Net Neutrality and Strange Bedfellows?

On May 17, 2014 By southwerkIn Capitalism2 Comments

Net Neutrality and Strange Bedfellows?

It is a trite statement: “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” However overused the expression, it is quite accurate.

In the struggle over net neutrality a number of corporations have joined the side of the angels. Why?

When the subject is net neutrality we are talking about access. Without net neutrality major players, that is, those with millions or more commonly billions of dollars, will own the prime real estate, the highest internet speeds while the rest of us will live in a ghetto of diminished speed and low expectations.

Obviously, bloggers and activists need net neutrality so their sites can be effective, but so do small businesses and corporations. Some corporations have large internet operations that offer only a limited opportunity for profit. Buying internet speed is not economical for some users. Further, if you have a startup, like Facebook was at one time, you will not be able to afford the extra cost of the speed that might make your business a success.

Think of the attacks on net neutrality not as a corporate assault on equal privileges of use – think of it as specific corporations making that assault. It is not hard to figure out which ones. The other corporations will be in the same boat with the rest of us, unable to get high internet speeds without paying a premium.

Thus, we have a probably temporary but workable alliance between social activists, some businesses and corporations and independent bloggers (like me).

We’re like ill-funded insurgents often enemies with each other in a common cause against a formally trained, experienced and huge army. Let’s see what our ragged band of fighters can do?

James Pilant

Net neutrality has done the impossible: Align leftist and corporate interests

http://qz.com/209029/net-neutrality-has-done-the-impossible-align-leftist-and-corporate-interests/

By Yitz Jordan May 14, 2014

Welcome to Occupy Inc.

US Federal Communications Commission chair Tom Wheeler’s proposals last week against “net neutrality”—the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally regardless of source—created a wave of internet traffic in its own right. Wheeler’s new proposal, that internet service providers can prioritize some sites’ traffic over others by allowing bandwidth-guzzling sites such as Netflix to pay a premium for optimal speed (but not restrict access to lawful sites altogether), is a virtual about-face from the FCC’s 2009′s edict that ISPs “must treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner.” The FCC’s inconsistency has not gone unnoticed—with companies ranging from web behemoths like Facebook and eBay joining forces with social responsibility titans like CREDO Mobile and a myriad of startups to oppose the new FCC ruling. Critics say that such the FCC’s two-tiered “fast lane” framework—where the haves stream video in HD and the have-nots are relegated to slower speeds—would make it virtually impossible for Netflix-esque startups to take shape – “…if deep-pocketed players can pay for a faster, more reliable service, then small startups face a crushing disadvantage,” says one venture capitalist.

And with one government statement, net neutrality has become the new income inequality, the cause celebre of the progressive activist — and for the first time, the offices of Big Technology are allied with the tents of Occupy.

Last week saw the birth of the #OccupyTheFCC movement and a protest movement began camping on on the steps of the FCC’s Washington, DC headquarters. True to Occupy form, daily (and nightly) “actions” have punctuated the FCC’s daily operations since last Wednesday. From banners and greeting workers daily with a “human firewall” outside of the front entrance, to citywide awareness-driving PSA campaigns, to highway overpass signs, the movement is picking up steam heading into day eight. They’re “not going away anytime soon.” Its organizers, Fight for the Future, are no strangers to online protest, having risen to prominence in 2011 through the viral anti-SOPA “blackout” widget, was adopted by everyone from Google to Wikipedia in a coordinated effort against the unpopular “anti-piracy” legislation. …

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Vergaranomics.

http://vergaranomics.com/2014/05/17/fine-bright-like-a-diamond-the-financial-story-of-shiny-rocks-the-future-of-the-21st-century-economy-and-that-one-disney-movie-i-havent-seen-in-ages/

Fine Bright Like a Diamond: The Financial Story of Shiny Rocks, the Future of the 21st Century Economy, and that One Disney Movie I Haven’t Seen in Ages

Yesterday, the Federal Communications Commission voted to open debate to a restructuring of net neutrality laws. Nothing is set in stone yet, but there is a lot at stake that could have ripples from the direction of our economy to the existence of this blog and much more.

