PC Mob Rules: Destroy the Intolerant

Confession: I haven't followed the NBA to any significant degree since the great Bulls run of the '90s. The reasons are fairly plain, in that I just don't enjoy the game the way it is played today. But I have been paying attention lately, because of the controversy surrounding the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. Donald Sterling was apparently caught on tape espousing some rather politically incorrect, bigoted views. The resulting mob frenzy has led to a lifetime ban and an attempt by the league to force Sterling to give up his ownership in the Clippers franchise. The key here is franchise, and the "association" that his team has to the league. It means that as an owner of a franchise operating in association with other franchises (the league), he is subject to certain rules and guidelines.

Except that until yesterday, April 29, those rules and guidelines were secret, unpublished. Let me come back to this in a moment. Like the Marge Schott melodrama of the '90s Cincinnati Reds, Sterling's saga is stunning only in the speed with which he was banned from the game. Behold the power of social media.

Contrast this with the actual criminal behavior of an NFL franchise owner, Jim Irsay, of the Indianapolis Colts. Earlier this year, he was arrested for DWI and possession of a controlled substance. While in rehab, his daughter runs the day-to-day operations. I don't recall any outcry regarding his behavior, as to jeopardize his ownership of the team, do you? But Irsay certainly didn't want Rush Limbaugh buying an NFL franchise, simply because of the views expressed by the radio show host. You see, words and thoughts are far more important than actual behavior. The latter can be excused, apparently, while the former cannot.

My initial reaction to the punishment levied against Sterling was based on the fact that at the time, all the information I had access to was the story (including transcripts and clips of the recordings), and a statement from the NBA. The NBA statement and the rationale employed to execute the punishment bothered me. Not to defend a cretin, but per the statement from the NBA, Sterling "violated league rules through his expressions of offensive and hurtful views." Also mentioned elsewhere is the unpublished constitution that the owners abide by (note: this has been rectified as of yesterday, more on this in a moment). Why am I bothered? Because nobody can (or will) cite the specific rules or agreements he violated. I am asked simply to trust that he violated them, and that therefore the scope of punishment is warranted.

Sterling is a PR disaster, to be sure. But the mob rule mentality sweeping the nation seeking to destroy any and all with unpopular views (no matter how bad) is extremely bothersome to me. (See also the now former CEO of Mozilla, forced to resign because he donated some money to a pro-traditional marriage cause).

Late yesterday, the NBA posted its rules and constitution to the public. Good call, because if you are going to strip a private owner of his franchise, you'd better have more than mob rule on your side. Except that it turns out, the only relevant rule is the "Best Interest of the Association" clause, which basically means that the commissioner can levy any punishment he sees fit where the issue is not clearly covered in the bylaws. And according to the NBA constitution, as long as 3/4's of the Board of Governors agree, an ownership can be terminated (Article 13). But the Article gives reasons, and Sterling's offense isn't one of them, even in the abstract.

In this highly-charged, politically correct climate, clearly Sterling is a liability from both a PR and a financial perspective. I get that. The league will be better off without this guy in the headlines. But that does not change the fundamentals here.

The fact is this. Sterling was targeted and punished for what he thinks. And to a point, for what he said. Not, mind you, for anything he actually did. I won't defend him: he is a representative of an association, and no one is "entitled" to that position. Fine him and ban him from the game, I don't care that much. But force him to give up a franchise he outright owns because of his views?

The moral of the story is this. We each are entitled to think what we want. We each are entitled to express our views as we see fit. Just be aware that if you express a view that isn't popular, or isn't politically correct, you could lose your reputation, your job, and your property. Because there are those who may be opposed to what you think that will do everything they can to utterly destroy you. Look around. It's happening.

And that should bother you.

"He's Alive!"

“He’s alive!
He’s alive!
He’s alive,
and I’m forgiven
Heaven’s gates are open wide!
He’s alive!”

–Don Francisco

“Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!”
(Luke 24:5-6, NIV)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! By his great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you!” (1 Peter 1:3-4, RSV)

“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9, NIV)

He's Alive! Have a blessed Easter!

Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers?

Warning: Cynical post to follow. My Grumpy hat is firmly affixed to my head this morning.

This is rich. The article entitled “Fact-checking journalism gains momentum” almost made me spew my coffee this morning. I couldn’t get past the first line:

Journalists have always faced up to facts, but a new wave of fact-checking journalism has gained prominence in the past decade to counter misleading or outrageous claims of political figures.

The article goes on to highlight notable notables such as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, which won a Pulitzer, don’t you know. It references a study noting the growth of the “fact-checking” industry, and the rise of these self-styled, self-knighted bastions of truth.

I don’t deny that fact-checkers can have some value in our national conversation. But they would have far more value as a public service if they would turn the microscope on the journalistic product rather than serving as the arbiters of judgment on every utterance of some politician. Fact-checking certainly hasn’t stopped politicians from lying, but neither has it stopped the news media from presenting biased and misleading reporting. The fact that fact-checking is often just another subsidized branch of a media organization, what value should I give to their pronouncements? Is something a fact or a fiction just because PolitiFact says so? Sorry, not buying it.

But no worries. Soon every organization will have a fact-checking arm, custom-tailored to ensure that their cause or candidate is backed by an unimpeachable, self-accredited truth squad.

I’d like to think there are straight-shooters out there, without an axe or an angle. But the thing is, everyone has an angle. That’s a fact.