Sharp Tongue When Rush-ing to Judgment

When referring to the NFL, Drew Sharp called it a “football freak show”. In his column Keeping Score in USA Today’s Monday October 12, 2009 edition (article titled “Rush decision matter of pride and prejudice”), Mr. Sharp chose those words to describe a league that is currently at the pinnacle of success.

Now if you are to take those words on their own apart from the whole of his message, you might wonder what he is talking about. Without knowing Mr. Sharp, what he does for a living, what he looks like or what his political leanings are, you may be offended by this statement. Is he talking about the players? Maybe he is referring to the owners? Possibly the fans? Whatever the case, using those words to describe anything is scathing when you consider the multitude of words that could be used. You would expect such words would provoke a response from the offended party or people that support the league.

Words can be divisive and incendiary when tied to race. For example, if these words were uttered by a white reporter talking about professional football players, people would naturally draw conclusions related to race even if the report was not about race. This is why I find Mr. Sharp’s article to be a fascinating study of cultural perception’s, the right of an individual to share his or her viewpoint, and (more importantly) deciding who among us can participate in public discourse without backlash or retribution from others.

Let me begin by clearing up some things…Drew Sharp is an accomplished sports writer for The Detroit Free Press. His words in which I made reference to were from an article in USA Today. The article was about whether or not the NFL should allow conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh to purchase, or be part of a group that purchases, an NFL franchise. The context in which he uttered the phrase “football freak show” was in reference to Rush’s “quest to buy the St. Louis Rams” and how this is just another in a series of questionable decisions that the NFL has made. Now that you know some of the facts, his statement does not seem as scathing as you may have first thought. Depending on your personal view of Limbaugh or the NFL it may seem appropriate and not scathing at all.

But if taken even a little bit out of context, having been uttered by a controversial public figure, and then further labeled on a national level by the media as wrong or inappropriate, then all of the sudden a formal apology is required! This is why I find it curious that so many, including the man who wrote this article, are so quick to say that the NFL should not allow Rush in their exclusive club. The whole point of analyzing Mr. Sharp’s words is to point out how easily words can be distorted if placed in the wrong context. This is something that happens on a daily basis with Rush simply because he is such a polarizing figure. But should he be rejected on the basis of being controversial? If that is the case, then Mr. Sharp would surely not have been afforded as many opportunities in his field of work as he has to this point in his career.

Certainly, Rush Limbaugh takes jabs, instigates, and provokes people by what he says. But that is what he does for a living. You can turn on Comedy Central and find certain stand-up comedians which shall remain nameless (I don’t want to offend anyone and be banned from making any future transactions) making nasty racial remarks every day. Yet you never hear any such people making national news for those remarks because it is simply comedic rhetoric that is ‘entertaining’ and, therefore, protected from criticism because it is an art form. Yet Rush amazingly is not allowed that same courtesy.

Case in point: the suggestion based on past remarks that Rush is a racist. Let’s evaluate that argument for a moment. Many of his critics claim that Rush has made racists remarks over and over again. But every statement that they use to prove this theory fall short of meeting the criteria for being a racist. Though his article is not a commentary on why Rush is a racist, Mr. Sharp seems to be telling his audience that this is something that is just understood by many to be true. He refers to Rush as “someone whose occupational practice is making people feel more comfortable within their own prejudices”. He claims that Rush has said that slavery “has its merits” even though critics of his cannot find any such statements to have ever been uttered by Rush. The only argument that Mr. Sharp makes in regards to Rush having a racial bias of any kind is the now infamous Donovan McNabb controversy.

For those who may not remember, Rush was a football analyst for ESPN in 2003. On a show called Sunday NFL Countdown Rush had his own segment called the Rush Challenge. In this segment, Rush “challenged” the validity of Donovan McNabb as a top quarterback in the NFL. The statement that Rush made in relation to race that many thought was inappropriate was, “…I think that the media is desirous that a black quarterback do well”. Now if you look at the true context of his statement (with no pre-conceived notions about Rush) he was trying to point out that the media was focusing more on his race then simply his ability as a quarterback. To prove that he was not showing racial bias, Rush tried to make a case to the panel on that segment that the media attention placed on McNabb was taking away from what the (Philadelphia Eagles) defense had accomplished. So the only thing that I can see that Rush is guilty of is actually having the courage to point out (in his opinion) that the media does tend to focus on some people more than others because of their race; and in this case, their race and the position that they play on a football team.

Now some may say that he was stupid to say that. Others would say it’s inflammatory to bring up race in the way that he did when you are suppose to be talking about football. Still others would say he did this on purpose just to “stir the pot” and draw more attention to his show. All of those statements may be valid. But it does not change the fact that you are not a racist simply because you bring up the issue of race. A big part of what Rush Limbaugh does as a political commentator is to draw attention to what the mainstream media is doing at that moment in time. Now if you want to say that Rush has a bias towards the mainstream media, I don’t think you would find anyone arguing that point.

But should you deny someone their right to make a business transaction because they are controversial? Quite frankly, that’s un-American. As for Drew Sharp, it is just fine to suggest as a matter of opinion that Rush Limbaugh should not be accepted into the NFL owners club. Actually, in all fairness, Drew Sharp was harder on the NFL than he was on Limbaugh! I doubt that Mr. Sharp will ever have to endure the type of criticism that Limbaugh did over discussing Donovan McNabb. But just imagine if the phrase “football freak show” was used to describe the NFL. If taken out of context and uttered by a “controversial figure”, followed by placing it on every newswire in North America, we could have yet another crisis to talk about.

