Here is ANOTHER article not necessarily agreeing with Caste Football, but politically incorrect on race.
<h1 align="center"> Rush
Limbaugh Was Right</font></font></h1>
by
Karen De Coster
by Karen De Coster</font> </font>
< ="1.2" src="http://a449.g.akamai.net/7/449/1776/000/.clickability.com/10/_1/.js">
window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href; return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;
var js=0.0;
< ="1.0">js=1.0;
< ="1.1">js=1.1;
< ="1.2">js=1.2;
< ="1.3">js=1.3;
< ="1.4">js=1.4;
< ="1.5">js=1.5;
<nobr>
</nobr>
<a href="http://canada.com/sports/story.html?id=A9E4C1A6-FEE6-4595-B31E-E1810CE18469" target="_blank">Rush
Limbaugh is being branded as a racist</a> because of his remarks
about Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles. Said Rush: "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.
They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing
well; I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got
a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't
deserve. The defense carried this team."</font>
First
I will comment on the accuracy of Rush's remark in regards to Donovan
McNabb. For any football fan that gobbles up statistics, look at
<a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133361" target="_blank">Donovan McNabb's
stats</a> and they read: he is just average. His stats are average
at best, and below average at times. Except for his running game,
which is always spectacular. Look at his QB Rating over the last
few years; he's not at the top of the heap.</font>
However,
diehard football fans know that McNabb is one of those players that
are far better than his stats. Why? He has a huge presence on the
field; he's a superb athlete with great size; he's a strong, feared
leader; and he doesn't make a lot of critical mistakes. Look at
his TD-to-interception ratio, and that means he's not a game-blower.
He's a steady, cool hand that can run like heck, and therefore he's
a threat every time he takes a snap. But he's not a dominating game-breaker
either. McNabb is not the nucleus of the Eagles; it was not he who
was instrumental in his team being one of the top teams in the NFL
last year. It was the great defense. Rush was right. </font>
People
ask, why then, did Rush have to bring up the "black thing?" The
reason Rush interjected race was that he, I believe, just hates
political correctness, as many of us do. We are sick and tired of
it. And racial political correctness pervades sports everywhere
and everyplace. As a confessed football fanatic for many, many years,
I love the game, and I am tired of affirmative action dragging its
demons and Jesse Jacksonisms into this game that I love so much.</font>
I
watch, and have watched for years, all of the NFL pre-game shows
on the tube, from the ESPN shows to Inside the NFL to Fox
NFL Sunday. Black quarterbacks and coaches are singled out for
hiring, praise, and constant attention, and if it is too un-PC for
me to say that, I say tough. If it is not true, then why does the
NFL have a policy stating that teams must adhere to a quota system
when interviewing head coaches? If Rush was so wrong, why then did
the NFL fine the Detroit Lions nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars
for hiring a white head coach (Steve Mariucci) without interviewing
a single black coach? If Rush was wrong, why does the NFL require
teams to interview minority coaching candidates before hiring a
coach? Why does the NFL apply constant pressure to teams to hire
black coaches? </font>
Here's
the kicker with the Detroit Lions scam: the Lions have been set
up to run a West-Coast offense, player and personnel-wise. The current
management team was brought in to run a West Coast-style offense
(named after the SF 49'ers offense run by Joe Montana), players
were brought in that were adaptable to this offense, and when the
prior coach didn't work out, Steve Mariucci, a white guy, and the
best West-Coast offense guy in the game, happened to become available.
Yoo-Hoo!, said Lions fans, including me. Mariucci is a proven winner.</font>
The
Lions knew they had to interview some black coaches, to conform
to the quota system, so they tried to accomplish that task. But
guess what? None of the black coaches invited to interview with
the Lions would accept the invite, because they were all damn smart
enough to know that Mariucci was the best West-Coast guy in the
league, the guy that could best run the Lion's offense as it had
been built, and he was available, and that meant he would be
the guy to get the job. So black coaches like Dennis Green said,
why should I waste my time even interviewing? These guys didn't
want to fly all the way out to Detroit to fill a quota interview.
