Donald Sterling

@Thomas,

Quote:

I disapprove of huge media campaigns to drive someone out of town based on such illegally-bugged conversations. And I disapprove of charities side-tracking their mission to partake in such campaigns

I think you're not giving charities enough credit for the real ethical dilemmas some of their donors place them in if they choose to accept money from a source they consider unsavory or counter to the principles of their organization or mission.

In addition, people sometimes try to buy respectability through their charitable donations, particularly someone like Sterling who chooses to advertise such charitable acts in billboards and newspaper ads. So, while Sterling may be giving to a charity, he might be also using them, and their name, to airbrush his image, or to make him a "partner" with them, and a charity is entitled to object to that.

The ethical dilemma is quite clear in some of the Jewish Web sites I've looked at, where they discuss this issue with regard to Sterling. Some express the opinion that Sterling's biased attitudes bring shame on the Jewish people, and help to promote bias, and for that reason his money shouldn't be accepted by Jewish charities. Others feel that acts of charity, according to Jewish teachings, are one way a person can try to atone for misdeeds, and that Sterling shouldn't be deprived of that opportunity to show repentance. Still others feel that their mission, and the cause and people helped by the charity, should be the primary consideration, and the good use of the money is more important than the donor. But it's clearly an ethical dilemma, not a response to any media-driven campaign.

It's quite clear, for instance, why this particular group doesn't want to accept future donations from Sterling. In this case, turning down his money is a strong statement of disapproval with him, and an ethical stance for this particular group.

Quote:

SWC Supports NBA Commissioner Silver's Action Taken Against Donald Sterling

"The Simon Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance were shocked by racist remarks attributed to Donald Sterling," said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, Founder and Dean and Associate Dean of the Jewish human rights group. There is no place in America for such bigoted comments. We fully support the action taken by Commissioner Silver," they continued.

“Moreover, the Wiesenthal Center and its Museum of Tolerance will not accept any more funds from the Donald Sterling Foundation. The $30,000 that the Foundation has given to the Museum over the past 3 years will not be returned because all funds were used for programming that help fight and prevent the very racism and hate that was expressed in Mr. Sterling’s tape.
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=8776547&ct=13927281

I think all charities and non-profits have to make their own individual decisions about whether to accept money from donors they see as tainted.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

By the way David my comments does not mean that I am in favor of an ever increasing concentration of total wealth that is being aided by government repeat government writing one law after another tax and otherwise to favor them.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of local taxes going to a few billionaires sport teams owners for example in Miami.

The end of any real and meaningful democracy is in sight in the US, in my opinion, due to this concentration where far less then a thousands of the riches Americans have more net worth then the lower half of the population all together.

Our founders model a great deal of our government after the early Roman Republican and the one major factor that ended up dooming them was a similar concentration of both power and wealth.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

His problem right now, is that some charities and non-profits--including UCLA--are saying
they don't want his money, because of his views

BillRM wrote:

That seems more of a problem for those charities,
who are openly placing the needs of their clients behind their desire to be PC.

There are one hell of a lot of people in need in one form or another
who will take his funds after all.

As a footnote, if I would happen to had known that a charity that
is asking me for support is at the same time turning their noses at large
sums of funding for the soul reason of being PC they would not get a dime from me.

Yes. VERY WELL SAID.

If thay hit me up, claiming to need the money,
when thay have already REJECTED it, then thay have proven themselves to be hypocrits.
Thay 'd want ME to pay the price of their rejection. Screw that.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

By the way David my comments do not mean that I am in favor of
an ever increasing concentration of total wealth that is being aided
by government repeat government writing one law after another tax
and otherwise to favor them.

If I cud, I 'd limit government funding
to sales taxes at the same rate for everyone
and importation tariffs. I 'd put a maximum cap on taxation
for human beings not to exceed $5OO,OOO taxes paid,
in that government does not benefit any citizen more than that
by its services, in my opinion.

BillRM wrote:

Hundreds of millions of dollars of local taxes going to a few billionaires sport teams owners for example in Miami.

If we had a referendum on that,
I 'd probably vote against that. I dont favor athletic competition.
In my opinion, fishing or swimming, gunnery, archery, SCUBA Diving are better sports.

BillRM wrote:

The end of any real and meaningful democracy is in sight in the US,
in my opinion, due to this concentration where far less then a
thousands of the riches Americans have more net worth then the
lower half of the population all together.

I dunno the statistics. I 'm not prepared to argue statistics.
I favor as much free enterprize as possible.

