Donald Sterling clearly has a blind spot, complicated by the fact that he owns and makes lots of money from an NBA team comprised primarily of black players. He appears to have a typical prior generation anti-black bias. That is a bad thing. How this came to light may also be a bad thing. The decision of the NBA may be a bad thing. The whole affair may be a bad thing for our fundamental Constitutional freedom of speech.
The facts appear to be that a private conversation between Sterling and his girlfriend was covertly recorded and somehow made it to the media. Suspicions would perhaps suggest that this came from his girl toy, a 38 year old to his 80, with a reputation as one who pursues older rich men. Coincidentally she is not happy right now, as Sterling's wife is suing her to recover some 2.5 million dollars worth of property she has obtained from him. It doesn't help that Sterling is somewhat of a moral throwback, but on the other hand he is a successful business man who has amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune.
I support the anger of the black players and others (except Al Sharpton, who always enters a fray like this invited or not as a shark in blood filled waters in hope of finding dollars somewhere in the situation).
I have pause to the handling of this event for other reasons though. The mayor of Sacramento making a statement on behalf of the players essentially threw down a threat to any who might harbor any bias that they dare not question persons of Color or share Sterling's fate. Is that not a reversed form of racism? We see any argument with a person of color by a white being characterized as a racist act. Do we see this as a turning of the tables, where blacks have now an unassailable position for fear of ending up like Sterling, as perhaps much less virulent comments are characterized as racism? Or is just disagreement with a black by a white racism? If so, by who?
Then there are the financial issues. Do we not live in a country any longer when an asset purchased by a person lawfully is his or hers? Or now, are assets only safe if you have the requisite Politically Correct attitude, and do not cross anyone who might make the ugly claim of racism against you?
The attitude now being seen I believe is traceable directly to Barack Obama. In his first campaign for the presidency, in addition to his other unfulfilled claims, he asserts that he would be not only the first black president, but the first post racial president. Instead, since his occupancy of the White House has continued by his statements, claims of injustice, and his discrimination against middle America in favor of minority races (which occupy almost all of his appointed positions) left a feeling of "we are getting even now for all the wrongs I perceived for people of color". He does not look to the color neutral Constitution, but to his Justice Department to give black a pass (the New Black Panthers), oppose logical and reasoned voter integrity laws, and gives a landslide of entitlements to minorities as reparations, while not addressing the root causes of economic disparity. He attempts to legislate financial equality, without addressing the reasons for the inequality. His Robin Hood view doesn't motivate the have not's and infuriates the have's. His social engineering has in large part damaged the nation and continues to do so.
The treatment of Donald Sterling is the equivalent of "shunning" or "exile" in consideration of speaking morally reprehensible views. Shouldn't the private conversations of an individual be just that, and not be fuel for a politically correct execution killing his business and his public life.
Reiterating that I don't approve of Sterling or his views, it concerns me about what speech will generate what penalties or interference with owned property in the future. This case is a definition of a slippery slope.
The facts appear to be that a private conversation between Sterling and his girlfriend was covertly recorded and somehow made it to the media. Suspicions would perhaps suggest that this came from his girl toy, a 38 year old to his 80, with a reputation as one who pursues older rich men. Coincidentally she is not happy right now, as Sterling's wife is suing her to recover some 2.5 million dollars worth of property she has obtained from him. It doesn't help that Sterling is somewhat of a moral throwback, but on the other hand he is a successful business man who has amassed a multi-billion dollar fortune.
I support the anger of the black players and others (except Al Sharpton, who always enters a fray like this invited or not as a shark in blood filled waters in hope of finding dollars somewhere in the situation).
I have pause to the handling of this event for other reasons though. The mayor of Sacramento making a statement on behalf of the players essentially threw down a threat to any who might harbor any bias that they dare not question persons of Color or share Sterling's fate. Is that not a reversed form of racism? We see any argument with a person of color by a white being characterized as a racist act. Do we see this as a turning of the tables, where blacks have now an unassailable position for fear of ending up like Sterling, as perhaps much less virulent comments are characterized as racism? Or is just disagreement with a black by a white racism? If so, by who?
Then there are the financial issues. Do we not live in a country any longer when an asset purchased by a person lawfully is his or hers? Or now, are assets only safe if you have the requisite Politically Correct attitude, and do not cross anyone who might make the ugly claim of racism against you?
The attitude now being seen I believe is traceable directly to Barack Obama. In his first campaign for the presidency, in addition to his other unfulfilled claims, he asserts that he would be not only the first black president, but the first post racial president. Instead, since his occupancy of the White House has continued by his statements, claims of injustice, and his discrimination against middle America in favor of minority races (which occupy almost all of his appointed positions) left a feeling of "we are getting even now for all the wrongs I perceived for people of color". He does not look to the color neutral Constitution, but to his Justice Department to give black a pass (the New Black Panthers), oppose logical and reasoned voter integrity laws, and gives a landslide of entitlements to minorities as reparations, while not addressing the root causes of economic disparity. He attempts to legislate financial equality, without addressing the reasons for the inequality. His Robin Hood view doesn't motivate the have not's and infuriates the have's. His social engineering has in large part damaged the nation and continues to do so.
The treatment of Donald Sterling is the equivalent of "shunning" or "exile" in consideration of speaking morally reprehensible views. Shouldn't the private conversations of an individual be just that, and not be fuel for a politically correct execution killing his business and his public life.
Reiterating that I don't approve of Sterling or his views, it concerns me about what speech will generate what penalties or interference with owned property in the future. This case is a definition of a slippery slope.
This post first appeared on Mr Smith Thinks - Musings From The Mainstream, please read the originial post: here