They also knew the Lions' coaching decision wasn't about black-and-white;
they knew it was strategic football planning. </font>
Subsequently,
why are the commentators and players always talking about the fact
that skin color is irrelevant, such as <a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6894896.htm" target="_blank">Donovan
McNabb did this week</a>, when in fact teams are being forced to
adhere to quota systems for hiring, and being fined and condemned
when they do not? McNabb said: "It's sad that you've got to go to
skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal." Yes
Donovan, it is sad. Sports teams are a business, and it is all about
winning. But no Donovan, we are not over skin color. Look around
you, at the NFL and its rules. Affirmative action and racial-political
correctness both flourish. </font>
The
Detroit Tigers baseball club was also publicly condemned for hiring
the white Phil Garner, as manager of the team a few years ago. Hiring
white provokes a fight. What did the NAACP do because the Tigers
interviewed no black candidates? <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PRTigers1199.html" target="_blank">They
started a boycott</a>, and their coercive pressure forced the offices
of Major League Baseball to publicly spank the Tiger's owner and
management. I once worked in corporate treasury for an organization
that owned two professional sports teams. The office went off into
a drunken escapade when we won, and near-depression when we didn't,
because that meant millions lost, and it translated into disaster
come raise/bonus time, and it also hurt the success of the organization
overall. It was and is all about the bottom lines - winning and
money.</font>
In
regards to football analysis itself, in terms of black quarterbacks
like Aaron Brooks, Daunte Culpepper, Kordell Stewart, Quincy Carter,
and Michael Vick, many are overrated or average, except Daunte Culpepper,
who I think is one of the most exciting QBs in the game already,
and he's still a puppy. Michael Vick can run like hell, but he's
not the QB that everyone makes him out to be. He doesn't do a whole
lot outside of his running game, yet commentators drool over him
as if he is changing the entire nature of quarterbacking in the
NFL. He is not; he likely will not. He's a blast to watch, but his
style usually doesn't win championships, especially when he slows
down as he gets older. Drop-back, in-the-pocket quarterbacks win
championships, especially when they have a defense like the Eagles
had last year to help them along. The reason McNabb has been so
successful at his position is that he's smart, solid, and mistake-free
for the most part. And he's a sufficient passer when he stays in
the pocket. Kordell Stewart - a great athlete - bombed
because they put him at a position where he couldn't utilize his
best skills.</font>
Like
Doug Williams, Vick has a super-strong arm, but he's tossing the
ball to Alaska when his receivers are in Oregon. And Doug Williams?
He was the favorite of the politically correct crowd, and an average
black quarterback whose team happened to get to the Super Bowl.
Again, a heck of a strong arm that could throw the play-action from
Tampa Bay to Detroit, but couldn't consistently hit his receivers
ten yards up the field. So must we over-celebrate players just because
they are playing in non-traditional roles? Can't we just quietly
accept that the game is naturally evolving to a degree?</font>
What
about attributes? Is it too politically incorrect to talk about
the attributes of blacks as versus whites in sports? Jimmy the Greek
wouldn't want to answer that one. The current crop of black quarterbacks
aren't as well-suited to the drop-back, in-the-pocket, accurate-passing
quarterback position. Most black quarterbacks, current and past,
have relied on running, speed, power, and moves, and that is what
people expect of them. And white guys are rarely (if ever) suited
to the nimble, herky-jerky, deftly-moving, ultra-quick tailback
position. How many black quarterbacks play a game like Montana,
Elway, Marino, etc.? There have only been a few. And name me one
white running back that ran/moved like Barry Sanders, Walter Payton,
or Billy Sims. White running backs - the few that there are
- play fullback, and run the straight-ahead, slower, power
game like Mike Alstott and Cory Schlesinger. Is it a sin to note
this? How can someone like me watch, follow, and obsess on this
game for so long, and not notice it?</font>
The
black coach and black quarterback worshipping is a product of political
correctness; it exists, it is real, and it is indeed tiresome. Why
does nobody question why <a href="http://www.sportsethicsinstitute.org/is_dusty_baker_a_racist.htm" target="_blank">the
Dusty Baker incident</a> went by so quietly, when he actually spoke
more like a racist - as the media would term it - in terms of talking
about characteristics in which blacks were superior to whites? He
was talking about how whites and blacks adapt differently to the
hot weather, and of course, Dusty Baker was entirely correct. He
is not a racist. I thought his remarks were fascinating, and besides,
can't those remarks be substantiated by anthropology? But the media
was fairly passive about that incident because Baker is black.</font>
Rush
Limbaugh - a neocon-Republican shill that I almost never agree with -
is a heck of a football mind. He knows the game, and I'll always give
him that. Dusty Baker was speaking on the basis of his years of
experience with the game and the people who play it, and so was Rush. </font>
Rush
was sensationalizing his remarks up, as these radio talk show guys
do, and that is a different matter. He was guilty of stupidly throwing
out political incorrectness at a very unforgiving, PC crowd. His
purpose/job was to comment on football, not politics in football.
