Donald Sterling vs. Magic Johnson

I think Donald Sterling's attacks on Magic Johnson  are fueled by jealousy because his girlfriend admired Johnson more than him.  With that said, Magic did nothing to disprove what Sterling said.  Johnson just said, "I wish he knew the facts"  Well, Sterling said you haven't done much for minorities whereas Sterling has given millions of dollars to helping minority programs.  So much so, the NAACP was going to give him an award, then this whole scandal happened.  Has the NAACP ever offered Johnson an award for his efforts with minorities?  Sterling's comment, Jews make money and then help other Jews but minorities who make money don't do that is completely accurate from a broad perspective.  As a Greek, I wish Greeks helped Greeks the way Jews help Jews and I'm not even a minority.  What has Magic done?  Nobody answered that question.  Then again, maybe Johnson felt that he had no reason to respond or to explain; the record speaks for itself.  A simple google search may solve this problem but to be honest, I don't really care what Magic has done for minorities.  I have no idea why Sterling keeps dragging Magic into this.  Even on the tape, Sterling said, "You should admire Johnson."  I'd now ask Sterling the question, "If you say he isn't a role model, why did you say he should be admired on the tape?"  Sterling is contradicting himself.  Nowhere on Sportscenter or the guy who interviewed Sterling, did they defend Magic by saying what he has done.  The only thing the interviewer took issue with is when Sterling said, "Magic got AIDS" the interviewer responded, "No, it was just HIV, it wasn't full blown AIDS."  He felt the need to clarify that point but not one thing Magic has done to refute Sterling?  This is odd.  It is, however, irrelevant.  This is not a Magic Johnson issue, Sterling should keep his attacks focused on the real villain, the monopolistic, anti-American, tyrannical nature of the NBA trying to grab his property from him.  Rest assured that behind closed doors, the owners are thinking that if they do it to Sterling, could they do it to me if say, I chastise an NBA referee or if I eat meat?  Remember this secular-progressive movement is taken over just like the French Revolution.  Robespierre started the French Revolution and later was killed by the revolutionaries for saying they were taking it too far.  First it's racist comments, what's next?  Eating at McDonalds?  Smoking cigarettes in public?  With the way the public is today, nothing would surprise me. Given that nobody has come forth with an actual example of how Johnson has helped the minority communities, it begs the question; Was Sterling right?

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years" can  be bought at the bottom of this page.  

Sterling's fight

It is true I piled on to the Donald Sterling attacks.  I knew if I waited long enough, the media would stray from my feelings, and here we are.  I personally have no idea what the NBA constitution says but I do know that if a contract is signed and agreed upon but counteracts the US constitution, it is not enforceable in a court of law.  You can read the widely popular 50 shades of Gray to see examples of that.  As in all things, I look to logic to make sense of things because I believe truth exists outside of human interpretation and a majority opinion.  Logic is the closest way we can get to these forms or objective truths.  Here it is, the objectivist reaction to Donald Sterling devoid of emotion, the only way I know how.

If you read my previous posts, Donald Sterling's comments made to his girlfriend were indefensible.  Hell, even Sterling isn't defending them.  The closest he came was, "She always referred to people as blacks and she wanted to bring blacks she found attractive to my game so I said don't bring blacks to my game because I was jealous."   "Blacks" meant her attractive African-American friends and he said they can't come because he was jealous she found them attractive.   I know they investigated if the tape was doctored.  I know that I listened to the tape and she never claimed she was going to bring blacks to the game.  I don't know if the investigation indicated if the tape was doctored or not so I can't say if Sterling's explanation is valid factually.  All I know, is that they did indeed believe it to be the voice of Donald Sterling.  Again, these are not refutable.  Now for the punishment by Adam Silver.

