May 8, 2014

At CBS DC right now, surprising results of a sidebar poll about Donald Sterling.

Perhaps the poll appears other places as well, but in any case, I think this response is very different from what the media wanted to make people think:



I happened to notice the poll because I'd clicked to the article "US Attorney To Oversee Lerner Contempt Case Appointed By Obama." Feel free to discuss that topic as well. I hope 2 completely different topics doesn't produce chaos in the topics. I'm not going to perform any these-topics-actually-are-related theater for you.

Have at it.

45 comments:

tim in vermont said...

I have complete confidence that this will be handled in the same way as it would have been handled were Holder investigating the Bush Administration. Without fear or favor.

gerry said...

Heavens. This thread is doomed to Crack dominance.

grackle said...

Fair or not, there was no way Sterling could continue in the role of owner(as opposed to legal owner). By barring him for life and the other actions taken the NBA owners were performing an existential act. The blow to the NBA, if Sterling had been given a slap on the wrist, could have been fatal.

grackle said...

Safe prediction: As long as Holder is the Attorney General and Obama is POTUS there will be no prosecution of Lerner.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The interesting question to consider: What would Sterling have to say and do to get the lifetime ban lifted?

From Inwood said...

Re Sterling.

Ritualistic disclaimer: Sterling is a jerk.

BAD Sterling.

OK.

The NBA action is one of those slippery slope situations you refer to in another post.

Some Libs think that a team owner who is pro-life is engaging in a War On Wymyn. Should such owner be banned?

Should the Koch Brothers be allowed to own a team?

WFB: (paraphrase) Though liberals claim to be open to diversity in thought, it shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.

BTW, should we remove all professed racists (Ty Cobb comes to mind) from the Hall of Fame?

Mark Nielsen said...

So Lois Sterling received a lifetime ban from the NBA and is now going to turn the IRS loose on them in retaliation? What?

Bob Loblaw said...

Maybe Donald himself is casting most of the votes. He's probably got a little time on his hands now.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Of course Lerner won't face prosecution. On the other hand, her NOT being prosecuted gives the conservatives a stronger hand going into the election, just like the refusal to impeach over Benghazi.

Why? Because then it becomes easy to argue that Democrats are only interesting in making Chicago-style graft, favoritism and corruption the norm for the entire US, and that giving them more power over our lives is dangerous.

It's like Rand Paul and the Koch brothers are orchestrating the whole thing to turn core constituencies against the Dems.

Because, let's face it-- while the "We can lie and cheat as long as we win" wing of the party is the LOUDEST part, it's actually not the majority. Most actual Dem voters are honest and patriotic, and this administration's actions are hurting the brand and producing a new wave of 'Reagan Democrats'--- just waiting for a Gipper to lead them home....

MikeDC said...

I don't think they've set any bad precedents because everyone knows they'll just ignore the precedent if it's politically correct to do so.

Regarding forcing Sterling to sell, I don't see how that's really the sort of slap at property rights some folks make out. What about the property rights of the other owners? As a team owner, I shouldn't be forced to have to play my team against someone I don't want to play against, like Sterling.

That is, the product these "companies" are making is a jointly produced product. A basketball game with only one team is not very entertaining. So certainly the other owner have the right to kick him out of their league and say they don't want to play with him anymore.

Beth said...

The people who feel wronged by Sterling willingly worked for him and took his "dirty" money - including Doc Rivers. I don't think the general public will have much sympathy for them. They might have sympathy for an old man being ganged up on for horrible comments made in private.

The Crack Emcee said...

In a racist country, what's surprising about It?

It fits my perception of America *perfectly* - just as Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling, and Tal Fortgang are right out of American Central Casting - while those "patriots" who claim such people don't exist (Tank, etc., screaming "They're all dead!") are forced to try new arguments, to counter their own denial, about our country and it's older and more recent history and citizenry. (Didn't conservatives howl when Oprah said racists have to die for us to be free of them? No apologies from them now, huh? Of course not,...) Because they refuse to admit they're wrong - which has been, as our history shows, the problem all along:

White conservatives simply can't admit they've EVER been wrong or deceived - about anything.

