22
   

Donald Sterling

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 08:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Does anyone besides me get a little chuckle suspecting that the same people claiming that the NBA has the right to force Sterling out " because reaction to him cost them money" also disagree with the Supremes on Citizen united? Money should not matter in one situation, money is everything in the other.
LET THE RECORD INDICATE
that I fully support the USSC in its CITIZENS UNITED case holding.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 08:50 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

But, Bill. You and I aren't the most center-of-the-road spokespeople for the white race, either.
Why should we expect more of him? He can offer us something new to consider.
Its not like we r putting his ouster to a vote.
He decided to hop.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 08:54 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
found an apparent message from the FBI that my browser had been blocked and all my files encrypted and much else. Well, hells bells! Something about looking at porn or copywrited material..


Footnote for everyone running a window machine from windows xp to windows eight I would strongly suggest getting the free version of sandboxie and using it to run your browsers in it sandbox.

It will prevent 99.999 percents of malware from getting to your OS proper and any malware that does get by your anti-virus and browser software will be wiped away upon closing your browser session.
How about iMacs ?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 08:57 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
How about iMacs ?


Sorry can not help you there but Macs are safer in any case, as hackers do not target them with malware to the same degree as PCs.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 08:57 pm
Quote:
Donald Sterling: 'Magic Johnson, What Has He Done? He's Got AIDS'
The Huffington Post
by Michael Klopman
05/12/2014

Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling couldn't even apologize without making more inflammatory comments. In an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Sunday, Sterling admitted that he "made a terrible mistake" by uttering the racist remarks that earned him exile from the NBA, but also took a shot at Magic Johnson.

"Big, Magic Johnson, what has he done?" Sterling asked Cooper. "He's got AIDS."

Cooper clarified that Johnson was diagnosed with HIV, not AIDS. Sterling went on, "What kind of a guy has sex with every girl, then he catches HIV. Is that someone we want to respect and tell our kids about? I think he should be ashamed of himself. I think he should go into the background. What does he do for the black people?"

Sterling received a lifetime ban from the NBA and a $2.5 million fine from NBA Commissioner Adam Silver after audio recordings of him making racist comments were released by TMZ and Deadspin. In the recordings, Sterling told a woman, V. Stiviano, to not bring black people to games or share photos of herself with black people on social media. A photo of Stiviano with Magic Johnson was mentioned during the recorded conversation.

During his discussion with Cooper, Sterling revealed that he has twice spoken to Johnson since the recordings were released. Asked if he had offered an apology to the NBA legend, Sterling questioned Johnson's status as a role model.

"Well, if I said anything wrong, I'm sorry," Sterling responded. "He's a good person. What am I going to say? Has he done everything he can do to help minorities? I don't think so. But I'll say it, he's great. But I just don't think he's a good example for the children of Los Angeles. That he would go and do what he did, and then get AIDS."

Sterling went on to claim that "some of the African-Americans -- maybe I'll get in trouble again -- they don't want to help anybody."

In the interview with Cooper, which came nearly two weeks after the first recording was released, Sterling also said he "was baited" by Stiviano into making racist remarks.

"I mean, that's not the way I talk. I don't talk about people for one thing, ever. I talk about ideas and other things. I don't talk about people," he said.

Along with the lifetime ban, Silver said he would urge the NBA's Board of Governors to force a sale of the Clippers. Sterling expressed hope that the owners might not vote for a sale but did not express interest in a prolonged legal battle."

"But if you fight with my partners, what at the end of the road, what do I benefit, especially at my age? If they fight with me and they spend millions and I spend millions, let's say I win or they win, I just don't know if that's important," said Sterling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-magic-johnson-interview-cnn_n_5310711.html


For someone who said, "I don't talk about people for one thing, ever. I talk about ideas and other things. I don't talk about people"--he certainly talked enough about Magic Johnson. Rolling Eyes

I'm looking forward to hearing Magic Johnson's interview with Anderson Cooper tomorrow.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 09:06 pm
@firefly,
Given that magic might be working with his ex-girlfriend to take his team away from him I would not had have too many nice things to say about him either.

But you are right he is not smooth but just a sick old man that is not functioning too well.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 09:37 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Its not like we r putting his ouster to a vote.
He decided to hop.


