbaughs comments, then he should have subjected his post to a few a priori Google clicks before committing to print.

I can't agree with Goxewu on this. Rush Limbaugh was not the point. Prof. Bauerlein's concern, unless I've lost the ability to read and understand text, was that Jim Irsay was advocating "thought control." In our PC age, and I don't mean computers, I agree that the notion that we need to monitor our own thinking lest we offend someone is a valid, significant concern.

Forty years ago, Indiana University did, I believe, its level best to provide me with an education and was hindered only by my own personal defects and character flaws, but the nannyism was minimal. So long as I didn't interfere with anyone else, IU was not concerned with what I thought, said, ate, drank, smoked, or otherwise did. Some things I and others did may conceivably have been illegal; I'd have to check. . . . Those days are gone forever, but not, I think, for good. I'm certainly not suggesting that one can't get an education without picking up a cigarette habit at the same time, but considering that colleges and universities (and other institutions) routinely ban activities that aren't illegal per se, and enforce those bans as if saving civilization, one cannot help feeling that something has been lost.

Which has what to do with the topic? Thought control is an issue, if only because the desire to control other people, including what they do, say, and if possible think, is hardly the monopoly of the left or the right. Controlling other people is inter alia a convenient way to avoid controlling oneself, which can be tricky.

I don't believe for a moment that Jim Irsay was advocating self-censorship; I think he was speaking less carefully than he might. It reminds me of hearing people say they "know" this or that about God. Of course they mean "believe" or even "believe really strongly." We aren't all verbal sharpshooters. I can't and wouldn't wish to speak for Jim Irsay, but I think he'd agree that we'd rather have a world in which a pathetic specimen like Limbaugh has the right to spew garbage and other people have the right to lap it up, than see anyone gagged.

I do find it interesting that Bauerlein found it so easy to pick one word in a probably not well-thought-out phrase from Irsay, but seems quick to advocate that we get to the bottom of all this Rush business. If Irasy had a history of saying similar things (about thought control - and I don't know the answer, I didn't write the original post) then maybe we could have avoided all the back and forth about Rush. And yet the bulk of the post was not about Irsay's comment, it was about all the things going back and forth about what Rush said, as well as going so far as to compare him to Olbermann.

So, I'm a tad skeptical that Irsay's comment was *really* the point of the post. After re-reading it more than a few times, it does become evident (at least to me) that Bauerlein was at least beginning to defend Rush's right to say what he wants. Regardless as to however racist it may or may not be - and regardless of whatever homework Bauerlein did in preperation for the post...

goxewu:

"So, with the better/best free-agent and about-to-be free-agent players avoiding St. Louis, they'd remain in the toilet, something that no potential ownership groups wants."


Why do you assume that the best players are liberals who allow political concerns to potentially damage their economic wellbeing? It sounds like something only a true crybaby troublemaker would concern himself with.

Speaking for myself, I doubt I would think twice about working for a mainstream company owned by someone whose politics differ from mine. Even if it was a really mouthy person of differing political views -- what do I care? I'm not an ideologue. People are alowed to believe different things in my world. They're also allowed to express those views, even if they're racist, sexist, or nationalist. I'm not the thought police (although at times I admit I try to be a gentle thought shepherd).

I can't speak for Mark Bauerlein either, Marktropolis, but it seems to me he was defending Limbaugh's right to say what he wants, regardless of how racist, sexist, or otherwise objectionable it might be. So am I. "Free speech" doesn't mean the right to say things I agree with. This, btw, is a point the ACLU has made on occasion, which is why the ACLU filed an amicus curiae defending Limbaugh's right to privacy when the state was seeking access to his medical records.

Which in a way is the real point. We have to defend the rights of those we disagree with or, as Pastor Niemoller put it, when they come for us there will be no one left to speak out.