BillRM wrote:

Our founders model a great deal of our government after the early
Roman Republican and the one major factor that ended up dooming
them was a similar concentration of both power and wealth.

I thought Julius Caesar overthrew the Republic.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Quote:
I disapprove of huge media campaigns to drive someone out of town based on such illegally-bugged conversations. And I disapprove of charities side-tracking their mission to partake in such campaigns

I think you're not giving charities enough credit for the real ethical dilemmas some of their donors place them in
if they choose to accept money from a source they consider unsavory or counter to the principles of their organization or mission.

In addition, people sometimes try to buy respectability through their charitable donations

OK. I 'll increase my gifts to the NRA.

David

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The ethical dilemma is quite clear in some of the Jewish Web sites I've looked at, where they discuss this issue with regard to Sterling. Some express the opinion that Sterling's biased attitudes bring shame on the Jewish people, and help to promote bias, and for that reason his money shouldn't be accepted by Jewish charities.

That's a PR strategy, not an ethical dilemma. And what they're afraid of is not a bias, it's the recognition of a fact: Some Jews just are racist bastards --- just as some Christians are.

firefly wrote:

It's quite clear, for instance, why this particular group doesn't want to accept future donations from Sterling. In this case, turning down his money is a strong statement of disapproval with him, and an ethical stance for this particular group.

Stirling has been on record as a racist for years, perhaps decades. The Simon Wiesenthal Center never had an ethical problem taking his money. I think it implausible that it has an ethical problem now. At most it has --- see above --- a PR problem masquerading as ethics.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I thought Julius Caesar overthrew the Republic.

He was the final nail in the Republic coffin however it date back many generations before that when the "middle class" small land owners the then source of the the Roman army troops was purchase off their lands and in their place came into being very large estates that was run by slave power for the benefit of the wealthy owners.

As the small land owners no longer existed in any great numbers the Romans needed to turn to a profession and mercenary army that was loyal to those who control their pay not to the Roman republic and the senate.

The results generations before Caesar came to power was one revolt after another revolt and the senate did whatever the general who troops control the city of Rome at the time desire the senate to do.

Names was listed on the senate walls with the name of the men who lost the last power struggle and was to be killed by the first person who came across them under the threat of not doing so would result in thier own names being listed.

0 Replies

This thing with the charities is more of the now common American song and dance " I refuse to work with people who do not agree with me!"

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

If I cud, I 'd limit government funding
to sales taxes at the same rate for everyone

My god you do realize that the poor would then be paying a far larger percent of their total income in taxes then the wealthy as they need to apply almost their total income on goods that are tax to remain alive and the wealthy can live high on using only a tiny percent of their incomes on goods that would be tax with a sale tax?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I read somewhere (forgotten) that a sales tax of 17%
with repeal of income taxes on human beings wud do it. That 's OK.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

A 17 percents tax on the total income of the poor that are barely keeping a roof over their family heads is ok while the Koch brothers would be paying around half a percents on their total income is ok with you?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I disapprove of disgruntled girlfriends illegally bugging private conversations so they can entrap their boyfriends

good thing that Mr. Sterling knew he was being taped by his "archivist" (and that there is apparently someone else on the tape confirming that knowledge)

there's really nothing about entrapment of a boyfriend in this matter - not sure where you're getting that idea

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

In addition, people sometimes try to buy respectability through their charitable donations,

this is a piece to another reason for charities to disavow Sterling money - they could lose other donors who don't want to be on a list he is

fundraising is a real balancing act

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

there's really nothing about entrapment of a boyfriend in this matter - not sure where you're getting that idea

BULLSHIT as employees are not given half a million dollars worth of cars or a 70,000 dollars designer purse to carry around either.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

fundraising is a real balancing act

Yes, it is given that by the last polls I seen the majority of the population are for Stirling keeping his team and my feelings that a large percent of the population is not going to take kindly to giving funds to charities to make up the funds they had turn down from the Stirling's foundation.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

you've caught the wrong end of the stick
__

where is the entrapment?

she was apparently taping him at his request

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

my feelings that a large percent of the population is not going to take kindly to giving funds to charities to make up the funds they had turn down from the Stirling's foundation.

others will donate who wouldn't have

the percentage of the population doesn't much matter - the amount of money each individual donor can fork over matters. better to have one $1,000,000 donor than to have eighty $5 donors - and it's the $1,000,000 donor that matters in cases like this. there are people who will be glad to be seen to be stepping up for a charity in Sterling's place, in addition to those who will now donate because they won't have to deal with him (donor events are always a joy - who won't be seen with who else)

like I said, it's a balancing act

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

like I said, it's a balancing act

Of course it is and turning down donors for PC reasons using the excuse to do so of some unproven repeat unproven theory that doing so will result in more funds coming in then not is a clear violation of those charities duty to their clients .

