For those not in the know, Neal Boortz is a pretty cool, occasionally abrasive talk radio host based in Atlanta. He is a Libertarian and a refreshing voice in the conservative world because he is what I would consider a “true” conservative. In short, he’s like a Republican who has rejected the Taliban-style Right-Wing SuperChristians from the Party. He’s pro choice, pro gun, pro liberty, pro business, anti taxation, anti affirmative action and anti religion in politics. He gets to be a conservative and use the Constitution as the basis of his arguments and not the Bible. In my dream world in which a new, more Centrist party comes to be, he would be on the right side of the party’s spectrum.
In the October Second Edition of “Nealz Nuze,” Neal Boortz attempt to use the “ultra parse” or “logic parse” method to dissect and defend Rush Limbaugh’s stupid, nationally-televised, racist statement.
First, here is Limbaugh’s statement, pulled directly from Boortz’s web site:
“I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve. The defense carried this team.”
Check out Boortz’s “logic”:
Do you need any further clarification of what Limbaugh said? Do I have to break it down for you? OK … step-by-step:
1. Donovan McNabb hasn’t been a very good quarterback from the beginning.
Anything racist there? If there is, I can’t find it. Do we now find ourselves at the point where you cannot criticize a black athlete without being called a racist?
2. The National Football League has some social concerns.
Translation, there’s a bit of political correctness in the NFL front office. I don’t know if that’s true or not. You tell me! Is there anything inherently wrong with bringing up the possibility?
3. Some sportswriters want to see a black quarterback do well.
Well now isn’t that a shocking statement! Can you imagine that! A few weeks ago a female place kicker actually kicked a field goal in a Division 1A college football game. Do you think that it is at all possible that there were some sportswriters out there, maybe even some female sportswriters, who wanted to see that kick go through the uprights? Would that make these sportswriters sexist? So we find it perfectly reasonable to understand why a female sportswriter might want to see that gal kick that football, but you just can’t imagine a black sportswriter wanting to see a black quarterback succeed? Come on, admit it. You went to government schools, didn’t you?
4. Donovan McNabb has been getting more credit for the team’s success than perhaps he deserves.
Maybe so, maybe not! I’m certainly not knowledgeable enough to comment on that. I couldn’t name any Eagles player other than McNabb .. and if it weren’t for this story I wouldn’t even be able to name him. I’m just not that much of a fan. But can’t a question like this be addressed to literally hundreds of players in each of the four major sports?
So .. there you go. Rush’s statement broken down into four easily understandable statements, none of which is the slightest bit racially insensitive, let alone racist.
Ok. So you see the logic here? I don’t either. First of all, Boortz CHANGES the words that Rush Limbaugh used. He literally removes the facts from the matter, and then sprays it out to the world as the gospel truth. Now, Boortz himself will tell you “do not belive anything I say.” This is definitely one case when we shouldn’t.
How does “the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well” become “some sportswriters want to see a black quarterback do well”? Those are two very different statements, and taken in context with the rest of the paragraph, I don’t think it takes rocket science to parse out the true and even “hidden” meanings.
I hate this type of, in Boortz’s words, “debate,” but here we go. His statement, line by line:
I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go
Fair enough. Rush states that Donovan McNabb is not that good of a quarterback. If he had said that and left it alone, we’d be fine with that statement. But he didn’t.
I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
This is really just talking to hear oneself talk. Taken on its own, a vague, nearly meaningless statement. “Social concern” could mean anything. Boortz reads this as “there’s a little political correctness at the front office.” That could be true. But the next statement indicates that the NFL desires, like the media, that a black quarterback do well. He’s setting up the next statement, which is:
The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
This does not mean “some sportswriters want a black quarterback to do well.” It means that “THE MEDIA,” meaning all of it, desires to report on a black quarterback doing well. Again, it could be that Rush is implying that political correctness is a problem in the NFL and the media which covers it, but what does that really have to do with Donovan McNabb’s performance? The NFL doesn’t write McNabb’s checks, so are we to also infer that the teams that hire black quarterbacks are guilty of Politcal Correctness as well? The conclusion is:
There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.
