The Liberal Media’s Donald Sterling Race-baiting

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   5/2/14
Never let a racial crisis go to waste is, I suppose, the credo of the Machiavellian mainstream media. Since the release of the Don Sterling audio, liberals haven’t missed a chance to play the race card for all its worth. One of the worst offenders is a New York Daily News columnist named Harry Siegel, who — in a piece of pablum bearing a picture of NBA owners portrayed as Klansmen — bemoans the lack of Diversity™ in league ownership and management. Unfortunately for Siegy, his points, which start with the Klan hoods, only get worse from there.

A man with a conscience (malformed though it is), Siegel laments that the NBA is “a league where three-quarters of the players are black, but fewer than half the coaches and not even a fifth of the league office staff are black, as of October, 2013, and every majority team owner except Michael Jordan is white.” But there’s an easy remedy.

Institute a quota ensuring that whites, and other races, get proportionate representation among NBA players.

This would make the league approximately 63 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, 13 percent black and 6 percent Asian. The remaining one percent can be represented by Clint Eastwood’s empty chair on the sidelines, and we can throw in a primordial dwarf if it makes the Diversity™ didacts feel better.

And why not? Why should proportionality go only one way? The bias here lies in self-righteously bloviating about Diversity™ when whites dominate an area while acting as if you don’t even notice it when blacks do.

Of course, liberals would say that the players have earned their positions. But how do we know the owners haven’t? After all, some individuals definitely seem to have a gift for building financial empires. This isn’t to say that every rich person makes his fortune through respectable means. Heck, some people even make millions dribbling a ball around.

But it seems that liberals, prejudiced to the core, only have a problem with it when the “wrong” groups succeed. With the contraception con spent, Barack Obama (PBUH) has used his Teleprompter recently to rail against the male/female wage gap — and he wasn’t talking about the one where young urban women earn 8 percent more than their male peers (because they’re 50 percent more likely to graduate college; I don’t think ol’ Barry mentions this gap, either). Libs could also cite how NBA owners are inordinately Jewish, but that narrative won’t work yet. And the highest-earning religious group in the nation is Hindus, but, last I heard, colleges weren’t schooling mush-head kids in “Hindu privilege.”

But talking about those things might be “publicly toxic”; you know, in the sense that Siegel said he’s sure that Sterling is “not the only owner whose private thoughts are publicly toxic.” No doubt. And I’m certain this is limited to rich white NBA owners, or at least white people in general. It also occurs to me, however, that people can develop a tolerance for certain toxins, such as when black ex-basketball players suggest all-black leagues or black civil-rights hustlers call a city “Hymietown.” And, in keeping with the toxicological principle “The dose makes the poison,” tolerance for toxins disgorged by whites stands at about .010 parts per million.

Then there are the millions, of dollars, that Siegel laments the NBA players are not getting, writing that theirs is a “league where the 360 or so athletes who, in fact, make the game, split its proceeds about 50-50 with ownership.” Note that he also dismissed the owners, who allegedly believe they make the game, as “[w]ealthy men…[who] think highly of their own contributions.”

Now, some might say that the fans make the game; after all, you earn zilch without a market. But what is Siegel’s point? Wouldn’t the proceeds split be much the same in the virtually all-white NHL? And how is that different from any corporation or successful business? A person doesn’t invest his heart and soul and risk capital in a venture without the carrot of a possibly handsome return; not even liberals such as Little Big Gulp (a.k.a. Michael Bloomberg), Warren Buffet and Donald Sterling do that.

So it sounds as if Siegel is lamenting economic freedom, as if he’d prefer a Marxist model (this certainly would have the upside of not enriching men who dribble balls and pundits who dribble ideas). Of course, nothing is stopping the players from pooling their resources and trying to buy into their team.

