April 26, 2014
"You're supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl."/"I'm a mixed girl."/"Ok well."
Horrific people in the news. Never heard of them before. Old man with no decent right to be jealous is jealous of his arguably beautiful, inarguably younger girlfriend. Somewhat young woman lets the whole world eavesdrop on her pathetic argument with a repulsive billionaire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
114 comments:
I read that article too. Bizarre things said, and bizarre things heard. Why, oh why, would that attractive woman be the "girlfriend" of that vile billionaire? How can he own a basketball team for the love of Zeus? Why would anyone play for an asshole like that?
Why would he own a basketball team if he didn't want to be around blacks? I know it's an obvious question, but it's what I'm wondering.
At least he has no problem with his girlfriend sleeping with blacks.
Somewhat young woman lets the whole world eavesdrop on her pathetic argument with a repulsive billionaire.
Very few billionaires aren't repulsive.
Maybe they'll break up.
"Who can understand why two lovers who idolised one another the night before, because of one word misinterpreted, split up, eastward one, west the other, goaded by hate, revenge, love and remorse, and never see each other again, both cloaked in lonely pride. This is a miracle renewed every day and is none the less miraculous for that."
- Lautreamont
I listened to the whole damned thing. I don't know what came before the recorded part and I didn't see the Instagram photograph that bothered him so much, but I highlighted the line I put in the post title because it seems that he cares about the image of how he looks with her when he appears with her and it mattered to him that she presented herself to the world as a black woman and not as what he wanted: a "delicate white or delicate Latina girl."
So this "delicacy" aspect seems like a big deal to him and he seems to think she looks indelicate flaunting her relationships with black men. She can do what she wants in private, but for him, she's supposed to not seem like a black woman, which seems to him to mean something less than the kind of delicacy that is achievable by other races of women.
Now, it might be that saying he wants her to appear to be "delicate" is just a way of saying he wants her to give the appearance — to "broadcast" herself — as sexually faithful to him. But he seems to conflate that concept with race, which is just awfully damned racist.
I don't like her either. She's luring him into making and repeating statements that are damaging to him, and she's apparently the one who's chosen to make the recording public. Was this the planned use of the recording or did another idea fall through? Why is she with this ancient man? For the money? For the access to glamorous people?
He is a Democrat.
This is who they are.
This is what they do.
Let's all open our eyes and realize this is the same way it is in Hollywood, New York media corporations, sports clubs all over except golf and hockey, and most of all academia.
From reading the transcript, I get the impression his main concern is that he not be seen as the rich old white guy who's shtupping a much younger woman of color who looks like she could be shtupping a bunch of virile black studs. In fact, he seems to be OK with that, but wants her to do it in private and not act in a way that gives rise to public speculation about their (apparently open) sexual relationship.
From reading the transcript, I get the impression his main concern is that he not be seen as the rich old white guy who's shtupping a much younger woman of color who looks like she could be shtupping a bunch of virile black studs. In fact, he seems to be OK with that, but wants her to do it in private and not act in a way that gives rise to public speculation about their (apparently open) sexual relationship.
For some reason I saw this as an ego issue more than a racism issue. He said black "people" euphemistically to cover his real feelings because what he meant was black "men." He didn't want anyone saying his girlfriend is with him, an old rich white man, but she really wants a virile black man. That's what comes across in Instagram photos. Is that racist? Yeah, but not in the way that this is being played out in the media, as if he hates all blacks. BTW, he is suing her for embezzlement and she promised to get revenge. If she thought he was such a big racist why was she with him to begin with?
There is no correlation between wealth and happiness.
Why is she with this ancient man? For the money? For the access to glamorous people?
Uhhhmm, maybe because he's paying her way & he doesn't care if she sleeps with the hot athletes that cluster around a team owner? I'm sorry, that doesn't sound like too bad of a deal for a pretty chick who may not have a lot else to offer the world.
As for Snoop Dogg: A message to the motherf***** that owns the Clippers. You b****-a** redneck white-bred chickens*** motherf*****: F*** you, your momma and everyone connected to you, you racist piece of s***. F*** you,'
No anti-white racism there! Nuh-uh, not a bit. Why we honkeys call each other "b****-a** redneck white-bred chickens*** motherf*****" all the time as a term of affection, just like the brothers call each other "n****r".
Sure sure political donations don't matter if they didn't happen yesterday, and Mitt Romney's dog cruise open-winded decades ago is a key to his character.
This son of a bitch is still a Democrat.
LBJ-like racist bastard.
And Marge Schott.
They keep their dirty Democrat politics hidden, but Sherlock Holmes taught me about the dog that didn't bark. Schott not being labeled Buckley's peer and Reagan's muse is proof enough she was just as racist and Leftist as Sandusky and the Clipper's owner.
Just another Obama supporter in the flesh.
Does this guy really think that no one knew his gf was part black? That's my read. So if she goes the Kardashian route he's exposed and his peers (?) are going to want an explanation?