All they recognize, and demand, is Manifest Destiny praise.

Fault/Guilt/Ignorance - even after 400 years, they seem to be a personal affront for most whites to admit. As I've said, many times, I can be correct every day of the week, and all I'll get for my efforts is white conservatives searching for a new way to avoid saying it. That, too, is a kind of slavery - since I have to wait on whites to make up their minds about whether or not they want to recognize the ugly reality they force on me.

Then they'll call me a sell-out for not voting with them.

Lovely people,....

Illuninati said...

I agree that Lerner will not face prosecution. After the Democrats have obstructed the investigation they will claim that the absence of prosecution is prima facie evidence that Lerner did nothing wrong and that she is actually a victim of the Republicans.

It is chilling that an entire political party believes that using the IRS and rogue prosecutors to destroy their enemies is righteous.

The Crack Emcee said...

Deirdre Mundy,

"Of course Lerner won't face prosecution. On the other hand, her NOT being prosecuted gives the conservatives a stronger hand going into the election, just like the refusal to impeach over Benghazi."

Until white conservatives ever decide to consider ethics seriously - on their own, without considering how it'll "play" - they stand no chance of winning.

What part of "Do The Right Thing" says "Calculate how many votes you'll get for ir"?

It's embarrassing to think educated Americans can be so clueless to their own appearance and sociopathy,...

RecChief said...

I quit watching the NBA a long time ago because its blatantly obvious that stars get calls that others don't. Four example, a star can take 4 steps going to the basket, but all anyone talks about is his windmill dunk. Let a rookie, who hasn't been anointed as the next big thing, try that. Gets called every time.

Maybe the NBA IS the perfect metaphor for this administration's approach to enforcing laws after all.

Freder Frederson said...

I wish you would stop calling these unscientific surveys "polls". A poll is a random sample that has some statistical validity.

This survey is meaningless.

Freder Frederson said...

just like the refusal to impeach over Benghazi.

Benghazi was over a year and a half ago and has been the subject of repeated congressional scrutiny.

I may have missed it, but can you articulate the impeachable offense for me?

traditionalguy said...

Fear of the Bill of Attainder used by the British Monarchs to ruin the family of whomever they wished still lingers in these Rebellion Colonies.

B said...

Federal law says Machen has a “duty” to bring the matter before a grand jury. But a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said it was unclear whether the duty is mandatory or discretionary.

If the duty is simply bring to grand jury, how is that discretionary?

Bring it to grand jury: succeed.
Don't bring it: fail.

grackle said...

They[the American people] might have sympathy for an old man being ganged up on for horrible comments made in private.

Wishful thinking. Sterling is toast as far as the NBA and public opinion is concerned.

Some Libs think that a team owner who is pro-life is engaging in a War On Wymyn.

The error in logic here is that the NBA players are not comprised of 80% females. The NBA players, who could easily start a competing league, are 80% black and 100% male. And I think all the white NBA players would eagerly play in that league if it were formed. With the Sterling sanctions the NBA owners were ensuring the survival of the NBA.

Should such owner be banned?

If such an owner owned a WNBA team and anti-female remarks were made public? Yep. It's called survival.

Of course Lerner won't face prosecution. On the other hand, her NOT being prosecuted gives the conservatives a stronger hand going into the election, just like the refusal to impeach over Benghazi.

Bingo!

Tank said...

Hey Crack

If you're going to use my name, why don't you cite to an actual statement you lying son of a bitch.

What a stupid moron you are.

And a liar.

A hate fucking liars like you.

William said...

Sterling was in the wrong. The NBA was justified to punish him. It's worth noting, however, that the NBA considers his offense worse than torturing puppies or being an accessory to murder. There's something disproportionate about it.......If Lois Lerner had honed in on civil rights groups with the same rigor that she did on conservative groups, she would be considered the most evil and malignant woman since Lucretia Borgia or Sarah Palin.......I would be interested in Crack's take on Boko Haram. I know this has something to do with white racism, but I can't quite draw the arrows.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Obviously this shows how racist the populations is.

