Wednesday, April 30, 2014

A Note on EPJ Coverage of Donald Sterling

I am seeing a few comments under the posts at EPJ like this:
Robert, I continue to find your coverage of this story to be pretty lacking and pretty unnecessarily intense. It feels like you are getting suckered into a story that really doesn't matter, just because it is the headline of the week. As we all know, the significance of a story is not necessarily correlated to the amount of widespread coverage it receives.

So what if the NBA hires a legal consultant with government ties? The NBA is not the problem here, its the fact that there are government cronies in the private law sector that is the problem. We know that government cronies tend to reach higher levels of industry success (also a problem, of course) - but why should the NBA be criticized for using its resources to hire from those higher levels? That is a private business decision, made by a private business. Put the arenas built by public money to the side for a minute (I agree that this is an unacceptable reality of the league, but it is not related to this particular issue)

Furthermore, who cares what candidates Adam Silver supports? The NBA didn't make that campaign contribution, did it?

It feels like you are on a bit of a witch hunt in regards to the NBA, and are fishing for potential areas of criticism that are a bit of a stretch, to be honest.
And this:
I agree, a lot of what I have seen so far from RW and his linked contributors misses the mark. There is a very libertarian/free market set of forces at work here - the NBA and its individual teams in particular rely heavily on private sector sponsorship, which will dry up in minutes at any hesitation to rectify a situation that causes major societal controversy.

This happened with the Clippers - major sponsors immediately began suspending or terminating their contracts. We can hypothesize about their motivations for doing so, but regardless, the league is acting in its own financial self-interest here.

Imagine a private firm with 30 board members - if one of these board members was catapulted into mass public criticism for controversial comments (racist or otherwise) would the other members not hasten to condemn those comments and then seek action against the ugly duckling? Would they not seek to remove the culprit from his position in the firm, by utilizing any and all relevant bylaws (agreed upon by the firm's members, including the culprit!) to do so? What might happen to the firm's funding sources if they did not?

Again, this is not an example of the state confiscating property based on personal opinions protected by the First Amendment (although I worry that the state could use this issue as a model, which is naturally terrifying). This is an example of a significant figure in a private business damaging the reputation of the business and threatening its revenue.

I also agree that Sterling was clearly set up, and there may be more conspiratorial motivations beneath the surface. I agree that Larry Johnson has been proven to be as much if not more racist than Sterling.

However, the claim that the NBA has become a "politically correct cesspool" implies that there is no market-based motivation for its quest for political correctness, which is simply incorrect.

First, just because something develops on the free market does not mean it can not be criticized. Thomas Picketty's book,  Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is published on the free market, yet it is an outrageous book. Should we not be able to criticize it because it is a free market product? Paul Krugman works in the private sector, Princeton and NYT, and he sells lots of books in the private sector, should we not be allowed to criticize him because he has found a private sector niche, admittedly the loony left niche?

As for the intensity of Donald Sterling coverage at EPJ, given the overwhelming, almost unanimous condemnation of Sterling, I wish I could devote more time to Sterling coverage, to put things in perspective. The release of the Sterling tape and the reaction to it provides an important object lesson in how distorted the thinking of the masses can get. That is how far in their thinking they can get from understanding that people should be allowed, without harassment, to think and say whatever they choose to think and say. It is an exteremely important topic. We are moving very quickly down the road of thought control. It is a very dangerous road that should be battled with intensity. This is not a second tier topic. Thought control, where people have to watch what they say, even in privacy in their own homes, is a form of mental solitary confinement. It is pure evil and destructive of individual spirit. The Sterling debate isn't in the end about an 81 year old man trying to control his 30-something girlfriend and the black guys she is hanging with, it is about the ability to think and say want you want, when you want, as long as you are not violating the non aggression principle. First, they came for the 81 year old men...

As for my mention of NBA commissioner Adam Silver and the advice he sought from a Bill Clinton crony, and the fact that he has donated to the campaign of Cory Booker, what is wrong with noting Silver's influences and affiliations? What possible reason could there be to not attempt to understand how Silver reaches his thought control notions?

