Let’s see if I understand:
NBA owner Mark Cuban wasn’t making a racist statement when he publicly said that he is prejudiced in matters concerning blacks and race. That’s interesting, because the common description of one who is bigoted regarding race is “racist.” Even if he was racist, it doesn’t justify his being fined millions, banned and losing his team, because he made the statement publicly, which is brave, rather than making his racist statements in the privacy of his own bed room, where Donald Sterling foolishly thought, as an American, that what he did was nobody’s business, as the gay members of the mob who want him ejected from his business always tell us.
Wait, that can’t be right. Let me start again.
The NBA, its players, fans and reporters assert that Cuban wasn’t being racist to announce in public that he would refuse to share a sidewalk with a black youth because of race, but fellow NBA owner Sterling was being hideously racist by telling his black girl friend that she embarrassed him by bringing the young black men she was sleeping with to Clippers games with her, and that it was all right if she had sex with them, but she shouldn’t parade them where his own team plays. The theory is that he made this point in an ambiguous way that sounded more racist than it could and should have, which is because he made the statement in private, for one audience member, when he should have, like Cuban, made the statement for widespread distribution, and chosen his words more carefully, so he didn’t sound as racist as Cuban did. Cuban saying in public he doesn’t want to be on the sidewalk with blacks is fine, but Sterling saying privately he doesn’t want his bimbo mistress hanging out with blacks in a sports arena is so horrible it makes us want to vomit, and it should cost him 2.5 million bucks.
Never mind. That’s ridiculous. Start over.
Mark Cuban is a handsome, young guy who the NBA would like to have as its face rather than some old, wrinkled, fat billionaire right out of the Occupy Wall Street hit list, so Cuban can get away with public admissions of racism, while Sterling is going to be condemned far and wide for imputed racism in a private conversation.
Come on, that makes no sense. Does it? It’s too simple and cynical. Try, try again…
Cuban’s crime wasn’t racism, though he admitted it, but rather impugning the wearing of hoodies, meaning he was an attire bigot, which is completely unacceptable, so he had to apologize to Trayvon Martin’s family, because they and their race-baiting allies in the media, government and on MSNBC falsely attributed their son’s death to what he was wearing. Attire bigotry doesn’t upset NBA players, however, though they wear hoodies, as much as learning that their owner will pay black men millions to play basketball in his arena, but doesn’t want his trophy mistress making him look bad by bringing black men with her to watch the games, and the fact that another NBA owner would cross the street to avoid these men as they walked away from the Clippers’ arena is no big deal. Right?
I’m obviously getting nowhere.
Let’s take this from another angle, shall we?
The NBA, despite all appearances, is not engaging in thought and speech policing by fining Sterling for no conduct whatsoever, but based on the leaking, by another, of his expressed thoughts in his bedroom. Anyway, even if it is censoring thought and speech—I guess it can’t be, since the NBA doesn’t mind if Cuban says he doesn’t like walking on sidewalks with black people—that’s OK because the government isn’t involved, despite the fact that encouraging diverse thought and speech is an American ideal, not just a legal right that the government can’t infringe.
I think this is making sense at last! So when the leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, Harry Reid, publicly endorses the action of the private NBA in punishing though and speech (its actual position is that it is protecting the business interests of the NBA jeopardized by Sterling’s words, but in his comments congratulating the league, Harry framed the action as pure punishment for racist beliefs) thus throwing the weight of the U.S. Senate behind the punishment of Sterling for what he said in his bedroom, and then uses that action to pressure the National Football League into similarly constricting the rights of property and speech of Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, by inducing 50 Senators to sign an inherently threatening letter to that league “suggesting” that it force—obviously by the specter of NBA/Sterling-style punishment Snyder to change his team’s name, that’s still consistent with the principle that the government doesn’t, shouldn’t and can’t punish citizens for mere speech. No, it should just sent letters signed by a Senate majority to a business that can be hurt or helped by legislation in a thousand ways, telling it to punish speech, because that’s not government action. You know, like if you got a letter from the entire Democratic majority in the Senate telling you what you should do in your business, you would just treat it as a friendly suggestion. Wait….
All right, let me try to keep it simple.
Our sports leagues represent honor and good values and fair play, and the players are right to threaten boycotts and walk -outs when prominent figures in their sports model toxic attitudes and behaviors. They need to be held to higher standards. THAT’s the key. So this is why Baltimore Ravens star running back Ray Rice isn’t being forced off his team or out of football after apologizing profusely to “everyone affected” by the incident leading to his third-degree aggravated assault charge, when he cold-cocked his girlfriend Janay Palmer in a hotel elevator. Wait—no, Sterling also apologized profusely. All right, that’s a problem, but a famous black pro football player knocking a woman unconscious in a public place is nowhere near as embarrassing to his sport, damaging to society and unforgivable as conduct as a white NBA owner that few outside of San Diego ever heard of telling his girl friend in his bedroom that she shouldn’t hang out with black men. And a league allowing a star to beat up a women without being banned is nowhere near as important to the party decrying a “War on Women” as changing an 80-year old team name that isn’t harming anybody, just helping some power-hungry activists get contributions. Now, if Sterling had just cold-cocked V. Stiviano, he’d be fine.
It’s hopeless, friends. None of it makes sense. Cuban is young, Rice is black, Sterling is old and white. Democrats grandstand against abuse against women, but only when the attackers are white, or not former Presidents. Free thought and speech and privacy matter less than pandering to hypocrisy, and while the news media will heap its own abuse on a Donald Sterling, no pundit, including CNN’s black, ever-sensitive Don Lemon, or any of ESPN’s commentators, would ever dare to ask why in hell Janay Palmer went ahead and married the man who punched her out shortly after the assault. She’s not just black, you see, but a black woman, so she is beyond reproach. And unlike the bedroom racism of billionaires, domestic violence, and the tolerance of it, isn’t a serious, indeed, often fatal problem for the black community.
Sure it isn’t.
We are allowing our cultural values and priorities to be steered and warped by political expediency, the venality of professional sports, bias, slanted media coverage, double standards, a predominance of curs and fools, and worst of all, the absence coherent balancing and objective analysis to help the public understand what is right, what is wrong, and what is more wrong. The culture is lost, and nobody appears to notice, as long as a rich white head is periodically raised on a pike.
You know who the San Diego Chapter of the NAACP chose to receive Sterling’s “Man of the Year” award, because he had proven he was no longer a fit symbol of racial justice, fairness, civility, and tolerance, don’t you?