The Donald Sterling case is one of those things that disturbs people because it makes them think more than they're usually required. Over the past year, United States Supreme Court rulings have helped to clarify that plutocracy really is the best form of government after all, and that racial discrimination is a thing of the past.
An important precedent had been set in late January 2010, when the Court had ruled that since corporations are "persons" -- and spending money is a form of "speech" -- any limitation on corporate spending in elections constitutes a limitation on freedom of speech. (A corporation is also a "gathering of citizens," you see.)
Hmmmm, "attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible"? I guess that would give them more free time for golf and knitting, but it does raise the question as to just what the hell they understand their job to be.
Anyway, what's the point here, right? Well, one point is that stuff like the information above doesn't catch too many people's attention, despite the fact that it represents the abandonment of the concept of the need for government to serve the best interests of all the people -- providing some protection and a theoretical guarantee of civil rights for minority populations against the institutional dominance and inherent discrimination of a majority population; and providing some protection and a theoretical guarantee of civil rights for individual citizens against the potential abuses of those who hold real power in society. In other words, the idea that the weak should be protected from the strong.
Another point is that one reason such information doesn't catch many people's attention may be because they are not adequately informed by a free press. Which makes complete sense, because corporate media by definition cannot include a free press: you only hear what you're allowed to hear -- that which is permissible from the perspective of those who own the press.
In that context, it's easy enough for some old turd like Cliven Bundy to be found to be an idiot, and for some middle-aged idiot like Sean Hannity to wind up with egg on his face for his forthright support of Bundy. After all, Bundy got a nice photo op riding a horse while carrying the American flag despite proclaiming that he doesn't recognize the existence of the national government which that flag sorta represents; who would've guessed that Bundy's ideas and opinions would be those shared by members of Far Right militia groups, armed "patriots" dedicated to white supremacy and such??????
But Donald Sterling came as more of a shock: owner of a sports franchise in a league literally full of African-American athletes. Who would have guessed that his private attitudes were merely a more modern version of those of the master of a plantation? And that is the fundamental reason why his private comments were so disturbing when revealed publicly: suddenly people had to think.
To think about the fact that the majority of the people on the basketball court who are playing the game are black, whereas the majority of the people in the stands watching the game are white (as well as referees, management and owners -- those in positions of "authority"). Now those who have worked for Sterling can't rationally continue to do so -- it would tend to confirm the idea that they are his property, and were bought to please the crowd.
To think about why there was no great outrage previously when Sterling was required to pay a record settlement for having discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants to rent at his properties. Those were merely lower-class human beings being affected, and a man has a right to do what he likes with his property; that sort of thing is far less important than the bigoted private opinions he held, despite the fact that the latter would seem likely to have influenced his real-world discrimination.
To think about how awesome it might look if the student body of American institutions of higher learning becomes whiter and whiter (a consequence of the preferential acceptance of the privileged children of alumni), while their athletic departments continue to provide full scholarships to non-whites whose only apparent value to the school -- and, implicitly, in society -- is their athletic ability.
In listening to the full conversation it's obvious that Ms. Stiviano is far from a saint. Their conversation is carried over from an immediately prior conversation, which she repeatedly urges him to continue now that she's recording it. She acts the part of a pleasant nurse, "sweetie," as she gets some juice for an old man. She had allegedly eventually professed an intention to "get even," suggesting that her recording of this particular private conversation was done at the time to have a weapon to use against him. My interpretation may come as a quite a shock if you're inclined to believe her love was ever real; after all, beautiful young women the world over have always been dying to have sex with wrinkled-up old men.
It should also be noted that despite the extraordinary stream of stupid ideas expressed by Sterling, not once does he use the most common racial slur in describing black people. Good for him; that's some progress right there (unless he's only one of those upper-class gentlemen who won't stoop to the gutter-language of thugs on the street). I guess these considerations regarding a rich white man and his mistress are one of the reasons these issues are typically referred to as tragic.
==================================
Another interesting thing that comes out of the conversation is Sterling's contentious attitude about his bigotry being compared to antisemitic bigotry -- as exemplified in the Holocaust, for instance. I don't think this is just a simple case of hypocrisy. When a Jewish American is unable to see or unwilling to acknowledge the connection between the Holocaust and racism per se, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is just another stupid white person. It probably also means that the Holocaust is regarded as a unique defining event exclusive to Jewish identity and to no one else; in other words, a case of idolatry.