Some mandatory re-education/diversity training should be mandated for all citizens.

Well, just the honkys at least.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

How's your rash, Crack?

I guess race baiting is bad for the skin.

Sam L. said...

Gee.... The voters didn't feel teh hate. They were smarter than the question asker could imagine.

If there were a law against being a a**hole, we'd need waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaymore jails/prisons.

Marshal said...

The top answer seems more popular than I would have expected. I wonder if there's a significant percentage considering the question from a legal perspective, essentially believing the NBA doesn't have the right to expel Sterling.

Drago said...

Freder Frederson: "I wish you would stop calling these unscientific surveys "polls". A poll is a random sample that has some statistical validity. This survey is meaningless"

LOL

Says the "97% of climate scientists think the science is settled" crew!

Too funny.

Larry J said...

grackle said...

Safe prediction: As long as Holder is the Attorney General and Obama is POTUS there will be no prosecution of Lerner.


Another safe prediction: Should a Republican win the next presidental election, Obama will pardon Lerner (and perhaps Holder) on his way out the door.

Drago said...

You'll have to forgive Crack.

He's running away from the Boko Haram story so fast he's running into all kinds of cognitive dissonance walls.

Illuninati said...

The Crack Emcee said:
"It's embarrassing to think educated Americans can be so clueless to their own appearance and sociopathy,..."

I hope Crack is talking about the IRS employees who abused their power.

Andy Freeman said...

> Should the Koch Brothers be allowed to own a team?

Rush Limbaugh wasn't allowed to buy a minority interest in an NFL team.

CWJ said...

MikeDC wrote -

"Regarding forcing Sterling to sell, I don't see how that's really the sort of slap at property rights some folks make out. What about the property rights of the other owners?"

LOL, so the NBA is really just a sports version of my (or anyone else's) homeowners association.

Truer words were never written.

hombre said...

"US Attorney appointed to oversee Lerner contempt case appointed by Obama."

I see that CBS DC is already citing some study that says it's unclear whether the US Attorney's duty to present the matter to a grand jury in mandatory or discretionary. How do you suppose they came across that bit of information.

Funny, I can't remember right off hand any "duties" that were discretionary when I was a public lawyer. Duties were duties.

Say, can anyone remember the last time a Democrat put duty above party?

hombre said...

Crack: 'What part of "Do The Right Thing" says "Calculate how many votes you'll get for it"?'

Crack would say this in the face of an administration that measures everything they do by the potential electoral impact and tries to suppress everything that will have a negative impact?

He's always been a racist. Now, apparently, he's become a racist who panders for the Democrats. Although, now that I mention it, that's not an unusual thing.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Ah yes, Crack has been pretty silent on Boko Haram.

Here ya go Crack, some real actual slavery. Flash that outrage!

Oh wait, he isn't a rich white man you might be able to extort some reparations out of.

Donald Sterling is obviously a bigger problem than actual slavery.

Ann Althouse said...

"I wish you would stop calling these unscientific surveys "polls". A poll is a random sample that has some statistical validity."

I wish you'd stop calling these unscientific polls "surveys."

Opinh Bombay said...

frederson: "I may have missed it, but can you articulate the impeachable offense for me?"

Personally, I think impeaching the President is impossible, but I will tell you what I think he did wrong.

1) Made war against Libya based on the War Powers Act. Extended past the date that mandates Congressional approval. No such approval sought nor given.

2) Refused the ambassadors request for security. Ordered military to stand down. Placed security in hands of locals. These decisions got the Ambassador tortured and killed. Killed on an anniversary of Sept 11.

3) Despite straight forward intelligence reports of Islamic terrorists being the attackers, the administration blames a youtube video for the attack. There is redacted email evidence that this was a knowing strategy deflect blame and control the narrative in the looming election. Please recall that the message was: "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive!"

