Skip to main content

It didn't take long, but the media has done the seemingly impossible. They have taken a story about a racist billionaire slumlord who made his coin off of denying the rights of minorities and turned it into a story about an unemployed black woman using her body to take away his freedom of speech, right to privacy and hard-earned business.

Reality be dammed. We don't need no stinkin' reality. Slut-shaming is so much easier than balance.

 

Mistress Illegally Recorded Rich White Guy

The first portrayal of Stiviano is that she illegally recorded the poor rich white guy in secret. This appears to be false.

Joe Kemp of the New York Daily News offers the first example:

The woman who secretly recorded the racist rants of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling — leading to his lifetime ban from the NBA — told reporters that she wanted to be President.
This offers the most frequent allegation against Stiviano, that she secretly (and thus illegally) recorded the conversation. However, according to her lawyer, the recordings were made at Sterling's request.

Per an ESPN report by Ramona Shelburne it's not just Stiviano's word against his word either:

[Stiviano] told [NBA investigators] that Sterling knew he was being recorded and that they often taped conversations because Sterling, who sources say has been battling cancer in recent years, forgets things, and explained that part of her job was to help coach him on his image. On one of the tapes, a third person is heard in the background. The NBA also interviewed that third person before Silver made his ruling Tuesday, a fact that could be important later if the legality of the tapes is questioned.
Stiviano's lawyer has said that the third person (who remains anonymous) confirms that Sterling was aware the conversation was recorded with his knowledge and this would seem to confirm that.

So it's not just her word against Sterling's word. It's, at worst, her's and the third party's word against Sterling. But even that's not the whole case.

Shelborurn also reveals that in the pending lawsuit against Stiviano by Shelly Sterling, Donald's wife, they requested those recordings, and all the others, be turned over, which sort of implies that they knew they existed.

Sterling lavished gifts on Stiviano over their four-year relationship, including a 2013 Range Rover, a 2012 Ferrari and two Bentleys. He paid her rent. He bought her jewelry. And, on March 7 of this year, Sterling's wife, Shelly Sterling, sued her to get it all back.

Stiviano lawyered up. Her attorneys filed a response to the civil suit, asking that the case be dismissed on April 21. Instead, Shelly Sterling's attorneys requested that Stiviano turn over all tapes and recordings made of herself and Sterling. The law compelled her to do so.

Four days later, the tapes surfaced publicly on TMZ.

So now it's her word, the third party's word and the fact that they actually already knew about the recordings against Sterling's word.

Well except that it's not against Sterling's word either. Nowhere has he ever denied that he was aware that he was being recorded. Why let facts get in the way of a little slut-shaming though?

And, for the record Stiviano denies that she gave the tapes to TMZ. Per the AP, she thinks they were turned over by a friend, whom she had given a copy of the recordings for safekeeping.

The unbelievable thing about this is that the same media, which was so careful to call the recording "alleged" every time the subject came up, was ready to unequivocally state from the outset, without confirmation or even a modicum of research, that the recordings were obtained illegally.

Barbie

The second shameful case of slut-shaming comes from Josh Peter of USA Today who describes Stiviano's high-school teacher, Javier Cid's recollections of her:

Javier Cid, longtime teacher at Roosevelt High, said V. Stiviano, then known as Vanessa Perez, was in his civics and economics class her senior year. He recalled her being smart, enthusiastic and mature — and for her nickname, Barbie.

Which kind of says a lot about her and who she wants to be,” Cid told USA TODAY Sports. “Barbie, someone that just wants to have the car, the house, the clothes, the designer stuff.’

And:
She had very expensive tastes, which is not common for most students in this neighborhood,’’ said Cid, who said he has been teaching for 24 years at the school in East Los Angeles’ Boyle Heights.
Because in the 24 years at the school, one student who had the same tastes as everyone else at the school came he could recall so vividly 15 years later? Or maybe it's just that he had a chance to sell a salacious story to the media.

Or:

Her younger sister wasn’t doing well in school,” Cid said. “I do remember when she did come and see me about her little sister she did mention something about, ‘Oh, yeah, well I drive a Range Rover now.’ I remember that very clearly. I said, ‘Good for you.’
Because everyone who is proud of their nice car is a money-grubbing freeloading whore.

