DONALD STERLING’S CASE: CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE LAW NOW? (Part 1 of a 2-part series) Your presumed right, not to be offended in this country, where might I find that presumed citizenship privilege in the Constitution of the United States of America? Your presumed right, to seize someone’s property, for something someone said, can you show me what that presumption is based upon, if you don’t mind, in the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights? Where, I beg of you, to tell me, does it state that due process of law is applicable only in cases in which no one is offended? And where might I read, anywhere, in all of the land, where it says that, when a person becomes the Commissioner of the NBA, he is above the law? The above are discussion questions that I would like to discuss, with, or without, your permission. What I don’t want to discuss, with, or without, your permission, is how something, that Donald Sterling said, made you mad. You need to have that discussion with your mental health provider, or, perhaps, just go to the kitchen, get a glass of water, then go to your medicine cabinet, to get your pills, and combine the two, so that you can take your medication. Where, may I ask, this time with your kind permission, is “madness” a matter of institutional concern, except, of course, when considering whether or not the person, who is mad, should be isolated because of the danger he/she poses to others? Ask anybody, who has a loved one who has yet to fly over the cuckoo’s nest, why they placed their dear ones in an insane asylum, and they will tell you, in words, to the effect, that their loved ones are mad. Some will, undoubtedly, refer to their abode, or residence, as the “mad house.” Before you get started, I would like it to be known that I have no basic training in this area, and if that is your talking point, that you are mad, take your talking point to your psychiatrist. My Facebook posts on the Donald Sterling case, are motivated, purely, by rational self-interest, pure selfishness, with rational selfishness being viewed as a virtue, not as a vice, as numb skulls teach, apparently, at Harvard University. Rational selfishness is a virtue. Whatever is said on the Donald Sterling tape, and what I might feel about what Donald Sterling said on that tape [I do not accept the media’s view of his comments on the tape], the issue of what is on the tape is nothing but a media created distraction. What is on that tape, despite all of this media hype, is between Donald Sterling and his former girlfriend, and does not include the rational self-interest of anyone else, outside of those involved in that private conversation. Some pundits have gone so far as to say that, while the comments might have been privately made, their public placement made these private comments a public issue. This view is total nonsense, and is totally irrational. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does the tree’s falling, make a sound? If it does, is it of any interest to you? If, on the other hand, someone is there to record the sound of the tree falling, on tape, does that tree, then, make a sound? If so, is the sound, then, of any interest to you? Whatever your answer, which of the trees, given your rational self-interest, should you be concerned about? The envelope, please! The answer is, neither, unless you were the one doing the recording, in the latter case, because in that case, the tree could have fallen on you. Both of these scenarios are private matters, however. Reacting to the sound of trees falling on a tape would be irrational, because it would not involve one’s rational self-interest, only the rational self-interest of the one, who was present at the site. The point is, to make private speech actionable, if it is taped, when it is impossible to make private speech actionable, if it is not heard, is irrational. The point, really is, that you’ve been duped by the media --- again. Your rational self-interest is not, in what Donald Sterling said, but is found in what is done, about what Donald Sterling said. One’s rational self-interests, which should be the basis for all human conduct (contrary to the altruistic nonsense taught in these corrupt educational institutions, and ordered by a corrupt society’s corrupt political institutions), in the Donald Sterling case, is to ensure that justice is done. There is absolutely no other interest, in this case, that can be rational. The above view is akin to Dr. King, for instance, saying, “Injustice, anywhere, is a threat to justice, everywhere.” My motive for staying focused on this case is purely selfish; I am motivated by my own rational self-interest, in the Donald Sterling case, attention being paid to what is often described as “The Law of Karma,” which is to say, “What goes around comes around.” One’s rational self-interest, in this case, has nothing to do with what Sterling said. One’s rational self-interest is to see that, whatever Sterling said, does not end with lynch mobs in business suits, hiding out, in business attire, doing what lynch mobs do, while acting like they differ, psychologically, from the Klan. The real difference would be, in the instruments used, and the attire worn. There would be absolutely no difference in the psychology, employed. Reports are that there are people, such as Oprah Winfrey, and, yes, Magic Johnson, interested in buying the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team. Both Winfrey, and Johnson, have made various, disparaging comments, about Donald Sterling, which seem aimed at forcing Sterling to forfeit team ownership, so they can bid on the team’s purchase. If true, their comments are motivated by self-interest, but not rational self-interest. Their rational self-interest would be to protect the sanctity of private property ownership. They, after all, are property owners too. I have no problem in stating the truth, as I see it, which leads me to state that there is growing lawlessness in the United States, and all institutions, in this country, are affected by it. If the questions, with which this narrative started, are viewed as irrelevant, immaterial, and of no consequence, that is a personal matter, a personal opinion, one in which I have no interest, and, certainly, no training to deal with, since I view such a dismissive position, in clinical terms. I have sought, in part 1, to take the spotlight off of the media’s focus, one’s personal interest, in the case, so that, in part 2, tomorrow, I can place the focus, with your kind permission, of course, on our collective, rational self-interest, namely, the requirements of the law.
Posted on: Wed, 21 May 2014 18:00:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015