Now can we get back to talking about getting the economy moving? I’m thinking that’s where Obama’s going next – after he fixes the unequal pay problem – defeats those who at war against women – stops homophobia – puts Vlad in his place – stops the oceans from rising – gives amnesty to illegal aliens, – and other good stuff. 🙂
Conservatives who come to the defense of Sterling are making a mistake that could be avoided by doing a little research. After Neo’s first post on this sordid affair, I noted that many NBA fans have long known that Sterling is a half-crazy racist. John Hinderaker focuses on the half-crazy part, but dismisses the racist part. John’s a baseball fan, but he doesn’t follow the NBA. If he did, he’d know more about Sterling’s reputation, and I’d bet he’d have written something different. Here’s a link to an article that lists some of Sterling’s best-known half-crazy racist remarks. They all have a certain flavor that John has mistakenly attributed to dementia. Sterling’s always been that way. http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212
I’m as disgusted as anybody by the race hustlers attaching themselves to this affair, but I think it’s quite easy to dismiss them and still see that Sterling is a problem for the NBA. Similarly, it’s easy to accept the premise that the race hustlers have debased the charge of racism to near meaninglessness, yet still acknowledge that Sterling is a half-crazy racist. This telephone recording is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. NBA players, most NBA fans, and maybe some NBA owners are sick of Sterling and want to see something like a suspension as punsihment. Consevatives who see this as just another effort by the race hustlers to ruin a man for a fictional thought crime are misreading the situation.
Cornflour:
Do you see Hinderaker as defending Sterling? I don’t.
Neo,
John Hinderaker quickly dismisses charges of racism:
“The political motive to make Donald Sterling the poster boy for 21st century racism is obvious, but is he actually a racist? I have never met the man, but it doesn’t seem probable.”
I obviously think the dismissal was too quick, and yes, that it constitutes a defense of Sterling.
Who cares?
One guy does not equal “Society” or “The Nation as a Whole.”
Really, Cornflour, who cares? this is one of those “Oh, look — a squirrel!” moments. Republicans aren’t defending the guy just because they think it’s ridiculous to chase every squirrel the Leftists point out.
Throw a cow in the water, and the piranas go into their eating frenzy. That’s how I feel about most subjects covered by the MSM.
Who cares if Sterling is a racist or not? I don’t care.
BTW, Ophra W. is the new spokeperson for Starbucks. There’s money to be made in being a racist. Sterling should copy Ophra and get richer than he is today. But what will he do will with all that money? Buy another “colored” crazy bitch-whore for his mistress?
Cornflour:
I don’t see his article as a defense of Sterling in general.
He is skeptical about one point only: whether Sterling is a racist, given the evidence in the tape itself, because one could come up with other reasons for the picture presented in the tape (mostly having to do with jealously connected with the GF). He certainly isn’t defending Sterling’s behavior in general, neither his affair, nor his point of view, nor even his mental state (says he might be demented).
Neo,
Yes, John Hinderaker’s dismissal of accusations of racism are based on his reading of the taped telephone conversation. As I said, that ignores lots of other evidence, so I think it’s misguided and a lttle lazy, which is uncharacteristic of him.
Beverly,
I don’t want to see you or anybody else chasing squirrels at the behest of the race baiters. You ask “who cares” about Sterling’s racism? As I said, NBA players, most NBA fans, and maybe some NBA owners. That’s a lot of people. If you’re not one of them, then fine with me. Just don’t defend Sterling or tell those who care that they shouldn’t.
You can’t make this stuff up it is so nutty and goofy.
I think the estranged wife should have paid the young lady an extra million just to go away. I don’t pay attention to basketball and have never heard of these folks but here they are. A crazy 80 year old goat having a private conversation with his 31 year old ex girlfriend saying really racist stuff has upset a whole lot of folks because they are surprised he is this much of a racist when it comes to his ex girlfriend’s choice of friends.
This has lots of beauty and the beast, money, sex, racial tension, betrayal and a surprise disclosure of the beast’s true inner, opinion about the race of the majority of the tall, young men on his own NBA team.
And the topping on the cake, the billionaire queen is going after the pretty young beauty to recover the goodies the crazy old king bequeathed upon her and young beauty appears to be getting her revenge.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Old Texan
I don’t think most people would go to the extent of making this stuff up, because it’s so boring. What would be the point?
I don’t think pointing out that this is weak beer or thin gruel or whatever the metaphor is amounts to defending the guy.
Making the case that the race hustlers are all over this because it’s the best they have is not defending the guy. It’s pointing out the race hustlers are getting desperate for lack of material.
Hence, I suppose, the recent invention of “microaggression”.
There is a deep mental illness on the leftist cable media and the handful of people still watching their channels. This event is so inconsequential it merited, maybe, a partial day’s worth of coverage, and yet CNN and MSNBC are covering it every 5 minutes or so. No one should care about Sterling’s opinions, and I really do suspect that almost no one does care about Sterling’s opinions. It affects no one– and how do I know this- because, as Cornflour points out, Sterling’s opinions have apparently been well known to those who actually do care, which is, apparently, almost no one.
The leftist cable media think they have latched onto a major political and electoral story to fire up the base this November, but all they have really done is lock in their dwindling numbers of fewers who spend their days gnashing their teeth and seething at the injustice of racism in America, none of whom were ever going not vote for Democrats.
Bill O’Reiily’s talking points memo on the topic was excellent.
It weird how two similar sounding words get transposed between my brain and my fingers. That should have been “viewers” rather than “fewers”.
A person can have that much money and still be a tool of his social circle, friends, mistress, and this government’s race industry.
That’s hilarious on so many levels.
As Beverly said, who cares? People who pay attention to this sort of stuff probably don’t have anything better to do than watch daytime TV.
If you live with a feminist, date a feminist, you will find that your life is subjected to the feminists…
ie. 100 hours of taped conversations..
what for?
for the divorce/blackmail/revenge/hate-males/ etc
duh…
there USED to be a time when Sterline would be a great example of what not to be…
but what your going to find, is that the result will be worse than the previous situation as the most racist people, like the most communist or the antisemetic wishing for ovens… all went underground and became MORE powerful in the dark than they are in the light…
how long before all white men are nazis who hate blacks? (the nazi did not hate black, i posted a link to a very famous book by an african SS soldier who loved being part of the ‘system’)
look…
its REAL simple..
we are a totalitarian state, and your not allowed to think waht you want, do what you want, eat what you want, and so on.
welcome tovarish to the hell i promised you 10 years ago, that you chastised me for being so negative.
being realizstic, is not negative
the soviet communists win with lots of opposition, what do you think they do without any?
i would invest in ovens…
you know…
the crematoria for the white guys their women, and later, their children…
the big question is whether to throw them in the oven alive, like last century, or just use the cremetoria from all the oldsters dying out and the young females finding out they are alone in a world that dont want them
but i hear they love yap yap dogs better than children, so its all good… they exterminate their family, and their defenders gone, then waht?
forced sterilization and one child policy for oppressors only?