Some of that hope of the NFL and The Media, to report on a black quarterback doing well, has given McNabb more press and positive attention than he deserved, because he is black. This is a racist statement. It does not imply, it flat-out states, that because he is black, Donovan McNabb does not deserve much of the positive attention he has received from the media. It is, in Rush Limbaugh’s opinion, unwarrented praise because it is a fact, in the opinion of Limbaugh, who is not an athlete at all, that Donovan McNabb is not “that good” of a football player.
His last statement:
The defense carried this team.
Certainly it did its part. Perhaps this defense was extraordinary. I don’t know. I don’t even watch football these days. But it’s obvious that McNabb couldn’t have done it, according to Rush Limbaugh, because of two reasons, both of which are mentioned by Rush Limbaugh as direct statements: McNabb isn’t a good quarterback and he’s black. What? You take offense there at my logic because Rush did not say that being black had anything to do with it! Well, why did Rush even mention it then? It’s because he’s been thinking about it and he has a problem with it.
NFL players make their reputations on the field, and the public consumes that via the media. Does the media have any relationship to the decision-making at front offices? Probably it does. According to the world of Limbaugh, the media and the NFL have colluded to mythically expand the domain of McNabb in order to fulfill their agenda, which is to have one good black quarterback in the NFL. In doing so, they have given a man a station he does not deserve, strictly because he is black. None of Limbaugh’s statement is supported by facts, it’s just paranoid speculation that the world is out to give black people opportunities they have not earned. It’s Rush Limbaugh’s version of Hell on Earth.
If people are not offended by that, then maybe they should get back to the Klan rally.
Now, let’s take a look at the statement stripped of all its racism:
“I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. The defense carried this team.”
That’s a statement of opinion. Normally, a good football commentator would throw in some statistics related to McNabb’s and the defense’s performance on the field: scoring stats, yardage—football has thousands of relavent statistics. All of his supporting “facts,” which I have stripped out of the above quote, are racist fluff and paranoid conspiracy theories. But that’s what you get when you hire Rush Limbaugh to talk about football.
39 responses so far ↓
1 scotty the body // Oct 2, 2003 at 2:02 pm
This is only a ten minute hack job… I don’t really want to waste a ton of time on that, but it just kills me to hear and see such bullshit coming from somebody who normally makes a bit of sense.
2 nic // Oct 2, 2003 at 4:04 pm
Although I am not condoning what Limbaugh said by any means, I think that it is more angry white male backlash than simple racism. I have seen several men I know slip further and further in the racist direction as they become more and more frustrated with political correctness, which is itself pretty totalitarian and mindless.
3 Brian // Oct 2, 2003 at 7:40 pm
Well done, Scotty. I agree totally. Except for Boortz. Boortz is an asshole. And it’s not because I don’t agree with (all) of his politics. It’s because of this one thing I heard that he likes to say:
My sister-in-law’s ex-husband loves Neal Boortz. One time we got to the top of a mountain in Utah and were getting ready to ski down it. This dweeb turned to me and said, “hey, you know what Neal Boortz says when he gets to the top of a mountain like this?” I didn’t really want to hear it, but I responded anyway to be polite, “what?”.
“He says, ‘I wonder what the poor people are doing today.’ yuck, yuck.”
I know it sounds like I’m being over sensitive here, but please; anyone who says shit like that is a dick.
4 Elliott // Oct 2, 2003 at 8:10 pm
Wow, I read this before I saw that he got run for his remarks.
Nice work with the text, Scott. It is really important not to take sequential, related statements one-by-one.
Limbaugh seems like a chump to me. I wonder if he wasn’t looking for an out. Think about it: to many people, football seems boorish and crude, and to some boorish, crude people, it is an endless source of conversation. The fact that football in America is a meat-grinder aside, though, there is a lot of complexity and nuance in professional football. Rush Limbaugh was in over his head, and I bet football people hated him as much as he resented them for their real knowledge.
If there’s one thing a bitter, raving, jerk knows, it’s how to get someone to show him the door.
