If you have the money...
Why play the video game when you can play it for real?
Oracle supremo Larry Ellison and TV's Oprah Winfrey are ready to buy basketball team the Los Angeles Clippers after its owner Donald Sterling was booted out of the sport, it's claimed. The database head honcho, worth $50bn, and the telly talk-show titan, plus record producer David Geffen, are said to be keen to snap up the …
It turns out that NBA is a franchise - you can only be part of it so long as you don't bring the franchising organisation into disrepute, so just as you could lose your Macdonalds franchise as soon as you were awarded your first Michelin star or the health inspector discovered your 100th cockroach, making a complete arse of yourself in public can get you disbarred.
It's been fascinating watching the US Right try to defend Sterling and say he shouldn't have his toy taken away from him, when these are usually the first people to say that big business should be able to set what contractual terms it likes. Which is what the NBA does - don't like it, go start your own league.
The thing is, does Ellison want to belong to something where the standards are enforced by other people?
It's been fascinating watching the US Right try to defend Sterling and say he shouldn't have his toy taken away from him
Exactly WHO from the US Right is defending Sterling???
But isn't it the Left that claims to live by:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it..."
and the Left also says:
"We don't take people's property away because of what they say"
Shouldn't real Liberals be outraged that a private conversation was taped illegally? What would Obama say about taping people's private conversations?
Oh, wait...
"But isn't it the Left that claims to live by:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it...""
Nope it was Voltaire
Um, I didn't ask who first SAID it. I asked who claims to LIVES by it TODAY. Understand?
BTW, Voltaire can't defend anyone's right to say anything today because he's dead.
You have conflated the Left and Liberalism. Contrary to what Fox wants you to think, they are quite different.
The Right generally believes that the possessors of money and power should be free to use them to their advantage. The Left believes that the possessors of money should be regulated and that power should be evenly spread throughout society. Clause 4 may be dead, but the original idea of nationalising the means of production, distribution and exchange was to create a level playing field.
Liberals (i.e. laissez-faire capitalists who are not socially conservative) can be right wing on many issues; they may agree with Voltaire on freedom of opinion, but they may still support unlimited campaign donations (freedom of use of money) - as Chesterton once observed, in the US you can say what you like but unless you have money, saying it won't change anything.
The Left, who believe in the need for the State to reign in autocrats, agree with societies like West Germany (which has criminal sanctions for Holocaust denial) rather than Voltaire. If taping a "private conversation" exposes a matter of public interest, that would also be supported by those notorious lefties the newspaper proprietors, provided the people being exposed weren't them themselves.
I would wait for you to go and get a more advanced political education than you seem to have had up till now, but I suspect I could wait a long time.
The Right generally believes that the possessors of money and power should be free to use them to their advantage
No.
The possessors of money and power generally believe that the possessors of money and power should be free to use them to their advantage, regardless of what they claim to be politically.
Did you see Jon Stewart last night? He had on Michael Parenti, author of the book "Democracy for the Few". Parenti proves by extensive case studies that:
1. In any country, laws and policy generally only go the way that the financial elite polls for it, even if the lower classes overwhelmingly disagree, and
2. Regardless of whether any particular financial elitist claims to be publicly Left or Right, in private they almost always agree because their public politics is just for show (duh!).
@Arnaut, the rest of your post is OH so CHARMINGLY naive...!
The Right??
How about the NAACP?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/04/30/NAACP-Honoring-Sterling-Disgraces-Itself. If the scandal had happened a week later Stirling would have gotten his award.
Ellison doesn't stand a chance. This is a classic Jesse Jackson shake down to move ownership to a black owner.
He did the same thing with Coca-Cola in the Sixties but all of top links on Google reflect more recent shakedowns.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19810901&id=p_4sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1MwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1406,158631
All of this stuff about the owner has been known for years. Just ask Karreem Abdul-Jabbar.
http://time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/
The only people who support Sterling are those who don't understand the difference between free speech ("I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it...") and consequence-free speech.
Free speech means that the GOVERNMENT should not be able to prevent you from saying something (or punish you for doing so), except in cases where saying that thing creates a specific public hazard (e.g, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.)