Cornflour makes a good point, IMO. Apparently Sterling was well-known for this kind of beyond-the-pale commentary.
Which means that everyone in his general orbit already knew this about him: the Clippers players, probably most of the NBA in general, his wife, his “girlfriend,” and most of all, the NAACP powers-that-be who were ready to give him “a lifetime achievement award!”
Everyone was perfectly happy to take this sad, creepy old man’s money, while at the same time likely fully aware of his transgressions. But these same folks are now “outraged” and deeply offended now that his sentiments have become public. Of course Al Sharpton will also materialize on cue, that’s to be expected.
Follow the money, as the saying goes.
I don’t think anyone involved in this strange situation looks very good, and of course that includes our illustrious commander in chief, who as usual took the opportunity to weigh in (really?!?) to make “a political point,” as Hinderaker so aptly put it.
I wonder where Cornflour is coming from? Why is he so intent making an issue of the “private” comments of an old man and turning them into another national issue over race?
Cornflour repeats the oft heard charge, in hindsight, that NBA fans, (really, NBA fans?) knew all along that Sterling was a racist.
Well, a lot of people who benefitted through his check book were either ignorant, or chose to overlook, his attitudes and alleged actions until the public brouhaha. . This includes his half-black girl friend. It also includes the NAACP which gave him awards in the past and had announced plans for another. I suppose his check book again spoke louder than his alleged prejudices.
It is lamentable when someone harbors negative attitudes toward another race, ethnicity or religion. It happens in fact on both sides of any divide. On the other hand, it seems to me that personal attitudes are actually no one’s business if the “bigot” does not act on the prejudice.
This Conservative, does not defend Sterling. His personal attitudes are of no real interest to me. I do find it lamentable when thoughts expressed in private are put into the public arena out of spite or, as in this case perhaps, to gain some advantage in a litigation. She is involved in a law suit with Sterling’s wife after all.
Cornflour, I am incensed at the reaction of the President of the United States, the Media, and the members of the Race Industry to a private episode that is really no one’s business, and morally, and perhaps legally, should never have been in the public arena at all. I am incensed that you and others seize on this to lecture the country on our supposed shortcomings. Fie!
It bothers me that Sterling’s critics are saying that illegally taping and publicizing the interchange between Sterling and his woman without his knowledge or permission is quite all right because of the greater good of exposing him. That is where we are in America now. Illegal activity that advances the accepted agenda is a positive thing.
It’s not necessary to defend a person that should have the money to defend themselves.
It is necessary to destroy the hate profiteers and the racist profiteers that may money off of the suffering they cause.
The question is whether Corn here is one of those, along with the ethanol starvation campaign.
its interesting that the ball player involved said the feminist girlfriend played “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo”
the whole point here is to reward the citizens turning in other citizens for turning them in..
dont you remember the scene in white knights? where barishnikov ended up in the ballet class of a set of young girls?
dont you guys remember a whole bunch of stuff that is related and would clue you in?
In Obamaca, under the Left’s Regime, you will be made to care. Remember what Michele said in 08.
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Those that don’t want to care about the rich white guy, those who want to live their lives without attacking or defending the rich white guy… Will Be Forced To.
Rule of Thumb #5 about Leftism: The louder they yell, the bigger the lie they are perpetrating.
Rule of Thumb #6 about Leftism: The bigger the lie they are perpetrating the closer to the political heart of Leftism the threat lies.
In this one, a pathetic and degenerate dementia zillionaire’s relationship with a pathetic 20 something who wants a few millions of the zillions and has basically prostituted herself to got it – that has to stand for all of America being racist all over the place.
The danger is that should America not be racist, Leftism would shrivel to nothing.
On Character, Public and Private
By Jonah Goldberg
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
April 28, 2014 5:15 PM
I hold no brief for Donald Sterling. My storehouse of sympathy runs bare long before I get to billionaire bigots and loudmouths. But it’s worth pondering the fact that Sterling’s loudmouthery was in a private conversation (unlike, say, Jesse Jackson’s “hymietown” remark which was made to a black reporter he just assumed he could speak freely to without being exposed). Mel Gibson’s damning remarks were made during a drunken rant. The Reverend Billy Graham, pretty much a moral hero and a great champion of religious tolerance in public life, said some awful things about Jews in a recorded conversation with Richard Nixon. Anthony Weiner, neither a hero nor a champion of much other than his own interests, never said anything bigoted, but he sent lewd pictures of himself to young women who were not his wife. Tiger Woods . . . well, you remember all that.
I’m reminded of a wonderful op-ed the (wonderful) late Leonard Garment wrote in 1999 as then-new transcripts of Richard Nixon’s taped conversations were being released. Garment recounted how Nixon appointed numerous Jews in his administration and then concluded:
[BEGIN GARMENT]
Thus we must face the Nixon Paradox. His anti-Semitic outbursts in the private conversations found virtually no correspondence in his speech or actions outside those explosions.
At this point in our politics we should find this juxtaposition less implausible than we once might have. President Clinton was impeached, partly for reasons having to do with the administration of justice, but largely because of his private actions. Yet the country, with unmistakable clarity, declared that his private failings were not to determine our judgment of his public character.
Those who consider this verdict reasonable should consider how much more forcefully its logic applies to the private conversations of public persons. The best expression I have found of this logic comes from Milan Kundera, the Czech novelist whose country under Communism learned some lessons about the consequences of trampling the distinction between public and private.
”In private,” Mr. Kundera wrote in an essay, ”a person says all sorts of things, slurs friends, uses coarse language . . . makes a companion laugh by shocking him with outrageous talk, floats heretical ideas he’d never admit in public.”
Mr. Kundera argues that this difference is not a mere curiosity but a fundamental fact: ”That we act different in private than in public is everyone’s most conspicuous experience, it is the very ground of the life of the individual. Yet curiously this obvious fact remains unconscious, unacknowledged . . . ”
Mr. Kundera worries about this obliviousness, as we should, because an understanding of the distinction between public and private speech is indispensable to a decent politics – one built upon respect for individual privacy, a fundamental ingredient of freedom. What is on the Nixon tapes is undeniably ugly. It is for us to decide, however, what effect this private talk should have on our evaluation of Nixon’s public life.