A useful place to start before diving into the world of economic shift and corporate interests it to start with the basics: what is net neutrality? Coined by Columbia media law professor Tim Wu in his 2003 publication, the term “net neutrality” is the idea that ISPs (Internet service providers, such as Verizon or Comcast) should treat all data available on the Internet in a fair and equal manner, with no discrimination towards access, content, website, application, or the users accessing said data. Such an environment is amenable to both consumers and producers, because it’s relatively cheap to buy a site and a domain and begin producing your own product in a matter of hours. This proliferation of producers and products makes the market awash in competition and thereby keeps prices down for us consumers.

So, what’s the catch? The FCC is entertaining a motion to discuss the possibility of “paid prioritization,” meaning that ISPs could charge content providers higher premiums to maintain quality service. Though the FCC has rigorously denied any claims of such “lanes,” this would create a two-tier system: a “regular” lane being slower and lower quality than prioritized ones. Consider it being analogous to the tollways that run concurrently with highways, with the exception that the owners of the tollways are launching missiles at a few highway underpasses every few weeks. These prices get passed down to us, the consumers, as ISPs will no longer have incentive to expand and update their pipes when they can simply charge more for usage of existing infrastructure. Suddenly, fast Internet becomes a commodity.

In economics, we call this artificial scarcity. Consider the Disney Vault. Every few years, a commercial fervor grows as yet another Disney movie that I haven’t seen in eons is re-released on VHS, then to DVD, then to Blu-Ray, available only for a few weeks before “returning to the vault,” only to be released again 10 years later, remastered and in Gold Edition. Disney is artificially creating demand by limiting the supply of said re-released film for an allotted amount of time. It’s not that these movies are especially rare: a trip to a Goodwill will nab you some classics and a VCR for thirty bucks. Rather, Disney is creating scarcity by returning that re-released film back to the Vault. …

(Please visit the above site and read the whole entry – it’s a good post and deserves your full attention. jp)

A Guide To DWP Euphemisms

On May 17, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

They use the same language tricks here in the United States particularly the word, reform.

A New Place Of Exile

“I love you this much”

‘Reintroducing fairness to the welfare system’ – introducing means-testing in order to dismantle the welfare system.

‘Fairness’ – discriminating against people.

‘Creating a system based on fairness’ – ignoring need, in favour of targets.

‘Work experience’ – unpaid labour.

‘Fit to work’ – somebody suffering from an incapacitating condition, whose heart still beats.

‘Tough’ – punitive.

‘Tough but fair’ – punitive and arbitrary.

‘Employment Support Allowance’ – financial support for people incapable of retaining employment due to illness/disability.

‘Unconditional support’ – strictly conditional support.

‘Scrounger’ – somebody who is poor.

‘Hardworking people’ – people on very high salaries, such as company executives.

‘Striver’ – somebody who works for a low salary, and who doesn’t object to a pay cut. Alternatively, somebody who works for a high salary, and who doesn’t object to a pay rise.

‘Skiver’ – somebody who is temporarily too ill to work…

View original post 506 more words

We’re All in This Economics Thing Together

On May 17, 2014May 17, 2014 By southwerkIn Capitalism

We’re All in This Economics Thing Together

One of my relatives was at a family reunion and he proudly stated firmly and unequivocally that all of his success was due to his hard work. There was chorus of disapproval and anger. The family had sacrificed for him to stay in school and then to go to college. There were times when he struggled in his career and again his family provided support. It caused a breach in the family that never quite healed.
I know where he got this idea. Popular culture. The idea of the lone wolf struggling against all odds, the lone man facing fate along, and all that other crap. It’s very romantic, Ayn Randian stuff. Of course, we are, in a sense, alone but really we are creatures of our culture and our time. We stand on the shoulders of giants ever dependent on the philosophies and ideas generated by our ancestors and our endeavors are smoothed by the cooperation of our fellow citizens.

I suppose I should be beguiled by the idea of myself as a lone hero, a Western style avenger fighting for right. But the fact is, there is a certain pleasure in coming from Locust Grove, Oklahoma, and by some measurement having made good. I remember where I came from and the many kindnesses extended to me and the occasional cruelties as well.

I don’t understand the “I did it all” mentality. When I drive to work, I realize that I didn’t pay for the road save in some small share. My car is constructed in accordance with federal regulations which means unlike vehicles in the 1950’s and before, my little vehicle will enable me to survive most crashes. I work in a state institution, a cooperative endeavor financed over time by millions of citizens. Etc.