Also, I'm suspicious of the mention of the Range Rover. Sterling allegedly gave her a 2013 Range Rover and the conversation with the teacher occurred in 2007.

So either, the teacher or the writer was trying to falsely portray that as the gifted Range Rover, the teacher was lying, or Stiviano had gotten a different Range Rover on her own merit.

But when your slut-shaming, innuendo is all you need, not thought.

The kicker:

Cynthia Medina, a graduate of the class of 2000, said she did not know Stiviano directly but that other classmates with whom she has spoken this week recalled Stiviano being known as Barbie.
Someone who didn't even know her in high-school 15 years ago is being cited as someone qualified to understand her present state of mind because she knew her high-school nickname?

So, based on the 15-year old sketchy memories of a high-school teacher's unexceptional student, a girl who didn't know her and a nickname, Stiviano has been plotting since high-school how she was going to milk millions of dollars from Sterling and trick him into recording a conversation that would cost him his business. Sounds about right.

The Conniving, Evil and Money Hungry Mistress

Then there's this treasure from  the A.P.  

For someone who loves to share photos of herself online, little is known about V. Stiviano other than that she is at the center of a scandal involving Clippers owner Donald Sterling.
Yes, apparently everything about Stiviano has become something nefarious and vain, even the fact that she has an Instagram account.

The story also contributes to the perception that "the Sterling family" is suing Stiviano.

In March, Sterling's wife, Rochelle, sued Stiviano, claiming she had received more than $2.5 million in lavish gifts from the Clippers owner and they needed to be returned. A big piece of the suit involves a duplex Stiviano purchased in December for nearly $1.8 million with money that Rochelle Sterling claims Stiviano received from her husband. Stiviano's name appears on the deed, and Rochelle Sterling is asking a judge to transfer the property to her and her husband.
Isn't this sweet? Rochelle is just looking out for her hubby! It's not a bitter estranged wife lashing out at his latest love interest! Well, maybe it is, but that doesn't work nearly as well with the slut-shaming narrative.

Anyone that saw the interview on 20/20 will tell you that Stiviano did not come across as the type of evil genius who can connive a lawyer who literally made millions by being litigious. She came across more as the exact opposite. A sincere person, but a bit of a 40-watt bulb in a 70-watt box.

The irony was that she was the only one who wanted to defend Sterling, telling Barbara Walters:

I think Mr. Sterling is from a different generation than I am. I think he was brought up to believe these things … segregation, whites and blacks. But through his actions he’s shown that he’s not a racist. He’s shown to be a very generous and kind man.
The conversation also revealed that Stiviano had just been with Sterling (at one point Walters says so). That suggests that Stiviano's relationship with Sterling has not changed, which further implies that Sterling is not holding her responsible for anything.

Furthermore, Stiviano denies that the relationship is a sexual one.

Stiviano denied having a romantic relationship with Sterling, saying she is his personal assistant and sees Sterling as “a father figure” -- calling herself his "silly rabbit." She claims that people around Sterling would say negative things about her to him, saying they “poison his mind and heart about things about me,” which would drive him to say certain things.
Again, this is not her word against his, per Jen Heger of Radar
Donald admits on audiotapes recorded by V., that the two have never had a sexual relationship,” a source told Radar. “It comes up several times…”

It was more of a father-daughter relationship,” the source continued. “V. is extremely intelligent and beautiful, and Donald likes to be around attractive women. It boosts his ego. He is extremely insecure.

The fact that both she and Sterling both deny they had a sexual relationship is something you can treat with incredulity, but that incredulity can't be treated as fact. Virtually everyone in the media refers to Stiviano as his girlfriend or mistress, and almost none stipulate that both parties in that alleged relationship don't characterize it as such.

________

So, the narrative that she was an evil, money hungry mistress who tricked the billionaire white man out his hard earned money by illegally recording their private conversation and sharing it with the world  only has every problem.

* The evil woman is the only one defending him and he still spends time with her.
* The money-hungry angle is established by people who either didn't know her or barely knew her 15 years ago.
* According to both Stiviano and Sterling, she wasn't his mistress, and their relationship is not sexual.
* It's pretty apparent she's incapable of "tricking" Sterling into anything.
* The recording wasn't made illegally.
* She didn't hand over the recordings.