[END GARMENT]
It says something about Sterling that you cannot offer the same defense of him. There is far more congruity between the public and private Sterlings than the public and private Nixons. Similarly, it’s interesting and even significant to note that Lyndon Johnson said some terrible things about blacks, but they hardly have any weight on the scales when put alongside his efforts to pass the Civil Rights Act.
One last point. A common expression goes something like “character is what you do when no one is watching,” though I always preferred “character is what you do when only God is watching.” Neither aphorism is entirely fitting since all of these instances involved at least one other person. But it’s worth noting and pondering the fact that in an era of ubiquitous cell-phone cameras, recording devices, big data trawling, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter etc. the realm of what is truly private is shrinking by the hour and will likely continue to shrink in one way or another for the rest of our lives. Character may remain what we do when we think no one is watching – or listening or taking notes – but the likelihood no one is watching is increasingly remote. What that means for decent politics is anyone’s guess.
This is a non-issue. Even if the guy is a lucid, full-on racist and is financially ruined as a result, nobody’s life is going to be made better.
The strongest case is that, for those who care, they will have the moral satisfaction of having defeated ONE racist, and will be able to watch their entertainment with a clear conscience.
…and their standard of living will erode just the same under the leftist jackboot.
Resistance is futile…
(though the Borg was a feminist outcome (everyone equal, no gender, everyone works, all collective, no unpc speech, etc)… the last movie confirmed that it was just that)
cant wait to see how they spin the cheerleading is sports thing that is also hitting the news (they are tryhing to bury it). they wont tell the story how under title IX the feminists classified cheerleading as a non sport so that there would not be enough women in sports in the schools and the mens teams had to go!
and i even explained why and the history of it on this blog, but can we put it together?
i said to read it… (but thats like wailing at a wall)
The Personal Is Political by Carol Hanisch
One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.
hose who believe that Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao, and Ho have the only and last “good word” on the subject and that women have nothing more to add will, of course, find these groups a waste of time.
Stiviano is a GOLD DIGGER (not like ruby keeler)
and this is just a way to keep the public from paying attention to the start of WWIV…
Much like Cornflour, I am going to dissent from the prevailing opinions on this blog about the Sterling imbroglio, including Neo’s. I agree with Cornflour that Hinderaker’s article appears to be at least a tepid defense of Sterling, without consideration of his past controversies.
Jim Geraghty addressed the Sterling imbroglio in his “Morning Jolt” more eloquently than I can muster. But it boils down to this: common decency compels us to denounce Sterling’s racist diatribe. We need to acknowledge this. Related issues (cf. wiretapping, “privacy” matters, the appropriateness of any NBA discipline -which has now been imposed-the explotation of the sordid affair by demogauges like Al Sharpton, etc.) are important and worthy of discussion and debate. But the fundamemtal conclusion that such vulgar and offensive behavior should be denounced, is must be realized and acknowledged. Anyone who has difficulty doing so really should take some time for personal reflection, in my opinion.
What I see from the comments on this, and other conservative blogs, provides a succinct if incomplete illustration of why conservatives/libertarians have such difficulty reaching out to African Americans. While outright defenses of Sterling are, mercifully, rare, I have seen a plethora of frustrated comments on how stupid this whole saga is, how it does not deserve significant media attention, how it is private matter, etc. However, the reality is, Sterling diatribe lS a major issue to a large portion of the population, particularly amongst blacks. Is this partly due to the mefia uproar, the tail wagging the dog? Of course. But not entirely. One does not have to agree; but one should acknowledge this reality and respect it.
To be clear: I am not saying one has to agree that the Sterling saga is important or that it reflects wider issues of racism in America. But if the right is ever going to gain any traction or even understanding amongst significant portion of African Americans, blithely dismissing issues many of them find important and salient, as superfluous and stupid is not adviseable. I am not African American, but I think this rule applies in general. People do not like being told their viewpoints are of low priority and unworthy of simple respect.
On that note, Obama’s comment is worth referencing. Was it over the top in its conclusions? Yes. As basically everything he says about race is. But he discussed the matter. To many,that is a sign that he “cares”; that he understands and respects the fact that this is an important issue to many people. The predictable outrage amongst the right (and by the way, content aside, his brief comment was hardly a significant distraction from, foreign policy) about him even commenting (again, the content of his comment aside), underscores the fundamental disconnect so many conservatives (polticians, pundits, activits, etc.) with the largely apolitical “muddled middle”, or “low information voters”. These people, of any race, want to feel like politicians understand and care about them and their concerns. I don’t think Obama really does, but he is highly adept at portraying he does. This remains a really weak area for Republicans/conservatives. Sadly, the Sterling imbroglio demonstrates this weakness again.
Feel free to call me a concern troll, if you want.
Ackler:
My main focus when writing about the Sterling flap has been the illegal wiretap angle. I am very concerned about the probable violation of wiretapping laws, and the fact that this doesn’t seem to be an issue for people bent on ferreting out racism thoughtcrime. This is very troubling in terms of civil liberties, and should be to everyone but is not.
And in terms of African-American priorities and sympathies, I find it very interesting (as well as gratifying) that Kareem Abdul Jabbar seems to agree:
Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.
That Jabbar’s concern is shared by so few people in their eagerness to ferret out racism wherever it may lie is very very troubling. And yes, of course, the racemongers and Obama play to the crowds—that’s not news. But even if Republicans wrung their hands and moaned over how awful Sterling is (which many of them have been doing, by the way), it wouldn’t sway a single vote to their side.
Well spoken Neo, and hurray for Jabbar.
I repeat myself, but I find it hypocritical for the NAACP to suddenly discover that Sterling is a racist after they have cashed his checks for years.
I find it rather disgusting for Clipper players to suddenly decide that they have to protest against their employer after taking obscenely large paychecks from him over the years. (We are told that it was well known that he was a racist. Really?)
I find it nearly intolerable that the Sanctimonious condemn a man for privately expressing his thoughts, even if they are prejudiced, while ignoring the disgusting invasion of privacy that brought the transgression to their attention. It may be that this invasion of his privacy was not only intrusive, but illegal. Of course we no longer enforce laws if unlawful action is in pursuit of an approved outcome.
I need not dwell on the fact that the garbled recording of his statements could have well been edited to present the worst image.
