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 havent 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 theres 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 Eastwoods 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 dont 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 havent? After all some individuals definitely seem to have a gift for building financial empires. This isnt 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 wasnt talking about the one where young urban women earn 8 percent more than their male peers (because theyre 50 percent more likely to graduate college; I dont think ol Barry mentions this gap either). Libs could also cite how NBA owners are inordinately Jewish but that narrative wont work yet. And the highest-earning religious group in the nation is Hindus but last I heard colleges werent schooling mush-head kids in Hindu privilege."
But talking about those things might be publicly toxic"; you know in the sense that Siegel said hes sure that Sterling is not the only owner whose private thoughts are publicly toxic." No doubt. And Im 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 wealthy 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 Siegels point? Wouldnt 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 doesnt 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 hed 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 Siegels 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 were done feeling good about not being Sterling…" its time to beat the Diversity™ drum. But he also self-righteously states that Sterlings 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. Lets be clear on something: the we" here isnt me. Its 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.
Its not conservatives. Its not white people. Its 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. Dont 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. Its a ploy used to tear down tradition and traditionalists on specious grounds and win the culture war. Its not for lib-enablers such as late Senator Robert Byrd whod 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 its time to throw them under the bus.
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 havent 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 theres 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 Eastwoods 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 dont 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 havent? After all some individuals definitely seem to have a gift for building financial empires. This isnt 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 wasnt talking about the one where young urban women earn 8 percent more than their male peers (because theyre 50 percent more likely to graduate college; I dont think ol Barry mentions this gap either). Libs could also cite how NBA owners are inordinately Jewish but that narrative wont work yet. And the highest-earning religious group in the nation is Hindus but last I heard colleges werent schooling mush-head kids in Hindu privilege."
But talking about those things might be publicly toxic"; you know in the sense that Siegel said hes sure that Sterling is not the only owner whose private thoughts are publicly toxic." No doubt. And Im 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 wealthy 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 Siegels point? Wouldnt 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 doesnt 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 hed 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 Siegels 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 were done feeling good about not being Sterling…" its time to beat the Diversity™ drum. But he also self-righteously states that Sterlings 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. Lets be clear on something: the we" here isnt me. Its 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.
Its not conservatives. Its not white people. Its 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. Dont 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. Its a ploy used to tear down tradition and traditionalists on specious grounds and win the culture war. Its not for lib-enablers such as late Senator Robert Byrd whod 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 its time to throw them under the bus.