I don’t like the “I did it all” mentality. It seems to me that it inevitably leads to evading responsibility to help others and to be part of the community – the state and the nation will take a back seat to self interest. Self interest has its place but it’s not the only thing to take into consideration. I am a patriot and I believe in my fellow Americans. We like to think we all are but the fact is the number of Americans renouncing their citizenship to evade taxes is growing every year. They are traitors to their country.

Please read the article below, the author eloquently explains that lone wolf scientist is really a figment of the fiction writer’s agile mind rather than a real character.

James Pilant

Iron Man and the Myth of the Lone Entrepreneur

Posted on May 12, 2014 by formerdundeeman

A popular misconception we’re often confronted with is the idea that successful business people somehow made it through their own hard work, graft and smarts. While it can take immense perseverance, skill and acumen to build business empires, it is a fallacy to believe that ultimate success is down to the individual entrepreneur. Yes they may be the important component, but a lone effort it certainly is not. Maybe one can better think of them as the star strikers in football – great show and talent but completely useless without the backup of mid-fielders, defenders, trainers, coaches, managers, family, promoters, ad-men, agents, supporters and so on.

Popular films like the Iron Man series portray a fantasy world where a supremely gifted and arrogant engineer single-handedly builds a complete semi-autonomous robot exoskeleton with over-unity power source. Anyone with an actual real-world technical background (or half a brain) would tell you that in reality he’d have needed a team of ten to write and test the code for the control mechanism of the little finger on the left-hand glove.

So the team of scientists, engineers and project managers would need to be absolutely massive. And who would have trained them? Did Robert Downey Jr. recruit a bunch of uneducated kids and teach them maths, physics, computing, etc, from scratch? Not likely especially given the amount of time he spends partying and getting pissed. No he did it on the back of the education system of multiple countries (engineers move around). Who pays for that education? The public does, either through taxes or fees, both of which require people to earn something in order to pay. And then Tony Stark made his fortune selling weapons to Uncle Sam and other military forces, all of whom are for a large part funded by tax payers money. …

http://formerdundeeman.org/2014/05/12/iron-man-myth-lone-entrepreneur/

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Philip Valdes.

http://philipvaldes.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-lean-startup-how-todays-entrepreneurs-use-continuous-innovation/

Why do so many startups fail? The business myth says: A lone entrepreneur – beavering away in a lab or a garage somewhere – through hard work, grit and sheer perseverance develops a great product which then becomes a blockbuster hit. That sounds appealing but the reality is most startups tend to burn through their resources and then disappear because they never get around to seeing what their potential customers think of what they’re developing. They worry about the product first and assume customer demand will be there automatically.To succeed with a startup, you’ve got to manage it differently. Instead of developing a business plan, find ways to accelerate your learning and validate customers demand.

The best way to do this is to build a prototype (with minimal features) and sell it to some early adopters. Then change the product repeatedly – daily if necessary – and keep supplying your customers with the new and improved versions. Listen to their feedback and use those ideas to make a better version and then get more feedback on that. Keep iterating until you get a fully featured product which your customers love. Click here to find out who is Phillip Valdes.

In other words, go through the Build-Measure-Learn loop as often as you can. If you make validated learning the real aim of your startup, you stand a better chance of success. Focus on what customers want, utilize an extremely fast cycle time and take a scientific approach to making decisions. That’s the essence of the Lean Startup approach.

How to deny, discount, and dismiss bullying and psychological abuse at work

On May 16, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

The always invaluable David Yamada has a new post. Please read and then sign up as a follower for his blog. James Pilant

Minding the Workplace

A recent blog piece by psychologist Kenneth Pope explaining how reports of torture can be easily denied, discounted, and dismissed strongly resonated with my understanding of the dynamics of bullying and abuse at work. I thought it worth sharing and discussing with readers here.

Three cognitive strategies

Dr. Pope identifies “three common cognitive strategies for denying, discounting, dismissing, or distorting instances of torture and for turning away from effective steps to stop it and hold those responsible accountable”:

First, “reflexively dismissing all evidence as questionable, incomplete, misleading, false, or in some other way inadequate.”

Second, “using euphemism, abstraction, and other linguistic transformations” to hide the abuse.

Third, by “turning away: ‘I’m not involved,’ ‘There is nothing I can do about it,’ ‘I have no authority, jurisdiction, power, or influence,’ ‘This is no concern of mine,’ etc.”