Today, Rush Limbaugh hinted that there is evidence that in their zeal to get Sterling out of ownership, due to his purported dementia, and to prevent the franchise to passing to his family at his death, the NBA offices set the whole scheme in motion. The story is that they had the woman carry the tape recorder, and that they had her bait him into lashing out. Who knows? I do hope the old man has the energy and will to sue the hell out of a few people, so that some day we might learn the whole story.
Just well thought and written M J R!
Sterling is damaging the brand. The other owners do not want the problems to spread. But what if the loss of advertisement revenue and the proposed boycotts start hurting Sterling’s bottom line? Maybe fewer gifts to the NAACP? Maybe salary cuts for his team’s players?
If I were Sterling I would vow to make the Clippers more racially diverse. Blacks are overrepresented.
To be clear: I am not saying one has to agree that the Sterling saga is important or that it reflects wider issues of racism in America.
Ackler, in other words, you think we should simply be patronizing to those who do think this is a big deal?
Neo,
The issue over wiretapping is absolutely important and I am not saying otherwise. Stiviano’s behavior should be condemned and, if appropriate, prosecuted. TMZ should be investigated as well.
That said, the wiretapping does not change the utterly disgusting and impermissible content of Sterling’s tirade. To be clear: public or private, Sterling’s expressions were racist and indefensible. This remains true regardless of whether it was moral or legal to record and divulge these expressions. They have been divulged and moral decency compels condemnation.
Perhaps I am simply unschooled, but I do not buy into the rationalization that such language may not be genuine because it was said in private. I have said many stupid, regretful, misunderstood and embarrassing things in private, amongst close confidants; comments I would be mortified to have publicized. We all have. But I have never said anything remotely close to what I have read is on that tape. Granted, I am 40+ years younger than Sterling, but that’s still no excuse. The private nature of his comments do not excuse them or suggest that he didn’t really mean what he said, in my opinion.
To preempt any criticism that I am advocating thought police: of course Sterling (and anyone else) is free to say anything crass and racist, in public or private, without criminal repercussions. Absolutely. Perhaps, even without private punishment, such as imposed by the NBA today; that’s a matter of debate. But such commentary is NOT above moral condemnation. Not at all
As to whether GOP leaders and other conservatives “wringing their hands” over Sterling would swing any votes, probably not in this election. But, I do think it would create a ripple, with African Americans. I tread lightly here, as I am white and not attempting to speak for anyone. However, based on my limited experience (I used to work for a non-profit in a major urban, and heavily black, area), I doubt many African Americans pay any attention to Republicans or conservative viewpoints in general. There are exceptions (such as school-choice) and there are many complex reasons for this reality. But one big reason, which can be mitigated to some extent, is the perception that Republicans are entirely uninterested in what black voters think or what their priorities are. To repeat: I am NOT advocating any change in policy positions here; nor am I advocating the GOP should adopt the standing progressive line about the pervasiveness of white racism in America. All I am suggesting is an acknowledgement that the views and priorities of many black voters are worthy of consideration and discussion. This would be a small ripple, but a start.
Oldflyer,
I agree, hypocrisy is rampant in this imbroglio, particularly amongst the NAACP, an organization whose present leadership have tarnished and almost entirely discredited its revered status. However, that fact does not change the revolting content of Sterling’s diatribe. It is utterly inexcusable and indefensible and should be stated as such, categorically.
If the invasion of privacy is illegal, Stiviano should be prosecuted. She also deserves moral opprobrium. None of this, however, changes the fact that simple moral decency, in my opinion, compels us to denounce Sterling’s remarks without equivocation. This remains true, regardless of whether he expressed them in private or shouting them into a bullhorn midcourt at a Clippers game. Perhaps I am naive, but I remain flummoxed as to why this is so hard for so many conservatives to acknowledge.
Yancey,
I am arguing for conservatives/libertarians to acknowledge that large groups of Americans (of all races) have very different sociopolitical priorities than they do and that these alternative sets of priorities are worthy of recognition, consideration and discussion, even if conservatives disagree, and disagree strongly. If you consider that patronizing, fair enough. I consider it the beginning of dialogue.
How did we get to the point of voicing opposition and disapproval to sub sets of the American culture equals a crime of greatest proportion? A scary place we are in. This isn’t about the genetics of race or a persons heritage. It’s about capable Americans freely embracing destructive cultural mores and having the audacity to demand it be made taboo to point it out even in private thoughts and conversation.
But such commentary is NOT above moral condemnation. Not at all
That really depends on whether it is individuals condemning that based upon external or internal morality, or whether it’s really a bunch of people told to do so by the secret police or face the consequences.
You haven’t really proven that moral condemnation on this matter comes from individuals rather than tools of the Left.
They have been divulged and moral decency compels condemnation.
People really think this is better than obeying the secret police or else? Some moral authority we’ve never seen tells us we are compeled to do X, or else is better? As if that would ever be true.
The slaves think they are free, as usual.
“One does not have to agree; but one should acknowledge this reality and respect it.”
This is the like communist grocer putting up a sign that says Power to Labor. It doesn’t matter if he agrees with it, so long as he respects the totalitarian culture and respects the code of conduct.
The slaves think they are free.
Ackler does not seem certifiable as an individual with free will so far.
“Granted, I am 40+ years younger than Sterling, but that’s still no excuse. ”
Is that how it was on your recent college campus indoctrination program… people who didn’t agree had to toe the party and campus line, no matter the cost. They had to say and repeat the social slogans, or else. And everyone there believed that this was better than totalitarian police states, like the slaves that thought they were free.
“But such commentary is NOT above moral condemnation. Not at all”
The social authoritarians and their lackeys always think that a person’s conscience can be overriden by power, since after all their slaves think they are free. It’s not enough for them that they want to condemn the morality of others… they also want to demand the same compliance and Hussein Obedience factor out of the rest of us.
But this is better than a totalitarian police state, they claim.
There are some of the strangest “racist” comments on that tape. “I don’t care if you sleep with them, just don’t bring them to my games?” What kind of racist says that — isn’t that the opposite of what racism was supposedly really about — white men being afraid of their women sleeping with black men?
I see a mixture of a racism, jealousy, and dementia in that tape, proportions unknown. Clearly, he wants to keep his eye candy to himself, and he is afraid more that she will be seen with black men, than she has sex with them.
It reflects on his status as a rich man able to afford a mistress that his tootsie would rather be seen with younger, sexier men. Desperate sounding, you know?
“When you meet a gent paying all kinds of rent
For a flat that could flatten the Taj Mahal.
Call it sad, call it funny.
But it’s better than even money
That the guy’s only doing it for some doll.”
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Pretty good summary.