That's what you get for dating a sickly-looking, 81-yr-old for his money, I guess.
Yikes. Too twisted on too many levels to even to comprehend. No side to be on here. She chose to date him, after all.
Guffaw at Snoop's response and all these celebrities having junior high school level flame wars on instagram.
Why is she with this ancient man? For the money? For the access to glamorous people?
Ask all those bimbos who whore themselves for Hugh Hefner! Surely the wise professor is not that naive! Must be that word playin sarcasm she is so proud of!
The answer is YES!
She is. like a personal assistant to a man who can buy love. Her days were numbered anyway because she will not be young for long.
But I believe George Soros is in the market again.
You just can't get enough good young help these days. Which is probably why the GOP donors want Congress to agree on immigration amnesty ASAP. The old demented rich men need more personal assistants to chose from.
There's no fool like an old fool.
I've put things in question form because I don't know the facts. These are specific individuals, so I do not make assertions. This is not naïveté, but its opposite.
SOJO said:
Too twisted on too many levels to even to comprehend. No side to be on here
That says it for me.
I don't know these people and their arguments should be private.
Why, oh why, would that attractive woman be the "girlfriend" of that vile billionaire?
Money.
How can he own a basketball team for the love of Zeus?
Money.
Why would anyone play for an asshole like that?
And money.
On the positive side, there are things that money cannot buy. It cannot buy love, for instance.
It's too easy to jump on the bandwagon and assume that people we don't even know are racist. Donald Sterling was born Donald Tokowitz of Jewish immigrants who would have had no interest in the black/white divide in the USA. He probably added Sterling as his last name in a PR move in order to blend in better. This strategy of blending obviously paid off since he is now a mega-millionaire.
This whole conversation with his girlfriend fits that same pattern in which he wants her to project a public image which he thinks will be advantageous for his business interests. Its all about image, not about his personal racial preferences. From the conversation it sounds as if he was concerned that her lifestyle would offend his Latino customers and that was why he asked her to tone down the publicity for her affairs.
an old man is an old man
a rich old man is a rich man
hypergamy strikes again
It starts at repulsive, continues through repulsive and ends at repulsive. It's a trifecta.
So, will all the people who associated the sacking of Mozilla's CEO with "blacklisting" say the same thing if the NBA moves to force Sterling to sell? You rallied to the side of a homophobe, after all. Why not a racist?
What a terrible "Girlfriend" and what a silly old man.
She was recording the conversation and making speeches...recording...goading....successfully.
The whole idea was to keep her from being public with black people because 80 y/o "old Fool" Sterling still thinks its 1964 or 1954.
Horrible people? Yep.
YoungHegelian:
Was the Snoop quote written by him, or spoken by him and transcribed by someone else? I'm just wondering who wrote 'white-bred' for what obviously should be 'white-bread'.
I don't want to insult anyone's intelligence save my own, but when I say a little Byrd told me I don't have to finish the thought
I actually found that old man kind of pathetic. Not sympathetic, or empathetic. He's mean and ugly and unlikable. But also really pitiable. Any man who says, "you can sleep with other men," I'm ashamed and embarrassed for him.
I can see how the racial comments infuriate people for whom race matters. But for me, this is a pathetic guy who wants to put up a facade that he is man enough for his woman. And he's agreeing to every indignity, in private, because he knows he's not man enough for her. And he just wants to pretend. And now that's been stripped from him, too.
Its all about image, not about his personal racial preferences.
Well, he's made his personal preferences known before.
He seems like an all-around shitbag.
Judging from this thread, racism is considered vile and hateful, whereas ageism is a perfectly appropriate form of bigotry.
Very few billionaires aren't repulsive.
I'm curious how many billionaires Garage has actually met. Try and imagine the story of Garage meeting a billionaire...
John Stodder said...
"So, will all the people who associated the sacking of Mozilla's CEO with "blacklisting" say the same thing if the NBA moves to force Sterling to sell? You rallied to the side of a homophobe, after all. Why not a racist?"
Let us be clear here. Both of those gentlemen are Democrats. If these gentlemen really are homophobes and racists as you allege they belong to your tribe.
California is a two party consent state so law professor, how can everyone use this without any legal ramifications? I doubt he agreed to have his private conversation recorded. He is a racist but what happens when all of our private conversations are scrutinized. We all say or think things that we would never want other people to know.
@weevil,
I'm just wondering who wrote 'white-bred' for what obviously should be 'white-bread'.
Actually, either term works when ya think about it.
Also, let's not forget that Snoop may have been the latest victim of some cell-phone program's auto-correct function, and so may be blameless of that particular fault.
Being from Los Angeles--and being a Clippers fan, let me throw some supposed "facts" in the hopper.
Donald Sterling is 81--without a boatload of Viagra I don't suppose he's doing much.