Adam Silver did what most people have to do.  You have to give into the mob, the NBA seemed to be ready to revolt if his punishment wasn't severe and they all applauded him for banning him for life, fining him the NBA maximum allowed, 2.5 million dollars, and suggesting the owners take away the team from him. I wasn't surprised that they threw the book at him but it is kind of redundant.  Banning him for life I was okay with, the NBA is Adam Silver's organization and he can decide who comes and who doesn't to his shows.  Interestingly though, why can't Donald Sterling do the same thing with his team?  If he didn't want blacks to come to his game, that's his prerogative.  I believe in private property and I've always been against others telling you who you can and can't have in your place of business.  If you want to lose out on the revenue by blacks coming to the game, then I believe that to be a stupid business decision, but it's your business so be it. Just how I have no problem with Adam Silver banning Sterling from any sanctioned event.  That makes more sense because Silver's not going to lose out on any business doing that.  

          Secondly, the $2.5 million I found asinine.  Why would you pay that?  He's already banned for life.  What can they possibly do to him?  I had a problem with this because White man guilt was playing it's card and he would have to pay just because nothing has changed and the public still likes watching pounds of flesh being taken.  Hell if you hung Donald Sterling in the public square, I'm sure a crowd would gather just as it did in the Middle Ages.  Sterling, however, saw the situation for what it was; pointless.  His reputation is destroyed, he's got nothing to lose, so fight!  Not only did he refuse to pay the fine, he sued the NBA for their right to do so.   Good for him.  Society keeps running their mouth that people are entitled to their opinion, but the second someone has an opinion the majority of people don't like, they crucify him.  It takes more courage to say the things Margie Schott did than it does for Michael Sam to come out.  I don't say Sterling because he made his comments in, what he believed to be, confidence.  

          Thirdly, they want to take the team away from him.  Mark Cuban was the only guy to publicly say what I feel about this. He was worried about a slippery slope if we let the commissioner  steal a team from you.  Most people are like, "Well he's going to get paid" but that's not the point.  Sales should not be made at the end of a gun barrel.  A forced sale is anti-capitalistic and immoral.  Just as I consider what Ben Roethlisberger did as rape when he locked himself in a bathroom with a woman as his offensive line stood guard.  The woman told him "no" repeatedly, he just repeated back "It's okay."  They then had sex.  I don't count that as consensual; I count that as rape.  If someone gives Sterling the millions he deserves for the Clippers, that is not a consensual transactions, therefore an invalid trade.  With all that said, I saw the punishment as redundant.  If the NBA has a little patience, they won't need an owner vote, Sterling would have to sell as a smart business decision.  He's already lost sponsors.  His players probably will boycott playing for him.  Again, as a pro-capitalist, I'm anti-forced labor.  If the players decide they don't want to accept his money to play for him, that is their right.  I think Sterling will have trouble finding scab laborers.  Basically, you need to find players that are really good at basketball and don't mind the public ridicule, vehement attacks and vitriolic hatred they will receive from playing for Sterling.  This goes for players of any race.  Good luck with that one.  So, Sterling probably will have a team with no players. At best, they will be mediocre players who weren't good enough to make it to the NBA on their own so exchange the public hatred and endanger their lives, for their only shot to play in the NBA.  Clippers will be the worst they have ever been and, given their history, that's saying something.  The Clippers team would lose value, he will be funding it for no apparent reason and either he sells the team for a much lower price than he would get now, or he just pays millions of dollars for absolutely nothing.  Those are Sterling's options.  As for Shelly Sterling, I see no reason she shouldn't get the team. She didn't do anything.  Why is everyone so mad at her?  The only caveat to this is if the NBA is set up like a food chain.  You can manage a McDonalds but you don't own McDonalds.  I think the CEO of McDonalds could fire a manager if need be, so if teams work like individual franchises of a chain, then Adam Silver could kick him out but as that hasn't come up, I don't think that's the case.

One last thing about Shelly Sterling, I applaud her for filing to divorce her husband.  I was bothered that the issue of Donald Sterling having a girlfriend when he has a wife never came out.  It was Sterling the racist, not Sterling the adulterer.  I will say Sterling the racist bigoted adulterer.  

Autographed copies of my book The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years can be bought at the bottom of this page.  

You do you; I'll do me

Much has been written about Jesus' golden rule.  His rule was "Treat others as you would like to be treated." Variations include Confucius, "Do not do on to others as you would not want them to do to you."  Even in modern terms, "Turn about is fair play" seems to be referencing this age old rule.  To me, though, the golden rule doesn't encompass everything.  It assumes that everyone has the same likes and dislikes.  For instance, I want to be left alone.  Most people like to constantly have people around.  These people, following the golden rule, will see someone sitting by themselves and come over to talk to them so they have company.  If we believe they are following the golden rule, they do this because they would want someone to do it for them.  Me, if I'm alone, I don't want a complete stranger to come up to me so that person is now bothering me even though he followed the golden rule.