Now can we get back to talking about getting the economy moving? I’m thinking that’s where Obama’s going next – after he fixes the unequal pay problem – defeats those who at war against women – stops homophobia – puts Vlad in his place – stops the oceans from rising – gives amnesty to illegal aliens, – and other good stuff. 🙂
Conservatives who come to the defense of Sterling are making a mistake that could be avoided by doing a little research. After Neo’s first post on this sordid affair, I noted that many NBA fans have long known that Sterling is a half-crazy racist. John Hinderaker focuses on the half-crazy part, but dismisses the racist part. John’s a baseball fan, but he doesn’t follow the NBA. If he did, he’d know more about Sterling’s reputation, and I’d bet he’d have written something different. Here’s a link to an article that lists some of Sterling’s best-known half-crazy racist remarks. They all have a certain flavor that John has mistakenly attributed to dementia. Sterling’s always been that way.
http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212
I’m as disgusted as anybody by the race hustlers attaching themselves to this affair, but I think it’s quite easy to dismiss them and still see that Sterling is a problem for the NBA. Similarly, it’s easy to accept the premise that the race hustlers have debased the charge of racism to near meaninglessness, yet still acknowledge that Sterling is a half-crazy racist. This telephone recording is the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. NBA players, most NBA fans, and maybe some NBA owners are sick of Sterling and want to see something like a suspension as punsihment. Consevatives who see this as just another effort by the race hustlers to ruin a man for a fictional thought crime are misreading the situation.
Cornflour:
Do you see Hinderaker as defending Sterling? I don’t.
Neo,
John Hinderaker quickly dismisses charges of racism:
“The political motive to make Donald Sterling the poster boy for 21st century racism is obvious, but is he actually a racist? I have never met the man, but it doesn’t seem probable.”
I obviously think the dismissal was too quick, and yes, that it constitutes a defense of Sterling.
Who cares?
One guy does not equal “Society” or “The Nation as a Whole.”
Really, Cornflour, who cares? this is one of those “Oh, look — a squirrel!” moments. Republicans aren’t defending the guy just because they think it’s ridiculous to chase every squirrel the Leftists point out.
Throw a cow in the water, and the piranas go into their eating frenzy. That’s how I feel about most subjects covered by the MSM.
Who cares if Sterling is a racist or not? I don’t care.
BTW, Ophra W. is the new spokeperson for Starbucks. There’s money to be made in being a racist. Sterling should copy Ophra and get richer than he is today. But what will he do will with all that money? Buy another “colored” crazy bitch-whore for his mistress?
Cornflour:
I don’t see his article as a defense of Sterling in general.
He is skeptical about one point only: whether Sterling is a racist, given the evidence in the tape itself, because one could come up with other reasons for the picture presented in the tape (mostly having to do with jealously connected with the GF). He certainly isn’t defending Sterling’s behavior in general, neither his affair, nor his point of view, nor even his mental state (says he might be demented).
Neo,
Yes, John Hinderaker’s dismissal of accusations of racism are based on his reading of the taped telephone conversation. As I said, that ignores lots of other evidence, so I think it’s misguided and a lttle lazy, which is uncharacteristic of him.
Beverly,
I don’t want to see you or anybody else chasing squirrels at the behest of the race baiters. You ask “who cares” about Sterling’s racism? As I said, NBA players, most NBA fans, and maybe some NBA owners. That’s a lot of people. If you’re not one of them, then fine with me. Just don’t defend Sterling or tell those who care that they shouldn’t.
I enjoyed this summary of the whole affair:
http://www.steynonline.com/6299/pound-sterling
You can’t make this stuff up it is so nutty and goofy.
I think the estranged wife should have paid the young lady an extra million just to go away. I don’t pay attention to basketball and have never heard of these folks but here they are. A crazy 80 year old goat having a private conversation with his 31 year old ex girlfriend saying really racist stuff has upset a whole lot of folks because they are surprised he is this much of a racist when it comes to his ex girlfriend’s choice of friends.
This has lots of beauty and the beast, money, sex, racial tension, betrayal and a surprise disclosure of the beast’s true inner, opinion about the race of the majority of the tall, young men on his own NBA team.
And the topping on the cake, the billionaire queen is going after the pretty young beauty to recover the goodies the crazy old king bequeathed upon her and young beauty appears to be getting her revenge.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Old Texan
I don’t think most people would go to the extent of making this stuff up, because it’s so boring. What would be the point?
I don’t think pointing out that this is weak beer or thin gruel or whatever the metaphor is amounts to defending the guy.
Making the case that the race hustlers are all over this because it’s the best they have is not defending the guy. It’s pointing out the race hustlers are getting desperate for lack of material.
Hence, I suppose, the recent invention of “microaggression”.
There is a deep mental illness on the leftist cable media and the handful of people still watching their channels. This event is so inconsequential it merited, maybe, a partial day’s worth of coverage, and yet CNN and MSNBC are covering it every 5 minutes or so. No one should care about Sterling’s opinions, and I really do suspect that almost no one does care about Sterling’s opinions. It affects no one– and how do I know this- because, as Cornflour points out, Sterling’s opinions have apparently been well known to those who actually do care, which is, apparently, almost no one.
The leftist cable media think they have latched onto a major political and electoral story to fire up the base this November, but all they have really done is lock in their dwindling numbers of fewers who spend their days gnashing their teeth and seething at the injustice of racism in America, none of whom were ever going not vote for Democrats.
Bill O’Reiily’s talking points memo on the topic was excellent.
It weird how two similar sounding words get transposed between my brain and my fingers. That should have been “viewers” rather than “fewers”.
A person can have that much money and still be a tool of his social circle, friends, mistress, and this government’s race industry.
That’s hilarious on so many levels.
As Beverly said, who cares? People who pay attention to this sort of stuff probably don’t have anything better to do than watch daytime TV.
If you live with a feminist, date a feminist, you will find that your life is subjected to the feminists…
ie. 100 hours of taped conversations..
what for?
for the divorce/blackmail/revenge/hate-males/ etc
duh…
there USED to be a time when Sterline would be a great example of what not to be…
but what your going to find, is that the result will be worse than the previous situation as the most racist people, like the most communist or the antisemetic wishing for ovens… all went underground and became MORE powerful in the dark than they are in the light…
how long before all white men are nazis who hate blacks? (the nazi did not hate black, i posted a link to a very famous book by an african SS soldier who loved being part of the ‘system’)
look…
its REAL simple..
we are a totalitarian state, and your not allowed to think waht you want, do what you want, eat what you want, and so on.
welcome tovarish to the hell i promised you 10 years ago, that you chastised me for being so negative.
being realizstic, is not negative
the soviet communists win with lots of opposition, what do you think they do without any?
i would invest in ovens…
you know…
the crematoria for the white guys their women, and later, their children…
the big question is whether to throw them in the oven alive, like last century, or just use the cremetoria from all the oldsters dying out and the young females finding out they are alone in a world that dont want them
but i hear they love yap yap dogs better than children, so its all good… they exterminate their family, and their defenders gone, then waht?
forced sterilization and one child policy for oppressors only?