His "girlfriend" is half black, half Mexican, sports what appears to be a "D" sized chest and is a fairly attractive (hey my wife might be reading this post so I'll use the word "fairly") young woman in her late 20s.
Sterling has been separated from his wife for years, but the wife is apparently on the warpath about this young woman.
Sterling's company has either filed a lawsuit, or has threatened to file a lawsuit which will allege that the woman has embezzled $1.8 million from Sterling's company.
The Clippers are in the playoffs and in the hunt for an NBA title. There is not a single "white" player on their current roster.
When you're playing hardball--as I assume this young woman is--what better time than late this week to release the recording, assuring that it will cause maximum damage?
Sterling is, was, and always will be a world class jerk. He made his initial money as a lawyer, but thereafter went on to build an empire based on residential real property in Los Angeles. (Jerry Buss who owned the Lakers was not a lawyer--but also built his fortune on residential real property in L.A.)
That said Sterling is not the first, and won't be the last, extremely wealthy 81 year old man to make a total fool out of himself over some hot young babe.
I'm pretty sure she just lost her job as concubine.....cuz gold-diggers are minted every day.
We have set the bar so low now for racist that everyone is a racist.
Which favors the actual racists, which aren't really racists anyway. They are usually supremacists. Like black panthers or the kkk.
and this 80 year old thing is married.
John Stodder said...
"So, will all the people who associated the sacking of Mozilla's CEO with "blacklisting" say the same thing if the NBA moves to force Sterling to sell? You rallied to the side of a homophobe, after all. Why not a racist?"
Since the sacked Mozilla CEO shared the same views, at the same time as Obama, can we conclude by your statement that Obama is a homophobe?
Judging from this thread, racism is considered vile and hateful, whereas ageism is a perfectly appropriate form of bigotry.
Scalia, in his Casey dissent, suggests that the equal protection clause does not apply to age discrimination.
Some societies have considered newborn children not yet human, or the incompetent elderly no longer so.
My take-away from that sentence is that Scalia thinks that we don't need to apply equal protection to the very young or the very old. We can just pick a point and say "you are valuable here" and pick another point and say "you stop being valuable here."
One of my big criticisms of Scalia--and everybody on the Supreme Court--is that equal protection would help us reason through these issues. Apply the same standard at the end of life that we apply at the beginning of life. Apply the same life-or-death point.
On another thread Althouse talks about the unborn being unseen. That is the basis of all our prejudice against them. It's not hatred. We don't hate the very young (we used to be them) or the very old (we will be them). But there can be a bigotry there, a blindness.
There's an expression, "beneath our contempt," that's how we treat the unborn. We don't notice them enough to hate them.
And as bad as our individual behavior has been, this is nothing, nothing, compared to official dehumanization by the state.
Illuninati:
And why do they tolerate them? Money. No matter the hypocrisy. No matter the depravity. Money is the uniting theme on the Left. It always has been. It always will be. As a matter of principle.
YoungHegelian:
Dogg is an unrepentant bigot. Fortunately, he can hide his character flaws under cover of skin color, and purchase indulgences to ameliorate the remainder.
The Left loves their one percenters and other lovable characters who promise them redistribution from afar, and their celebrities who offer them indulgences to ease their dissonant minds.
It's not easy, and very expensive, to placate a large number of diverse people in a high density population center. Not even planned parenthood can cull them fast enough to reduce the problem set to a manageable size.
So if he's a Democrat and a bunch of his fellow race hustling Democrats force him too: A. Sell the team. B. Get drawn and quartered at halftime who cares?
Reminds me of Princess Leah and Jabba The Hut...reality imitates Star Wars.
EMD said...
""Its all about image, not about his personal racial preferences."
Well, he's made his personal preferences known before."
http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212
It does look bad.
To understand this relationship one must understand ownership of talented people.
Sterling owns the Clippers...every one of the black men on that team. And he owns a mixed race Chicano who embarrasses him.
Let's hope Doc Rivers can keep from embarrassing his owner too.
Rivers is a good man and warrior among any skin color. He played here for the Hawks as a point Guard. He can handle this situation if anyone can.
the recording is pretty bad, but it's not like he touched his girlfriend's hair or asked her how she celebrating black history month.
From the L.A. Times:
"Former Clippers General Manager Elgin Baylor filed a lawsuit against Sterling contending the owner embraced a 'vision of a Southern plantation-type structure' for his organization, though his claim was eventually rejected by a jury."
Great country. Lotta love,...
glenn:
No. First they came for...
Evisceration is not the solution. Perhaps we can learn the limits of tolerance and improve.
So what we have here is the unspeakable in pursuit of the unlikable.
The only thing I know about the Clippers is they have been NBA Joke for - well forever.
I suppose the owner is to blame. Al Davis - without the talent - aka just a jerk with $$$.
Thought experiment--if Sterling were a big GOP donor, would that fact be featured prominently in all stories? I think, yes. in actuality, he is a huge Demo donor, and yet no mention of it in stories...anyone care to guess why?