Stupid, yes. But that does not make him a racist. Should he have
been fired if he didn't resign? Yes, his brand of politics did not
belong on the show, and certainly not framed in that context. Rush
was right, but irresponsible and stupid all the same.</font>
</font>October
3, 2003</font></font>
Karen
De Coster, CPA, [<a href="mailto:OldRightWingGal@yahoo.com" target="_blank">send
her mail</a>] is a libertarian freelance writer, graduate student
in Austrian Economics, and a business professional from Michigan.
Her first book is still in the works. See her <a href="http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=De+Coster" target="_blank">Mises
Institute archive</a> for more online articles, and check out <a href="http://www.karendecoster.com/" target="_blank">her
website</a><http:>, along with <a href="http://www.karendecoster.com/blog.html" target="_blank">her
blog</a>.</http:></font>
Copyright © 2003 Karen De Coster</font>
<h1 align="center"> Rush
Limbaugh Was Right</font></font></h1>
by
Karen De Coster
by Karen De Coster</font> </font>
< ="1.2" src="http://a449.g.akamai.net/7/449/1776/000/.clickability.com/10/_1/.js">
window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href; return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;
var js=0.0;
< ="1.0">js=1.0;
< ="1.1">js=1.1;
< ="1.2">js=1.2;
< ="1.3">js=1.3;
< ="1.4">js=1.4;
< ="1.5">js=1.5;
<nobr>
</nobr><a href="http://canada.com/sports/story.html?id=A9E4C1A6-FEE6-4595-B31E-E1810CE18469" target="_blank">Rush
Limbaugh is being branded as a racist</a> because of his remarks
about Donovan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles. Said Rush: "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.
They're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing
well; I think there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got
a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he really didn't
deserve. The defense carried this team."</font>
First
I will comment on the accuracy of Rush's remark in regards to Donovan
McNabb. For any football fan that gobbles up statistics, look at
<a href="http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133361" target="_blank">Donovan McNabb's
stats</a> and they read: he is just average. His stats are average
at best, and below average at times. Except for his running game,
which is always spectacular. Look at his QB Rating over the last
few years; he's not at the top of the heap.</font>
However,
diehard football fans know that McNabb is one of those players that
are far better than his stats. Why? He has a huge presence on the
field; he's a superb athlete with great size; he's a strong, feared
leader; and he doesn't make a lot of critical mistakes. Look at
his TD-to-interception ratio, and that means he's not a game-blower.