Applied to workplace bullying

I quickly thought of workplace bullying when I read this blog post.

View original post 182 more words

Net Neutrality Under Attack

On May 16, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics2 Comments

Net Neutrality Under Attack

I guess it is the nature of the beast. Whenever a profit can be made by converting a public asset into a private one, the knives are out. The reasons for net neutrality are so obvious and so important, it should not be necessary for me to repeat them here. The idea of favoring one user over another has one major advantage over net neutrality, the enormous profits possible on services already provided.

James Pilant

Net neutrality: What is it, and why is the U.S. about to lose it? | Al Jazeera America

For decades, Americans have taken for granted that every website, service and app is treated equally by their Internet service providers. This principle, dubbed Net neutrality, is what allows startups and large corporations to compete on a level playing field, ensuring that Internet providers can’t pick winners and losers by blocking websites or having some load faster than others.

But Internet advocates warn that under a new set of rules scheduled to be introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on Thursday, this guarantee will be effectively gone, allowing Internet service providers to give prioritized access to websites that pay a premium — and slower service to everyone else.

The FCC proposal would be welcome news for broadband Internet providers like Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable, some of which have already begun experimenting with charging online services for fast-lane access to their customers. FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has tried to reassure critics that these arrangements would be strictly regulated on a case-by-case basis. But a growing coalition of Net neutrality advocates, tech companies, investors and members of Congress have slammed the anticipated proposal, calling it “a threat to the Internet” as a domain for free speech and commerce.

“It’s going to be ruinous for innovation online,” said April Glaser, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “It directs people away from newer, innovative services that might not be able to afford that price tier.”

via Net neutrality: What is it, and why is the U.S. about to lose it? | Al Jazeera America.

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Andelino’s Weblog.

http://andelino.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/net-neutrality/

What could that mean for me, in English, please?

First off, the web could get more expensive. The impact on the average Internet user will likely not be felt right away. But over time, websites would probably pass on to consumers the costs of paying for high-speed access, according to Harold Feld, a senior vice president at the consumer group Public Knowledge.

In addition, it could become difficult to view certain websites owned by companies that can’t afford to pay for access to an Internet fast lane, Feld said.

On top of Internet users potentially paying more, they would also be more confused, Feld said. Under the proposed rules, people would need to make sense of a fragmented Internet landscape where the time it takes to load an online video would depend on whether that website paid extra to their Internet provider. Consumers may start choosing their Internet providers based on which websites they like to visit.

Feld compared the situation to the exclusive deals that AT&T and Apple once made that only allowed AT&T subscribers to purchase the iPhone.

This sounds pretty frustrating. It would be. Under the FCC’s proposed rules, the quality of online streaming services like Netflix or HBO Go would depend on whether those services are paying your Internet provider or not, Feld said.

“It will become more fragmented and more frustrating,” he added.

The proposed rules could affect not just entertainment, but also education. If schools use an online curriculum made by a company that cut a deal with Verizon, students who subscribe to Verizon’s Internet service at home would have an advantage over other students who subscribe to another provider, Feld said.

How to “Do Your Homework” and Be a Critical Consumer of News

On May 15, 2014May 15, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

This is simple intelligence. I wish everybody did this. Remember, I emphasize over and over again the importance of facts and reason in business ethics. How do you get those watching nonsense on television?

Corporate Interests and Voting Rights

On May 15, 2014May 15, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

Corporate Interests and Voting Rights

Generally voting rights are not considered a business ethics issue but they are the subject of business lobbying. Two of the organizations heavily committed to voting restrictions are ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council and Americans for Prosperity are in large part corporate financed. Would it be a logical assumption that if corporate interests are best served by less democracy, than less democracy will be lobbied for? We’re also seeing this in school privatization where local control is superseded so that school board elections don’t interrupt the process of moving the money. It may well be that corporations being oligarchal in structure themselves prefer other creatures of the same species. Red China with its capitalist heresy intact could be the natural home for the American corporation. After all, they speak the same language of power and disdain for the rabble whose desire to breath air and drink water are serious encumbrances to the pursuit of power and profit.