Saint Croix,
I think both you and Justice Scalia have a different copy of the Constitution than I do. The equal protection clause in my copy does not have an octogenerain exception, does yours? Anyway, I was not referring to a constitutional standard when I criticized the mean-spirited ageism on display in this thread, but rather to simple standards of common decency.
Crack: ""Former Clippers General Manager Elgin Baylor filed a lawsuit against Sterling contending the owner embraced a 'vision of a Southern plantation-type structure' for his organization, though his claim was eventually rejected by a jury. Great country. Lotta love,.."
So let me see if I understand this.
Elgin Baylor (the great Elgin Baylor btw), made a claim, took it to court and lost via a jury verdict.
So, this somehow "proves" the charges were "true".
LOL
Crack has a bad case of the "garagies". Maybe the source of Crack's rash?
BTW, I hope you got some help with that. It's quite easy to come into contact with something that triggers a reaction.
The constitutional doctrine about age discrimination is that there's no heightened scrutiny. It's still possible to violate the Equal Protection Clause through an age classification that has no rational relationship to a legitimate governmental interest... and bigotry toward the group is not a legitimate interest.
think, yes. in actuality, he is a huge Demo donor, and yet no mention of it in stories...anyone care to guess why?
A few thousand dollars ....In 1992? LOL
The Crack Emcee said...
"Great country. Lotta love,..."
Lefties don't have anything positive to contribute but they certainly are handy with the criticism.
There is a link between racism and fear that is sometimes hard to see, but not in this case. This guy is afraid of black men in a primal way--threat to the rotted carcass of his manhood. Scavengers will protect even the most disgusting remnants.
Austin:
Yes, Scalia has a different copy of the Constitution. He has the real one.
Yours is probably is full of invisible ink and hidden perambulations.
There is not a single "white" player on their current roster.
J.J. Redick, the team's master of 3-point plays and jump shots, is white.
Blake Griffin, the emerging next NBA superstar, is half-white.
I'm a huge Clipper fan too. But Sterling is very, very hard to overlook. Their current rise has coincided with a 2-3 year period of relative silence from Sterling.
I predict he pleads either drunkenness, pill abuse or dementia, or all three. It'll be a kind of Mel Gibson defense. It will not work with most people, but it might allow Doc Rivers to keep working for him until he can arrange a transfer of power to a family member or a sale.
"Thought experiment--if Sterling were a big GOP donor, would that fact be featured prominently in all stories? I think, yes. in actuality, he is a huge Demo donor, and yet no mention of it in stories...anyone care to guess why?"
If he were a large GOP donor, every R incumbent running in 2014 would be asked to disavow his comments, or comment on it, or give back any money he'd donated in the past. Guaranteed.
We've seen this playbook before from the MSM.
Hairless. 101% guaranteed. God damn it.
Peter
For a billionaire, the guy has a terrible toupee. Marge Schott was the most racist owner in the modern era. This guy is a pretty close second. This isn't his first instance of this.
Since the sacked Mozilla CEO shared the same views, at the same time as Obama, can we conclude by your statement that Obama is a homophobe?
Can you spot the difference?
Unlike Mozilla's leader, Obama has CHANGED his public position since 2009. The Mozilla guy could have done that too and survived easily.
Mozilla is a gay-friendly business in a gay-friendly industry. The uproar had nothing to do with Obama, or Democrats, or anything else. It had to do with Mozilla's employees, vendors and investors. This case is very much the same. The NBA is obviously hugely involved with its African-American players, coaches, executives, employees, media and fans. Sterling's behavior just cannot stand. If you "get" why Sterling has to go, then you must also "get" what happened at Mozilla, and take a step back from the Orwellian dystopian visions that the Mozilla story inspired.
bigotry toward the group is not a legitimate interest
I think "bigotry" is a lot closer to doing the actual work of equal protection analysis than "rational basis review," which has always been about dictating the Supreme Court's policy preferences to the nation.
As I see it, the equal protection question is whether the crime is punishing conduct (what we do) or our biology (who we are).
For instance, we can outlaw sodomy, or bank robbery, or marijuana, or XYZ. As long as it's conduct, equal protection is not offended. We can all do the crime, or avoid doing the crime. We choose whether to do the crime or not. Our humanity and our free will is respected by the state, in this scenario.
Now suppose the state passes another law. They want to punish people for having high testosterone levels. The theory is that people with high testosterone levels are more likely to be criminals. There's a study that links high testosterone levels to crimes like rape and murder. And so the state starts punishing people for having high levels of testosterone. Babies are killed because their testosterone levels are at "criminal" levels.
That law would violate equal protection, without question. You can't violate the free will principle. You can't define people as criminals for existing. You can't assume that biology leads to conduct or crimes or behavior. You can't define people as criminals because of our chemistry, our genes, our gender, our race.