Yes, it is my understanding that he is headed back to the website blackplanet where white "racists" like myself and Hawkeye and perhaps you are not allow.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 10:24 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Given that magic might be working with his ex-girlfriend to take his team away from him
I would not had have too many nice things to say about him either.

But you are right he is not smooth but just a sick old man that is not functioning too well.
It sounds like he really cares
about owning that team.
I don t understand that,
but I have no interest in competitive athletics.

Its sad that he apologized. He does not show the courage
of his convictions: property rights. If I were in his position,
I 'd just sound off, defending what I believe is RIGHT!

He shud just sell the team and take delight in his huge, gigantic profit.





David
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 12 May, 2014 10:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It sounds like he really cares
about owning that team.
I don t understand that,
but I have no interest in competitive athletics.
Neither has Sterling for almost the entire time he has owned the team, he put very poor teams on the floor on purpose, because this was all about money for him. Sterling only cares about the money he will lose if he is forced to sell without the NBA picking up his losses (low sales price because it is a distressed property due to the NBA actions, and capital gains tax costs). If the NBA pays him off he will leave happy. This is my evaluation based upon what I know about this guy, I cant prove any of it.

Quote:
Its sad that he apologized
the mob demands it. The mob will not be denied. It will not help Sterling though, in part because he put bad teams on the floor for 30 years, which was a giant F**K YOU ! to the city and to the NBA.

Quote:
He shud just sell the team and take delight in his huge, gigantic profit.
No, the mob must be resisted, Justice must be fought for. I think he owes it to America to fight, it would greatly redeem his past sins.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 06:20 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The NBA seems to be counting on the sentance (paraphrased) " the commissioner shall be the sole arbiter of when this agreement is violated" will keep the courts from claiming jurisdiction. I doubt it works.

I checked, and that's not what the NBA constitution says. After describing the grounds on which an owner can be impeached in article 13, the constitution describes in article 14 how the process is supposed to run. And as it turns out, it is supposed to run pretty much like a kangaroo court: "Strict rules of
evidence shall not apply" (article 14 e). So there is no such thing as barring the incriminating tape because it documents a private conversation that somebody bugged. Having heard and considered the charges and counter charges, the owners vote (article 14 f). If there's a 75% supermajority, Sterling is out. He cannot appeal the decision through the legal process. The constitution explicitly bars him from that (article 14 j).

The NBA's constitution, in short, is a joke.

Nevertheless, Sterling volunteered to be bound by its terms when he signed up as an owner. He then hurt the other owners' business by scaring sponsors away. And now, the other owners have every right to take advantage of their constitution to get rid of Sterling. Now that I know both the grounds and the process for the removal of an NBA owner, I don't think the NBA will deprive Sterling of anything he hasn't signed away long ago.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 06:31 am
Sterling is such a distasteful bigot, UCLA just turned down his money--$3 million worth of it.

Quote:
UCLA rejects Donald Sterling gift
April 29, 2014

UCLA issued the following public statement concerning a recent $3 million pledge to the university by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who today was banned for life from the NBA following racist statements he made on audio recordings.

Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect. For those reasons, UCLA has decided to return Mr. Sterling’s initial payment of $425,000 and reject the remainder of a $3 million pledge he recently made to support basic kidney research by the UCLA Division of Nephrology. UCLA has received numerous inquiries about an advertisement in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times falsely suggesting that it was UCLA publicly thanking him for the gift. The ad was placed by Mr. Sterling, not the university.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-rejects-donald-sterling-gift


I'm glad that this is the reaction to him, and his offensive attitudes, outside the world of basketball.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 06:45 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I'm glad that this is the reaction to him,
and his offensive attitudes, outside the world of basketball.
Because YOU have no renal problems -- yet.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 06:50 am
@firefly,
How many sick BLACKS will fail to receive
the benefits of that now un-funded kidney research ?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 07:01 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Now that I know both the grounds and the process for the removal of an NBA owner,
I don't think the NBA will deprive Sterling of anything he hasn't signed away long ago.
It seems strange, odd and masochistic
that thay 'd put themselves into that position.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 08:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It seems strange, odd and masochistic
that thay 'd put themselves into that position.


The question that keep coming into my mind is will a court find what look like a very unreasonable agreement enforceable?