That goes a long way towards explaining the problem of dealing with the nation of Israel on a rational basis: anything done in its name is justified because of the Holocaust.
This is why the real meaning of "not taking the name of the Lord in vain" doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with cussing or exclaiming, "Jesus Christ!" It means not seeking to justify our actions by claiming that "God is on our side."
==================================
When I attended college in the early 1980s, my Major adviser in International Studies was a Muslim professor originally from Madras, India. I occasionally pursued questions with him that I couldn't figure out answers for. For instance, I once asked why the US government did not regard its relationship with Turkey as much more important to our interests than it did to our relationship with Israel. (Answer: the Israel Lobby.) Another time I brought up a question about Soviet influence in Africa; it's still funny that he hesitated and looked at me with a bemused expression as he cautiously offered this white Hoosier (with Kentucky only a river away) the opinion that Russians are white and regarded as such in the non-white world. (In other words, more of the same, from their perspective.)
That certainly helped put an alleged ideological battle in perspective, and ordinarily it would only be an interesting anecdote and a nice memory for me. But today in eastern Europe, young whites are listening to rap music and their own derivations of it, and apparently think it's cool to greet groups of friends by saying "Wazzup Niggas?" That might somehow be considered progress, if it weren't occurring among white people still capable of harboring prejudice against other white people, like Gypsies and Jews; it's frightening to think what their honest attitudes toward non-white people could possibly be, however much they might like amusing one another with the modern equivalence of minstrel shows and Amos n' Andy routines.
Corruption of unions by employers is okay.
Corruption in political elections is okay.
State governments which were formerly under some suspicion are now okay.
Federal action to ameliorate institutionalized discrimination is not okay.
An important precedent had been set in late January 2010, when the Court had ruled that since corporations are "persons" -- and spending money is a form of "speech" -- any limitation on corporate spending in elections constitutes a limitation on freedom of speech. (A corporation is also a "gathering of citizens," you see.)
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
The Supreme Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. FEC. (In the prior cases, the Court had held that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity.) By a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, the majority held that under the First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Samuel A. Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, and Sonia Sotamayor. The majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation. The majority also held that the BCRA's disclosure requirements as applied to The Movie were constitutional, reasoning that disclosure is justified by a "governmental interest" in providing the "electorate with information" about election-related spending resources. The Court also upheld the disclosure requirements for political advertising sponsors and it upheld the ban on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.
In a separate concurring opinion, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justice Alito, emphasized the care with which the Court handles constitutional issues and its attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible. Here, the Court had no narrower grounds upon which to rule, except to handle the First Amendment issues embodied within the case. Justice Scalia also wrote a separate concurring opinion, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas in part, criticizing Justice Stevens' understanding of the Framer's view towards corporations. Justice Stevens argued that corporations are not members of society and that there are compelling governmental interests to curb corporations' ability to spend money during local and national elections.
Hmmmm, "attempts to avoid constitutional issues when at all possible"? I guess that would give them more free time for golf and knitting, but it does raise the question as to just what the hell they understand their job to be.
Anyway, what's the point here, right? Well, one point is that stuff like the information above doesn't catch too many people's attention, despite the fact that it represents the abandonment of the concept of the need for government to serve the best interests of all the people -- providing some protection and a theoretical guarantee of civil rights for minority populations against the institutional dominance and inherent discrimination of a majority population; and providing some protection and a theoretical guarantee of civil rights for individual citizens against the potential abuses of those who hold real power in society. In other words, the idea that the weak should be protected from the strong.
Another point is that one reason such information doesn't catch many people's attention may be because they are not adequately informed by a free press. Which makes complete sense, because corporate media by definition cannot include a free press: you only hear what you're allowed to hear -- that which is permissible from the perspective of those who own the press.
In that context, it's easy enough for some old turd like Cliven Bundy to be found to be an idiot, and for some middle-aged idiot like Sean Hannity to wind up with egg on his face for his forthright support of Bundy. After all, Bundy got a nice photo op riding a horse while carrying the American flag despite proclaiming that he doesn't recognize the existence of the national government which that flag sorta represents; who would've guessed that Bundy's ideas and opinions would be those shared by members of Far Right militia groups, armed "patriots" dedicated to white supremacy and such??????