Here is my creed, "You do you, I'll do me."  Unlike the golden rule, I need to explain it.  I have noticed that those I considered my closest friends are obsessed, and I'm using that term to the fullest power, with telling me how to live my life.  Most notably, the way I dress, it's always the same motto to sell out to the corporate world because you'll be homeless if you don't.  Yes, I dress up to go to work, but I'm not going to get fired if I'm dressed casually outside of work.  They, in a sense, are trying to break me.  When I was younger, this was amusing bordering on cute, then I got into my 20s and it started getting annoying, now it's just trite.  The thing is, unlike drugs, the more you say no, they louder and more obsessed they become.  How is this like drugs?  Well, in high school when people would offer me drugs, I'd say no.  They then harassed me and after a while they would use the phrase, "Come on, I want to be the first one to get Larry to do drugs."  It's amazing how many people begged me for that privilege.  They all failed however.  In college and beyond when people offered me drugs and I said "no" they responded, "Cool, more for me."  I like that creed MUCH better!  I don't mind if people do drugs around me, I just won't partake.  I didn't realize it, but I was living by, "You do you and I do me."  If you want to do drugs, I'm not going to stop you but I will not do them with you."

My last example is sex.  My closest friends are obsessed with me having sex and hate that I'm asexual.  Two of them planned a trip to Amsterdam and offered to buy me a prostitute just so I could have sex.  I went to Amsterdam and declined.  A year or two later, another person, who doesn't associate with the first two, decided to have an overnight layover in Amsterdam on our way to Berlin.  She didn't tell me this till after the trip but the overnight layover was not to save money but she wanted to buy me a prostitute.  Due to her missing the flight, she never got the chance.  That makes three people who spent hundreds of dollars to go to Amsterdam specifically to get me to have sex.  I can't grasp this mentality.  Now that I'm in my 30s, the persistence has reached a yelling, fever pitch.  To which, I finally had to ask, "Why do you care?" Most of the time the answer is, "Because I want you to see how great it can be."  When I press it further, they can't elaborate.  I am not telling them not to have sex, I just don't want to.  They have been adamant that they would not have sex with me, so they're not propositioning me.  Why does something that objectively doesn't affect them at all mean so much to them?  The only thing I can think of is, they really are trying to break me.  In which case, I need to evaluate who I consider my closest friends.

As I had gone through a gauntlet with these friends, I had lunch with a friend of mine.  We are not extremely close, she will readily admit she merely tolerates me, which is fine by me.  We were discussing marriage and my desire not to get married.  We then talked hypothetically about if I were to get married, what type of person would I want.  One of the first things I said was, "Well, you're not going to like this, but she would have to be Greek."

     She interrupted, "Why would I care about that?"

      "Well because you may think I'm being elitist"

      "No, if you said that I could only marry Greek, I'd be like 'whoa, you have no right to tell me that."

      I glared at her because it makes absolutely no sense to me why I would ever say that to her.  The reason I would want to marry Greek is because being Greek is such a large part of who I am and you would have to be Greek to understand me fully.   Since she is not Greek, this is irrelevant to her in choosing her mate.  Then it dawned on me what she was actually saying.  "With regard to marriage, you marry who you want, and I'll marry who I want, as your choice doesn't affect me at all."   Damn, if only my closest friends were as understanding as the people that merely tolerate me.

After all this, it has occurred to me that if you're ever around someone that is loudly and obsessively pleading for you to live your life to do something that has absolutely no affect on them whatsoever, then that person is merely looking at you as a strong willed person and looking to break you since they are broken themselves and can't stand someone with the audacity to do what they want, even if society is against them.  These are people that you certainly shouldn't consider your closest friends.  When your being yelled at, just ask, "Why do they care?" if you can't think of a reason; run

Autographed copies of my book the World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 years can be bought at the bottom of this page.