Suppose our government flips out and decides to kill all the people over 6 feet tall. (Something like this happened in Africa). Does that offend equal protection? Obviously. Absolutely. Crime has to be in regard to conduct.
That's how i read the equal protection clause, both as an interpretation of its text, but also its history. (Slavery was a dehumanizing event in American history, where people were criminalized for their biology).
In Christian theology this concept is known as loving the sinner (person) and hating the sin (conduct). We distinguish between people, and what people do. Equal protection forbids discrimination against people, but allows it against conduct.
The only really tricky equal protection case is in regard to sex discrimination. That's biological discrimination, but is it bigotry? Or are we recognizing sex difference for valid reasons (human reproduction, for instance).
Saint Croix,
I think both you and Justice Scalia have a different copy of the Constitution than I do.
Don't lump me with Scalia! I recognize the humanity of all people. I know that corporations aren't people. And I know that babies are people.
What I know about the NBA would fit in a thimble, but it seems a bit suspicious how the reaction to this has been synchronized/orchestrated. It gives me the impression that Magic Johnson wants to own an NBA team. And maybe one will be on the market soon.
I said that sex was the difficult equal protection case. But age is right up there. Like sex, we might have valid, non-bigoted reasons for discrimination.
After all, we discriminate against 6-year-olds. They can't drive, they can't have sex, they can't fight in a war, they can't work, they can't buy a house. Obviously we can discriminate against 6-year-olds, right?
But we can't decapitate them.
All the above rules, we adopt to protect 6-year-olds. Yes, we are discriminating against them. But there's no overt hostility (and, I would argue, no secret hostility) in that discrimination.
I would have guessed that the Clippers are the Columbus Ohio hockey team.
More info and a funny picture at Steve Sailer.
That was a really long-winded, mansplaining way of saying that the equal protection clause is not about race, or gender, or minority groups or majority groups. To me the Supreme Court has stopped reading the clause, or its history, or thinking about it in a serious way.
The equal protection clause forbids the Rwandan genocide in the USA, even though there has been no height bigotry in our history. It's not a clause about race, or racial groups. That's just one example of bigotry the clause was meant to stop. The Rwandan genocide would be another.
(Whether our authorities will respect and follow the clause is another question entirely).
How did Sterling get to be so rich? He sounds like a fool. He doesn't even talk well when he tries to make his disgusting points.
I have the same question about Donald Trump. How did our supposedly capitalist system reward such awful buffoons with such wealth?
How stupid. Doesn't this chump realize that when it comes to customers, the only color that matters is green? It's idiocy to say things that will offend a big chunk of your customer base, especially when you're the owner of a team that has always been the red-headed stepchild in that market compared to the Lakers.
The only thing he said even marginally defensible was not to bring Magic Johnson to the games, but that would be because Johnson represents the Lakers, the Clippers rival in the market. It would be like the Mets owner telling a woman to to bring Mariano Rivera to a Mets game.
I saw that this guy is supposed to receive a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the LA NAACP.
"Why would he own a basketball team if he didn't want to be around blacks? I know it's an obvious question, but it's what I'm wondering."
That's like asking why an ante-bellum southern plantation owner would buy slaves, and the answer is the same: because he makes money off of them!
So now even private relationships are subject to equal opportunity statements? Not only must we hire per the dictates of the government but now we must sleep with people only as the government decree?
But then, with these two it is arguably a work place relationship.
Noted without comment: he doesn't mind his girlfriend sleeping with black men but objects to their being photographed with them. Being accused of embezzlement is less damaging than being accused of racism.
I would have guessed that the Clippers are the Columbus Ohio hockey team.
Close...they started out in Buffalo.
This guy is a racist. Questions: How could all those Democratic politicians he supports not notice? Why did the NAACP ignore or not know of his obvious racism? Why was the NAACP going to give him an award? How much money did he give and to whom? Will politicians refuse his money and return his past donations?
What vile people.
"So, will all the people who associated the sacking of Mozilla's CEO with "blacklisting" say the same thing if the NBA moves to force Sterling to sell? You rallied to the side of a homophobe, after all. Why not a racist?"
Yes, because everything is exactly the same as everything else. (Your insult, thinly veiled as a question, is duly noted. As actual further discussion with you seems impossible, I'll just tell you to sod off.)
ALL YOUR PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS ARE BEING RECORDED AND WILL BE PUBLICIZED. Everyone has a cell phone.
Big brother is always listening....watching.....judging.
In this case the evidence is Donald Sterling is a racist. Can we ever have private conversations again?
The Prof said:
I've put things in question form because I don't know the facts.
Here are the facts! He said,"You can fuck 'em, but don't bring "em around here!"
I assert that she is a GOLDIGGER! She ain't hanging around no broke N****R! Kanye said that!
I assert that he is a willing participant in this sick relationship!
I saw that this guy is supposed to receive a "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the LA NAACP.