Tale of Desperation (in America)

Being a fan of animated films (mostly Pixar but am open to others) and wanting to please my dear children, we decided to venture out and see another…wait for it…animated film. In a year that was full of outstanding feature animations, this one was somewhat of an also-ran. That being said, The Tale of
Despereaux was not a complete disappointment. Though the story attempted to run in a dozen different directions at times (one critic referred to the script as "messy and unfocused"), it was an enchanting film with a central character that I appreciate—an unlikely hero with tremendous courage.

Though there were many traditionally embraced themes throughout, a couple of them jumped off the screen. These are two recurring themes that all of humanity has crossed paths with over and over again, but are especially prevalent in our current culture. Two seemingly unrelated, emotion-driven pursuits of our consciousness…or maybe they are related. The first is the need for heroes and the seeking-out of those whom inspire us or look to for hope. The second: fear and how we deal with it in our everyday lives.

Certainly they don't seem connected in any way. Maybe they are not. But one seems to unwittingly follow the other. Never has that been more evident than what I have seen unfold the last 12+ months in our great country. In fact, I would go as far as to say I don't think you can separate the two!! Let's go back to the story to see…

Early on in the film, the narrator was suggesting that "a hero seems to appear when we need them the most" (I'm paraphrasing for those of you whom have a tendency to google everything to demonstrate your superior knowledge of all subjects known to mankind). Our unassuming hero was little Despereaux. He was an undersized mouse with a big heart that embraced chivalry, honor, and commitment to name a few qualities. He never fit in back home since these were not common rodent attributes. Eventually, Despereaux
was banished from his village for demonstrating unusual courage and bravery. For Despereaux
violated the main tenet necessary to be a mouse: to cower and be afraid! Since he did not embrace fear he had to go!

Today in America, we are being taught to embrace fear in a similar fashion with our imperiled financial institutions, auto industry left in shambles, and housing market that has made the word "foreclosure" an everyday part of our lexicon. We seem to be embracing fear--not unlike Despereaux's village—over the state of our economy. And when fear becomes a catalyst to act upon the circumstances that surround us, we tend to look outward for help; relief; or simply rescue. Fear's enemy is courage.

Fear also triggers a mechanism that we are all too familiar with known as "fight or flight". That leaves us with two outcomes when dealing with fear. We can stand and fight and face our fear, which is exercising courage. We can also take the path of "flight", or running away from our fear. By taking the latter path your fear remains to be addressed at a later time. Or maybe rather than addressing it we find ourselves a substitute, or helper, to fight our fear for us. This is the impetus which causes us to pursue the other thing—the need for a hero to arrive in order to help us through, or just simply rescue us!

Since late in 2007, we saw the dark clouds of a bad economy coming together and hovering over us. The floodgates opened in October of 2008 when the market crashed, followed by the lending market, housing market, automobile market, etc. Our fear began to build which lead to doubts. Nightly news soundbites would remind us of just how bad things were getting. Then comparisons to The Great Depression began. Fear begets fear. Americans in their suffering began to blame our former president, and yet strangely embrace their fear of the economy. They began to look for a hero. Someone whom could alleviate or conquer that fear of a broken economy.

So we had identified the problem: a crumbling economy. Fear caused us in flight to find the fall guy for our problem: our former president. Now we have completed the "fear cycle" by electing a hero: our current president. Someone we can feel good about again! Someone whom will stand with us in this fight! Someone whom can provide us shelter from the economic storm! Now before you jump to conclusions about my analogy, this is not about demeaning our current president in anyway. Nor is it an attempt to defend our former president (although he was not the one taking 100 million dollar salary after the country had bailed them out like some of those "financial leaders").

No, this is about The American Public at large and how it chooses to deal with fear in the face of crisis. And in our collective fear, choosing to focus on politicians rather than on ourselves. We decided that we needed a hero rather than make greedy Wall Street tycoons accountable. We decided that we needed someone to give us hope rather than lean on the hope of our friends, family, and personal faith. We listened to a politician tell us he will strengthen our communities rather than seeing what we can do to help our neighbor get through the crisis until the storm passes.

I'm not saying our country should have elected the other guy. Or that we did not elect the one that deserved it. All I am saying is that in fear we made our collective decision to nominate a hero. My concern is that as America throughout history has had a long line of political failures to serve as examples that we should not go down that path again of hero worship. But rather, fight fear with courage and look inward. Become more self-sufficient without placing blame as we ride out the storm. We blame banks for not keeping their financial house in order, which we should. But many among us live beyond our means maxing-out every credit card that we can get our hands on. We act so righteously indignant when a CEO flies his personal jet to Washington to beg for money that they don't have to keep their business afloat, as we should. But do we attempt to carve the excess from our lives until things improve? I'm not speaking to those who are truly suffering because the economic chaos; the ones whom have lost jobs to businesses closing, the ones whom are close to retirement and lost much of their nest egg in the market crash. These people have a right to be angry and feel betrayed.

The answer is to face our fear with courage. Do our part to help others in their time of need. Do your best to become self-sufficient and not depend on revolving credit. And instead of embracing a "hero" in Washington, embrace your family, friends, and faith. That is, just like Despereaux, what a real hero looks like!