The old saying seem to apply here that a bird in the hands is better then maybe two birds in the bush.

A simple statement that as an organization we do not judge the people who are nice enough to be out supporters whether we as individuals happen to agree or disagree with all our donors actions would be taking the high road.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

A 17 percent tax on the total income of the poor

NO, no, no; its more like a 17% tax on the total out-go (sales tax)
of anyone who buys anything, with full REPEAL of any income tax
or any other tax, except importation tariffs.

BillRM wrote:

that are barely keeping a roof over their family heads is ok

Yes.

BillRM wrote:

while the Koch brothers would be paying around
half a percent on their total income is ok with you?

Yes, because tax shud be only to pay for government services,
the same as paying for food, candy, electricity or cigarettes.
Purchase of guns n ammunition shud be immune from any taxation,
to stay on the good side of the 2nd Amendment.

People shud NOT be penalized for being financially successful
and the poor shud not be parasites on the middle class or the rich.

This Republic was NOT founded for that purpose.

David

1 Reply

Found it, I'd linked it on page 14; I see that I conflated that information with how the tape got public.

http://able2know.org/topic/242905-14#post-5653689

The article in full:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10869537/los-angeles-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-troubled-reign-approaches-inglorious-end

- long article so I'll just clip some of it from the middle of the article:

A tone-deaf response
It's funny what ends up getting you in the end. Al Capone went down for tax evasion. Richard Nixon fell because his paranoia drove him to record everything. The tapes of Donald Sterling became public because he and his wife sue to get what they want, knowing most people don't have the means to fight back.

The woman in the tapes, V. Stiviano, worked as his assistant for four years. They'd met at the Super Bowl one year, hit it off and grew closer. She traveled with him, went to meetings with him and was paid a salary. Although she denies that they had a romantic relationship, Sterling is described in court papers by her attorney as "a highly public figure who is well known to be 'keeping women' other than his wife and who has done so for very many years with a big toothy grin brandishing his sexual prowess in the faces of the Paparazzi and caring less of what anyone thought, the least of which, his own wife."

Sterling lavished gifts on Stiviano over their four-year relationship, including a 2013 Range Rover, a 2012 Ferrari and two Bentleys. He paid her rent. He bought her jewelry. And, on March 7 of this year, Sterling's wife, Shelly Sterling, sued her to get it all back.

Stiviano lawyered up. Her attorneys filed a response to the civil suit, asking that the case be dismissed on April 21. Instead, Shelly Sterling's attorneys requested that Stiviano turn over all tapes and recordings made of herself and Sterling. The law compelled her to do so.

Four days later, the tapes surfaced publicly on TMZ.

On Monday of this week, Stiviano met with NBA investigator Anders and verified that she and Sterling were indeed the ones on the tape, which was recorded in September. She told them that Sterling knew he was being recorded and that they often taped conversations because Sterling, who sources say has been battling cancer in recent years, forgets things, and explained that part of her job was to help coach him on his image. On one of the tapes, a third person is heard in the background. The NBA also interviewed that third person before Silver made his ruling Tuesday, a fact that could be important later if the legality of the tapes is questioned.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver banned Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life in the wake of Sterling's racist comments. Full coverage »

Sterling also spoke to Anders by phone and confirmed that it was his voice on the tapes. Clippers team president Andy Roeser met with Anders, as well. Silver kept in constant contact with Anders throughout his investigation. He also consulted with several owners as he deliberated. Time was of the essence. The scandal was dwarfing everything, including an exciting, hard-fought first round of the playoffs as well as announcements of the league's postseason awards (which were postponed this week). The greatest part of the NBA season was being sullied.

Sterling never seemed to fully understand that the walls were caving in on him. Saturday was his 80th birthday. He and his wife stayed in San Francisco the entire weekend. He was planning to go to the game on Sunday until Silver called on Saturday and asked him not to. Shelly sat courtside and later flew home on the team plane. Sterling and Roeser, who has worked for him for over 30 years -- first at his real estate corporation, then with the Clippers, watched the game together in San Francisco.
end/clip

0 Replies

Donald Sterling

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know