Skip to comments.Klavan: Sterling Shouldn't Be Punished At All
Posted on 05/04/2014 9:48:54 PM PDT by Nachum
Personally? I think racism true racism: the devaluation of people because of their skin color or bloodlines is an intellectual nonsense and a moral transgression.
The arguments about dysfunction in minority communities won't wash, and neither will any of the half-baked genetic claptrap. Read Zola or Dickens and youll see that the pathologies of industrial poverty are no different in todays inner cities than they were in the slums of the past. Read the racist tracts from those days and youll find the same hateful pseudo-scientific theorizing about the Irish and the Jews that is now sometimes turned against blacks or Mexicans. With leftists constantly mouthing charges of racism to silence the opponents of their destructive policies, its easy for real racists to convince themselves theyve got the contrarian inside track on some naughty, censored truth. Sorry, its all a bunch of old trash.
As for the morals of it: man was made in Gods image. Thats why the command to love your neighbor is like unto the command to love God. To denigrate someone for the nature of his creation is to spit in Gods eye never a smart move, trust me. Of course, if you dont believe the above premises, then feel free to hate anyone for any reason you like. Knock yourself out.
Having said all this, I should also say that I have several friends who are avowedly racist. They sincerely believe that some races are genetically and morally inferior to others.
Every now and then, a person who knows me well enough to understand that I take this whole love-your-neighbor business seriously in my own hilarious way, asks me why I tolerate these views in my friends. But the answer is simple. I love my friends; they advocate
(Excerpt) Read more at truthrevolt.org ...
The NBA is a business. Should the other owners lose money to protect an idiot?
Yep, freedom of association means the NBA has the right to use its constitution and bylaws to dissociate from the guy.
Personally I’m sick to death of all this finger wagging.
I don’t know why he wants to be an owner. He must be the most unsuccessful owner in any sport. He’s the longest-term owner in the NBA and his team has only gone to the playoffs 7 times in 33 years, and have never won a playoff series until this year. (And they barely won the series, even with the NBA refs carrying them on their back)
They aren’t losing money
He’s been an idiot for a long time though
He has made an incredible amount of money owning the team, and now has two of the NBA’s top players and a legitimate chance to win. (Almost all the teams winning in the first round went to seven games this year.)
But living with this level of notoriety? I don’t know if that’s what he’d like, other than being stripped of his team could sting worse.
The accussed (by the left wing media) spoke in private. He was not on a soap box in a busy downtown intersection. They should stand with him over his right to privacy and freedom of thought. If they don't, the left wing media will come after them with a new variation tailored to pick each of them off one at a time.
If you say something like that to your gold-digging, manipulative, ambitious mistress ("assistant") you might as well be screaming into a megaphone on television.
Did you watch their first round series? They didn't play very well, and they barely beat an opponent that wasn't playing very well. They were consistently allowed to football tackle the other team's best player and were allowed to get away with it.
He runs the Clippers as a business, not as a sports team. He bought the organization for very little, has invested next to nothing in it - paying among the lowest salaries in the league - and now has an entity that is reported to be worth north of half a billion dollars. While he might not be successful in terms of titles, he has been very successful in terms of making money. So I guess it’s just what the definition of success means.
Blake Griffin isn’t a top player. He isn’t even a basketball player. He’s a soccer player who wondered onto the wrong pitch.
His investment went up, but not because of his efforts. The value of the Clippers went up because the value of the league went up, and it's in a major market.
First they came for the idiots . . . . and that's when I lost my chance to speak up.
The whole thing stinks
Set up by vindicative girlfriend in private
Maybe a fine and some consternation
Plenty folks have said or done far worse and nothing......in professional sports
That AmWay Christian is next prolly
Hell....give the league to the blacks.....but make them run it.....an experiment
BTW....why do Jews own 65% of all NBA franchises.....everyone knows they can't play basketball
Sterling’s real punishment is his own. He’s not a man who has known any real joy in his life by treating those around him decently.
I don't know if that misspelling was intentional, but it certainly fits the bill.
How great did Durant look in the first round of a series that OKC barely won? I’m not one to put Griffin in that top-five category, but he’s got to be in the top 15.
Oh, and BTW, Klavan seems to be saying here that anyone who believes all talents are not equally distributed among the races is a vile racist.
Oh, the only reason I read this is because I thought it was Cliff, the Mailman from Cheers.
He and Kramer are among the few whose comments would make any sense
Well, they should, but this spineless bunch certainly won't.
If they don't, the left wing media will come after them with a new variation tailored to pick each of them off one at a time.
How do I know this? Spike Lee has been making racist statements for twenty years. Nobody in the chattering class says anything about him. He is also a season ticket holder for Knicks games. All the right people think Spike is just a wonderful character.
And Jay-Z showed up at a Nets game wearing a racist medallion attributed to some group called the 5 percenters, or something like that, who hate white people. Although he's sold his interest in the Nets, as a sports agent, he still deals with the league. Nobody (nobody meaning all the libs dumping on Sterling) has remarked on Jay-Z's racist jewelry.
They're all stinking hypocrites. The charges of racism (obviously the worst evil in the world according the libs) only goes in one direction...towards whites.
Like many owners of sports teams, he loves the cachet of being an owner and flaunting his wealth. It’s an ego thing.
?????? I'm not a Clippers fan, but seriously pal?
I proffered that suggestion that it was mighty strange that the same person, Magic Johnson, involved in the personal dispute between Sterling and his skank, wants to own the Clippers. I was called a conspiratorialist by a number of people on this forum. Maybe I am, but it's still awful strange and convenient.