23 comments:

  1. Jesse Jackson Enters Sterling Fray, Orders Sale of Team

    Earlier in the day Jackson made an appearance at the Milken Institute’s Global Conference in Beverly Hills where he fully leveraged Sterling’s boneheaded comments on race.

    Jackson said Sterling’s remarks show why Americans need government enforced “affirmative action. People in high places have no will toward goodness unless the law is there to force it.”

    http://www.infowars.com/jesse-jackson-enters-sterling-fray-orders-sale-of-team/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah Jess con-artist Jackson. We "need" affirmative action because someone made a remark. Let's just forget that he was paying those black players a collective $72 million per year right? Fucking con man and the useless idiots and cowards that listen to him.

      Delete
    2. So the people enforcing the the "law" on thought crimes suddenly have "goodness" and become like the Angels in heaven once they win an election or accept employment in the government?

      But the same group of people, if they are private citzens, have "no goodness" and must be herded by the uniformed goons in the government and theri guns to be "good"?

      This makes no sense.......we have a magic pool of saints just waiting out here among us for government employment so they can selflessly and flawless rule over us? Or does the simple act of being elected or employed by a fictions entity called "the government" confer automatic sanctification upon a person to give them "Reverend" Jackson's "goodness"?

      Totally illogical!

      Delete
  2. “We are moving very quickly down the road of thought control. It is a very dangerous road that should be battled with intensity. This is not a second tier topic. Thought control, where people have to watch what they say, even in privacy in their own homes, is a form of mental solitary confinement.”

    Mr. Wenzel, I have a couple of thoughts on your points:

    “That is how far in their thinking they can get from understanding that people should be allowed, without harassment, to think and say whatever they choose to think and say.”

    Who will do the allowing? And who will prevent those who want to do the harassing from doing the harassing? Are you suggesting that we (which “we”) “thought control” those who were upset about Sterling’s comments – no matter the fairness or unfairness (in whose eyes? Who decides?) of the thoughts? It seems merely the other side of the “thick” libertarian coin.

    I do not suggest that you have presented this as a libertarian issue. It should be clear, however, that this isn’t a libertarian issue.

    Second, and perhaps more important: the technology train (that has greatly facilitated the possibility of such encroachments, both public and private) has left the station. And I will guess, on balance, we are all glad it has and are happy as to how inexpensive it is to buy a ticket.

    Technology always offers opportunities for both liberation/decentralization and control/centralization. There is nothing new here. When do we get to choose the good and avoid the bad with any meaningful technological advancement? (I am sure someone will come up with an example or two; there aren’t many.)

    Yet I don’t see many people lining up to move to central Asia or the heart of Africa (or taking a time machine to medieval Europe) without their iPhone in order to avoid modern life. We know the NSA monitors everything – how many have given up the technology because of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said someone should "prevent" anyone from saying anything. That is a distortion of my position. Anyone can say anything they want, in my view, that is the point I am making.

      As far as my view that people should be "allowed' to say what they want, this is indeed a libertarian issue and a societal issue. To the degree government gets involved to prevent "hate speech," it is a libertarian issue. For non-governmental organizations that attempt to patrol speech, it is a societal issue.

      I am really not sure how your comments on technology are relevant to my post. I didn't say anything about technology. In my view, property owners should be able to set the rules for use of technology on their property and way they choose.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the reply.

      On the first point, my intent was to draw out from you a clear statement about how this does or does not come under the libertarian / NAP tent. I knew your answer, but some of the dialogue / comments at the site are muddled. I thought it worth making this clear – commenters like Mike clearly need help.

      On the second point, technology is at the root of this situation and question. Thirty years ago one would have to carry a ten pound tape recorder to do what V did (maybe a Sony Walkman…how quaint this seems today); and once recorded, she would need to find a nationally syndicated radio station to broadcast the tape. Thereafter, a few million people would need to decide to send faxes to each other, saying how upset they were.