Good riddance.
And no, with the exception of the Patriots superbowl win, I haven’t watched a football game on TV in years.
5 scotty the body // Oct 2, 2003 at 8:28 pm
Don not misunderstand me. I do not like Rush a whole lot. He is a blowhard. He is insensitive.
but in the grand scheme ofo right wing blowhards, at least he does not suck up to the superChristian Taliban, and he has no tolerance for illogical positions, such as those from which his callers frequently come. And despite his illogical hatred ofo Hillary Clintono, I loove too hear him tear apart people who call in complaining about their child’s rights’ abuses because they were noot allowed to pray in school.
Soorry foor all the extra “o”s. My “o” key has issues…...
6 Tikihead // Oct 2, 2003 at 8:32 pm
Boortz is an asshole? Asshole, as in Michael Moore?
7 Chris // Oct 3, 2003 at 9:06 am
Just keep in mind, Boortz and Rush are “personalities.” I’ve never met either in person so I can’t comment on if their radio personality equates to their real-life personality, but I would be willing to wager that a lot of what you hear on the air is sensationalism (re: Brian’s post), and is mostly put out there to create a buzz. See also: Howard Stern.
8 Brian // Oct 3, 2003 at 9:57 am
Yeah, I know Boortz is paid to piss people off. He’s pretty good at it. I just cry foul at the class warfare shit.
Moore’s an asshole? If you say so. Mostly he just seems kind of annoying sometimes.
Now, Sean Hannity? Don’t get me started.
9 Beers Z Boy // Oct 3, 2003 at 12:38 pm
Rush promised to keep politics off the ESPN show, and he failed to keep that promise, something he would have excoriated any Lib-Rul politician for doing.
What is even more pathetic is his martyr act about quitting to protect ESPN employees.
The guy is a jerk. Good riddance.
10 Tikihead // Oct 3, 2003 at 7:47 pm
Re: Brian’s question about MM: Yes, I say so. His deliberate warping, twisting, misleading and lying qualify him for the term “asshole.”
11 Brian // Oct 6, 2003 at 10:53 am
Sorry, Paul, but that’s lazy. I am going to have to hold you to the same rigorous standards as I do myself. I need examples. You can’t just say, “Moore lies.” You have to back it up, like I did. When did Moore lie? Exactly how does he distort, mislead, twist, etc.?
I’ll wait right here.
But, speaking of lying, I listened to Boortz on the way to work this morning. He was talking about Ahnold and the groping allegations. Boortz said (this is a verbatim quote): “At least he (Schwarzenegger) didn’t rape a woman like Clinton did.”
What?
12 Tikihead // Oct 6, 2003 at 7:12 pm
ok, I’ll take the bait. For starters,the plaque under the B52 does not commemorate “killing people on christmas eve,” no bank will let you stroll in and retrieve a gun, Chuck Heston doesn’t follow shootings to hype up the NRA crowd, the plant in Columbine doesn’t make WMD, etc. Those are just from his latest. From what I understand, Roger and Me is full of BS as well.
And, I never stated that Boortz isn’t an asshole, he is. I thought that when I first heard him back in ‘94. I just could not resist to take a swipe at the other asshole.
Speaking of, Pablo Picasso was never called an Asshole.
13 Jason // Oct 7, 2003 at 12:19 am
So you guys honestly believe that Limbaugh was making a racist statement?
These are the two parts where you get into him being a “racist”:
A.The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
B.There is a little hope invested in McNabb and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.
What I think Limbaugh was saying is that as a result of A., B has been happening.
i.e. Because the media wants balcks to succeed, they give Mc Nabb more credit than he deserves in the success of his team (the Eagles?).
I don’t see how that is a racist comment.
You aren’t allowed to have the opinion that a certain player is overrated if he’s non-Caucasian?
14 scotty the body // Oct 7, 2003 at 7:11 am
Jason said (sarcastically):
“You aren’t allowed to have the opinion that a certain player is ooverrated if he’s non-Caucasian?”
