BLASKA BLOG

On Limbaugh's attempts to gain entry in the exclusive club of NFL team owners, I believe The Wire's Jimmy McNulty said it best: "You play in dirt, you get dirty." The Bible also offers a good perspective: "You reap what you sow."

Yet, federal convict Michael Vick is playing football. George Steinbrenner ("a convicted liar," accd to the late, great Billy Martin) owns the Yankees. Paul Hornung and Alex Karras bet on the game. Yet, they played football. Your outrage is liberal selective. 

Outrage? More like bemused curiosity. I see no reason why Limbaugh shouldn't join his fellow cigar-chomping white millionaires in owning a team. Except they seem to want to distance themselves from him. Can't imagine why, other than noting that his personal brand is decidedly tainted.

Maybe in the days when Jack Kent Cooke and Al Davis ruled the league, Limbaugh would have been welcomed. But today's NFL owners are far more subdued. Who are the most successful owners these days? Bob Kraft? Art Rooney? Wellington Mara? Their political activities are/were much more in line with centrist politics.

http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Robert_Kraft.php

http://www.newsmeat.com/sports_political_donations/Art_Rooney_II.php

Art Rooney, Barack Obama's designee as ambassador to Ireland as payoff to his support -- that equals = Centrist, "Subdued." O.K., Jason, we see where you are coming from. It's all political. Which is my thesis, n'est-ce pas?

This is mediocre?

McNabb is fourth among active quarterbacks in career touchdown passes, trailing only Brett Favre, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady. He's got the third-best touchdown-to-interception ratio in NFL history, behind only Brady and Steve Young. His career winning percentage is an outstanding .651. A paltry 2.09% of his throws are intercepted, which beats Brady, Manning, Joe Montana, Dan Marino or anyone else you want to name. He's the Eagles all-time leader in yards, attempts and touchdowns.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/If-I-were-Donovan-McNabb-I-might-hate-you-peopl?urn=nfl,185772

Limbaugh should have been fired for his football ignorance.

And really, the opposition among NFL owners has more to do with dollars than with any vast left-wing conspiracy. I'm kind of surprised that you're not more sympathetic to business concerns.

Re Your 2nd comment: None of those players own a football team, which is the issue at hand.

Your distinction b/w owning a football team v. a baseball team v. playing on those teams is artificial, self-serving and unconvincing. 

Furthermore, the only relevant assessment of Limbaugh's comments on McNabb is what was the picture in 2003 when he made the comment, not on what McNabb accomplished later. On that score, Allen Barra wrote at the time:

 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).

The larger point is my crusade to once and for all, at least in my small corner of the world, lay to rest the current day McCarthyism of yelling "racism" in a crowded theater.

I love Limbaugh's hilariously self-pitying opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

"There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives."

This just in: Contempt for Rush Limbaugh is not the same as contempt for conservatives.

http://ow.ly/v1ma

I think rush got the wrong end of the deal , i cam across a petition or poll to vote on this , and most ppl tend to agree with me , the poll is at www.LetRushPlayBall.com , not sure if im allowed to post this , 

Your distinction b/w owning a football team v. a baseball team v. playing on those teams is artificial, self-serving and unconvincing.

I'm merely encouraging you to make an apples-to-apples comparison, as opposed to the apple-to-mango comparison you are trying to make. I mean, do you think that Jesse Jackson would have an easy time buying a football team?

The larger point is my crusade to once and for all, at least in my small corner of the world, lay to rest the current day McCarthyism of yelling "racism" in a crowded theater.

You might have better luck doing that if you pick someone who doesn't use race to be provacative.

Just try denying Jesse Jackson! And talk about someone who uses race to be provocative! (sp)

Casting Limbaugh as a victim. That's rich.

He plays daily at character assassination. Is it ironic that character assassination is what did him in here? Again: You play in dirt, you get dirty. Forgive us if we don't get too weepy over one of the world's great a-holes not being able to get in on 10% of an irrelevant sports team.

The astonishing part comes as Limbaugh and his backers attempt to convince us that he is suffering worse by being labeled a racist than those who have actually been the victims of racism.

But only reverence and respect for the "Rev." Al Sharpton, who uses racism to victimize any and all. This is Jeff Jacoby in 2003:

If Sharpton were a white skinhead, he would be a political leper, spurned everywhere but the fringe. But far from being spurned, he is shown much deference. Democrats embrace him. Politicians court him. And journalists report on his comings and goings while politely sidestepping his career as a hatemongering racial hustler.

It's funny: The left wing mainstream media machine with which Blaska takes issue typically calls on people like George Will, David Brooks and Peggy Noonan to represent the conservative perspective. Fox brings in Sharpton as often as possible. It's a great strategy, of course, as there are few out there who could make Bill O'Reilly seem reasonable. But suggesting Sharpton speaks for the left is the same as saying Michael Savage speaks for the right.