But perhaps most telling about Siegel’s article is what could be akin to a Freudian slip. A recurrent theme of his is that “we” can feel good about ourselves for taking the principled stand against Sterling, but there is much work yet to do. He writes, “We can all take a moment and pat ourselves on the back for not being as horrible as this appalling old man,” and later, “Once we’re done feeling good about not being Sterling…,” it’s time to beat the Diversity™ drum. But he also self-righteously states that Sterling’s “obscene behavior…has been well documented” and asks, “how could this have gone on for so long?”

What this gets at is the phoniness of the left. Let’s be clear on something: the “we” here isn’t me. It’s not most of you readers, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention.

It is the left.

Notoriously liberal Mark Cuban, who now calls Sterling “abhorrent,” said in 2009, “I like Donald. He plays by his own rules.” (Translation: a lib who becomes a liability to the cause is “abhorrent.” A lib who is getting away with it “plays by his own rules.”) Black actor Leon Isaac Kennedy called Sterling “a prince among men.” The NAACP gave him an award and was set to bestow another. And ex-NBA commissioner David Stern, who some libs now criticize for not only tolerating the owner but even rewarding him, is, like Sterling, a Democrat donor.

The “we,” libs, is you.

It’s not conservatives. It’s not white people. It’s you.

You anointed yourselves arbiters and overseers of acceptable racial commentary; “racism” is your hang-up, your defined One Deadly Sin, your great litmus test. Don’t blame “society” — upholding your principles is your responsibility.

So most of the lib outrage over “racism” is, when not downright phony, motivated by selectively triggered emotion. It’s a ploy used to tear down tradition and traditionalists on specious grounds and win the culture war. It’s not for lib-enablers, such as late Senator Robert Byrd, who’d been in the KKK; blacks such a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton; Bill Clinton with his Obama-coffee remark; or fat cats who make big donations — until it’s time to throw them under the bus.

As for Siegel, if he’s so concerned about Diversity™, perhaps he could turn his columnist slot over to a minority. After all, the vast majority of columnists are white, Siegy, and you wouldn’t want some future writer to have to lament, “how could this have gone on for so long?”
__________________________________________________
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (2116 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Liberal Media’s Donald Sterling Race-baiting

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I haven’t even read this article by Selwyn yet. But I’m glad he came up with one because this is a convenient place to post this. There’s an article at NRO by Deroy Murdock about how supposedly Sterlings words “remind us how the real thing looks.”

    Well, one commenter at NRO was not so quick in his desire to break out in the strains of maudlin violin chords. Lane Cobble wrote:

    Oh yeah… this is what bad, bad, bad, bad racism “looks” like? A millionaire who hires and pays blacks, and other minorities? What a horrible, disgusting man, right? Oh, he doesn’t live up to the exacting standards of Deroy “D-bone” Murdock?

    Sorry Deroy, this is child’s play. This is not anywhere near real racism. See things like: The Amenian Holocaust, the Jewish Holocaust, and on and on. See Jim Crow laws. Take your butthurt and cry elsewhere.

    Another piece that proves what a politically correct infested rag National Review has become. Pitiful.

    Oh the horrors of an old white man enriching so many blacks that he supposedly hates oh-so-much.

    People are sick and tired of collective black butthurt, which is all this is. And we don’t care anymore whether YOU deign to tell us whether this time your butthurt is justified or not. We don’t care. Because we know you really don’t care, that it’s moral posturing to make you feel good and prove your worth to other blacks and whites who ring their hands over crap like this. And of course to use any leverage possible against big bad whitey and getting a piece of their pie, any way you cut it. I would love, just love to see the article by Deroy about anti-white racism all over this country and the world (see: affirmative action, immigration policies in Europe and America).

    Nice try Deroy. Fail.

    I’ve always found Mr. Murdock to be a bit insufferably politically correct. I’ll get all hot and bothered if some schmuck somewhere denies a man a job because of the color of his skin. But it’s hard to care about some Jewish fellow — a heavy contributor to Democrat causes — who employs millionaire black people and then is strung up for saying a few impolite words in private.

