Well, Donald Sterling deserves a blog post of his own instead of being a comment from the Bundy post.  So here it goes.  I know I always say innocent until proven guilty.  But if he is not the guy in the tape, then why isn't he denying it?  So I think he is the one on the tape and the NBA investigation should not take any time longer than asking Sterling if he has any defensive statement.

I never liked Sterling.  He is one of those guys that tries to buy fame and accolades with money.  At least once a month he takes out a full page ad in the LA Times blowing his own horn about charity giving.  He would "honor" people for their charity work with galas but at the same time implying how much his foundation is helping these people.  Ironically plenty of minorities are featured in these galas including Magic and other black athletes.  So I don't know why Sterling would tell his mistress not to associate with blacks since he associates with them to make himself look good.  Various charities and famous people are happy to be featured in his ads because I believe that he showers them with money.  In a couple of weeks, the NAACP was scheduled to give Sterling a life time achievement award!

As I said before, when someone is successful in business or something else, it does not make him smart or a good person.  You can't buy everything, specially respect.  Old rich guys have trophy wives.  In this case, a trophy mistress.  But like any trophy, if you buy it, it is meaningless.  In fact people laugh behind your back because that young woman is just taking your money and making you look like an old fool.  It is like buying a tennis trophy.  Nobody will think that you are good in tennis, just that you are shameless.

Back to racism.  Sterling had been sued by minorities in the past for not renting his apartments to them.  So he may be a racist.  But then he was sued for racial and age discrimination by former Clipper GM Elgin Baylor.  That suit was tossed and rightly so.  Baylor had like 20 years at the helm and the entire time the Clippers were the laughing stock of the NBA.  Any owner would have fired him a long time ago.  If Sterling is a racist, why was he so loyal to Baylor?  And what about all those black leaders, including NAACP and Magic.  Didn't they have a clue that Sterling was a racist all those years?  Or did money kept these people from saying anything until this episode goes public and all these people had to express shock and outrage?

Finally, why was there even a talk of Clippers boycotting the game yesterday?  How is forfeiting going to help?  These players are paid millions to represent the team and the city, not to represent Sterling.  How would disappointing the fans help?  I was angry at some pundits, mostly white, who said that the Clippers played poorly yesterday because they were distracted or down emotionally.  Come on, if someone in the family died, I can see a player would be affected.  Racist comments from an 80 year old is going to affect a pro player?  I would have used it as a motivation to play better!

The NBA, I don't think, can make Sterling sell the team.  They can suspend him.  But so what?  He is not running the team anyway.  The only thing that can hurt him is to fine him, say a million.  This should be used in a charity to improve race relations.  Money can't buy respect and it won't make people's impression of Sterling any better.   But at least it will get him out of the news. 

Cliven Bundy is the guy in Nevada whom the government accused of owing one million dollars in fees for cattle grazing on public land.  The government decided to sent armed federal agents to roundup Bundy's cattle.  This made a lot of people angry because they think it is government bullying the little guy.  So bunch of people showed up with guns to protect Bundy from the government.  Not wanting to escalate this into another Waco, the government has backed off.  After becoming a hero among conservative politicians and pundits, Bundy goes off and started saying things like black people are better off being slaves than being on welfare.  These remarks made him toxic to the conservative movements and people like Rand Paul are quickly distancing themselves from him.  There are still a lot of people with guns protecting Bundy at his home right now.

First, the government could have handled this a lot better.  Have they not arrested people for not paying before?  And the one million dollars may not be accurate since I don't see why they let that much accumulate before showing up.  I mean, I am sure the IRS will not let me accumulate a million in back taxes before coming after me.  But in any case, why does this guy thinks that he should be able to feed his cattle for free?  And all those people who are supporting him, don't some of them own businesses?  And how would these business owners feel if their competitors got free resources from the government to compete against them? That would be a government over reach, wouldn't it?  By grazing for free, wouldn't Bundy be getting welfare from the government?  Why are people like Rand Paul not against this type of welfare in the first place?

I am not labeling Bundy a racist yet.  He is obviously wrong to say slavery is better than being on welfare.  I mean, if he loses in court, he will find out first hand that welfare is a lot better than slavery.  He will lose his free grazing land which was essentially welfare to boost his income and then he will have to pay the government money so he may be working for nothing which is similar to slavery. 

I won't label Bundy a racist until I have info about how he treats people of other races.  I know of people who treat others equally without regard to race but are outspoken about government policies such as welfare.  I do agree with them on some issues.  For example, single mothers get more money than  those who are married with the same number of children.  This encourages parents not to get married or get divorced if they are married.  This is unhealthy for the family and the community.  It is possible that Bundy only meant to criticize certainly policies but at the same time treats everybody equally.  He may just have a problem expressing himself.  I am not betting on this but innocent until proven guilty, right?

I am sure there will be more debates on Bundy but I am sure that Bundy is happy that Donald Sterling is replacing him in the news!  More on that one after I get more info.

Pro Russian groups have taken over government buildings in eastern Ukraine.  Russian forces are lined up on the border of eastern Ukraine.  What will Russia do next?   Will Ukraine fight?  What should the U.S. do?  I don't know is my answer for the first 2 questions.  My answer to the third depends how the Russians and the Ukrainians answer the first two.