Jason: obviously you didn’t read the post carefully. It’s fine to state a player is overrated. What’s even better is if you can give solid reasons why. Normally, a real football commentator would cite statistics or facts to back up such an assertion.
What Limbaugh said was Donovan McNabb received attention that he doesn’t deserve because he is black. He didn’t say Donovan McNabb is overrated because of his perceived poor performance.
In short, Rush is calling the media out for doing, what he perceives to be, too little to keep black men in their place. Despite the fact that McNabb is the starting quarterback for an NFL team, meaning he is one of the most intelligent, agile and capable of athletes in the world, Limbaugh believes that “a lot” of the attention he gets serves no purpose but “social concern,” whatever that means.
And Jason, you isolate THE MOST RACIST statement after your i.e., and you STILL DON’T SEE IT?
15 Brian // Oct 7, 2003 at 8:38 am
Paul, here’s a point by point rebuttal of just about everything you just mentioned. I’m not understanding where you are getting your “facts” about this.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
16 scotty the body // Oct 7, 2003 at 9:00 am
Being from Colorado, I can assure you that not only does the Lockheed plant make components for WMD, but several other firms around there do so as well. In fact, the triggers for certain types of nukes were, or still are, manufactured right there outside of Denver. I think they were called “Plutonium Triggers,” but the Holy Flame can probably back us up on that one. She probably has a file on ‘em…
That’s not really the point of debate here, I supposed. I haven’t seen “Bowling for Columbine,” so I can’t really comment on anything put forward in that film.
17 nic // Oct 7, 2003 at 10:46 am
The Holy Flame can’t understand why it should be considered a bad thing for there to be a WMD plant (whatever the heck that is) anywhere in the US. She thought that the jobs created by having a factory there that manufactures weapons systems components would generally be considered a good thing. She thought that communities usually get upset when major aerospace companies leave town. And she laughs at the entire notion of disarmament.
She has not seen any of Mr. Moore’s productions, but she has read his rhetoric and considers him the worst kind of pedantic Leftist. She is weary of shrill rhetoric from both the Left and the Right and longs for any kind of reasoned political discourse. She recognizes this wish for the pipe dream that it is.
18 Elliott // Oct 7, 2003 at 6:03 pm
Continuing the off-topic death spiral:
In the interest of reasoned discourse, I believe it is worth looking at the long-term costs of a WMD factory, as well as the short-term benefits.
Since I believe we are talking about Rocky Flats, by way of Michael Moore, by way of an evaluation of outrageous blowhards from both ends of the political spectrum, it is worth noting two points: first, the site has leached plutonium into the ground, and second, it is upstream of Denver, Colorado. The former is well documented, the latter is indisputable.
To your second point, nic, regarding shrill rhetoric, I can only say hear, hear.
19 Chris // Oct 7, 2003 at 8:51 pm
Speaking of Moore, I love how they went ahead and put together a “techer’s guide” for Bowling for Columbine:
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/teachers/
fear.
20 Tikihead // Oct 7, 2003 at 9:19 pm
Those facts came from Lefty sources such as Salon. Sorry Brian, I was looking forward to reading your link, thinking it might be from an impartial source. Wrong-O. He didnt’ rebut anything. Sure Heston said things, but not the way it ended up in his “docuementary.” You can find the verbatim text of Heston’s speech online. The bank has said repeatedly that they had helped stage the rifle-instead-of-interest-on-CD scene. He makes the whole concept out to be so screwy-you get a hunting rifle as up-front interest when you deposit money. Whoa, what’s wrong with our country, Michael? For someone to bring 1K into a bank, open an account, then get a rifle to possibly attempt a bank robbery?
The jackass said himself, when confronted by Lou Dobbs regarding “glaring inaccuracies” said that what he does is comedy and therefore can’t be inaccurate. The problem is that people believe this crap.
21 nic // Oct 8, 2003 at 9:53 am
I still want to know what a “WMD factory” is. By its very definition the term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” refers to a whole groups of weapons systems and warhead types. Traditionally, it includes nukes, bios, chems, and ballistic missiles. Based on Congressional politics alone, it is hard to imagine a factory that would manufacture an entire system.
