OK, I've had it. (Not to digress from KK's perfectly justifiable rant, as near as I can tell; but I don't know about her situation, and thus, other than hoping for the best for her, can't comment intelligently.)
The Sterling mess. To roll with it for a moment, the Sterling Silver mess. (For those not in the USA, please see this:
http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcomplian...rge-in-sports/ for a quick catch-up on it).
Here's my issue: is what that dolt said reprehensible? Yes, of course. Is it idiotic, and 100 years or more behind the times? Yes. Indisputably. But are we living in an age of the Thought Police? That your s**t can be taken away from you, for an opinion expressed in the (alleged) privacy of your OWN HOME, and given to the world by an illegally-disclosed, personal recording, which cannot even be admitted into any (future) court case? How will the NBA force Mrs. Sterling, who by community property rights, owns 50% of the team, to divest HER half? And if she isn't forced to get rid of HER half, where are the teeth in this?
I find it extremely unlikely that any court in the US will take away this man's property for expressing an opinion that, however distasteful and abhorrent, isn't
illegal--unlike the "evidence" against him that might be attempted to be used by the NBA to force him out, in the inevitable court battle. As repulsive as he is, why not simply allow his players, and his team's fans, to vote with their FEET and WALLETS?
And here's the part that really GETS UP MY NOSE: this is in Major League SPORTS. This is in an area in which a ball team, (in the NFL), allowed a player to rejoin the NFL, and be paid
MILLIONS of dollars per year--
a man that hung dogs for fun. All these teams have men that have been accused of domestic violence to varying degrees. Rape accusations. Some are serving suspended sentences for this or that. Are involved in bar brawls that result in injuries, even deaths. And let's not even get started on substance abuse, taking steroids, etc.
When Major League Sports gets up off its ass and decides that its "boys will be boys" attitude toward
brutality of all types (including to poor defenseless dogs, which can't pack their bags and leave), toward wives and girlfriends, toward strangers, toward substance abuse (as these schmucks are role models, however abhorrent THAT idea is) can be discarded as the hypocritcal crap that it is, and will start to
actually discipline and live up to some remotely-enforced code of conduct, then I'll even THINK about the idea that they would have had ANY right to do ANYthing to Sterling, no matter how much I think that man should be kicked in the balls with a hobnailed boot.
But until they decide to...wait for it..."man up" and behave like
men, instead of thugs* and gang members and brutal sociopaths, I think that punishing some 80+ year old guy for being an asshole in pseudo-private, for using WORDS, when they refuse to punish far worse ACTS, is just the height of hypocrisy. As long as Michael Vicks is on any major league team, Major League Sports should SHUT THE BLANK UP.
and if THAT wasn't enough, they already KNEW this guy was a racist asshole! This is the league's worst-kept secret. So, his..what, concubine?...releases some tapes, and NOW, they're going to TAKE HIS TEAM AWAY from him?
Frankly, I find this, coupled with the Mozilla debacle, disturbing. The whole 1984 "Thought Police" aspect is truly disquieting, given that it's progressed from Shunning to thinking that Gestapo-like behavior (seizure of property, loss of jobs, etc.) is appropriate. And certainly, if Major League Sports wants to clean up its image, there are
a LOT of other people with whom they could have started, with people who've actually committed
real acts,
real crimes, not merely said things that are distubative.
FWIW. I just had to spew about this. Everyone was so flipped out by the 'what' of what this guy said (who, for all we know, is sundowning, at his age, mind you--not an excuse, but my Gran said some pretty embarrassing s**t in the evenings, before she died, of
all kinds) that nobody seems to be thinking about
the larger picture here, or even whether the punishment is lawful. Law by knee-jerk is not the way this country, at least, was founded or governed, and it seems increasingly to be the way of things (like the Mozilla thing, and now this).
Every time you think about what Sterling said, and think to yourself, "oh, but, yeah, that guy
DEFINITELY should have been punished," just remember:
guy who hung DOGS FOR FUN. Playing for millions of $$$ per year. Sterling deserves that pesky thing called "due process,"
just like the REST of us.
* When
I say "thugs," I mean exactly that: thugs. Hooligans, ruffians, gangsters, villains, plug-uglies, cosh boy, goon. Of ANY color. I won't have my perfectly good use of the English language hijacked by people who wish to impute to it, or infer therefrom, something other than what I've said.
Hitch