Point, Joyce!

Fox? Your blind eye is very selective. Some random googling:

Al Sharpton In Talks With CBS To Star In New Sitcom

 NBC's "Saturday Night Live" invites  Al Sharpton to be a guest host december 2003

Jimmy Kimmel Live!

sitcom, SNL, Kimmel, Monday night raw...

not exactly invitations to dicuss political issues!

Speaking of Moral Relativism:

Blaska claims it is wrong to damage or destroy personal or public property, UNLESS you are inclined to do so in retaliation against perceived neighborhood gangbangers...

Jeremy Midthun: the best friend a MF-spewing, neighborhood destroying gangbang wannabe ever had. Heavens we should deprive him of his basketball if he is turning the air so blue it would make a Marine blush.

And if Al Sharpton's political views aren't newsworthy, then why do we keep reading and hearing about them? If his views are so objectionable, why is he being mainstreamed? And why do you keep defending those views? Still waiting for you to disavow Al Sharpton. ... and waiting ... and waiting ... and waiting ...

You managed to reveal the man behind the curtain, Blaska! It's Sharpton! It's always been Sharpton! But here's the deal: He didn't just choreograph the left wing conspiracy to prevent your guy Rush from buying 10% of St. Louis' Pop Warner football team, he's also in the ear of local officials. Beer tax? All Sharpton. Light rail: Downright Sharptonian! I hear someone spotted him unrolling some Edgewater blueprints the other day.

John Kerry might have been the nominee for president in 2004, but it's clear that everybody really wanted the Sharpie.

Rahm Emmanuel might be the White House Chief of Staff, but it's obviously Sharpton calling the shots.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/11207/saturday-night-live-tv-funhouse-the-obama-files

Well, if I'm the best friend, I'm in good company. I presume the police, courts and law-abiding citizens would fit that mold as well (following your- and I hesitate to use the word here- logic). You seem to desire a peaceful, harmonious society. Yet you think it can be achieved through lawlessness and vigilantism. Doesn't he (the former "gangbanger", now relegated to "wannabe" status by the doer of no wrong) have as much (or greater) right to turn the air blue with his words as your Hummer-driving compadres have to turn the air blue with choking exhaust fumes? Oh, but they're paying for their own fuel- so it's perfectly acceptable!?! Yet another double standard, Blaska-style.

Regarding Sharpton-

What views of his have I defended? Why should I disavow him? I have NEVER supported nor defended him. Perhaps you hear so much of him for exactly the reason Jason proposed- he is being paraded around and misrepresented as a voice for Liberal America. However, I doubt anyone other than you (and perhaps a few other delusional followers of the right-wing political machine) seriously believes that he is relevant. He is entitled to his opinions as much as you or I; however, it is up to the individual to choose to obsess over his words and ideas or simply dismiss them along with the other political dribble jamming the airwaves.

And speaking of waiting, I'm still waiting for the day that you ACTUALLY respond to the content of posts directly, rather than presenting false accusations and innuendo.  From where I sit, you appear to be more concerned with character assassination and name-calling than you are with discussing the issues.

Blaska- still waiting for you to disavow David Koresh...and waiting... and waiting... and waiting.

See? Seems kinda ridiculous, doesn't it?

David Koresh was a piece of merde. (Altho, if he was going to be immolated for having sex with children, the least Janet Reno could have done is to tear gas Woody Allen.)

Your turn.

As for character assassination -- whose character am I assassinating? No, Jeremy, that is Al Sharpton's speciality. This is Jeff Jacoby:

"1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent — the crime never occurred — but Sharpton taunts him: “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair."

There are more incidents but space does not permit.

Rush Limbaugh criticizes liberals using fact and argument. That's permissible in this society. That is not "character assassination." (Jason, as a man who makes his living with words, you ought to know better.) Making up racist quotes that the man never said -- that IS character assassination. 

Jeremy, please tell me that a very tiny light is turning on in your head. Perhaps it's only a single diode, but if it emits a single, feebly glowing lumen, there is hope. 

My turn for what? Again, what Sharpton has to do with me or my beliefs is beyond me. You brought him up.

I mentioned name-calling and character assassination AS IT APPLIES TO BLASKA (again, perhaps you didn't understand that in my post- or perhaps you are, once again, employing red herring...).

Some examples (space-permitting, of course):

"Jeremy Midthun: the best friend a MF-spewing, neighborhood destroying gangbang wannabe ever had."

To Matt Logan: "Coward"

"But Logan is too frightened to even attend the meeting."

Regarding Dane County residents: "Maybe they are as stupid as cows in the pasture."

How's your diode now?

"Rush Limbaugh criticizes liberals using fact and argument." Except when he doesn't.