You are free to put anything you wish into an agreement but that does not means that a court will enforced terms that on their face seems unreasonable.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 09:23 am
Quote:
These Charities Are Rejecting Donations From Disgraced Clippers Owner Donald Sterling
The Huffington Post
by Robbie Couch
04/30/2014

Donald Sterling's public image continues to crumble before our eyes after the NBA team owner's blatantly racist remarks were caught on tape for the world to hear.

Corporate sponsors are fleeing his Los Angeles Clippers organization, the NBA has banned him for life and now charities are severing ties from the billionaire and his philanthropic dollars.

TMZ is reporting two major organizations are rejecting Sterling's gifts -- Goodwill Southern California and A Place Called Home.

Goodwill Southern California is turning away the $100,000 donation Sterling gave -- which was set to be allocated throughout the next decade -- and is returning the $20,000 that had already been accepted. A Place Called Home, a resourceful program for high-risk teens, will not return the $30,000 it has received from a $100,000 commitment, but will reject the remaining $70,000 balance, according to the outlet.

Jonathan Zeichner, executive director of A Place Called Home, posted a blog on The Huffington Post on Tuesday denouncing Sterling's racist commentary and pointing out "how lonely it is to hate and judge other people on the basis of their skin color." He encouraged Sterling to visit the nonprofit the billionaire previously funded to see firsthand the positive change it has on the young people it serves.

Earlier this week, the Associated Press reported that the NAACP has decided not to honor Sterling with a Lifetime Achievement Award from its Los Angeles chapter, and will return Sterling's donations to its organization as well. UCLA is also rejecting a $3 million gift towards kidney research at the university, as Sterling's "divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA's core values."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/donald-sterling-charity_n_5241582.html


In addition to the above charities, Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance won’t be taking anymore cash from Sterling, who has donated $30,000 over the last three years.

It's up to individual charities to decide who they want to accept money from. What's significant is that some have decided to put principle above their need for money, in the case of Sterling, which does send a message about not compromising on a matter like prejudice for these groups. That charities are turning down his money, should certainly be a message strong enough to get through to Sterling, about how his racial attitudes are regarded, no matter how much he tries to delude himself about it by saying, "I am not a racist".
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 09:45 am
Quote:
UCLA Should Have Taken Donald Sterling's Money -- But With No Strings Attached
Peter Dreier
05/01/2014

UCLA made a big mistake returning $425,000 donated by Donald Sterling for kidney research and canceling an agreement that would have brought Sterling's gift to $3 million over seven years.

UCLA's action on Tuesday came soon after the NBA announced that it had banned Sterling from owning an NBA team or associating with the NBA for the rest of his life after the Clippers' owners' racist rants were leaked (apparently by his mistress) to the media.

The Los Angeles Times quoted a UCLA spokewoman, who explained: "Mr. Sterling's divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA's core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect. For those reasons, UCLA has decided to return Mr. Sterling's initial payment of $425,000 and reject the remainder of a $3-million pledge he recently made to support basic kidney research by the UCLA Division of Nephrology."

UCLA should have been more strategic. It should have taken the money, but stipulated that it would not name a building, research center, or anything else after Sterling, nor give him an honorary degree or any other award.

By doing so, UCLA would have put the ball in the Clippers owner's court. If Sterling accepted those terms, his money might contribute to research that could save lives. But if he rejected those terms, it would expose the kind of phony philanthropist he really is -- donating the money only to wash his dirty reputation and burnish his ego.

The great Jewish thinker Maimonides observed that an anonymous gift is "a commandment fulfilled for its own sake," rather than done in order to obtain honor.

If Sterling was familiar with Maimonides' words, he didn't take them to heart.

Sterling is well known in Los Angeles for placing expensive full-page and half-page self-congratulatory ads in the Los Angeles Times extolling his own generosity. A photo of Sterling inevitably adorns these ads, along with photos of the heads of dozens of nonprofit groups in the Los Angeles area who receive Sterling's largesse. Many of these organizations, in turn, bestow awards on Sterling for his allegedly humanitarian gestures, which Sterling promotes in these ads. The ads are always in the same format and have an amateurish quality that have led many Times readers to wonder why someone as wealthy as Sterling (his estimated worth is $1.9 billion) can't hire a better PR flak to design more attractive ads.