    NRO even has this one ass-wipe over their name sinz54 who is the worst kind of cancerous troll. His message is that if you don’t agree with Murdock then you are a racist. If you see me deleting a post here or there, you’ll can hopefully trust me that it’s not differences of opinion that upset me but obvious internet sociopaths.

    And this falls in line with another great article I read this morning over at American Thinker by Jack Cashill: The Suffocating Neo-Puritanism of ‘Progressive’ America.

    Indeed. I’ve always thought of the Left as the New Puritans.

  2. steve lancaster says:

    People have always done rude and even terrible things to others believing they were necessary and, worse, even for the victims’ own good. If we really want to understand someone else’s presumptuous motivations, we only have to look to our own.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Am excellent piece skewering the hypocrisy that is the heart of modern liberalism. I recall that other writers (Walter Williams would be a good bet, and maybe Thomas Sowell) have pointed out the uninterest of liberals in the racial mix of professional basketball players. (It also showed up in The Destroyer #48, Profit Motive, in which a posturing liberal programmer refuses to go to work for “evil” companies until his wife leaves him, and at lunchtime he realizes he’s totally on his own. He then creates a program distilling the pursuit of profit that enables him to form his own financial empire — and when he orders it to make sure his black employees are paid as well as the whites, the program buys an NBA team.)

    This sort of thing should be used to challenge liberal hypocrisy. Why do they demand “diversity” in NBA ownership but not among the players? Why do they call for “diversity” in various professions but never offer to sacrifice their own jobs (as they demand that other people should be forced to) to open up a space for a black? (Rush Limbaugh once had a contest, when the MSNBC anchors took time off from their sojourns at Matteawan to moan about the lack of black anchors, to vote which MSNBC anchor should give up his job so a black could replace him.)

    An interesting example that could be used to challenge them would be the matter of racial IQ differences. Liberals claim any such discussion is inherently racist, yet they were quite happy to praise Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel, which (in its introduction) discusses the possibility that Papuans might be more intelligent than Americans on average. It would be nice to see them forced to explain why one is acceptable and the other isn’t; I doubt they could even come up with a credible piece of sophistry, particularly when not prepped for the question.

    Of course, the important thing about Siegel’s “feel good” comment is that this emotion is at the heart of much liberal posturing. Hence Sowell’s “Self-congratulation as the basis for policy” as the subtitle for The Vision of the Anointed. By the way patriotpost.us has an interesting little humorous poster dealing with the liberal emphasis on the primacy of their feelings.

    As for Brad’s citation of Lane Cobble’s refutation of Deroy Murdock’s idiocy, most enjoyable and apt. It would be hard to disagree with any part of it. But the piece right before it (chronologically) by BLE7481 was also quite apt. I also decided to make my own response.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ditto.

      And I like how Selwyn clarified things when he said:

      What this gets at is the phoniness of the left. Let’s be clear on something: the “we” here isn’t me. It’s not most of you readers, the Heritage Foundation, Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention.

      It is the left.

      In other words, this is their game, not mine. And I’ll not make it mine. My game is to treat people fairly but not perfectly. Nor do I expect perfect treatment. You can’t have friends if everyone has to walk on eggshells lest one small word be misinterpreted (or, as is usually the case, intentionally misinterpreted).

      I come from the Don Rickles school of racial relations: Insult everyone equally.

      It’s funny to sit back and see these sissified writers wring their hands over “racism” when you know it’s just moral posturing, especially if they are liberals.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I am an equal opportunity racist, I generally dislike the human race. It’s people I like.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          In that one article by Jack Cashill that I linked to above, he ends the article with a quote form Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

        • Rosalys says:

          Where as liberals love humanity – it’s just the people they hate!