I like Klavan, but he wants to have it both ways. The thought that the world’s races might not be perfectly equal is anathema to many people ....even many people who are hard-headed realists in other matters.
Yeah, I generally like Klavan, but I think he’s incredibly off-base in this entire article.
“He must be the most unsuccessful owner in any sport”
He paid 12 million for the team in the early 80’s...he should be able to sell it for anywhere from 500 million to a billion. Unsuccessful? Laughing all the way to the bank.
Doesn’t matter, his indiscretion hurt the brand, hence his business partners want to force him out.
'True racism' 'because of the color of their skin'
This is a false premise. Very few people actually 'devalue' anyone base on 'skin color'. I am sure there are some but most people base opinions on demonstrable behaviors, habits and experiences. Today many people will argue it is culture not race but whatever you call it it just so happens that the 'culture' is largely black as in the case say of unwed mothers or disproportional violent criminality(especially in the 14-35 age group)they are overwhelmingly black. That is not the same as having an opinion based 'solely on just skin color' yet many people including 'conservatives will say just that. As for devaluing, not sure what that means exactly but I can tell you I certainly wouldn't want to emulate said behaviors that are largely black. Just as I have no desire to have a 'culture' like most/many blacks.
And yet if a group of business men decided that having a bus stop near their stores was making it too easy for inner-city blacks to come to their area and have negative impacts on their businesses, and worked with the mayor to have the bus stop removed and buses bypass their area, would that be a valid exercise of "freedom of association"?
It would be within their legal right to associated in order to petition their government, sure. But it is understandable that the government probably shouldn’t bend to their wishes and that they’d probably suffer a social and commercial backlash if such petitioning were to reach the public.
It's so rare to hear a voice in the media that doesn't toe the line. For starters, what he said wasn't racist (attributing the characteristics of a percentage of a population to the whole group), it was ethnocentric. It was freedom of speech.
Will it now be open season on all white owners in the NBA? Most didn't get their billions by being perfect, but they did make choices that made them money. Will it become very difficult to find non-black owneers willing to buy in in the future? What happens when billionaires with millions to spend on salaries move on to other toys instead of NBA teams? Can we start having some fun complaining to advertisers that we're uncomfortable buying their products when they support a league that restricts freedom of speech?
Summary....I'm wondering if down the road this quick action won't be a lose-lose for everyone involved with the NBA.
I was thinking more of a very discrete conversation involving "you want some campaign contributions from us for November? Re-route this bus line so it no longer stops here". No mention of why.
About "social and commercial backlash": what if most of their regular shoppers were in favor if not making it easy for inner-city people to come to the area? The Left's whole mechanism of enforcing obedience depends upon the people who buy stuff willingly participating in boycotts. What happens on the day that public sentiment shifts? What happens if people get tired of having to look out of "Knockout Gamesters" in their areas?
Also, keep in mind that Sterling's conversation was all about HIM wanting to exercise HIS freedom of association.
Exactly. He appears to operate the team as a business. He doesn't care if they win, he cares about maximizing return on investment. If that means not spending too much for players, then that's his business decision.
Plenty of affluent neighborhoods have quietly discouraged public transportation on some level for just that level.
But I’m not sure where you’re going with your argument. So if they didn’t express any racist motivations and it didn’t get out and the public would have backed them even if they had and it had?
Basically you’re saying, what if all the circumstances were completely different from this case?
Sterling needed some chastisement in today’s highly charged society. I would have given him one or two years suspension where he could not attend games or interact with the team and a 2 million dollar fine to be deposited to black charities and race hustlers, hucksters etc you know the drill
This 2 mil in blood money would have calmed the waters
****************** Another lesson in liberal overkill in the name of anti-racism and political correctness. Blame the new NBA commissioner...a real jackass. Sterling should stand his ground and sue sue sue with the best lawyers around
Let's say a group of businessmen had arranged to change public transportation routes to exclude inner-city residents from coming to their area.
Let's say it wasn't general knowledge, but you happened to find out about it.
In that circumstance, would YOU accept it as "their right to free association", or would you censure them over it?
You’re completely missing the point. Their right to free association is in petitioning the government together. If a whole town agrees to stay off the public transportation grid as part of their choice to freely associate only with themselves, that may be a little odd, but within their purview.
To selectively only allow in public transport from whiter and more affluent areas, but not poor, black, high-crime areas is somewhat different. It is a form of ‘redlining’, and something that we socially, if not legally, don’t approve of—at least to the level of public expression.
Even still, that’s not the same as Sterling’s antebellum desire for his paramour not to be seen publicly with black men. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that a majority black league of players, its other owners, and its sponsors doesn’t want to be associated with such an owner.
The NBA owners did not "petition the government together". They simply acted in their own interests, based upon their evaluation of possible blowback from sponsors.
To selectively only allow in public transport from whiter and more affluent areas, but not poor, black, high-crime areas is somewhat different. It is a form of redlining, and something that we socially, if not legally, dont approve ofat least to the level of public expression.
So only certain forms of "free association" are acceptable to you. Only forms that are "socially acceptable". And my point is, what happens if the standards of "social acceptability" change, to the point where redlining becomes something that the majority is no longer bothered by? Will you accept the new standard of social acceptability?
So you think radical leftwing bleeding hearts make up a large portion of the fans? Really.
First, I was in that instance, I would have thought obviously, referring to your example—not the NBA owners.
Second, I wasn’t commenting on my take on your hypotheticals at all—simply describing what they entailed.
The NBA has the youngest audience, with 45 percent of its viewers under 35. It also has the highest share of black viewers, at 45 percentthree times higher than the NFL or NCAA basketball.What business could survive alienating 45% of their customers?
Except by alienating 55%???