Assuming, based on the Elliott’s comments, that we are talking about the Rocky Flats Plant, which used to manufacture components of nuclear weapons and which was closed in 1989 for environmental protection reasons, I’m not sure where the current concern lies. Obviously the EPA, in naming it a Superfund Cleanup Site, is taking steps to rectify the problems caused by sloppy manufacturing processes.
I don’t see how we can generalize from one event to an entire industry. Just because companies have been irresponsible in the past, doesn’t mean the manufacture of WMDs is intrinsically dangerous.
22 Brian // Oct 8, 2003 at 10:48 am
Is there a better venue for discussing politics than an online blog commenting system? I think not!
To sum up: Boortz, Moore, Limbaugh and any other talk show blowhards from the left and right are assholes and liars. Correct? (Oh yeah, I’m not backing down from any of my comments, but refuse to continue this discussion online. It’s really pointless and I’ve got to get some work done.)
Let’s get this thread back on topic. Sports!
Anyone watch the Cubs/Marlins game last night? Good stuff.
23 nic // Oct 8, 2003 at 11:19 am
But you have to root for the Cubbies.
24 Tikihead // Oct 8, 2003 at 8:36 pm
I definitely agree, Brian. The Left and the Right.
There are no moderate blowhards, because by nature they are “moderate.”
25 Snarfus Creebler // Oct 21, 2003 at 11:46 am
OK first how can you think Boortz an asshole? He funny with jokes but thought provokeng too. Second I also like Glen Beck he speaks almost as well with good comannd of the English language. You are a stupid moreon if you think bad about Rush Limbaugh too because when he says somthing like “I hate black peopel?” you know its very tongue in cheek, like he dosn’t really love Adolf Hitler its just a joke he likes to tell by saying, “I love Hitler?”
Michaels moore movie is also bad and yes I did see it just so you kno. I watched it in a movie theater so there are witnessess who can back up that i saw it. I thought it was very tasteless andbad. Who wants to see peopel in wheel chairs i mean come on that is depressing!
26 Ashley // Nov 12, 2003 at 7:01 pm
Look up the word racism in the dictionary and then tell me that Rush is a racism….
27 Scotty the Body // Nov 12, 2003 at 7:41 pm
Ashley: Rush is a racism.
But I don’t have to, because that’s not the point. I think Rush is an asshole. Quite possibly he’s a junky. But I don’t knoow if he’s a racist. I do know for sure that his statement was racist.
28 klstrat // Dec 23, 2003 at 11:28 am
Rush is an egotistical,overrated, racist asshole junkie. He had no business being on ESPN in the first place and his demise was his own doing. His statements were blatently bigoted. There are plenty of white QB’s in the NFL who receive tons of unwarranted positive press, but Rush didn’t see fit to call the media on the carpet for them. His statements make it clear that he thinks that it is impossible for the black QB to be the leader (the defense carried the team) and that any positive press is fabricated to make him look better than he really is. After his statments were aired, I personally, as did many of my friends and colleauges, wrote to ESPN demanding they ask for Rush’s resignation. Not because I thought it would hurt him financially, or that the gig was something he was actually good at, but I did it to send a message. And I think the message was heard loud and clear.
29 Duane // Jan 1, 2004 at 3:38 am
The Rush fiasco continuues. Why did the thread stop? Anyone ever hear about “projection”? Anyone care to comment about how it could be appropriate? Hint: What media ever said “We want a particular black QB to be successful?”
30 Der Potentate // Jan 1, 2004 at 3:52 am
Duane:
What on Earth are you talking about?
31 Irvine51 // Feb 19, 2004 at 4:56 am
Or, you could look at it as Rush calling out the media for having racist policies. Meaning they’re hyping McNabb more than they might (in his perception) if he were white.
It seems to me that McNabb has done a good job in the games he’s played in. Unfortunately, he hasn’t been available enough, or reliable enough this season to (in my opinion) rate the kind of ranking he’s been given. As to why, that’s anyone’s guess. Most likely because he’s been ranked well in previous years.
As far as the NFL and PC goes, that’s the same organization that required the state of AZ to enact a paid MLK holiday before being allowed a Super Bowl. Now, not just an MLK holiday. A paid MLK holiday. Which, of course, only government employees and banks end up getting anyway. And we all know what a bunch of racist bastards those Arizonans are. Or, at least, we knew it from the NFL right up until they got their holiday and their Super Bowl.
Yeah – I know. This is a dead thread & I’m dead tired.
32 David // Feb 11, 2007 at 3:48 am
This whole thing with Rush happened a while back, but I stumbled upon this when I was doing a Boortz search. I could hardly believe how you managed to miss the point of Rush’s statement. His whole point was that a sub par athlete was getting praise for his skin color and not his performance. He was pointing out a race issue that the media has with black athletes. Donovan McNabb is a good quarterback. But not nearly as good as the media has made him out to be. It seems to be fine to mention a black athletes race when you are championing them but never when they aren’t performing. That is the height of hypocrisy.
33 Brad // Sep 7, 2007 at 10:49 am
“This is a racist statement. It does not imply, it flat-out states, that because he is black, Donovan McNabb does not deserve much of the positive attention he has received from the media.” That’s not what Rush said AT ALL.. That’s COMPLETELY twisting his statement. He never said because he’s black, he doesn’t deserve media attention. There are really two “because…then” ideas in Rush’s statement. The first is that because McNabb is black, he is given more media attention than deserved. The other is that because McNabb is not that great of a quarterback (whether you agree or disagree with the statement), he doesn’t deserve the media attention. You just hacked off the second part of the first because/then statement and the first part of the second because/then statement and stuck them together to get “Because he’s black, he doesn’t deserve media attention”. You completely left out Rush’s whole point that McNabb isn’t that great of a quarterback. Since when is identifying discrimination actually discrimination itself? Was Martin Luther King considered racist when he said that Alabama police favored whites over blacks? Also, how did this Rush’s statement put down blacks as a whole? His statement put down McNabb, but not for anything racial-related. He put him down for not being that great of a player. Someone just show me where he put down the black race…
34 john // Sep 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Can’t totally disagree with either of these write-ups however you dropped the ball when you said ”...given McNabb more press and positive attention than he deserved, because he is black. This is a racist statement. It does not imply, it flat-out states, that because he is black, Donovan McNabb does not deserve much of the positive attention he has received from the media”. What he actually flat out stated was that McNabb received the praise because he was black. He did not say that he did not deserve the praise due to his ethnicity. You twisted the words a litte too much there.
35 Elliott // Sep 25, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Don’t you people have a MoveOn ad to shit your pants about or a drywall job to fuck up?
Flat out stating that McNabb received the praise because he is black, and that McNabb did not deserve praise he received because he is black are the same statement.
If he deserved the praise, he deserved it.
If he did not deserve the praise, he was given it in error.
If he received praise he did not deserve because he is black, he did not deserve praise he got, because he is black.
36 Brad // Sep 25, 2007 at 5:39 pm
You’re obviously an idiot. Read my earlier post. You guys love to twist words. Rush said that he didn’t deserve praise because he’s not a great football player, and the only reason he is is because he’s black. Read the earlier post, it describes English sentence structure step by step.
37 Elliott // Sep 25, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Obviously.
Do you guys have a list of websites where they are talking bad about Rush, or are you doing freelance work?
38 Brad // Sep 25, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I’m a little confused by your question.. Like I don’t mean anything negative/positive about that. Can you just rephrase that? If you’re saying that we’ve just made this whole issue up about people being mad at Rush, why don’t you read the original article. And of course it was a huge deal, it was big time national news and got Rush fired from ESPN.
39 Patriot // Oct 12, 2008 at 1:04 am
Nothing more amusing than watching a “centrist” (codeword for liberal) trying to use leftwing logic to dissect an actual logical thinker, which is the foundation of the libertarian philosophy Boortz espouses.
But that's probably why he's a mainstream success with 20 million listeners, and you're still running a vanity website five years after this nonsensical blog was posted.
Leave a Comment