Yup. On their main page:
http://www.naacp-losangeles.org/
or
http://www.naacp-losangeles.org/images/honoreesRev3.jpg
Coincidentally, I first saw this story on the news yesterday after watching the tail end of a "Big Bang" episode where one of the nerds is jealous when he learns his girlfriend at a scientific conference met an old professor/boyfriend played by ex-NBA player Rick Fox.
Hilarity ensued. I dunno, double standard?
I am delighted that the Professor archives her threads because this one is such a delightful mash-up of modern sexual and racial sensibilities.
A couple opening thoughts - 1) Donald Tokowitz, aka Donald Sterling, made his initial money, it would seem, as a divorce and personal injury attorney. 2) By changing his name to Sterling, Tokowitz demonstrated a concern for ethnic identity appropriate to his desired public persona, so not a new theme for him. 3) The girl is fucking an octagenarian billionaire, which demonstrates not only that she is a gold digger, but one with mad skills. It isn't like there is an available billionaire on every street corner. It would be my supposition that the public recording is her gambit to get paid off nicely for her future non-tell-all. Goal met. So either the girl, or her handler, are pretty good at the game.
With those preliminaries out of the way, a couple of other observations. The aged Jew - we should object to people being "white" when giving offense and conveniently Jewish when on the receiving end of calumny - has been in the routine company of NBA players since 1981. It is an established fact that in a predominately black social group at the lower end of the economic scale, conversation is salted with the frequent use of the word "nigger." Perhaps the old boy's use of the term is another form of "Sterling", a manifestation of his moves as a cultural chameleon.
A second major theme is the general outrage at the construct of a young woman with an old man. As an aspiring old man, if I take the notion to sport around with younger women, I must reject the neo-blue-nose prudery of the Althouse community. The notion of fucking an old man is even beyond the sexual pale for Titus, and I can't believe I have even typed the italicized phrase. It is strange to me that the ancient construct of May-December (admittedly late December in Tokowitz' case) has come to be demonized in contemporary times, while damn near every other form of sexual relations are celebrated. A young woman's hormonal needs are satisfied by attraction to young, virile men. A young woman's financial needs are satisfied by scoring an established man with a bank account. Who are we to judge? Given the choice of being a corporate cube-rat for $40K per year, if she can get a job, this young woman is scoring millions by a few escapades with a geezer. I have to think that the opprobrium stems from the threat to the general population of women who stand much to lose if prostitution is mainstreamed.
Some one (I forget who) once said that the most powerful people in the world are wealthy men and beautiful young women.
Everybody wants what they have.
Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't too picky about the rest of the package.
"Horrific"? Let's try to keep a sense of proportion here, shall we, even if there's a race thing involved? There are horrific behaviors that can arise from race prejudice. This isn't one of them. It's a nasty old coot and a nasty young skank. It's a pair of trashy people doing what trashy people do. The fact that the nasty old coot has a weird race/sex thing goin' on in his trashy psyche, and made weird racial comments to the nasty young skank, doesn't make it some deep civil rights issue.
Really, people, if the primary thing you're seeing wrong with this picture is that some rich 81-year old (probably going) senile low-life expressed a negative opinion of another race, you're missing something.
Yes, because everything is exactly the same as everything else. (Your insult, thinly veiled as a question, is duly noted. As actual further discussion with you seems impossible, I'll just tell you to sod off.)
Yep. You got nothing. Never thought you did.
If Bill Walton doesn't break his foot 34 years ago, chances are none of the current kerfuffle ever happens.
Sterling bought a below-average team at a fire sale, moved it to a market where it was always going to be second banana, and ran the team horribly for almost a third of a century, until NBA Commissioner David Stern stepped in three years ago and steers Chris Paul away from the Lakers to the Clippers. Sterling's never listened to any sensible advice on how to run his basketball team, so it's no shock his ideas about other things, including what racial demographics should be going to Clippers games, is no surprise.
hmm, reading it, it looks to me like it's not all black people, just the ones she hangs aorund with. Looks to me like he doesn't care who she sleeps with, as long as she doesn't make it known publically (which she has now done). In other words, he doesn't want to be outed as a cuckold. But everything is all about race now isn't it?
Also, "he has to step down or sell the team"
Is this America? I thought we were supposed to have a post-racial president?
I am awestruck at that loathesome creature. No, the girl. Why would he be dating her at all?
Is he not aware that for I'm sure a small fraction of a million dollars a year, he could have a new 10 from Eastern Europe every year to do everything and say nothing? And he prefers that? I couldn't look at her for 3 minutes without excusing myself from the room.
Not, I suppose, that he is worthy of any consideration, but it's a pity to see people who don't know what to do with their money and power.
I suppose there's no point now in having her killed since the cat is out of the bag, but if he had done it, I don't think it should be illegal. First off, black males should be killed. Haha, I said blackmailers. Stupid voice to text is going to get me in trouble with Crack!