Of course, the problem with China is that benefits conferred may be taken away. A nation under an oligarchy may have too powerful a central government for a corporation to feel security – just as a democracy may have to much self government for a corporation to feel secure. Does that mean that corporations naturally act in conflict against nations, all nations, seeking a continuous round of benefits concessions and controls? If that were so, we individuals in the wake of Citizens United are pawns in a much larger struggle.

The corporate form is a creature of the state, at least for now. They desire the status of independent nations and the new trans-pacific trade agreement is designed to help them achieve this. But that “free trade” agreement is in serious difficulty. So we still have time to act before the leave our jurisdiction. We Americans can change the form of their organization and we should consider this seriously. National registration of corporations is the most logical step. The corporations can play havoc with the states playing one off against another, and they’ve been doing it for years. Let’s make them play in the big leagues.

James Pilant

When ‘patriots’ unite to restrict voting rights | Al Jazeera America

For groups such as Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council, measures that restrict ballot access are one point in a larger agenda. The states in which Republican governors are passing restrictions on voting — such as Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina — are the same places where conservative lawmakers have tried to roll back people’s voice in the workplace, curtailing union rights and inhibiting employees’ opportunities to have collective representation. Taken together, these efforts align with a vision of America that concentrates political power in the hands of a wealthy few.

Most offensive of all is that the same wealthy donors restricting the influence of regular voters are also actively seeking to expand the power of money in politics, supporting Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United v. FEC, which eliminated restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations, associations and labor unions.

Conservative billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers and the politicians they support have every right to debate their views. Like all other citizens in our democracy, they should enjoy the freedom to present their opinions in the public sphere. But when their agenda involves expanding the already enormous influence of big money in politics while limiting access to the polls by ordinary citizens, their actions become a cynical assault on the American system and American values they purport to uphold.

via When ‘patriots’ unite to restrict voting rights | Al Jazeera America.

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Celebrating Time.

http://celebratingtime.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/voter-id-and-marriage-inequality/

The Republican legislature and the Republican governor passed this law in 2012. There was almost zero evidence of voter fraud, but they thought it was a pretty good way to help Romney win (watch this if you don’t believe me).

And then, even when it didn’t help Romney, I guess they looked at some demographic trends and kept thinking it was a good idea and so, every election, we’d get these instructions about what we were supposed to say (it’s not required YET, but we’re requested to request proof that you are you) and sheets of paper telling people that soon they’d have to somehow try to get an ID if they didn’t have one – though, as it turned out, it wouldn’t have been easy:

Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are openly only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs.

Anyway, the registered Republicans were all over this. They’d come in and triumphantly whip out their driver’s licenses. It’s not required, we’d say. Well it should be, they’d say. “Voting should be a privilege, not a right,” one even said. There was a lot of huffing and puffing on both sides.

Now, it’s dead. The Commonwealth Court ruled against it, and our fine Governor Corbett has finally said he’ll no longer fight to get it reinstated.

Required IDs were only available through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs are openly only one day per week in nine counties and two days per week thirteen counties. The Pennsylvania Department of State provided too little access, no financial support to providing IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs.

Now, it’s dead. The Commonwealth Court ruled against it, and our fine Governor Corbett has finally said he’ll no longer fight to get it reinstated.

The Case Against Tort Reform: The GM Debacle

On May 15, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

I fully agree. No corporation should be spared the expense of paying for the pain and suffering of the victims of its actions.

Law and Life Blog

On Tuesday in the nation’s capital the CEO of General Motors testified about a dangerous vehicle defect that apparently has resulted in at least 13 deaths. GM has issued a recall on vehicles due to

View original post 167 more words

This Business of Food

On May 14, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

Good writing – good thinking!

Donald Sterling – Sometimes Business Ethics Means Shutting Up

On May 14, 2014May 14, 2014 By southwerkIn business ethics

Donald Sterling – Sometimes Business Ethics Means Shutting Up

Self awareness is an important skill. Sometimes, individuals lack any perspective on themselves. The advantage of this is that you feel good about yourself with little or no justification. You have a golden and continuous opportunity to project all of your inferiority and weaknesses on everyone else. Thus it is for Donald Sterling who is undoubtedly wondering out loud to his wealthy friends even as you read this how unfair all this news coverage is. He is no doubt explaining to his friends that the media just won’t stop saying he’s a racist when everybody who knows him, anyone with half a brain knows he’s no more a racist than Martin Luther King.

If you think I’m being cruel – watch the interview, the level of self-deceit is incredible. In his mind, his beliefs are “factual.”

And that in the end is the benefit of being a member of the .01 percent, you have the privilege of being stupid. Because in that comfortable world, there is no countervailing reality to have to deal with. You can believe any set of comforting nonsense. It is a pity that Anderson Cooper didn’t ask him about voting rights or taxes.

Before business ethics can be exercised there has to be an understanding of facts and reasoning. There has to be a firm connection to reality. That is harder than it sounds. There are many individuals who have a difficulty telling opinion from facts, and many more who don’t understand how logic and reasoning are exercised.

When I was very young man, I worked at a store. One day the owner explained to me that doctors had told her that black people were arranged differently on the inside – their organs were in different places. When I appeared surprised, she was surprised that I didn’t understand something so obvious. It has been more than thirty years now and I have not yet ran into a “black” physiology textbook. I’m not expecting it to happen soon.

Her “facts” were different from reality, and when such is the case, business ethics are often irrelevant.

James Pilant

Donald Sterling’s interview disaster: Rich old racist self-destructs to Anderson Cooper – Salon.com

Donald Sterling, in all his reprehensible anti-glory, is officially representative of only one person, Donald Sterling. But it was hard not to think about the insularity and cossetting the super-wealthy enjoy, once they get super-wealthy, watching the maligned Los Angeles Clippers owner self-destruct with Anderson Cooper Monday night.

Sterling is a man who is obviously used to holding forth on his mind-blowingly prejudiced views without challenge. He wants us to think V. Stiviano entrapped him with her magic lady parts — “I don’t know why the girl had me say those things,” he told Cooper — and got him to launch a paranoid racist rant out of lust. But clearly that is not true, unless he’s lusting after Anderson Cooper.

“I’m not a racist,” Sterling told Cooper. “I made a terrible, terrible mistake. And I’m here with you today to apologize and to ask for forgiveness for all the people that I’ve hurt. When I listen to that tape, I don’t even know how I can say words like that…. I mean, that’s not the way I talk.” Actually, it seems to be exactly the way Sterling talks.

It’s hard to know where to start with the NBA franchise owner’s outrageous remarks. He called Stiviano “a street person” and said Magic Johnson “ought to be ashamed of himself.” No, that doesn’t do Sterling justice. This is what he said about Johnson:

Here is a man, he acts so holy. He made love to every girl in America in every city and he had AIDS. When he had those AIDS, I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him.

“Those AIDS”? (For the record, Johnson has HIV, not AIDS). But it got worse:

What has Magic Johnson done? He’s got AIDS. Did he do any business? Did he help anybody in south L.A.? I think he should be ashamed of himself. What does he do for the black people? I’m telling you he does nothing. It’s all talk.

I spent millions on giving away and helping minorities. Does he do that? That’s one problem I have. Jews, when they get successful, they will help their people.

And some of the African-Americans, maybe I’ll get in trouble again. They don’t want to help anybody. What has Magic Johnson really done for Children’s Hospital which kids are lying in the hallways. They are sick. They need a bed. What has he done for any hospital? What has he done for any group?

via Donald Sterling’s interview disaster: Rich old racist self-destructs to Anderson Cooper – Salon.com.

From Around the Web.

From the web site, Abagond.

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling/

Donald Sterling (1934- ), an American billionaire, is best known as the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, a basketball team. It accounts for a third of his wealth. On April 25th 2014, a recording of what seems to be him talking to his girlfriend, Vanessa Stiviano, was made public on the Internet. In it he tells her not to be seen in public with Black people.

We do not know where the recording came from, when it was made or whether it has been edited. But it is probably all too true: In 2009, for example, Sterling was made to pay $2.725 million for discriminating against Blacks and Latinos at his apartment buildings in metropolitan Los Angeles. It is a matter of public record that he has said stuff like this:

Is she one of those black people that stink? […] Just evict the bitch.

…

On racism:

Sterling: It’s the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.

Stiviano: So do you have to treat them like that too?

Sterling: The white Jews, there’s white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?

Stiviano: And are the black Jews less than the white Jews?

Sterling: A 100%, 50, a 100%.

Stiviano: And is that right?

Sterling: It isn’t a question – we don’t evaluate what’s right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.

Pilant's Business Ethics Blog

Author: southwerk

Net Neutrality and Strange Bedfellows?