My feeling is that Putin himself does not know the answer to the first question.  Having aroused nationalism to make himself more popular at home he is painting himself into a corner.  Any mistake by the rebels or the Ukrainians can spark a civil war and cause Russia to get involved.  Is that what Putin really want?  If it is, our answer should be swift.  No military forces from us but arms and economic aid to Ukraine that will make Putin's life miserable.  It will be his Vietnam and Afghanistan.  The Russians helped the Viet Cong against the U.S. and we helped the Mujahideen against the USSR  without actually sending troops.  We must make it clear to Putin that if Russia invades Ukraine the end result will be like our result in Vietnam and their result in Afghanistan. 

Will the Ukraine fight?  Well if they don't and is willing to give up the part of the country that is Russian majority, then why should we get involved?  But if they want to preserve the integrity of their country then we should help them.  This was all instigated by Russia and we cannot have another country helping an ethnic group partition a nation.  It would be like Mexico helping Mexican Americans take over California.  But it all depends on Ukraine willing to fight long and hard to turn back the Russians by attrition.  So answer to question 3 depends on answers to 1 and 2.

With Jeremy Lin there are supporters who think that he is a greater point guard than Magic or Nash if only given a chance.  Then there are detractors who think that he does not belong in the league.  So I decide to look at the starting point guards in the NBA and decide where Lin fits in.

First I will admit that I am a Lin fan although I think Linsanity was a fluke and cannot be repeated.  I do believe that he is not in a situation where he can possibly flourish.  Houston's offense is run by Harden who holds the ball for 10 seconds and then either drive, put up a 3 pointer or passes with only a few seconds left.  Lin is standing by the corner and is not involved most of the time and then is expected to hit a 3 with seconds left while in no rhythm.  Look, all NBA players especially point guards, are good players.  But no point guard can play well if his quickness and passing ability are not utilized.  While Harden has won games with his individual skills, he also has lost them by not playing team ball.  The Rockets actually have a higher win percentage without him this season, although it is a small sample.

There are some guards that I think has about the same ability as Lin but are given the control of their teams' offense and thus have better stats.  John Walls was a former #1 draft choice the same year Lin came out.  From the first summer league on Lin has outplayed Walls.  But given the starting job in Washington and confidence of his coaches, Walls has become an all star this season.  I think Lin can do the same given the same situation.  Goran Dragic is even better than Walls this season.  Dragic has a better shot than Lin but he is not as fast and I believe worse on defense.  Dragic has been in the league longer and was learning from Nash when he came into the league.  So I think if Lin was in the same offense as Dragic in Phoenix in a year or so, he can be just as effective. 

The point guards that are better than Lin are Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Russell Westbrook and a healthy Derrick Rose. Also Kyrie Irving and Damien Lillard, given their young age, will be better than Lin even in the future.  I would say that I would not take Deron Williams and Rondo over Lin because I think they are on the down sides of their career.  There are several others that I can see where someone would argue they are better than Lin under any circumstance.  I would only say those players maybe better than Lin but to me it is not definite.

So the bottom line:  I hope Lin gets traded to a system where he can run the pick and roll like D' Antonio did in NY.  Houston, despite having Howard, rarely give Lin a chance to run the pick and roll.  He will never flourish under McHale's system.  But if he goes to the right system, even if we don't get Linsanity 2, Lin can be an upper echelon NBA player.

Couple of items in the news caught my attention.  First Jeb Bush defends those who crosses the border illegally to work, calling it an act of love to provide for their children.  I agree.  If China was next to the U.S., my parents would have crossed over well before getting their green cards.  But I guess Jeb Bush is NOT trying to get the Republican nomination for president in 2016!

The Supreme court refuses to hear an appeal from a photographer from New Mexico who was cited for refusing to photograph gay weddings.  I agree with the ruling but does it really matter?  I mean, which gay couple will be dumb enough to hire this person for their wedding?  Do they really want their wedding pictures upside down or totally blurred?  It is like the court compelling a racist surgeon to operate on me.  Thanks but no thanks!

In regard to DWTS, apparently we have a big fan in LBOAYM!  I agree that Davis and White are clear favorites.  For the other contestants it must feel like the two players who drew Ken Jennings in Jeopardy's Battle of the Decades.  You know you have no chance.  The only way to beat Davis and White would be to get scores close to perfect and then have more fans' votes than Davis and White.  There are a few who may get 27-30 scores but I think of those only the handicap woman may get more votes than Davis and White.  Davis does have an edge over White because I believe a woman "amateur" have an edge over a man "amateur" since she does not have to lead.

Good news!  The Georgia legislature has passed a bill allowing possession of guns in places like churches, airports and government buildings.  This will make us all safer in Georgia according to the bill's supporters. What better way to celebrate our heritage than to go back to our wild wild west where every cowboy carried a gun.  Just ask the Indians how safe they felt.

I say the law does not go far enough.  For example, at airports and government buildings you can only have guns up to security check points.  If carrying guns make us safer, why do we even have check points?  Why should our second amendment rights be abolished at a check point?  If we can stop crimes with our guns outside, why can't we stop terrorists inside the airport with our guns?  I am sure someone like George Zimmerman will protect us by going up to a real terrorist, question him, and then shoot the terrorist in self defense.  If he did not have a gun, I am sure Zimmerman will not be so brave as to go up to someone so dangerous.  So let people like Zimmerman and the ex-policeman,  who shot someone in a theater for criminally talking on the cell phone, carry guns to protect all of us.

Lastly, why do they have check points at the Georgia legislature building?  Why can't someone go into the Georgia legislature chamber with a gun?  You never know if some bad guy may be in the audience and is upset about the debate on the floor and decide to attack the legislators.  With good guys in the audience with guns, this type of violence will be stopped right away.  So no metal detectors inside the Georgia legislature!