      Some big shot somewhere then would have to decide to take a Rasmussen poll, to find out how many Americans were bothered by this. The results of the poll would then need publicity. Who would do this? Dan Rather at CBS news?

      My point is simple: what happened to Sterling is an inevitable consequence of this thing called technology. Yet, I don’t see too many running away from it. And on balance, I am thankful it exists (it isn’t even close).

      If not, I would never have met Robert Wenzel!

      Delete
    3. Robert - do you feel the following is a "societal issue" that is unique to the NBA or other sports organizations?

      "For non-governmental organizations that attempt to patrol speech, it is a societal issue."

      I would posit that most non-governmental organizations patrol speech to some extent, especially in the current era where errant speech can affect a firm's bottom line. Now, in my mind, this is certainly a societal issue - that there is such an herd-like, extreme reaction to private speech. But the NBA's response ( or another firm responding similarly) does not seem to be a societal issue to me...

      Delete
    4. It's called hypocrisy. Very possibly Magic and the consortium he is fronting for, is angling to get the LA Clippers franchise because they couldn't get the LA Lakers ala SSailer's writeup. Hence the setup. Racism(sexismhomophobiaantisemitism) is the cause de jour and we got a poster boy for the cause. As if nobody knew this until yesterday.

      And what's the NAACP going to do? Return all that cash and the lifetime awards from Mr. Bigot?
      No. But Mr. Snitch and Mr. Hymietown/Who's Your Daddy? will be sucking as much mileage and cash out of this as they can.

      This ain't checkers, pal. This is chess and lots of it is played under the table.

      Delete
  3. The "market" and government propaganda are starting to get fuzzy. As Mr. Wenzel said, just because it's in the free market, doesn't mean it shouldn't be criticized. Government is starting to use the masses, who participate in the market, to achieve their goals without having to pass bills or straight up violating individual rights. This way they can say "hey, it's in the private sector so shut up libertarians".

    In another example, saw maybe last week (?) that a Florida bill passed in banning insurance companies from increasing rates for gun owners. Though in hindsight I would disagree with this, and I still do, the conservatives in Florida, however, smelled a rat. They're using insurance companies like an NGO, and conservatives are starting to figure out their plays much like Obamacare.

    For real, out all this time with guns in America insurance companies finally figured out that the "market" feels the need to increase the rates for gun owners? And, what are the chances of a competing company coming along and not increase its rates on guns out of competition sake? I would guess not a very good chance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Uh oh, is Wenzel turning into a libwap? There is no NAP violation here. People are free to react to Sterling's comments however they want, short of aggressing against him. The freedom of speech does not protect you from people's reactions to what you say.

    "Thought control, where people have to watch what they say, even in privacy in their own homes, is a form of mental solitary confinement. It is pure evil and destructive of individual spirit. "

    Could it be, then, that other values are important for libertarianism, and not just the NAP?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Libertarianism has nothing to say beyond NAP.

      There is nothing wrong from a libertarian perspective, if there are nudist colonies or societies that condemn racism and other societies that advance racism. You can have views in any of these camps and not violate NAP. There is no linkage between libertarianism and any of these positions,

      Delete
  5. Robert - I agree with you, just because something is sourced or partially sourced in the free market does not protect it from criticism.

    Where you are bordering on a superfluous "witch hunt", in my opinion, is when you label Silver's actions as "thought control notions". From the perspective of some (Stephen A Smith would be one egregious example), this is an effort towards thought control: Sterling doesn't "think the right way", so he needs to be "reeducated" (ex player Keyon Dooling used this term in an interview, which is frightening).