The only thing wrong with the slut-shaming narrative is absolutely everything. But it's been characterized as absolute fact. One could argue that just because she says something doesn't make it fact.

But that she has a side is a fact, and the media ignoring those facts makes it biased reporting. And in this case that bias is outright slut-shaming.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I esp like the prostate cancer angle (12+ / 0-)

    played up on the news. Oh that poor poor man.
    Something like 15% of men over 65 in this country have PC, usually low grade and slow progressing.
    Projected to rise to 20% in the next 15 years. Take a guess how many men have it by age 80. Treatment often isnt even recommended because its worse than the disease at that age.
    Its just another PR stunt by this dirtball and his retainers.
    FUCK DON STERLING.

    •  I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the internet. (11+ / 0-)

      Anyway, as you say most prostate cancer is slow-growing.

      The common PSA test is indicative but not conclusive.

      The definitive diagnosis for this cancer is to take a few cell samples.  Given that the cancer is usually localized, the biopsy may well miss cancerous cells and give a false negative.

      My suspicion (and I realize an opinion is not scientific proof) is that most, perhaps even nearly all, men eventually develop prostate cancer unless something else kills them first.

      This post isn't an argument to avoid getting tested - dying of prostate cancer, usually an aggressive type, is one of the more miserable ways to die.  So it's worth getting tested, and if necessary, treated.  But it's common that the man doesn't require any treatment because the cancer he has is relatively mild.

      The focus on Sterling's current health is another distraction from the far more revealing fact that he paid almost $3MM in fines for ordering racial discrimination in housing he owned over 5 years ago.

      I'm far more outraged at how he treated the ordinary people who had the misfortune of living in one of his apartment buildings than any comments he made to Stiviano about famous sports figures.

      •  Prostate cancer is very common among elderly men. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State

        A PSA in not diagnostic, but is concerning. A high PSA schould be followed up by a visit to a urologist. An rise in PSA from one lab test to another is alarming, and should be followed up.
          A digital rectal exam that reveals an enlarged prostate but no palpable lumps may well not be followed up by a biopsy, because the biopsy  itself may spread cancer cells into unaffected parts of the prostate.
           If lumps are detected, a biopsy is almost always recommended.
           Some prostate cancer is very aggressive and fatal. Most o the time it is readily treatable, often without major surgery.
            Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor. But I've been to some.

    •  I don't think it's being played up; (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crabby Abbey, codairem

      the media is simply learning about him.

      What isn't being mentioned, let alone discussed, is the fact that the NBA, like the NFL and baseball, is operated in accordance with the plantation mentality.  

      And Sterling makes that abundantly clear.

      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

      by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:15:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now, *this* is interesting (19+ / 0-)
    Shelly Sterling's attorneys requested that Stiviano turn over all tapes and recordings made of herself and Sterling. The law compelled her to do so.

    Four days later, the tapes surfaced publicly on TMZ.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:42:38 AM PDT

  •  It's always fascinating (5+ / 0-)

    (and often entertaining) when blog writers politicize, and take sides in, legal disputes before facts are litigated.

  •  There's Stiviano slut-shaming right here on dkos. (11+ / 0-)

    ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

    by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

    •  Yep! (5+ / 0-)

      I was just going to say the same thing. I've seen it in every comment section of the diaries on this subject I have read.

      When I see it, I haven't figured out a good (non argumentative and mean) way to explain how/why this is slutshaming. Maybe some people can offer pointers in how to have a productive discussion with someone who is engaging in slutshaming.

      Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. -Thoreau

      by CenPhx on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:04:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope someone responds to your question! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, JVolvo, Yasuragi

        I would love a little education on this myself.

        ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

        by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:17:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Way I View It (5+ / 0-)

          Slutshaming is using the suggestion that a woman used her body in such a way that it overpowered a man's faculties of reason and/or self control and MADE him do things for her or to her.

          It's making women out to be villains because they have vaginas.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:39:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's also insulting men as being ruled (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            weezilgirl, denig

            by their, um, trousers.

            I'm not saying there aren't plenty out there, but that stereotype is just as offensive.

            An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

            by Yasuragi on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:26:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Stereotypes do tend to be (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shanikka

              based upon actual repeated behaviors.

              If one doesn't want to appear to be a gold-digger (or a whore), then don't put oneself in a position to attract that appearance.