4) In a sane world, with an election looming, these events would be taken care of by knowledgeable voters. Impeachment is a sane choice when your government knowingly misleads you - just impossible with this President in these times.

From Inwood said...

Grackle

I wrote: Some Libs think that a team owner who is pro-life is engaging in a War On Wymyn.

You write:

The error in logic here is that the NBA players are not comprised of 80% females. The NBA players, who could easily start a competing league, are 80% black and 100% male. And I think all the white NBA players would eagerly play in that league if it were formed. With the Sterling sanctions the NBA owners were ensuring the survival of the NBA.

I say: Huh?

I ask: Should such [Pro-Life] owner be banned?

You write: If such an owner owned a WNBA team and anti-female remarks were made public? Yep. It's called survival.

Er, rather than answer my question, you restate it & answer yourf restatement, which you are, apparently, more comfortable in answering. I would suggest to you that being pro-life is not considered "anti-female" by any reasonable person.

Let me try again: does a sports league have to cave in to the perpetually-aggrieved? Or, who gets a say in determining the guidelines to be used by those who run the league when it comes to approving owners?

grackle said...

Er, rather than answer my question, you restate it & answer your restatement, which you are, apparently, more comfortable in answering. I would suggest to you that being pro-life is not considered "anti-female" by any reasonable person.

The commentor has a valid point as to the nature of the question and my admittedly faulty answer.

The original question: Some Libs think that a team owner who is pro-life is engaging in a War On Wymyn. Should such owner be banned?

I think being merely pro-life would not have enough traction among the WNBA players, owners or the fans to get the hypothetical owner banned, given that he polls indicate that the pro-choice/pro-life issue is fairly evenly divided in public opinion. No such public opinion parity exists on the subject of racism, as in the Sterling episode.

http://tinyurl.com/2br99el

And no, I do not think that a pro-life owner should be banned from the WNBA on the issue of abortion alone.

However, if any such opinion should be made public and that opinion were framed with a plantation mentality, such as Sterling's was, filled with many obviously anti-female remarks then that owner would have to be gone. So it sort of depends on what exactly would be revealed.

The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. The first duty of a business owner is to protect the business.

It's called survival.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

The Crack Emcee said...
In a racist country, what's surprising about It?


Please name a non-racist country. The phrase does have a definite meaning, right? You're willing to define your terms, I'm sure.

As I've said, many times, I can be correct every day of the week...

Can you, though? Do you mean you weave intentionally erroneous assertions into your unsupported statements of opinion on purpose, but could choose to not do so at any time? Is this a long term strategy of some sort, to be pursued for, say, 400 years?

grackle said...

Let me try again: does a sports league have to cave in to the perpetually-aggrieved? Or, who gets a say in determining the guidelines to be used by those who run the league when it comes to approving owners?

Hmm … I'm going to have to disagree with an assumption or two within the question.

I wouldn't characterize the NBA owners response to Sterling's racist remarks as a "cave in." Such a term implies that the NBA owners are themselves racist and only reluctantly sanctioned Sterling. Yet their response was strong, speedy and seemingly unanimous.

Furthermore, I don't believe the NBA players fall into the category of the "perpetually aggrieved." Angry response to undeniably racist remarks, to my mind, do not constitute being "perpetually aggrieved."

As to "who gets a say in determining the guidelines," obviously that would be the NBA owners, as long as the guidelines are legal.

From Inwood said...

Grackle

Perhaps I was unclear.

I don't equate the aggrieved in Sterling's case with the perpetually aggrieved. Here we had a real grievance caused by a real jerk affecting real people.

And, obviously if a pro-Life person went on a silly rant against "women being best left barefoot & pregnant", this would aggrieve more than the perpetually aggrieved. The reality is however that too many of The Anointed see the pro-life position as absurd ipso facto. Thus, my question is whether the pro-abortion folks get the power to have a sports owner (corporate CEO....) who states, calmly, that "there is something alive in a pregnant woman's womb" banned.

Or for that matter, do gays get to ban a sports owner (corporate CEO....)who states, calmly, that "marriage is between two people of the opposite sex"?

grackle said...

Part of commentor's latest comment: Perhaps I was unclear. I don't equate the aggrieved in Sterling's case with the perpetually aggrieved. Here we had a real grievance caused by a real jerk affecting real people.

Commentor's original question: Some Libs think that a team owner who is pro-life is engaging in a War On Wymyn. Should such owner be banned?

Since the subject of Althouse's post was Sterling and his troubles with the NBA I assumed wrongly that the comment was referring to that situation.

Commentor's revised question: Let me try again: does a sports league have to cave in to the perpetually-aggrieved? Or, who gets a say in determining the guidelines to be used by those who run the league when it comes to approving owners?

Commentor's latest rendition: … obviously if a pro-Life person went on a silly rant against "women being best left barefoot & pregnant", this would aggrieve more than the perpetually aggrieved … Thus, my question is whether the pro-abortion folks get the power to have a sports owner (corporate CEO....) who states, calmly, that "there is something alive in a pregnant woman's womb" banned. Or for that matter, do gays get to ban a sports owner (corporate CEO....)who states, calmly, that "marriage is between two people of the opposite sex"?

Here the commentor is changing the goalposts somewhat by adding "corporate CEO," along with "sports owner" to his question. The comment also brings in the issue of gayness, heretofore never mentioned by the commentor.

My answer remains essentially the same: I think being merely pro-life would not have enough traction among the players, owners or the fans to get the hypothetical owner banned, given that the polls indicate that the pro-choice/pro-life issue is fairly evenly divided in public opinion. No such public opinion parity exists on the subject of racism, as in the Sterling episode.

As for CEOs of corporations: As long as legalities are adhered to I believe the CEO's boss or bosses obviously have "the power" to fire the CEO for any reason, including hypothetical absurdities such as not liking the color of the CEO's socks.

From Inwood said...

Grackle

The prof will probably not publish this since we're beating a dead horse.

OK, corporations generally have the right to fire an employee at will; CEO's today generally have employment contracts, which don't necessarily prevent them from being fired, just set the terms of the "buy out".

I'm not moving any goalposts, just adding people who must be silenced.

I'm talking about pressure being put on the board of directors of a corporation (like in the Silicon Valley case) or any board like a local school board or here put on the other owners of a franchise.

Public opinion can be manipulated by the perpetually aggrieved, the injustice collectors, whomever.

When must attention be paid?

I suggest to you that since the average person doesn't care & since the Lamestream Media is Far Left, the voices on the Left get more publicity than those on the Right.

BTW: see http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/world-turned-upside-down-gay-new-yorkers-say-ok-to-chick-fil-a/

grackle said...

I suggest to you that since the average person doesn't care & since the Lamestream Media is Far Left, the voices on the Left get more publicity than those on the Right.

I agree with this comment. However I see no way to improve the situation other than raise our own voices on the behalf of businesses, including sports franchises, that are preyed upon by the Left.

However I do not believe the Sterling incident is an example of that. It was a matter of survival for the NBA itself.

I'm talking about pressure being put on the board of directors of a corporation (like in the Silicon Valley case) or any board like a local school board or here put on the other owners of a franchise.

There's an ultimate price to pay for the California idiot politician's and activist's shenanigans. California, for instance, is loosing population and businesses daily to the more business-friendly low-tax, low-regulation, right to work states. And many of the other blue states are paying the same price.

Sure, public opinion CAN be manipulated but the MSM cannot manipulate where the jobs are or where the better opportunities for business are. I wouldn't think it too far fetched that sometime in the future that the Clippers might not end up as a Ft. Worth franchise - or in some other red state city. Keep in mind that the Oklahoma City Thunder was once the Seattle Supersonics.

http://tinyurl.com/9n35zp2

http://tinyurl.com/kbjaalp