He's a steady, cool hand that can run like heck, and therefore he's
a threat every time he takes a snap. But he's not a dominating game-breaker
either. McNabb is not the nucleus of the Eagles; it was not he who
was instrumental in his team being one of the top teams in the NFL
last year. It was the great defense. Rush was right. </font>
People
ask, why then, did Rush have to bring up the "black thing?" The
reason Rush interjected race was that he, I believe, just hates
political correctness, as many of us do. We are sick and tired of
it. And racial political correctness pervades sports everywhere
and everyplace. As a confessed football fanatic for many, many years,
I love the game, and I am tired of affirmative action dragging its
demons and Jesse Jacksonisms into this game that I love so much.</font>
I
watch, and have watched for years, all of the NFL pre-game shows
on the tube, from the ESPN shows to Inside the NFL to Fox
NFL Sunday. Black quarterbacks and coaches are singled out for
hiring, praise, and constant attention, and if it is too un-PC for
me to say that, I say tough. If it is not true, then why does the
NFL have a policy stating that teams must adhere to a quota system
when interviewing head coaches? If Rush was so wrong, why then did
the NFL fine the Detroit Lions nearly a quarter-of-a-million dollars
for hiring a white head coach (Steve Mariucci) without interviewing
a single black coach? If Rush was wrong, why does the NFL require
teams to interview minority coaching candidates before hiring a
coach? Why does the NFL apply constant pressure to teams to hire
black coaches? </font>
Here's
the kicker with the Detroit Lions scam: the Lions have been set
up to run a West-Coast offense, player and personnel-wise. The current
management team was brought in to run a West Coast-style offense
(named after the SF 49'ers offense run by Joe Montana), players
were brought in that were adaptable to this offense, and when the
prior coach didn't work out, Steve Mariucci, a white guy, and the
best West-Coast offense guy in the game, happened to become available.
Yoo-Hoo!, said Lions fans, including me. Mariucci is a proven winner.</font>
The
Lions knew they had to interview some black coaches, to conform
to the quota system, so they tried to accomplish that task. But
guess what? None of the black coaches invited to interview with
the Lions would accept the invite, because they were all damn smart
enough to know that Mariucci was the best West-Coast guy in the
league, the guy that could best run the Lion's offense as it had
been built, and he was available, and that meant he would be
the guy to get the job. So black coaches like Dennis Green said,
why should I waste my time even interviewing? These guys didn't
want to fly all the way out to Detroit to fill a quota interview.
They also knew the Lions' coaching decision wasn't about black-and-white;
they knew it was strategic football planning. </font>
Subsequently,
why are the commentators and players always talking about the fact
that skin color is irrelevant, such as <a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/6894896.htm" target="_blank">Donovan
McNabb did this week</a>, when in fact teams are being forced to
adhere to quota systems for hiring, and being fined and condemned
when they do not? McNabb said: "It's sad that you've got to go to
skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal." Yes
Donovan, it is sad. Sports teams are a business, and it is all about
winning. But no Donovan, we are not over skin color. Look around
you, at the NFL and its rules. Affirmative action and racial-political
correctness both flourish. </font>
The
Detroit Tigers baseball club was also publicly condemned for hiring
the white Phil Garner, as manager of the team a few years ago. Hiring
white provokes a fight. What did the NAACP do because the Tigers
interviewed no black candidates? <a href="http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PRTigers1199.html" target="_blank">They
started a boycott</a>, and their coercive pressure forced the offices
of Major League Baseball to publicly spank the Tiger's owner and
management. I once worked in corporate treasury for an organization
that owned two professional sports teams. The office went off into
a drunken escapade when we won, and near-depression when we didn't,
because that meant millions lost, and it translated into disaster
come raise/bonus time, and it also hurt the success of the organization
overall. It was and is all about the bottom lines - winning and
money.</font>
In
regards to football analysis itself, in terms of black quarterbacks
like Aaron Brooks, Daunte Culpepper, Kordell Stewart, Quincy Carter,
and Michael Vick, many are overrated or average, except Daunte Culpepper,
who I think is one of the most exciting QBs in the game already,
and he's still a puppy. Michael Vick can run like hell, but he's
not the QB that everyone makes him out to be. He doesn't do a whole
lot outside of his running game, yet commentators drool over him
as if he is changing the entire nature of quarterbacking in the
NFL. He is not; he likely will not. He's a blast to watch, but his
style usually doesn't win championships, especially when he slows
down as he gets older. Drop-back, in-the-pocket quarterbacks win
championships, especially when they have a defense like the Eagles
had last year to help them along. The reason McNabb has been so
successful at his position is that he's smart, solid, and mistake-free
for the most part. And he's a sufficient passer when he stays in
the pocket. Kordell Stewart - a great athlete - bombed
because they put him at a position where he couldn't utilize his
best skills.</font>
Like
Doug Williams, Vick has a super-strong arm, but he's tossing the
ball to Alaska when his receivers are in Oregon. And Doug Williams?