In Sterling's case, as in Eich's before, the US government is not involved. Instead, it is societal pressure which is being brought to bear. Trying to prevent societal pressure is actually contrary to the principle of free speech, as it requires the use of regulation to hinder the individual speech of which that societal pressure is made.
My experience has been that supporters of "consequence-free" speech (whereby society is essentially vilified for reacting to free speech) have largely been concentrated in the political right in the US, but that is merely opinion, not valid statistical data.
Not interested.
Real Sport List - Cricket, Rugby, Yachting, power boat racing (I know we have our little pleasures)
Oaf Sport List - Australian rules football, football in general.
Boring sports - Rounders (AKA Baseball, Softball), Anything played with a ball where you need protection. see exception above, curling (Bowls on ice without the interest)
I am glad I have cleared that up for everyone. :D
If you rely on Mr American chest wig himself* it is - "There are but three true sports--bullfighting, mountain climbing, and motor-racing. The rest are merely games"
*Ernest Hemingway. The only good thing about him is that it made a lot of Americans (search of the elusive Great American Novel) come to Paris when I was living there - and some were pliant women.
Shit off to HR again..
Sports are spare time occupations that create fitness for military purposes. The field sports are huntin', shootin', and fishin', which help with the Army. The others are yachtin' and rowin', which contribute to your career in the Navy. Parachutin' and sailplanin' are kind-of sports to keep those oiks in the RAF happy, though of course they are not done by people who are quite gentlemen. For the lower classes, runnin' and swimmin' are sports because once in the Army or the Navy, NCOs will insist you do these things.
Cricket, football and rugby are games. The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel's dead, but you remember the ancient cricket pitch at your Public School and play up, play up and play the game by shootin' the Fuzzies. It's the Wall Game, not the Wall Sport.
The rest is either games for girls (even if played by men), direct war substitutes (e.g. US football), or board games played on a big scale (bowls, curling). It is permissible to watch these on television and laugh at them.
Basketball is neither a sport nor a game, it is a franchise.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Col. Wilberforce Startling-Grope, MM, DSO (retired).
Rumors and more rumors. The first one I heard was Oprah was going to buy them. Surprised it wasn't reported here, very surprised this article is even here. However, there is a valid, very critical lesson that does apply to tech and people and that is, watch what you say, watch what you do. Especially if you are an older person. Not long ago it was a world where people could and would speak their mind, either good or bad, and it never went far from the picket fence. Now, one has to assume everything that is done or said is being watched by world plus dog. In a VERY short time we have went from a world where few places had grainy security cameras in place to a world where every where, even high above you, is watching from multiple angles, everyone has the ability and the desire to record you at the simple flick of a finger, or literally the blink of an eye. Even in the forest where there is nothing, you have a damn good chance of getting caught pissing on a tree by camouflage tree wifi deercams and being on youtube before you even zip your pants.
"very surprised this article is even here"
I'm not, given our red-top heritage and Larry's lavish lifestyle (see second par).
C.
As I understood it, this was just the last straw in a long series of faux pas by Sterling. The key issue was that he made it very clear that he didn't want to have to be associated socially with black people, despite owing a franchise in a game where perhaps 80% of those involved are black. He also suggested that his attitudes were shared to an even greater extent by a number of Jewish backers of his property empire. And he recited all this to his black mistress.
It isn't like he was caught doing a Clarkson.
Rumors and more rumors. The first one I heard was Oprah was going to buy them.
Kareem Abdul Jabar makes a great point in his blog. He said that why is it nobody did anything when Sterling was actively discriminating against blacks, but suddenly when he SAYS something discriminatory against blacks, people are only now outraged?
Have no doubt, the bad behavior is nasty, the reason he will lose the franchise is because of sponsors, TV and ticket-buyers. In the USA, there is a lot of 'conservative' talk about his 'free speech', but nobody stopped him from talking. These owners, by 75% vote, will be the ones forcing him to sell.
There WAS talk of a player union walkout, but this lifetime ban and assurance of an ouster-vote put that at rest.