But Donald Sterling came as more of a shock: owner of a sports franchise in a league literally full of African-American athletes. Who would have guessed that his private attitudes were merely a more modern version of those of the master of a plantation? And that is the fundamental reason why his private comments were so disturbing when revealed publicly: suddenly people had to think.
To think about the fact that the majority of the people on the basketball court who are playing the game are black, whereas the majority of the people in the stands watching the game are white (as well as referees, management and owners -- those in positions of "authority"). Now those who have worked for Sterling can't rationally continue to do so -- it would tend to confirm the idea that they are his property, and were bought to please the crowd.
To think about why there was no great outrage previously when Sterling was required to pay a record settlement for having discriminated against black and Hispanic applicants to rent at his properties. Those were merely lower-class human beings being affected, and a man has a right to do what he likes with his property; that sort of thing is far less important than the bigoted private opinions he held, despite the fact that the latter would seem likely to have influenced his real-world discrimination.
To think about how awesome it might look if the student body of American institutions of higher learning becomes whiter and whiter (a consequence of the preferential acceptance of the privileged children of alumni), while their athletic departments continue to provide full scholarships to non-whites whose only apparent value to the school -- and, implicitly, in society -- is their athletic ability.
In listening to the full conversation it's obvious that Ms. Stiviano is far from a saint. Their conversation is carried over from an immediately prior conversation, which she repeatedly urges him to continue now that she's recording it. She acts the part of a pleasant nurse, "sweetie," as she gets some juice for an old man. She had allegedly eventually professed an intention to "get even," suggesting that her recording of this particular private conversation was done at the time to have a weapon to use against him. My interpretation may come as a quite a shock if you're inclined to believe her love was ever real; after all, beautiful young women the world over have always been dying to have sex with wrinkled-up old men.
It should also be noted that despite the extraordinary stream of stupid ideas expressed by Sterling, not once does he use the most common racial slur in describing black people. Good for him; that's some progress right there (unless he's only one of those upper-class gentlemen who won't stoop to the gutter-language of thugs on the street). I guess these considerations regarding a rich white man and his mistress are one of the reasons these issues are typically referred to as tragic.
==================================
Another interesting thing that comes out of the conversation is Sterling's contentious attitude about his bigotry being compared to antisemitic bigotry -- as exemplified in the Holocaust, for instance. I don't think this is just a simple case of hypocrisy. When a Jewish American is unable to see or unwilling to acknowledge the connection between the Holocaust and racism per se, it doesn't necessarily mean that he is just another stupid white person. It probably also means that the Holocaust is regarded as a unique defining event exclusive to Jewish identity and to no one else; in other words, a case of idolatry.
That goes a long way towards explaining the problem of dealing with the nation of Israel on a rational basis: anything done in its name is justified because of the Holocaust.
This is why the real meaning of "not taking the name of the Lord in vain" doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with cussing or exclaiming, "Jesus Christ!" It means not seeking to justify our actions by claiming that "God is on our side."
==================================
When I attended college in the early 1980s, my Major adviser in International Studies was a Muslim professor originally from Madras, India. I occasionally pursued questions with him that I couldn't figure out answers for. For instance, I once asked why the US government did not regard its relationship with Turkey as much more important to our interests than it did to our relationship with Israel. (Answer: the Israel Lobby.) Another time I brought up a question about Soviet influence in Africa; it's still funny that he hesitated and looked at me with a bemused expression as he cautiously offered this white Hoosier (with Kentucky only a river away) the opinion that Russians are white and regarded as such in the non-white world. (In other words, more of the same, from their perspective.)
That certainly helped put an alleged ideological battle in perspective, and ordinarily it would only be an interesting anecdote and a nice memory for me. But today in eastern Europe, young whites are listening to rap music and their own derivations of it, and apparently think it's cool to greet groups of friends by saying "Wazzup Niggas?" That might somehow be considered progress, if it weren't occurring among white people still capable of harboring prejudice against other white people, like Gypsies and Jews; it's frightening to think what their honest attitudes toward non-white people could possibly be, however much they might like amusing one another with the modern equivalence of minstrel shows and Amos n' Andy routines.