Obama's not black. Obama's not African-American. He's Arab.: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/23/limbaugh-obama-arab/

That's one I heard live while driving on the Beltline. Racist? Depends on who you ask (I'm not asking Blaska). Race baiting? I would say so. Lying? Definitely.

Calling Jeremy Midthun, come in, Jeremy:

Who defends the "rights" of an adolescent to despoil a public place with vile language where families live and gather? Jeremey Midthun. That is a fact.

I will agree with Jason Joyce that Barack Obama is African-American in the sense that Theresa Heinz Kerry is African-American. She was a native of Mozambique but, really, of Portuguese descent via Africa. Barack Obama is a second-generation American of African heritage but not in the same way as those of the Civil Rights heritage. And that is what Rush Limbaugh made clear. BTW, the criticisms originated from those who consider themselves true African-American.

To both of you: saying critical things is NOT character assassination but opinion. Character assassination is if I accused you of something that could be criminally actionable, or morally reprehensible, such as being a pederast, a tax cheat, a Nazi, or a racist -- if untrue.

ADDED:

That is why Rush Limbaugh is not the perpetrator of character assassination but its victim. To follow any other definition is to accuse of character assassination anyone who dares criticize a public figure. If that is your definition -- George W. Bush was the victim of character assassination many times over.

So now he's simply "an adolescent"? Backing off the gangbanger label, now, are we?

Yes, I defend an individual's rights to act within the law. Just as I have denounced your tendency to act outside of the law in response to those whose actions you condemn.

Regarding "Character Assassination", we likely disagree based on differing definitions of the term. One could argue that it means "the act of deliberately attempting to destroy a person's reputation by defamatory remarks." In that case, I think it's appropriate. You disagree. I have no problem with that. However, I stand by the name-calling accusation. I, personally, find it much more effective to attack an action or issue, rather than an individual. I'm just sayin'...

I never said he wasn't....

That doesn't make it right.

More "facts" and "argument" from Rush HERE. I'm clearly not up to snuff on character assassination. Does this qualify? Or is this simply fair comment with which I don't personally agree?

Seems to me that Rush spends his career picking fights. Why is it surprising when he gets one? Reap/sow, etc.

I didn't bother to read your link, Jason, because it is irrelevant. The question is simple: If Al Sharpton were part of a syndicate that wanted to purchase a pro football team, would you Jason Joyce be in favor of denying that application based on the fact that Sharpton is, unlike Limbaugh, a convicted character assassin? 

David: Why do you insist on fudging the facts in your haste to turn Limbaugh into a victim? He never applied to buy a team and was never rejected. He was dropped from the group hoping to buy because he attracts too much controversy. If Sharpton were in a similar situation, I would say exactly what I'm saying here: If you make your living pissing people off, then those people are going to come after you when you try to go legit. It's the golden rule in action.

As a radio yodeler, Limbaugh wears enemies like medals. He's everything we teach our children not to be: obnoxious, too big for his already sizable britches, crass, crude, vulgar, a braggart, an oaf, a donkey, entitled, smug beyond belief and likely to claim victimhood when facing the slightest adversity. He's weak, unable to resist his own temptations or delay gratitude. In the clown college where he opts to ply his trade (talk radio), his cartoonish ranting does very, very well. But his status does not come with impunity. Those who have been stepped on will return the favor, delivering controversy to his doorstep as he has done so many times himself.

Continuing to hold up Sharpton as some sort of exemplar of the left doesn't make it so. He's another flavor of what Limbaugh is: a charlatan who has been soundly rejected each and every time he's attempted to enter the mainstream. Did he call Rush a racist? As is the case with 99% of what gets said on cable TV every day, I couldn't care less. Limbaugh calls people racist as easily as most of us blow our nose.

The way I see it, I want my kid paying a lot more attention to Sonia Sotomayor (a racist, according to your guy Rush), who has an inspirational story to tell, and zero attention to the clowns like Limbaugh and Sharpton. The only good part of this whole thing is that maybe someone will convince the two of them to show up in the same studio at some point to debate and we can lock them both inside and walk away.

Too much controversy! Such is the state of the First Amendment in America today!

Show me where Limbaugh's First Amendment rights have been violated. I couldn't imagine a better example of capitalism and basic human freedom working more hand in hand. Limbaugh can say what he wants and the market (of both ideas and investment) decides the consequences, not the government.

Mr. Blaska I think you owe it to the debate to at least listen to what your opponents say.  Yes it may become tiresome and repetitive especially when the arguments start falling into the same old forms, but if you arent going to take the time to listen or read to Mr. Joyce's three line post with one text link from a reputable source, then you aren't debating each other you are shouting across each other and that is just as ridiculous as the character assassination you both seem to revile.  You choose Mr. Blaska to be a commentator and you choose to engage with people on your blog, if you can't be bothered to do your due diligence and READ the opposing side maybe it is time to do something else.