Oh, lordy, the curse of willful obtuseness:

I don't assume that "the best players are liberals." But I do know that 70 percent of the NFL players are black, from which I conclude that about 70 percent of the best players are black. That, coupled with the facts that Limbaugh has made many racist statments (specifically anti-black statements--see comment #31), that several black players have voiced displeasure with the prospects of a team partially owned by Rush Limbaugh, and that the head of the players union, who is black, has also voiced a similar displeasure, leads me to conclude--rather reasonably, I think--that should Limbaugh have prevailed in becoming part-owner of the St. Louis Rams, the team would have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the better/best black free-agent players to sign with St. Louis. In fact, a partially Limbaugh-owned team might not have been able to sign its top black draft picks, who might have demanded to be traded, held out until Limbaugh was exorcised as an owner, or simply not played a season and come back as a free agent a year later.

Playing in the NFL is rather more public than working for your typical big corporation. People know who the players are and they know who the owners are. Football, especially, is a game where players their personal dignity and courage is constantly at stake. Players don't want to be thought to be incapable of taking a hit on the field, or kowtowing off it. Which is to say, if you're a black professional football player and you have some leverage about where you play, you don't have to be a "liberal" in order to do everything you can not to have to play for somebody who's said, "The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons"; "the NAACP should have riot rehearsal... They should get a liquor store and practice robberies"; "have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" and, to a black caller on his radio show, "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." With the number of teams in the NFL and free-agency in place, it probably wouldn't have been much of an economic sacrifice on the part of a player to demur on playing for St. Louis.

minnesotan - This isn't a question of "politics." There's a thick line separating differing politics and differing opinions about the humanity of those who don't look like you. No, I probably wouldn't have a problem working for a republican boss (actually have once or twice) but I DO have issues working for someone who is not only publicly racist, but encourages others to speak and act similarly.

And yes, if I'm a free agent, meaning I have some choice about where I play, I do think whether or not one of the owners is a public racist moron might have some influence over my decision. If he was a closet racist, might not be as big of an issue.

Can't you guys read? I have no desire to defend Limbaugh, and never have, and I think that a private consortium that rejects an investor is entirely free to do so. I do, however, bristle any time someone tells me to watch what I think. From what I've heard about Irsay, he's a good guy, but even mis-statements like that one need to be called out as illiberal.

test

What I find remarkable is that those who champion diversity and fight racism don't seem to be the least bothered that the racial makeup of the NFL is 70% African-American when this group represents roughly only 14% of the US population. From this disparity, one can conclude that either African-Americans are disproportionately better football players (for whatever reason) or there is racism in the development, recruitment, and signing of players. More to the point, there was a great stink over the lack of African-American quaterbacks but nobody seems to be concerned that, currently, there isn't ONE starting White, Asian, or Hispanic cornerback or tailback in the NFL. Not one. And where are the protests about the absence of African-American kickers?

The owners fear Rush Limbaugh because he wears his racial bias on his sleeve. He says what most owners and coaches do and think. The NFL is one of the most racist institutions in the US, and what baffles me is how accepted the culture is. Are African-Americans racialy superior to Whites, Hispanics, and Asians in football? Or is the culture of football oriented for their disproportionate representation? What sort of stink would arise if Limbaugh owned the Rams and pretty soon one started to see non-African American cornerbacks. Would people cry racism? Discredit the White, Asian, or Hispanic cornerbacks' accomplishments as the result of "affirmative action?" I say, let Limbaugh in and let's watch the racists in the NFL squirm!

Prof. Bauerlein exaggerates. Jim Irsay's saying "...we gotta watch our words in this world and our thoughts because they can do damage" is actually a fairly mild and reasonable statement:

* He says "we" not "you" because he means everybody, including himself. He's not telling Prof. Bauerlein what to think, and Prof. Bauerlein has no reason to "bristle."

* He says or words and thoughts "can" do damage. Does anybody think this is not so? Does anybody think it's not dangerous to think as a bigot because those thoughts "can" get turned into words which "can" get turned into actions and "do damage"?

* Do we in the humanities not try to educate students in the ways of non-bigotry (say, not to think that the black author of an essay with which the student disagrees "ought to take the bone out of his nose," or think that the NAACP should practice liquor store holdups, or say that composite sketches of criminals tend to look like Jesse Jackson), so that they act--not just think or chat--with some reason and civility? I mean, humanities professors do bandy about the term "critical thinking," don't they?