    From the perspective of Silver and the NBA, however, this is a financial decision. I am confident that there are other owners who hold similarly reprehensible views, but as soon as the very real financial ramifications made themselves clear to the owners and the league, it became a no-brainer. They may have couched it in the language of political correctness, but the decision was not an effort towards thought control. I doubt many of the owners that are supporting Silver in this move really care - but the key is, they have to APPEAR to care, for their own financial best interest. Bionic mosquito made a good point in a comment to a different post - the masses, both those that are direct consumers of the NBA's product through viewership and those that are indirect consumers through casual exposure, can be irrational and herd-like in their worship of the PC, "correct" form of thought - but they are still the consumers, and as such the NBA and particularly Silver in this case, is privy to their herd-like mentality. As Bionic said, it may be fair, unfair, whatever - but it is "the way it is".

    You say:
    "it is about the ability to think and say want you want, when you want, as long as you are not violating the non aggression principle"

    but Sterling DOES have the right to say what he wants, when he wants, and that right has not been violated - there is no state action taking place here. He is also a member of a private business, that has bylaws (that he accepted by being a part of the business - i.e. he is a signatory to a contract where he recognizes these bylaws) that allow for his removal in the event his actions become damaging to the business.

    I agree with most of your sentiments, but my point is that they feel directed at the wrong place. I feel the media is fully complicit in creating something out of this that wasn't there, as is its wont. I also am concerned as I mentioned that this sort of thing could move out of the realm of a private business decision that was very much influenced by mass media, into state interference in the private realm based on the influence of mass media.

    But your demonizing of the NBA and Adam Silver seems misplaced - they are not the thought police in this situation!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Robert Wenzel. I believe that Donald Sterling is a racist; his demonstrated actions over 30 years prove it. However, I am incensed with this whole mob-like mentality of the public, where the masses are so eager to draw out their pitchforks and hang somebody whenever somebody says or does something that they don't like. Look at the glee that many people have about Sterling's being kicked out of the NBA. This is dangerous, and I'm now quite worried that somebody would hack into my social media or email accounts, find some juicy quotes I've said about liberals or conservatives, and leak it out to the public. Given that the NSA is spying on us, this is a frightening concern, especially for libertarians, whose views are not popular.

    Whatever happened to the idea of politely sending a letter or publishing an op-ed article that expresses disappointment in Sterling's views? Why pull out the pitchforks and the noose? This mob-like mentality is very dangerous and shows how uncivilized this society is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Whatever happened to the idea of politely sending a letter or publishing an op-ed article that expresses disappointment in Sterling's views?"

      What about not reading things nor meant for your eyes? It's not the media's place to comment on matters that are not its business. What Sterling says to his girlfriend is his own business.
      What happened to journalism? When did it become this bottomless trashpit?

      Delete
  7. It's never in bad taste to fight the mob.
    .
    Indeed , for decency's sake it's obligatory.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The freedom of speech is the most difficult freedom to tolerate in another. Particularly when their speech expresses ideas opposite your own. But it is a keystone to civilized human behavior and I applaud RW's coverage of Sterling v. Stiviano.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bottom line Sterling is being penalized millions of dollars for what he BELIEVES. And it seems unclear on what exactly that is. The fact that the NBA is a crony capitalist organization and not a state organization is immaterial.(Other than the fact that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the NBA.) The mob mentality exhibited here is frightening. No penalty too extreme, contracts possibly invalidated, millionaire players too hurt to perform their job. How about giving back some of his tainted cash?

    The free market viewpoint is interesting. If Sterling is this outrageous bigot, why does he hire a black coach, why doesn't he have all white players? Because he wants to win and make money. Free markets lead to cooperation. Sports is a fiercely competitive business, I find it amusing when the absence of minorities as head coaches in football is bemoaned. If a team thought an Muslim coach could get them to the Super Bowl they might hire him. I mean Muslims are a whole different kettle of fish to sell to your fan base. Granted there are incompetent, conservative organizations who hire the same retreads and the effect of their "racism" is lessened through the crony nature of the NFL but there are better organizations who ignore race in their hiring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The free market viewpoint is interesting. If Sterling is this outrageous bigot, why does he hire a black coach, why doesn't he have all white players? Because he wants to win and make money. Free markets lead to cooperation."