Cornflour makes a good point, IMO. Apparently Sterling was well-known for this kind of beyond-the-pale commentary.
Which means that everyone in his general orbit already knew this about him: the Clippers players, probably most of the NBA in general, his wife, his “girlfriend,” and most of all, the NAACP powers-that-be who were ready to give him “a lifetime achievement award!”
Everyone was perfectly happy to take this sad, creepy old man’s money, while at the same time likely fully aware of his transgressions. But these same folks are now “outraged” and deeply offended now that his sentiments have become public. Of course Al Sharpton will also materialize on cue, that’s to be expected.
Follow the money, as the saying goes.
I don’t think anyone involved in this strange situation looks very good, and of course that includes our illustrious commander in chief, who as usual took the opportunity to weigh in (really?!?) to make “a political point,” as Hinderaker so aptly put it.
I wonder where Cornflour is coming from? Why is he so intent making an issue of the “private” comments of an old man and turning them into another national issue over race?
Cornflour repeats the oft heard charge, in hindsight, that NBA fans, (really, NBA fans?) knew all along that Sterling was a racist.
Well, a lot of people who benefitted through his check book were either ignorant, or chose to overlook, his attitudes and alleged actions until the public brouhaha. . This includes his half-black girl friend. It also includes the NAACP which gave him awards in the past and had announced plans for another. I suppose his check book again spoke louder than his alleged prejudices.
It is lamentable when someone harbors negative attitudes toward another race, ethnicity or religion. It happens in fact on both sides of any divide. On the other hand, it seems to me that personal attitudes are actually no one’s business if the “bigot” does not act on the prejudice.
This Conservative, does not defend Sterling. His personal attitudes are of no real interest to me. I do find it lamentable when thoughts expressed in private are put into the public arena out of spite or, as in this case perhaps, to gain some advantage in a litigation. She is involved in a law suit with Sterling’s wife after all.
Cornflour, I am incensed at the reaction of the President of the United States, the Media, and the members of the Race Industry to a private episode that is really no one’s business, and morally, and perhaps legally, should never have been in the public arena at all. I am incensed that you and others seize on this to lecture the country on our supposed shortcomings. Fie!
It bothers me that Sterling’s critics are saying that illegally taping and publicizing the interchange between Sterling and his woman without his knowledge or permission is quite all right because of the greater good of exposing him. That is where we are in America now. Illegal activity that advances the accepted agenda is a positive thing.
It’s not necessary to defend a person that should have the money to defend themselves.
It is necessary to destroy the hate profiteers and the racist profiteers that may money off of the suffering they cause.
The question is whether Corn here is one of those, along with the ethanol starvation campaign.
its interesting that the ball player involved said the feminist girlfriend played “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo”
the whole point here is to reward the citizens turning in other citizens for turning them in..
dont you remember the scene in white knights? where barishnikov ended up in the ballet class of a set of young girls?
dont you guys remember a whole bunch of stuff that is related and would clue you in?
In Obamaca, under the Left’s Regime, you will be made to care. Remember what Michele said in 08.
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.
Those that don’t want to care about the rich white guy, those who want to live their lives without attacking or defending the rich white guy… Will Be Forced To.
Rule of Thumb #5 about Leftism: The louder they yell, the bigger the lie they are perpetrating.
Rule of Thumb #6 about Leftism: The bigger the lie they are perpetrating the closer to the political heart of Leftism the threat lies.
In this one, a pathetic and degenerate dementia zillionaire’s relationship with a pathetic 20 something who wants a few millions of the zillions and has basically prostituted herself to got it – that has to stand for all of America being racist all over the place.
The danger is that should America not be racist, Leftism would shrivel to nothing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/376741/character-public-and-private-jonah-goldberg
On Character, Public and Private
By Jonah Goldberg
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
April 28, 2014 5:15 PM
I hold no brief for Donald Sterling. My storehouse of sympathy runs bare long before I get to billionaire bigots and loudmouths. But it’s worth pondering the fact that Sterling’s loudmouthery was in a private conversation (unlike, say, Jesse Jackson’s “hymietown” remark which was made to a black reporter he just assumed he could speak freely to without being exposed). Mel Gibson’s damning remarks were made during a drunken rant. The Reverend Billy Graham, pretty much a moral hero and a great champion of religious tolerance in public life, said some awful things about Jews in a recorded conversation with Richard Nixon. Anthony Weiner, neither a hero nor a champion of much other than his own interests, never said anything bigoted, but he sent lewd pictures of himself to young women who were not his wife. Tiger Woods . . . well, you remember all that.
I’m reminded of a wonderful op-ed the (wonderful) late Leonard Garment wrote in 1999 as then-new transcripts of Richard Nixon’s taped conversations were being released. Garment recounted how Nixon appointed numerous Jews in his administration and then concluded:
[BEGIN GARMENT]
Thus we must face the Nixon Paradox. His anti-Semitic outbursts in the private conversations found virtually no correspondence in his speech or actions outside those explosions.
At this point in our politics we should find this juxtaposition less implausible than we once might have. President Clinton was impeached, partly for reasons having to do with the administration of justice, but largely because of his private actions. Yet the country, with unmistakable clarity, declared that his private failings were not to determine our judgment of his public character.
Those who consider this verdict reasonable should consider how much more forcefully its logic applies to the private conversations of public persons. The best expression I have found of this logic comes from Milan Kundera, the Czech novelist whose country under Communism learned some lessons about the consequences of trampling the distinction between public and private.
”In private,” Mr. Kundera wrote in an essay, ”a person says all sorts of things, slurs friends, uses coarse language . . . makes a companion laugh by shocking him with outrageous talk, floats heretical ideas he’d never admit in public.”
Mr. Kundera argues that this difference is not a mere curiosity but a fundamental fact: ”That we act different in private than in public is everyone’s most conspicuous experience, it is the very ground of the life of the individual. Yet curiously this obvious fact remains unconscious, unacknowledged . . . ”
Mr. Kundera worries about this obliviousness, as we should, because an understanding of the distinction between public and private speech is indispensable to a decent politics – one built upon respect for individual privacy, a fundamental ingredient of freedom. What is on the Nixon tapes is undeniably ugly. It is for us to decide, however, what effect this private talk should have on our evaluation of Nixon’s public life.