He was the favorite of the politically correct crowd, and an average
black quarterback whose team happened to get to the Super Bowl.
Again, a heck of a strong arm that could throw the play-action from
Tampa Bay to Detroit, but couldn't consistently hit his receivers
ten yards up the field. So must we over-celebrate players just because
they are playing in non-traditional roles? Can't we just quietly
accept that the game is naturally evolving to a degree?</font>
What
about attributes? Is it too politically incorrect to talk about
the attributes of blacks as versus whites in sports? Jimmy the Greek
wouldn't want to answer that one. The current crop of black quarterbacks
aren't as well-suited to the drop-back, in-the-pocket, accurate-passing
quarterback position. Most black quarterbacks, current and past,
have relied on running, speed, power, and moves, and that is what
people expect of them. And white guys are rarely (if ever) suited
to the nimble, herky-jerky, deftly-moving, ultra-quick tailback
position. How many black quarterbacks play a game like Montana,
Elway, Marino, etc.? There have only been a few. And name me one
white running back that ran/moved like Barry Sanders, Walter Payton,
or Billy Sims. White running backs - the few that there are
- play fullback, and run the straight-ahead, slower, power
game like Mike Alstott and Cory Schlesinger. Is it a sin to note
this? How can someone like me watch, follow, and obsess on this
game for so long, and not notice it?</font>
The
black coach and black quarterback worshipping is a product of political
correctness; it exists, it is real, and it is indeed tiresome. Why
does nobody question why <a href="http://www.sportsethicsinstitute.org/is_dusty_baker_a_racist.htm" target="_blank">the
Dusty Baker incident</a> went by so quietly, when he actually spoke
more like a racist - as the media would term it - in terms of talking
about characteristics in which blacks were superior to whites? He
was talking about how whites and blacks adapt differently to the
hot weather, and of course, Dusty Baker was entirely correct. He
is not a racist. I thought his remarks were fascinating, and besides,
can't those remarks be substantiated by anthropology? But the media
was fairly passive about that incident because Baker is black.</font>
Rush
Limbaugh - a neocon-Republican shill that I almost never agree with -
is a heck of a football mind. He knows the game, and I'll always give
him that. Dusty Baker was speaking on the basis of his years of
experience with the game and the people who play it, and so was Rush. </font>
Rush
was sensationalizing his remarks up, as these radio talk show guys
do, and that is a different matter. He was guilty of stupidly throwing
out political incorrectness at a very unforgiving, PC crowd. His
purpose/job was to comment on football, not politics in football.
Stupid, yes. But that does not make him a racist. Should he have
been fired if he didn't resign? Yes, his brand of politics did not
belong on the show, and certainly not framed in that context. Rush
was right, but irresponsible and stupid all the same.</font>
3, 2003</font></font>
Karen
De Coster, CPA, [<a href="mailto:OldRightWingGal@yahoo.com" target="_blank">send
her mail</a>] is a libertarian freelance writer, graduate student
in Austrian Economics, and a business professional from Michigan.
Her first book is still in the works. See her <a href="http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=De+Coster" target="_blank">Mises
Institute archive</a> for more online articles, and check out <a href="http://www.karendecoster.com/" target="_blank">her
website</a><http:>, along with <a href="http://www.karendecoster.com/blog.html" target="_blank">her
blog</a>.</http:></font>
Copyright © 2003 Karen De Coster</font>