      This is a really important point that everybody is ignoring here. The race-baiters are pointing towards the banning of Sterling as "the free market in action." But the REAL free-market success story is that someone they believe to be this evil, gigantic racist hired black players, coaches, and a half-black girlfriend/prostitute/archivist.

      Libertarians regularly make the case that in a free market, there would be very little discrimination, because discrimination isn't profitable. Banning black people from your business would lead to lower revenues. Refusing to hire black employees would either increase your expenses or lower the quality of employees you have.

      The left, of course, always laughs at this assertion. They bring up the Jim Crow south as if that was all private and there was no government involved. They insist that if it weren't for the government FORCING racists to serve and hire blacks, racist whites would regularly discriminate against them.

      Sterling, if he is a racist, is LIVING PROOF this is not the case. He doesn't much care for "minorities" apparently, yet he hired and employed them anyway. This isn't proof he's not a racist, but it IS proof that a good businessman doesn't let his personal beliefs stand in the way of profitability.

      Delete
  10. Why did TMZ, which is operated by Homosexual Jewish lawyer Harvey Levin , selectively remove the part where the Jewish owner of the Clippers said that Black Jews are inferior to White-skinned Jews?

    Read the exchange left out of the original tape and then our commentary:

    Donald Sterling: It's the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.
    Sterling's Girlfriend: So do you have to treat them like that too?
    Donald Sterling: The white Jews, there's white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?
    Sterling's Girlfriend: And are the black Jews less than the white Jews?
    DS: A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.
    Sterling's Girlfriend: And is that right?
    Donald Sterling: It isn't a question—we don't evaluate what's right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.
    Sterling's Girlfriend: But shouldn't we take a stand for what's wrong? And be the change and the difference?
    Donald Sterling: I don't want to change the culture, because I can't. It's too big and too [inaudible].
    Sterling's Girlfriend: But you can change yourself.
    Donald Sterling: I don't want to change. If my girl can't do what I want, I don't want the girl. I'll find a girl that will do what I want! Believe me. I thought you were that girl because I tried to do what you want. But you're not that girl.

    Could it perhaps be that TMZ under the control of another potential Jewish supremacist Harvey Levin wanted to paint Donald Sterling, a Jewish man, as an ordinary White gentile who is just a hateful racist while suppressing his underlying Jewish supremacism?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bionic: "what happened to Sterling is an inevitable consequence of this thing called technology. Yet, I don’t see too many running away from it. And on balance, I am thankful it exists (it isn’t even close)."

    What happened to Sterling wasn't inevitable at all. It's only inevitable in the modern West. There are still many cultures where privacy is given its due.

    Many people ARE running away from technology.

    I haven't watched American TV in 20 years. I don't own IPads and many other gadgets out of fear of the spyware.

    I got off Twitter, Facebook, all trading account, and all social media... and only occasionally blog when I feel I need to. I stopped writing articles because I began to see a bit too much about the activists and journals around. I have gone back to snail mail or personal interaction where I can.

    I am forced by society and business to use the internet, but I minimize it.
    I don't think on balance it's been a positive but a quite significant evil.

    The reason we all use it despite its limitations is the same reason we all breathe polluted air.

    It's the medium in which we live.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Best Sterling coverage on the WWW. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2nd to Steve Sailer, but both have been beacons on this story and are must click's throughout the day. The Marxists won't stop. (Now we have this scalp, let's get the Redskins name & logo!) This story defines early 21st Century America like no other. RW - stay on it. You're the doing Lord's work. Screw the haters.

      Delete
  13. @Wenzel,

    Ditto.You and Steve Sailer, both.
    Keep it up. If I had Sterling's resources, I would make sure that the culprits all had a dose of their own medicine, especially the gossip site owners.
    Out THEIR pillow-talk/action anonymously on a blog and see how they like it.

    ReplyDelete