How soon before the ability to read minds will expose the undesirable thoughts of millions, with no need to rely on external "spying" devices? "Privacy", someone interviewed about the news said "is not to be presumed or taken as a haven by bigoted persons in this new day and age." There seemed to be a disturbing glee about the new or imminent ability to expose those with impure thoughts about some of their fellow creatures. What about unkind remarks and/or thoughts about homosexuals, folks with bad breath, alcoholics, criminals, poor white Appalachians, Mexicans, Republicans, Jews, Muslims, rich white ladies of the D.A.R., and endless other groups with whom one may have an ax to grind, rightly or wrongly? What happened to the America where one could tell another to "go to hell" and no litigation, federal case (as in "don't make a federal case out of it") or other firestorm ensued. Folks just eventually stopped getting steamed and there were enough laws on the books and good common sense for people to get on with their lives.
Now in the case of Mr. Sterling, the punishment is not so much measured and justified by the verbal transgression, but rather by the alleged culprit's position on the national scene, his wealth and his proximity to an organization of equally powerful men whose skin color, and as routine recipients of the sports world's encomia, place them in a politically advantageous position to combat Sterling. The fact remains, curiously, that hating is still not a crime in the United States, at least not yet. It would seem that some of those particularly incensed by Sterling would like to see that changed. Is hating the hater hateful? The ancient jest is called to mind: "support mental health or I'll kill you." Shunning, boycotting and other actions, already having begun, were seemingly quickly quelled by the announcement of the price of Sterling's comments by the N.B.A.'s commissioner, a Mr. Silver. The response by Sterling to Silver's actions are unknown as of this writing though one report indicated that Sterling stated that his team was "not for sale." This brings up the possibility of an entertaining legal brawl that could drag on for some time. If Sterling's motives had some ideological or philosophical basis, it might be an opportunity for stimulating public discourse on various issues besides race, namely those of privacy and freedom of association (or disassociation). If, on the other hand, Mr. Sterling's animus towards blacks reflects little more than a neanderthal mindset, aided and abetted by his enormous wealth and habituation to his whimsy and meanness being indulged by those around him, then little edification can result from the litigation. After all, sterling is but 92.5% pure silver, so the blatant symbolism may suggest that the edge belongs to the N.B.A. executive.
On the subject of indulgence, the apparent long delay in confronting Sterling's well known inclinations is grist for the mill of journalists and the public alike. For instance, why did the N.A.A.C.P. have no quarrel for years with Sterling? His financial support for many projects involving benefits for blacks and others that also helped fill the organization's coffers may be instructive here. Other groups, including the N.B.A. itself may find that imperfection, i.e. tardy complaints and actions against Sterling, suggest that some reflection is in order about one's own shortcomings. The yearning to erase racism, may be a noble impulse, much like eradicating polio or other scourges. But the "legislating of love" and the zeal to cleanse always has its pitfalls. Love's power comes from another place and the edicts of men always fall short of their goals because coercion of any kind, even those with the best of intentions are corrosive at their roots and are enemies of liberty.
Now in the case of Mr. Sterling, the punishment is not so much measured and justified by the verbal transgression, but rather by the alleged culprit's position on the national scene, his wealth and his proximity to an organization of equally powerful men whose skin color, and as routine recipients of the sports world's encomia, place them in a politically advantageous position to combat Sterling. The fact remains, curiously, that hating is still not a crime in the United States, at least not yet. It would seem that some of those particularly incensed by Sterling would like to see that changed. Is hating the hater hateful? The ancient jest is called to mind: "support mental health or I'll kill you." Shunning, boycotting and other actions, already having begun, were seemingly quickly quelled by the announcement of the price of Sterling's comments by the N.B.A.'s commissioner, a Mr. Silver. The response by Sterling to Silver's actions are unknown as of this writing though one report indicated that Sterling stated that his team was "not for sale." This brings up the possibility of an entertaining legal brawl that could drag on for some time. If Sterling's motives had some ideological or philosophical basis, it might be an opportunity for stimulating public discourse on various issues besides race, namely those of privacy and freedom of association (or disassociation). If, on the other hand, Mr. Sterling's animus towards blacks reflects little more than a neanderthal mindset, aided and abetted by his enormous wealth and habituation to his whimsy and meanness being indulged by those around him, then little edification can result from the litigation. After all, sterling is but 92.5% pure silver, so the blatant symbolism may suggest that the edge belongs to the N.B.A. executive.
On the subject of indulgence, the apparent long delay in confronting Sterling's well known inclinations is grist for the mill of journalists and the public alike. For instance, why did the N.A.A.C.P. have no quarrel for years with Sterling? His financial support for many projects involving benefits for blacks and others that also helped fill the organization's coffers may be instructive here. Other groups, including the N.B.A. itself may find that imperfection, i.e. tardy complaints and actions against Sterling, suggest that some reflection is in order about one's own shortcomings. The yearning to erase racism, may be a noble impulse, much like eradicating polio or other scourges. But the "legislating of love" and the zeal to cleanse always has its pitfalls. Love's power comes from another place and the edicts of men always fall short of their goals because coercion of any kind, even those with the best of intentions are corrosive at their roots and are enemies of liberty.