By the way, some of those of us who dislike racism are not in favor of affirmative action to enforce "diversity," e.g., declaring that there ought to be some white cornerbacks in the NFL. (Or a few black placekickers.) 12052592 seems a little confused about that: the NFL is "one of the most racist institutions in the U.S." because...vastly white ownership and preponderantly white GMs employ 70 percent black players?

Yes. Racism is rampant in the NFL, perpetuated by the preponderantly white GMs. They really believe African Americans are genetically superior football players. Draft day has aspects that have eery undertones of a slave auction. Take the time to look at some of the scouting reports (you can find them online). They even talk about "bloodlines."
It all begins in high school. Standout white runningbacks and corners are routinely dismissed without even a look once scouts find out they are white (which used to be the case about standout African American quaterbacks). As a result, talented white athletes have abandoned those positions if they want to further their careers to the next level (cornerbacks move to safety, tailbacks beef up and become blocking backs). It wasn't unusual to find white tailbacks and corners on NFL rosters as early as the 1980's. What has happened in the last thirty years? White athletes have gotten worse? Black athletes have gotten better? I think the best explanation is the inherent racist culture of the NFL. the GMs and scouts pigion hole races into positions.

12052592 has some points. But I'd venture that the kind of "racism" operative among white NFL GMs is of a different order than Limbaugh's. It's it's more misguided ("I'll get a better cornerback if I draft a black guy") than vituperative ("Take the bone...", etc.) And it's cureable, just like the prejudice against black quarterbacks was a while back, by performance. Another Chris Collingsworth or Brad Van Pelt will come along and help some team to the Super Bowl and GMs will--albeit partially--change their minds.

In the NBA a while back, there was an unspoken belief that not only was basketball a black sport, but that American white guys couldn't compete at that level. Then some foreign white guys were recruited by American colleges and some of them went to the pros. Then some foreign white guys came directly into the league and--delayed reaction--more American white guys started to think that there's no reason they couldn't play in the NBA.

And there is an economic/cultural component to the football situation: Black college players in general come from more hardscrabble backgrounds than white guys do; football is more a way up and out for them, so they pursue it as if their lives depend on it. Which gives their play a certain intensity, and intensity is what the pros demand.

By the way, there's a reverse question in baseball, about a percentage drop-off in black players in MLB compared to twenty years ago. (There was, however, a very slight uptick, this season.) Have blacks become less genetically suited to baseball? Have they gotten less talented? Are baseball GMs "racist" in wanting so many Latino ballplayers?

I agree, actually, that it is at least a curious issue that in such ventures as the NFL, predominately white owners and executives and head coaches have such power over the football careers of a majority black pool of players. This issue is also prominent in discussions of record label ownership and musical artists, in the semi-recent rise of hip-hop and R&B as popular commodities. "Record company pimpin'" is how Ice Cube has put it; and other artists have evoked the discourse of slavery to describe what they view as exploitation of black talent by white moguls.

But the idea that these situations occur because of racial selection by the heads of industry--in the case of the NFL, because ownership and general managers have a racist bias toward selecting black players--is way off base. For one, whites as a demographic tend to have considerably more socioeconomic privilege than blacks, creating situations in which for many blacks who are disproportionately located in poor and insufficient school districts, being good at football may be the only way they'll get a chance at a college education. Consider where the vast majority of the NFL's athletes are coming from: large, NCAA DI universities whose athletes are on athletic scholarships and are athletes first and students second. White student-athletes with greater privileges and preparations often have choices outside of sports. It's no wonder why, with college football functioning as the recruitment pool for the NFL, so many NFL players are black. And it's no wonder why sports play such a significant cultural role in black communities. I don't think this is at all a pretty picture; but there are better explanations for why so many professional athletes in sports that have been traditionally favored in black communities (basketball, football) than some kind of anti-white bias in selection.

Consider also that because of the way the game is played in the NFL, speed is a tremendous advantage. NFL scouts are measuring these things; and they'll have no problems with someone like Matt Jones (white) who's 6ft6 and runs a 4.3 40. White, black, whatever you are, if you have the physical talent you have a tremendous advantage in the NFL. This is hardly news. Now can you explain to me why, since black athletes were allowed and even mildly encouraged to compete in sports like track and field, the vast majority of 100m world record holders have been black? I have no idea, but I sincerely doubt that it's because race directors and sponsors and Olympic committees have dismissed fast white guys because they would prefer to have black sprinters. Track is a sport in which the clock tells the story, and not the color of one's skin, as Jesse Owens proved in Berlin in 1936.

I agree. A lot of African American players compete for a spot on a team as if their life dependended on this success, because for a disproportionate amount of them, one could argue, it really does! My white brother in law played for a division I football program. I think he got that far on his talent alone (he had an NFL body and skills). The next level was a different story. He just didn't have that extra drive (intense workouts, constant drills) you see in the players in the NFL (regardless of race). Guess what he's doing now? Working for the successful family business. I think a lot of African Americans don't have that situation to fall back on. I think African American athletes are overrepresented in the pros not for genetic reasons, just that most of them have more drive to succeed. I get upset when the media emphasizes "athletic ability" in African Americans. It implies that all they have to do is show up and get a spot. Those guys work their butts off to get where they are, and to attribute it to their genetics is racist is if you ask me. I don't think there are any genetic differences among players at the professional level. The one's who make it, possess a different mentality to compete and succeed. Let's face it, they are ALL good athletes. The ones that succeed are the ones who work harder and want it more. the racism comes when scouts and GMs (and by relation, the public) discredit this work ethic and attribute it more to genetics.

Baseball is not so simple. There still is a lot of stereotyping players into race based scouting. For instance, how many African American catchers are there (considered the "quarterback" of the diamond)? Baseball scouts have flocked to the "hispanic" countries for economic reasons. they can sign prospective talent there for cheap. the road to the majors is not as direct as it is for basketball or football. A top baseball prospect can linger at "sub-pay" for years before they get their shot at the bigs. "Sub-pay for a prospect in an economy such as the Dominican Republic goes a lot longer than for a player living in the economy of the US, so they sign and hang on. A minor league salary is a damn good living in those countries economies. Poor, athletic americans usually don't choose baseball because the pay doesn't offset the amount of work they put into it in exchange for an uncertain future. that's why you see a lot of american baseball players coming from middle class backgrounds in america (who are mostly white). they can survive on that minimal pay for as long as they are willing to hold out if the DO make it to the bigs. Poor americans choose (wisely) not to take that risk. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the economic situation for African Americans has gotten worse in the last twenty years. This might be a reflection of their numbers dropping off in the Majors in the last twenty years. Just a hypothesis.

Prof. Bauerlein must be wondering how and why he's reaped the whirlwind: all this SportCenter / Outside the Lines commentary, when all he did was overreact ("starting to look sinister") to a fairly tepid comment (""...we gotta watch our words in this world and our thoughts because they can do damage") by Jim Irsay, and try to pretend that he didn't know of any racist comments by Rush Limbaugh until comment #31 furnished the quotations. Prof. Bauerlein strikes me as not a rabid sports fan, so maybe all these sports comments are karmic punishment. So, to pile on, with some random addenda...

* There's more than one book about race and sports out there, and one of them contains the observation that most world-class sprinters are of West African descent where a lot of the people possess an abundance of "fast-twitch" muscles necessary to successful sprinting. This, if I remember correctly, is also accompanied by the claim that there's more DNA variation in the population of West Africa than there is in the entirety of Europe, from Scandinavia down to Greece. Which is to say that there's obviously a genetic component to success in sports, but that it's not necessarily categorizeable by the crude designation of "race."

* Basketball is "the city game." It's good in urban playgrounds where space is at a premium; you can fit get two four-on-four halfcourt games on a single basketball court; basketball requires minimal personal gear--a ball and sneakers; and the most enjoyable parts of it--dribbling and shooting--can be practiced alone. Poor inner-city kids can thrive on it.

* Baseball requires lots of space, preferably with grass, a little more personal gear (a good glove), at least one playmate and preferably more, to practice, and it's skill-intensive in ways (hitting a pitched ball, fielding grounders, catching behind a batter, etc.) that require years of coaching and practice. It's more suited to American suburbs and Latin American countrysides than the inner city.

* Football has changed over the decades. The conventional wisdom used to be that the running game set up the passing game; now it's reverse. Which means that speed is as valuable a quality in a "skill position" (quarterback, running back, receiver, defensive back) as power. Which means that the fast player from a sunny clime is more sought-after than a plodding powerful player from the snow belt. And southern states, ex-slave states--e.g., Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas--have high black populations, with considerable West African lineage. Ergo, Jerry Rice, Michael Crabtree, Al Harris, et al.

* One of the nice things about soccer, a.k.a. "football" in most of the world, is that it doesn't place a necessary premium on one physical characteristic such as weight, height and sheer speed. the great players range from conspicuously small (Maradonna) to rangy (Cruyff) to simply big (some of the English midfielders). Consequently almost every country with almost any predominant racial group can have a decent team. Baseball is somewhat the same, although the players do tend to be "big," but soccer, like basketball, can be enjoyably practiced alone, with minimal gear. Soccer is probably the most "democratic" of team sports.

To turn this back to the original subject: I like the idea that if Limbaugh participated in a competitive game in any of these sports, the OxyContin, stogies and blubber would probably all kick in to leave him wheezing on his knees in two minutes. Being an owner was probably his only hope of getting within smelling distance of a playing field.

Bauerlein: Since your post seems to be about individuals' choices of words, let's look at yours again: "I have no desire to defend Limbaugh, and never have, and I think that a private consortium that rejects an investor is entirely free to do so. I do, however, bristle any time someone tells me to watch what I think."

I think the stiff reaction seems to be around the notion that you "bristle" because someone used the word "thoughts," probably unintentionally. And yet when someone else consistently uses racially charged (in some cases racist) language, you seem ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think the issue is that we can't read. The issue is that you can't see the fact that you're quick to judge someone who clearly wants folks to choose their words more carefully (how dare he), yet you're willing to give someone who has a history of divisive language a pass. Your post clearly focuses on the questions issues around Limbaugh's words, and Irsay's quote appears to be only one comment among many. Perhaps if your post had focused more intently on Irsay's comment - and not on all the other commentary around Rush maybe you could have steered the comments in another direction. However, in your post (#7 above) you don't attempt to refocus, but state that "...people who raise the very serious charge of racism should quote the words precisely, not paraphrase them" which is what the rest of the comments have (I think) tried to address.

Maybe to you, goxewu, such "watch your thoughts" statements are "tepid," but not to me. And maybe for you, marktropolis, it's okay for someone to tell you to "choose" your words and your thoughts "carefully," but not for me. Finally, marktropolis, do you have any experience researching or studying racism and racially-charged language in the United States?

The quote from Irsay, copied and pasted from Prof. Bauerlein's OP, above, is: ""we gotta watch OUR words in this world and OUR thoughts because they can do damage." [Emphases mine] And that's a pretty tepid statement, unless one thinks that "we don't have to watch our words in this world or our thoughts because they can't do any damage" is somehow the more reasonable observation. (When somebody says something like "We've got to do more to help the homeless," it's an exhortation in a community spirit that includes the speaker. When somebody says, "You've got to do more to help the homeless," it's an order and it's somewhat accusatory. Big, BIG difference.)

Prof. Bauerlein's addition of the crucial, hallucinatory extra letter "y" to the words I've capitalized, above, says something unsalutary, I'm afraid, about his (not our--pace #44) ability to read. Not to mention compounding the error by "bristling" at phantom thought-commands.

Tetchy, tetchy.

If one can argue that west african genetics gives African Americans an advantage in physical capacities, then what do you say those who say Asians and Europeans have a genetic advantage when it comes to mental capacities? I really don't see how one can say African Americans have a genetic advantage, so tough luck white and Asian players and then scream racism when people say Whites and Asians have a genetic advantage, so tough luck African American academics. I say, neither population's genetic makeup gives them a SIGNIFICANT advantage in either relm. Saying a group has a genetic predispostion for success or failure is the crux of racism if you ask me.

There's a statistical study somewhere (I'm too lazy to look it up, and maybe couldn't find it anyway) that shows how a seemingly insignificant difference in childhood attributes (e.g., being good at basketball in grade school) results, over the iterations of selection in middle school, high school, college and then the pros, into a significant difference in the number of players who had those attributes in childhood being in the pros. In other words, the NFL's being composed of 70 percent black players translates backwards into maybe two or three percent of black grade school kids, across the country, having better physical talents for playing football.

Sure, there's a genetic difference among groups in terms of athletic potential, IQ potential, academic career potential, etc. But while the differences are real, it's the exaggerated appearance of them, caused by the same kind of selection iterations in the paragraph above, that cause people, quite predictably, to equate the difference in the numbers of adults who are professional athletes, or doctors, or professors with "race," i.e., skin color, facial features, hair texture, etc. Most white Americans (I among them) can't tell a person whose forebears came from Gabon from those whose forebears came from the Congo from those who came from South Africa.

So, when I hear somebody say, "Blacks are just naturally better athletes," I ask them which blacks, of which heritage, in which sports? The same with Chinese and laboratory science, or the French and sexual prowess.

Yes, some crudely designated racial groups (e.g., "blacks" or "African-Americans") SEEM to have a genetic predisposition for certain things (e.g., professional sports). But a) the initial genetic predisposition is small, b) the group with the predisposition may be genetically more different from people who look almost exactly like them than from people who seem to be their racial opposites, c) the predisposition is exaggerated into what we see by selection iterations over fifteen years or so, d) the illusory "significant" predisposition is also exaggerated by culture (e.g., if you're a black kid living in the projects and you're tall, it's hard to refuse to play basketball) and circumstance (athletic talent is an obvious "way out" of the projects), and e) exceptions abound.

That said, I'm not the one to solve "nature/nurture" for anybody. That's why I read Prof. Jackson's posts.

Well put.

Bauerlein, #55, "Finally, marktropolis, do you have any experience researching or studying racism and racially-charged language in the United States?"

As a matter of fact, yes, I do. For upwards of 20 years.

How feeble it is, goxewu, for you to think that "we" is any better than "you." In fact, it's worse, because it hides a coercion under the guise of "exhortation in a community spirit," a term that is pure drivel here (the same goes for marktropolis' tepid "wants folks to choose their words more carefully."

One would think that a prestigious, tenured professor of English at major university would hesitate to try to obviate the difference between "we" and "you." Well, speaking to us commenters: We've got to continue to hold Prof. Bauerlein's feet to the fire when he tries to deny the obvious. And speaking to Prof. Bauerlein: You've got to do a better job knowing the differences among pronouns.

Tetchy, tetchy, TETCHY.

And by the way, does anybody remember when Rush Limbaugh defended the Augusta National golf club in its stand against admitting women because it was a private club and had the right to exclude anybody it wanted to? Hoisted, petard, etc.

Just so I'm clear, in comment #61, am I being accused of tepid drivel?

In comment #61, 'tis I, goxewu, who is accused, not of "tepid drivel," but of drivel in defense of my saying that Irsay's statement is tepid. (C'mon, isn't "...we gotta watch our words in this world and our thoughts because they can do damage" tepid? Isn't it true that thoughts lead to words which lead to actions which, sometimes, lead to damage? Coveting thy neighbor's wife, even tepidly, as in Jimmy Carter's thought-lusting, can do damage, can't it?)

But, as long as you didn't ask, it takes an extra-senstive person, doesn't it, to feel "coercion," to "bristle" at Irsay's statement. Prof. Bauerlein puts paid to the cliché that PC liberals are the only ones who walk around just itching for the chance to be offended.

"The commenters here are so caught up in Rush Limbaugh that they missed the point of the post. It wasn't about Limbaugh's racism. It was about powerful people letting rejection of racism spill over into thought control. So it was up to the Rush-interested folks to do the homework, and finally unemployedacademic provided some disgusting quotes."

Translation:

Okay, you got me on that one! Heh heh. I was kind of hoping everybody would be too lazy to look up Rush's racist quotes somewhere and I could get away with that one, oh well. I guess I'll have to concede the point that everyone else has known all along, that Rush Limbaugh is actually a Racist. Can't defend the indefensible. Anyhow, back to my complaining about the Thought Police (which secretly I sort of know is such a cliche that employing the term has become almost a substitute for thinking).