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This would make the league approximately 63 percent white, 17 percent Hispanic, 13 percent black and 6 percent Asian. The remaining one percent can be represented by Clint Eastwood’s empty chair on the sidelines, and we can throw in a primordial dwarf if it makes the Diversity™ didacts feel better.

    I commend your recommendations, comrade. However I find them to be somewhat timid. If we are going to remake basketballski in our own image, we must root out the diseases of competition and excellence and replace them with our deeply held belief of true equality for all. (Of course some of us will be more equal than others)

    As scientific humanists, we can now determine the height distribution of our proletarian brothers and sisters throughout this nation. I will have to get back to you on the exact numbers, but I believe the average height of the downtrodden American male is something in the neighborhood of 5’9″. The percentages would then breakdown with the largest number of males being between 5’7″ and 5’11”. Thus, logic, reason and fairness compel us to insure the males who fall within this height range are properly represented in the ranks of NBA players. Note, following the percentages, we will need to find a few males below 4’6″ and some around 8′ tall.

    You can see that if we adhere to the numbers in the Bell curve, we will assure a equitable representative distribution of all heights throughout the league and those males who use unfair advantage , i.e. those who are 6’4″ and taller, to gain entry into the league will be shown to be the capitalist heightists they truly are. These people are merely profiting from the fact that their ancestors were taller than ours. We demand reparations. Down with height discrimination. Down with Heightism!!!

    Long live the revolution,

    Comrade Shorty

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The insidious and underground practice of heightism. Oh, sure, you won’t find overt evidence of it. But it’s there, lurking underneath the surface.

      I was astonished one time when a friend of mine a few years ago complained of “agism” because she was turned down for a job. I don’t remember if they wanted younger or older, but it was probably younger. And I rolled my eyes at that. I rolled my eyes and didn’t say anything because I was sort of sweet on her at the time. But alarm bells went off.

      Who thinks like that? Heightism. Agism. You-name-it-ism. It’s called life, dumb-ass. And it’s never going to be completely fair.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    An interesting thought came to me at lunch while thinking of this article. What is the relative salaries of white and black employees of the NBA? I suspect the latter are far better paid on average. And the difference between male and female employees is probably even greater (and more important to liberals, at least in theory, because women are an Official Victim Group, unlike whites).

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Ben Stein had some very good thoughts on this here:

    http://spectator.org/articles/59024/punished-his-thoughts

    • Timothy Lane says:

      A very interesting piece indeed. I rather like the way Stein pointed out that the NBA punishes bad speech far worse than it does really bad behavior — which is exactly what one expects from a liberal institution.

      Incidentally, I will note that Mark Steyn has had some interesting thoughts on the subject this week at his website. And today he had a piece suggesting that his After America is already happening, and in essence suggesting the imminent arrival (by different means, but the same point) as Jean Raspail’s dystopian The Camp of the Saints. (Actually, liberals would probably consider it utopian, though not before denouncing it and the writer as racist, along with everyone who considers it dystopian.)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Yes, that is a good article by Ben Stein.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    John Stossel has an article on this subject that became available on TownHall this afternoon. Naturally, like any good libertarian ideologue, he can’t get past the fact that this was done privately rather than by government, thus making it acceptable since racism, after all, is Evil. The fact that this was pushed by a small group of liberal Thought Police who have no objection to racism in other contexts, and that Harry Reid already has proposed using this precedent against the Washington Redskins and the Lavender Thought Police have proposed using against the Devos family who own the Orlando Magic.

    Of course, Stossel may share their repugnance in those cases, which would make it easy to rationalize the increasing use of nominally private groups to suppress the free expression that is the heart of civil society. And when they someday come for him, as they inevitably will eventually if not checked? Perhaps, like Martin Niemoeller, he’ll find that there’s no one left to speak for him.

    But after all, that.s the whole point of appeasement — to hope that the wolf is sated by the time he gets around to you. Unfortunately for the appeasers, there are enough wolves that this rarely actually happens, and they get eaten anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *