jump to navigation

Are Clay Bennett and David Stern Secret Lovers? July 9, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Idiots, Law, Soviet of Seattle, Sports.
add a comment

. . .or does Bennett have some incredible blackmail information on the NBA Commissioner?

Bennett began his “good faith” effort at keeping the Sonics in Seattle by demanding that government/taxpayers pony up $500 million to build a new palace in suburban Seattle.  That would be the richest of its kind in the nation.

Stern claimed that this had to happen for basketball to stay in Seattle, as KeyArena -despite having been remodeled to the specifications of the Sonics -is supposedly so inimicable to NBA owners basketball.  Stern claimed there was no other option, not even remodeling Key would do.

Then, as Seattle Gasbag Mayor Nickels looked for some way out of a lawsuit that most people were sure he would win going in -but in hiring incompetent attorneys screwed himself and the city-, and was agonizing over the fury of outraged hoops fans as the Sonics were hijacked to OKC, Stern then came oiling in and said that a $300 million remodel of Key would do the job.  Nickels, desperate for some sop to the voters in an election year, then took the $45 million from the smirking Bennett.

Stern backs Bennett in every instance.

NOW Bennett is facing the ex-owner of the Sonics, Howard Schultz in a tussle over ownership, claiming that Bennett did no exercise good faith in negotiating with the City.

Well, Schultz is probably correct.  But as Thomas More reminded us:

The world must construe according to its wits.  This court must construe according to the law.”

And in the law, “good faith” is one damned hard term to nail down.  We ALL know Bennett didn’t act in good faith.  You know it.  I know it.  Schultz, the trial lawyers, judges, David Stern, hell, even Clay Bennett knows it.  But they have a snowball’s chance in hell of proving that according to the law.

But that isn’t enough.  Either Bennett and Stern have been getting down in S&M clubs like the recently disgraced chief of F1 racing and they are all agog over one another, or Bennett reminded Stern of those compromising photographs or whatever he is using to leverage Stern and Stern has responded like a good lapdog.  The NBA is intervening in the Schultz lawsuit.

The NBA wants to intervene in former SuperSonics owner Howard Schultz’s bid to regain control of the team, claiming it would interfere with the stable operation of the franchise.

Schultz is trying to reverse his 2006 sale of the NBA franchise to Clay Bennett, claiming the Oklahoma City businessman failed to follow through on a promise to negotiate in good faith to keep the team in Seattle.

The league filed a motion Tuesday to intervene in Schultz’s lawsuit in Seattle’s federal court.


That agreement included a clause that the deal would be broken and the team would return to Seattle if Schultz, the chairman of Starbucks Corp., were to prevail in this lawsuit, filed April 22.


The NBA claims in its motion that the transfer of the franchise to a court-appointed receiver and a subsequent transfer back to Schultz would both be prohibited by the league’s constitution. (So the NBA trumps US civil law.  Fascinating -ed.)

The motion also claims that if a court-appointed receiver were to be appointed, the NBA’s constitution allows for the league’s owners to put that team “under the management and control” of commissioner David Stern.

“The relief requested by plaintiffs is entirely inconsistent with these reasonable and lawful regulations of the NBA, and the disposition of this action therefore threatens the ability of the League to protect its justifiable interests,” attorney Ralph Palumbo wrote in the motion.

The NBA also claims that Schultz’s ownership group signed a release as part of the league’s approval of the 2006 sale that prevented the former owners from suing Bennett’s Professional Basketball Club ownership group.

Stern left Seattle to twist in the wind, but whenever Clay Bennett needs help, Stern the Lapdog is right there to provide fellatio relief.

What is UP between those two?


Californication Declares Gay Marriage a “fundamental right” May 16, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Law, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing.

(MSM article)  I’m only going to comment thus:

  • via Ace of Spades, it becomes increasingly troubling when an activist state Supreme Court overturns the will of the people by finding a “fundamental right” that has no real basis in law.  As Ace says, the Californication SSC really ought to change its motto to, “L’etat, c’est moi.”  What is the point of elected governing bodies when sovereign judicial bodies can then usurp legislative authority to itself, and then give no recourse to higher appeal?  To quote:

It is, in legal terms, an ipse dixit, an “it’s this way because I say it is,” and you can always tell when a court is resorting to ipse dixit because it stops citing the actual constitution and previous decisions and begins speaking of hitherto-unknown “fundamental rights.” How did they become “fundamental rights”? Oh, they always were. Just no one ever noticed.

  • I find Anchoress, as usual, to be eminently sane and reasonable when examining this topic:
    • I frankly think it might be a better thing if the religious sacrament of marriage were separated from the legal action of marriage, and vice versa. Perhaps it would be wise for us to adopt the practice in France, where the civil marriage takes place at City Hall, and the Sacramental marriage at the church.A civil union is a mere legality. It can be defined any way the state wishes, but it leaves the church out of the question of who may “legally” be married and protects her ability to bestow sacraments and practice the faith free from “discrimination” lawsuits and the inevitable punitive damages that can materially destroy her.