[END GARMENT]
It says something about Sterling that you cannot offer the same defense of him. There is far more congruity between the public and private Sterlings than the public and private Nixons. Similarly, it’s interesting and even significant to note that Lyndon Johnson said some terrible things about blacks, but they hardly have any weight on the scales when put alongside his efforts to pass the Civil Rights Act.
One last point. A common expression goes something like “character is what you do when no one is watching,” though I always preferred “character is what you do when only God is watching.” Neither aphorism is entirely fitting since all of these instances involved at least one other person. But it’s worth noting and pondering the fact that in an era of ubiquitous cell-phone cameras, recording devices, big data trawling, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter etc. the realm of what is truly private is shrinking by the hour and will likely continue to shrink in one way or another for the rest of our lives. Character may remain what we do when we think no one is watching – or listening or taking notes – but the likelihood no one is watching is increasingly remote. What that means for decent politics is anyone’s guess.
This is a non-issue. Even if the guy is a lucid, full-on racist and is financially ruined as a result, nobody’s life is going to be made better.
The strongest case is that, for those who care, they will have the moral satisfaction of having defeated ONE racist, and will be able to watch their entertainment with a clear conscience.
…and their standard of living will erode just the same under the leftist jackboot.
Resistance is futile…
(though the Borg was a feminist outcome (everyone equal, no gender, everyone works, all collective, no unpc speech, etc)… the last movie confirmed that it was just that)
cant wait to see how they spin the cheerleading is sports thing that is also hitting the news (they are tryhing to bury it). they wont tell the story how under title IX the feminists classified cheerleading as a non sport so that there would not be enough women in sports in the schools and the mens teams had to go!
(an entertaining aside) What’s So Alluring About a Woman Known As Man Repeller? http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/man-repeller-leandra-medine-profile.html
Of course stiviano is innocent…
and i even explained why and the history of it on this blog, but can we put it together?
i said to read it… (but thats like wailing at a wall)
The Personal Is Political by Carol Hanisch
Stiviano is a GOLD DIGGER (not like ruby keeler)
and this is just a way to keep the public from paying attention to the start of WWIV…
Much like Cornflour, I am going to dissent from the prevailing opinions on this blog about the Sterling imbroglio, including Neo’s. I agree with Cornflour that Hinderaker’s article appears to be at least a tepid defense of Sterling, without consideration of his past controversies.
Jim Geraghty addressed the Sterling imbroglio in his “Morning Jolt” more eloquently than I can muster. But it boils down to this: common decency compels us to denounce Sterling’s racist diatribe. We need to acknowledge this. Related issues (cf. wiretapping, “privacy” matters, the appropriateness of any NBA discipline -which has now been imposed-the explotation of the sordid affair by demogauges like Al Sharpton, etc.) are important and worthy of discussion and debate. But the fundamemtal conclusion that such vulgar and offensive behavior should be denounced, is must be realized and acknowledged. Anyone who has difficulty doing so really should take some time for personal reflection, in my opinion.
What I see from the comments on this, and other conservative blogs, provides a succinct if incomplete illustration of why conservatives/libertarians have such difficulty reaching out to African Americans. While outright defenses of Sterling are, mercifully, rare, I have seen a plethora of frustrated comments on how stupid this whole saga is, how it does not deserve significant media attention, how it is private matter, etc. However, the reality is, Sterling diatribe lS a major issue to a large portion of the population, particularly amongst blacks. Is this partly due to the mefia uproar, the tail wagging the dog? Of course. But not entirely. One does not have to agree; but one should acknowledge this reality and respect it.
To be clear: I am not saying one has to agree that the Sterling saga is important or that it reflects wider issues of racism in America. But if the right is ever going to gain any traction or even understanding amongst significant portion of African Americans, blithely dismissing issues many of them find important and salient, as superfluous and stupid is not adviseable. I am not African American, but I think this rule applies in general. People do not like being told their viewpoints are of low priority and unworthy of simple respect.
On that note, Obama’s comment is worth referencing. Was it over the top in its conclusions? Yes. As basically everything he says about race is. But he discussed the matter. To many,that is a sign that he “cares”; that he understands and respects the fact that this is an important issue to many people. The predictable outrage amongst the right (and by the way, content aside, his brief comment was hardly a significant distraction from, foreign policy) about him even commenting (again, the content of his comment aside), underscores the fundamental disconnect so many conservatives (polticians, pundits, activits, etc.) with the largely apolitical “muddled middle”, or “low information voters”. These people, of any race, want to feel like politicians understand and care about them and their concerns. I don’t think Obama really does, but he is highly adept at portraying he does. This remains a really weak area for Republicans/conservatives. Sadly, the Sterling imbroglio demonstrates this weakness again.
Feel free to call me a concern troll, if you want.
Ackler:
My main focus when writing about the Sterling flap has been the illegal wiretap angle. I am very concerned about the probable violation of wiretapping laws, and the fact that this doesn’t seem to be an issue for people bent on ferreting out racism thoughtcrime. This is very troubling in terms of civil liberties, and should be to everyone but is not.
And in terms of African-American priorities and sympathies, I find it very interesting (as well as gratifying) that Kareem Abdul Jabbar seems to agree:
That Jabbar’s concern is shared by so few people in their eagerness to ferret out racism wherever it may lie is very very troubling. And yes, of course, the racemongers and Obama play to the crowds—that’s not news. But even if Republicans wrung their hands and moaned over how awful Sterling is (which many of them have been doing, by the way), it wouldn’t sway a single vote to their side.
Well spoken Neo, and hurray for Jabbar.
I repeat myself, but I find it hypocritical for the NAACP to suddenly discover that Sterling is a racist after they have cashed his checks for years.
I find it rather disgusting for Clipper players to suddenly decide that they have to protest against their employer after taking obscenely large paychecks from him over the years. (We are told that it was well known that he was a racist. Really?)
I find it nearly intolerable that the Sanctimonious condemn a man for privately expressing his thoughts, even if they are prejudiced, while ignoring the disgusting invasion of privacy that brought the transgression to their attention. It may be that this invasion of his privacy was not only intrusive, but illegal. Of course we no longer enforce laws if unlawful action is in pursuit of an approved outcome.
I need not dwell on the fact that the garbled recording of his statements could have well been edited to present the worst image.
Today, Rush Limbaugh hinted that there is evidence that in their zeal to get Sterling out of ownership, due to his purported dementia, and to prevent the franchise to passing to his family at his death, the NBA offices set the whole scheme in motion. The story is that they had the woman carry the tape recorder, and that they had her bait him into lashing out. Who knows? I do hope the old man has the energy and will to sue the hell out of a few people, so that some day we might learn the whole story.
Just well thought and written M J R!
Sterling is damaging the brand. The other owners do not want the problems to spread. But what if the loss of advertisement revenue and the proposed boycotts start hurting Sterling’s bottom line? Maybe fewer gifts to the NAACP? Maybe salary cuts for his team’s players?
If I were Sterling I would vow to make the Clippers more racially diverse. Blacks are overrepresented.
Ackler, in other words, you think we should simply be patronizing to those who do think this is a big deal?
Neo,
The issue over wiretapping is absolutely important and I am not saying otherwise. Stiviano’s behavior should be condemned and, if appropriate, prosecuted. TMZ should be investigated as well.
That said, the wiretapping does not change the utterly disgusting and impermissible content of Sterling’s tirade. To be clear: public or private, Sterling’s expressions were racist and indefensible. This remains true regardless of whether it was moral or legal to record and divulge these expressions. They have been divulged and moral decency compels condemnation.
Perhaps I am simply unschooled, but I do not buy into the rationalization that such language may not be genuine because it was said in private. I have said many stupid, regretful, misunderstood and embarrassing things in private, amongst close confidants; comments I would be mortified to have publicized. We all have. But I have never said anything remotely close to what I have read is on that tape. Granted, I am 40+ years younger than Sterling, but that’s still no excuse. The private nature of his comments do not excuse them or suggest that he didn’t really mean what he said, in my opinion.
To preempt any criticism that I am advocating thought police: of course Sterling (and anyone else) is free to say anything crass and racist, in public or private, without criminal repercussions. Absolutely. Perhaps, even without private punishment, such as imposed by the NBA today; that’s a matter of debate. But such commentary is NOT above moral condemnation. Not at all
As to whether GOP leaders and other conservatives “wringing their hands” over Sterling would swing any votes, probably not in this election. But, I do think it would create a ripple, with African Americans. I tread lightly here, as I am white and not attempting to speak for anyone. However, based on my limited experience (I used to work for a non-profit in a major urban, and heavily black, area), I doubt many African Americans pay any attention to Republicans or conservative viewpoints in general. There are exceptions (such as school-choice) and there are many complex reasons for this reality. But one big reason, which can be mitigated to some extent, is the perception that Republicans are entirely uninterested in what black voters think or what their priorities are. To repeat: I am NOT advocating any change in policy positions here; nor am I advocating the GOP should adopt the standing progressive line about the pervasiveness of white racism in America. All I am suggesting is an acknowledgement that the views and priorities of many black voters are worthy of consideration and discussion. This would be a small ripple, but a start.
Oldflyer,
I agree, hypocrisy is rampant in this imbroglio, particularly amongst the NAACP, an organization whose present leadership have tarnished and almost entirely discredited its revered status. However, that fact does not change the revolting content of Sterling’s diatribe. It is utterly inexcusable and indefensible and should be stated as such, categorically.
If the invasion of privacy is illegal, Stiviano should be prosecuted. She also deserves moral opprobrium. None of this, however, changes the fact that simple moral decency, in my opinion, compels us to denounce Sterling’s remarks without equivocation. This remains true, regardless of whether he expressed them in private or shouting them into a bullhorn midcourt at a Clippers game. Perhaps I am naive, but I remain flummoxed as to why this is so hard for so many conservatives to acknowledge.
Yancey,
I am arguing for conservatives/libertarians to acknowledge that large groups of Americans (of all races) have very different sociopolitical priorities than they do and that these alternative sets of priorities are worthy of recognition, consideration and discussion, even if conservatives disagree, and disagree strongly. If you consider that patronizing, fair enough. I consider it the beginning of dialogue.
How did we get to the point of voicing opposition and disapproval to sub sets of the American culture equals a crime of greatest proportion? A scary place we are in. This isn’t about the genetics of race or a persons heritage. It’s about capable Americans freely embracing destructive cultural mores and having the audacity to demand it be made taboo to point it out even in private thoughts and conversation.
But such commentary is NOT above moral condemnation. Not at all
That really depends on whether it is individuals condemning that based upon external or internal morality, or whether it’s really a bunch of people told to do so by the secret police or face the consequences.
You haven’t really proven that moral condemnation on this matter comes from individuals rather than tools of the Left.
They have been divulged and moral decency compels condemnation.
People really think this is better than obeying the secret police or else? Some moral authority we’ve never seen tells us we are compeled to do X, or else is better? As if that would ever be true.
The slaves think they are free, as usual.
“One does not have to agree; but one should acknowledge this reality and respect it.”
This is the like communist grocer putting up a sign that says Power to Labor. It doesn’t matter if he agrees with it, so long as he respects the totalitarian culture and respects the code of conduct.
The slaves think they are free.
Ackler does not seem certifiable as an individual with free will so far.
“Granted, I am 40+ years younger than Sterling, but that’s still no excuse. ”
Is that how it was on your recent college campus indoctrination program… people who didn’t agree had to toe the party and campus line, no matter the cost. They had to say and repeat the social slogans, or else. And everyone there believed that this was better than totalitarian police states, like the slaves that thought they were free.
“But such commentary is NOT above moral condemnation. Not at all”
The social authoritarians and their lackeys always think that a person’s conscience can be overriden by power, since after all their slaves think they are free. It’s not enough for them that they want to condemn the morality of others… they also want to demand the same compliance and Hussein Obedience factor out of the rest of us.
But this is better than a totalitarian police state, they claim.
There are some of the strangest “racist” comments on that tape. “I don’t care if you sleep with them, just don’t bring them to my games?” What kind of racist says that — isn’t that the opposite of what racism was supposedly really about — white men being afraid of their women sleeping with black men?
I see a mixture of a racism, jealousy, and dementia in that tape, proportions unknown. Clearly, he wants to keep his eye candy to himself, and he is afraid more that she will be seen with black men, than she has sex with them.
It reflects on his status as a rich man able to afford a mistress that his tootsie would rather be seen with younger, sexier men. Desperate sounding, you know?
“When you meet a gent paying all kinds of rent
For a flat that could flatten the Taj Mahal.
Call it sad, call it funny.
But it’s better than even money
That the guy’s only doing it for some doll.”