Oh and yes, I think that we need a new branch of the law dealing with misunderstandings caused by machine interpretations of speech.
"Horrific"? Let's try to keep a sense of proportion here, shall we, even if there's a race thing involved? There are horrific behaviors that can arise from race prejudice. This isn't one of them. It's a nasty old coot and a nasty young skank. It's a pair of trashy people doing what trashy people do. The fact that the nasty old coot has a weird race/sex thing goin' on in his trashy psyche, and made weird racial comments to the nasty young skank, doesn't make it some deep civil rights issue.
Really, people, if the primary thing you're seeing wrong with this picture is that some rich 81-year old (probably going) senile low-life expressed a negative opinion of another race, you're missing something.
Amen.
But when four people get killed by Islamists it's just "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Saint Croix:
Equal protection respects biology, not conduct, is a critical observation. There is no right to discriminate against individuals by virtue of incidental features or attributes. There is no general right to discriminate against conduct, but equal conduct is not a protected right. In fact, laws are passed specifically to restrict conduct, which are injurious, disruptive, or otherwise harmful to individuals, society, and humanity.
That said, it's simply unbelievable that abortion/murder was passed in a strict opposition to the spirit and definition of equal protection. Slavery was tolerated as a grand compromise because the new nation could not simultaneously fight a civil and revolutionary war. I wonder if the advocates for abortion/murder believe they are defending a grand compromise in the same spirit. If that is the case, then I cannot imagine what could possibly justify it.
rcocean,
Please show me the octogenarian exception in the equal protection clause. Thank you.
PS- I you can't , I will understand. Thanks again.
Anthony: "The fact that the nasty old coot has a weird race/sex thing goin' on in his trashy psyche.."
Enough about Bill Maher already!
Can't we talk about Sterling?
Slavery was tolerated because it was enormously profitable, and for no other reason. No one at the convention ever suggested that it was a cause for war. At worst, and if a compromise could not be reached, the States would simply part ways.
Everyday some new stranger who's said something against decency is served up for our denouncement.
"And coming to you from Akron, Ohio, we bring you Today's Racist..."
"Coming to you today from New York, New York, Today's Sexist..."
"Today in sunny Los Angeles, California, we bring you Today's Homophobe..."
It's a big country. There are tens of millions of people who believe all kinds of crazy things running around. They say nutty stuff. Who has time for that? Who cares? Who are these people?
"Oh, but this was a rich guy saying it." So what? There are all kinds of crazy rich people out here. What are you going to do? That's why some of them are so crazy. When you're rich enough you can be a huge, flaming jerk with no real consequence. That's why Jesus warned people about being rich. "Watch out if you're rich. You don't have the checks on you to keep you thinking about the real things. Watch out. You'll get lost in all the ashes and cut yourself off from God."
"out there"
As for Snoop Dogg: A message to the motherf***** that owns the Clippers. You b****-a** redneck white-bred chickens*** motherf*****: F*** you, your momma and everyone connected to you, you racist piece of s***. F*** you,'
What kind of a sick, racist old white-ass billionaire would you have to be not to want Snoop at your next social gathering?
Words are spoken; feelings are hurt.
University professors outraged.
Oh my!
Freeman Hunt,
"Everyday some new stranger who's said something against decency is served up for our denouncement."
After everyone told me they don't exist, remember. "But," I say, "I run into some version of these people all the time." "Well, you're nuts." is the reply.
So, I'm rather enjoying the spectacle - and being right - both, in my correct assessment of what's out there, and my timing for bringing race to the fore:
I've still "got" it.
BTW, my "rash" is the result of extremely dry skin due to SF humidity. Got some creams. Dermatologist said he sees it all the time,...
Diogenes of Sinope,
"Everyone has a cell phone.
In this case the evidence is Donald Sterling is a racist. Can we ever have private conversations again?"
MLK: We should judge people, not by their color, but by the content of their character.
What is character?
How you behave when you think no one's watching/listening.
This will be a HUGE problem going forward for those who deem themselves worthy of sitting in judgement, of blacks, without dealing honestly with American slavery and Jim Crow. They'll finally discover they're wrong. Horrible.
Justice in this case, as Thomas Jefferson noted, cannot be avoided. Bloodshed, yes, but not justice.
Whites should just try BEING good for a change, and not just saying they are, or deciding to think of themselves that way. The evidence is against them. They were, for three days, after 9-11. What happened?
Spike Lee didn't name his movie "Do The Right Thing" for nothing.
And the GOP didn't say it had a race problem, for nothing, either.
It's time for whites to stop being blind - to history, to racism, and to themselves,...
John Stoddard:
"Unlike Mozilla's leader, Obama has CHANGED his public position since 2009."
"... STOPPED LYING about what his opinion was ..." is likely more correct.
Just a question; do we know for a fact that this is a recording of this man?
Crack - I reject this! Donald Sensing is a Jew. Since when does a Jew qualify as a white-bread cracker? What is he, a trailer-park Jew? He is also a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Jew and up for an award from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Why don't you go ahead and call for Jews to try being good for a change?
More parts of the recordings are being played now on sports shows. After a while it becomes clear this was sincere pillow talk for this old fool. He was sharing his true feelings.
That is what makes this secret racist teachings from Sterling so powerful.
Who has time for that? Who cares? Who are these people?
Freeman, obviously his comments are gross and hateful, whether one person heard them or 100 million. People don't care because he's rich; they care because he owns a team in a league where 90 percent of the players are members of the race for which he demonstrated such hatred.
This is why I made the link to the Mozilla case, which many here thought was blacklisting, left-wing McCarthyism, and a threat to freedom of speech.
Obviously, if Brendan Eich wants to donate to an anti-gay marriage campaign, he has every right to do so. But he was appointed to lead a gay-friendly company in a gay-friendly industry, and that appointment, given his views, could hurt the company with employee retention, recruitment, vendor relations and customer relations. Because many of the people who fall into those categories are gay and believe, differently than many Althouse readers, that allowing gay marriage is a matter of equal protection.
That point is dramatized by this incident. Even the most blinkered anti-gay marriage activist knows that the NBA has a lot of black players, coaches, upper management, media, etc. So, while it is true that this depraved rich man normally should be able to say whatever vile things he wants to his mistress, if some of that vileness should happen to come out and show him to be a racist, he is no longer relevant to the NBA. Obviously, there is the fact of his ownership, but that's for the league to deal with and correct. Because the fans in LA simply cannot expect the team to do well if black athletes, executives and fans start to shun the team.
The mistake so many are making is seeing this as being about political correctness, or some liberal mafia at work. It's not. It's business. And in this era of ubiquitous microphones, cameras and public records of donations, anyone in a vulnerable position -- such as a racist running a pro basketball team, or someone with no regard for gays' demands for equal treatment who wants to run a prominent business in a gay-friendly industry -- needs to show proper respect for the full dimensions of their business position.
John Stodder said...
This is why I made the link to the Mozilla case, which many here thought was blacklisting, left-wing McCarthyism, and a threat to freedom of speech.
The key to understanding Stodder is recognizing that a month ago he assured us the Mozilla case was not a precedent, it was a unique ocurrence. Yet a month later he's both building on the precendent he claimed didn't exist and claiming anyone concerned the precendent will extend beyond the current paramaters is a nut.
In other words he's a typical leftist. And who is ready to rely on his already proven unreliable assurances? We all know he, and those like him, will be among those standing on the sidewalk as we walk past wearing our Yellow Stars of David.
That said, it's simply unbelievable that abortion/murder was passed in a strict opposition to the spirit and definition of equal protection.
It was, though. Not only did the majority define the unborn as non-people, none of the dissenters have argued they are people. Sub-human and property. Lower than dogs, as John Hart Ely put it (we can protect dogs).
Slavery was tolerated as a grand compromise because the new nation could not simultaneously fight a civil and revolutionary war.
"a pact with the devil" the abolitionists called it.
The Dred Scott opinion actually seems to say (at least, Chief Justice Taney's opinion seems to say) that no people from Africa (including free citizens) are part of the American people. Taney also suggests that a slave-owner had a right to take his slave into a free territory or a free state. Followed to its logical conclusion, there could be no free states.
We minimized the horrors and atrocities of slavery, and we do the same thing with abortion.
John, I'm not arguing that this is an indication of political correctness run amok. Of course everyone who works with him will be ticked off and there will be consequences. But why is this guy news? This guy was already a known racist.
"Stranger Racist with No Power Over Your Life Says Racist Thing to Money Grubbing Girlfriend."
Like I said, who cares among the general public? Why is this selected as newsworthy?
Freeman Hunt,
"Stranger Racist with No Power Over Your Life Says Racist Thing to Money Grubbing Girlfriend."
Magic Johnson is a black icon.
"Like I said, who cares among the general public? Why is this selected as newsworthy?"
TMZ and blacks, apparently.
But where to begin in America?
Looking back or straight ahead?
It's all such a part of the culture,...
Like I said, who cares among the general public?
Oh, okay. Got it.
This became news because his much-younger girlfriend evidently leaked it as part of her war with his wife, who is suing her on behalf of the Sterling family to recover money and things he gave her.
Combine that with the fact that his team, the Clippers is in the NBA playoffs, which of course millions of us are following closely.
You say it was clear he was a racist -- yes and no. In LA he is usually seen as the most-hated, stupidest and more horrible sports owner in town. There have been stories that raised the topic of race.
But the comments on this tape (release to coincide with Game 4 of the series the Clippers are now in) were just so bizarre, stirring up the pot not only with race, but sex, money, old age and of course sports. What editor could resist?
Post a Comment