      Depending on how the courts go, we could conceivably see this issue coming up in a lot of states, and then there will be a press for federal recognition of gay marriage. If the church does not take steps to protect herself now, by advocating this sort of separation of duties and intents, she will be spending a lot of time and money (and losing tax-free status, of course) fighting for the right to practice the faith without government interference.

      I actually wrote something touching on this possibility last summer.

      I have no problem with civil unions (my line gets drawn whenever someone implies that a church must go against its own theology and sacramental understanding of marriage), so I can understand where Don Surber is coming from in his post, and I agree with him about the “zero-tolerance strain” of liberalism that too often shuts down an exchange of ideas – but didn’t the “faith based” group essentially show a similar tendency toward exclusion of non-conforming thought?

The Church (as in all the Christian denominations) need to follow this advice.  “render unto Caesar” his need to legalize a union.  And if Caesar decides that sodomites need to be recognized too, then so be it, I guess.  But the sacrament of marriage needs the freedom to be governed from within.

Otherwise, we are going to open ourselves to the Tyranny of Tolerance, as the State then intervenes in the Church, demanding that it give the same recognition to ancient Roman excesses that the State already has.  And that is when I start yearning for access to the other worlds imagined in Larry Niven’s Known Space future history.

All very depressing.  Not at all surprising.  But depressing.

Wal-Mart takes the lazy and cheap way out UPDATED April 2, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Law.
add a comment

First posted March 26th.

Seems a woman who worked for Wal-Mart some years ago had a serious car accident and suffered severe brain damage. She was on Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Wal-Mart paid out over $400K for the woman’s care. The woman’s family then sued the insurance company of the party responsible for the accident, and won another $400K. The total $800K was put in trust for the woman’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart then sued to get their $400K disbursement back, as their health care package states that they are to be reimbursed if the employee wins money in a civil judgement.

The courts have all supported this judgement in favor of Wal-Mart, which is bullsh!ite of the first water, as this woman is permanently disabled, wheelchair-bound and has no short-term memory to speak of.

Even Wal-Mart itself states that they sympathize with the woman, however:

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank’s case “unbelievably sad,” replied in a statement: “Wal-Mart’s plan is bound by very specific rules. … We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank’s case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan.

“We wish we could be more flexible. . ” is code cover for the bullsh!it line that they don’t want to start a precedent for allowing other people in similar circumstances to keep their insurance payouts and civil claims. It might impact Wal-Mart’s bottom line. (net profit in the 3rd quarter, $90 billion).

They are hiding behind their rules. In a just world, rules are designed to serve people. In a “fair” world, people serve rules.

In a just world, people get what they truly deserve. In a fair world, everyone is treated equally.

Fairness requires simple rules that are followed dogmatically. Justice requires measuring the need and value of each case and judging accordingly.

Fairness is the way of the coward and the lazy man.

Justice is the way of the man of stamina and courage, the hero’s way.

UPDATE: Seems that now their covers have been yanked off, Wal-Mart is now -finally- allowing the woman to keep her money.

“Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times,” Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. “We have all been moved by Ms. Shank’s extraordinary situation.”

Weasel-speak for, “We got caught and our massive greed has now been exposed for everyone to see. In a lame, transparent attempt at damage-control, we’re letting them keep the money. But you better believe that if another case comes up like this one, we will be sure the press gets no wind of it so we can continue to stick it to the low-wage worker.

Classic illustration of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing May 4, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Law, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing, MSM, Politics, Stupid Party vs Evil Party.
add a comment

CNN reports that Bush is threatening a veto of hate-crimes legislation.

I am not going to go into the wherefores of this legislation. Read the article and figure it for yourself.

My issue comes up from this phrase:

Both sides cited the case of Matthew Shepard of Wyoming, whose brutal 1998 murder was linked to his sexual orientation.

“Matthew’s death generated international outrage by exposing the violent nature of hate crimes,” said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives.

But Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, argued that Shepard’s killers got harsh sentences without hate-crimes provisions.

These legislators on both sides of the aisle are idiots. This link thoroughly explores how the death of Shepherd was drug related, and had nothing to do with his sexual orientation. But the media has its poster child for hate crimes, and the Congress is following in lockstep.

Depressing, and no indication that the leadership of this country is in any way doing its job properly.

Judicial Intelligence Alert April 30, 2007

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Idiots, Law.
add a comment


Let’s see here:  19 year old leads cops on two county chase, with speeds in excess of 100 mph.  Cops finally bump car, causing it to crash.  Felonious driver, in a classic case of natural consequences, is paralyzed from the neck down.  Driver then sues cops, claiming excess use of force.  In a stunning act of idiocy, the appellate courts support this decision.  But then the SCOTUS shoots it down with an attack of common sense, by an 8-1 vote.

Glaringly obvious decision, yet John Paul Stevens has his head up his butt, claiming that there was no imminent danger to bystanders.

Like Hades.  100 mph chase?  The alternative is to wait until someone gets hurt, and then it’s too late.  In this case, the right person got hurt.  Not that we want to aim for paraplegia as a sentence for berserk driving, but at least no one else got hurt.