In 2006, Sterling paid for a newspaper ad announcing that the Donald T. Sterling Charitable Foundation would develop a "state-of-the-art $50 million dollar" project for "over 91,000 homeless people" in LA's Skid Row neighborhood. The ad included a photo of a smiling Sterling above the quote: "Please don't forget the children. They need our help." At the time, many homeless advocates criticized the plan for being more like a mega-warehouse than a social service agency. But they need not have worried. Although Sterling spent millions of dollars to buy properties in the area, he never carried through on the homeless project. And now that the Skid Row neighborhood has gentrified -- pushing many low-income people out of the area -- Sterling is sitting on valuable property.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-05-01-DonaldSterlingsSkidRowhomelesscenter-thumb.jpg

Sterling made sure that the world knew about his gift to UCLA, even before the university had announced it. In March, Sterling took out an ad in the Los Angeles Times to boast about his good deed. The ad, which was made to look like it was put there by UCLA, said that the university planned to name a kidney lab after Sterling and his wife and that a "gold-colored plaque" honoring them would be placed in the lobby of a campus building.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-05-01-donaldSterlingUCLAadinLAtimes-thumb.jpg

Yes, Sterling has a repugnant history of racism, as I noted in my article on Sunday about his long track record of blatant discrimination against Blacks and Latinos in his rental properties. But UCLA, and almost every other university and college, hospital, museum, and other nonprofit organization in Los Angeles and the around the country, has taken lots of money from disreputable people and corporations who hope that acts of charity will cleanse their reputations or perhaps smooth their path to heaven when its time for their children to examine the will....

Not all philanthropy is self-serving and ego-centered. There are many people who make anonymous donations to worthy causes for the best of altruistic and humane reasons. There are organizations like the Liberty Hill Foundation in Los Angeles and its counterparts in other cities that take donations from wealthy individuals and direct the money to grassroots organizations that mobilize people to change the very system of privilege and power that helped the donors amass their fortunes. They are following Martin Luther King's adage: "Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary."

So the question for non-profit organizations -- a university, a hospital, a homeless shelter, an environmental organization, or a civil rights group (like the NAACP, which honored Sterling with a Lifetime Achievement Award five years ago and was about to do it again in two weeks before the current controversy forced it to withdraw the honor) -- is what standards should they have for bestowing honors on their donors. When is a donor such a disreputable person (or corporation) that its donation -- and the strings attached to it -- soils the reputation and moral standing of the nonprofit group, despite its many good deeds?

So if UCLA could have persuaded Donald Sterling to donate to its kidney research program without any strings attached -- perhaps even insisting that he not promote his philanthropy in newspaper ads or billboards -- I see no harm in the university taking his money and using it to pay for much-needed medical research. I doubt Sterling would have accepted those terms, but it would have been interesting to find out. But by canceling its agreement with Sterling, UCLA pre-empted the slim possibility that Sterling would take Maimonides' advice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/ucla-should-have-taken-do_b_5244922.html






0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 09:55 am
@OmSigDAVID,
UCLA has plenty of nephrologists although it usually welcomes donations.
http://www.med.ucla.edu/modules/wfchannel/index.php?pagenum=43
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 10:10 am
@ossobuco,
Adds, that being a donor brings along some benefits. I was a small donor, giving a painting to the breast cancer center there. I was later invited to a small garden party with a few famous people to show us the plans for a then about to be built additional med center building. Thus donors are likely to be plugged into the larger help the university community. I can see the university's choice not to accept the money, despite what the second article firefly posted said about how they could put conditions on the donation.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 May, 2014 10:10 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
The question that keep coming into my mind is will a court find what look like a very unreasonable agreement enforceable?

What defense against a possible breach-or-contract claim from the NBA do you suggest? Just because a contract turns out to be a bad deal for one party, that doesn't make it unenforceable.

I know you're not a lawyer, and neither am I. But we both can read, and Wikipedia has a write-up on what it takes to form an enforceable contract. Do you see any step in the contract formation that Sterling and the NBA seem to have skipped? Do you see any breach-of-contract defense against the NBA constitution that would apply? I don't. Unreasonable or not, I'm pretty sure the NBA constitution is an enforceable contract.
 

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Donald Sterling
  3. » Page 33
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 07:53:15