              For now, in view of the fact that here answers to Walters' questions didn't make sense in relation to each other, we are either listening to a person with an extremely low IQ, and or no insight into herself and her own thinking, or she hasn't yet worked out a coherent story (or statement of the actual facts, if they differ from appearances).

              As for the "slut-shaming" allegation: what if it turns out that she is, in fact, a slut?

              This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

              by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:27:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So I'm defending men here, and you (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TFinSF, denig

                choose me to make a totally offensive comment to?

                Define slut.  Go ahead.  I dare you.

                An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

                by Yasuragi on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:55:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I simply expressed my view. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  shanikka

                  And you're telling me I shouldn't because you interpret it as "offensive".

                  And I'm not defending either -- neither is a victim.  I'm simply commenting on a "Diary" which is in itself bizarre and premature.

                  Sterling is not a victim; he's a slum-lord and racist.  

                  Stiviano is not a victim; she's an extraordinarly well -- overly-well -- paid "employee" who admits an intimate relationship (Sterling was quite frank in approving her sleeping with others) but denies it is "romantic" (read "sexual").

                  To whom was Sterling referring as giving great blow-jobs?  Someone else?

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:14:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I still don't see why that first comment (0+ / 0-)

                    was addressed to me.

                    I'm not claiming either as victim, either.  My point about men had nothing to do with Sterling.

                    What's "offensive" is you saying she might be a slut in a diary that's explicitly saying it's not okay to throw that around.

                    Done here.

                    An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

                    by Yasuragi on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:35:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Right: it's not okay to "throw" "around" (0+ / 0-)

                      a negative term about a FEMALE that might actually be the fact.

                      And that is just another formulation of the ancient SEXIST notion -- as defined and rejected by female feminists -- that women are morally superior to men.  And that they must be protected on their respective pedestals against the "vulgar" thoughts and "slurs" of males.

                      In short, it's your view that this "Diary" is "explicitly saying" that we are to LIE that a female isn't a slut even when she is.

                      Again: this whole "Diary" is premature: we don't have all the facts.  But what we do have -- from Stiviano herself -- is an indictment of at minimum her intelligence and or her ability to be rational.  

                      Her claim is that she was Sterling's "image consultant".  Contrary to that claim is the obvious fact that she needs an "image consultant".

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:23:01 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

                    And I'm not defending either -- neither is a victim.  I'm simply commenting on a "Diary" which is in itself bizarre and premature.

                    What is bizarre or premature about it? And why do you put quotes around diary, as though it's a fake diary? I don't need to wait until you're satisfied that all the facts are out to say that the media has rushed to paint her in a certain light.

                    If it's so "bizarre and premature" that it deserve quote marks, why not address any of its contents?

                    Why is it the nations business what the nature of her business or what her paycheck is?

                    Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                    by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:32:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The media has simply reported what it's found (0+ / 0-)

                      You are interpreting the "light" in which she's painted.  And you are omitting the direct on-camera statements by her which figure into how she is viewed.

                      I've addressed the contents by pointing to what they are: an effort to "paint" her as being -- solely because she's female -- a "victim".  If she is, then so is he.  If he isn't, then she isn't either.

                      The fact is we've seen at least dozens of these sorts of relationships over the past decade; and in every instance the denial was that it was about sex; and in every instance it turned out that it was about sex.

                      The known facts -- four expensive motor vehicles for "image consultation"?  Not a regular fee or salary? -- set off alarms.  Mistresses are paid in material items -- jewelry, houses, expensive gifts such as cars.  And Staviano's own words feed into that perception.

                      I've addressed the contents of this "diary" by characterizing them as, essentially, BS.  Premature and ludicrous.

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 02:52:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Absolutely! Spot on! (0+ / 0-)

              ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

              by denig on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:34:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No, it is not making women out to be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shanikka

            villains because they have vaginas.

            It is the gold-digging that makes them villains.  It is the vaginas that make it possible for them to be gold-diggers.

            What sucks is the constant defense of women in these circumstances as being either victims, or virginal Madonnas who can do no wrong.

            The fact is that he was paying her a lot of money.  And the assumption that it was for sex arises from the fact that it usually is about sex.

            So far, though, it's my impression that she's too stupid to know whether it's day or night at any given moment.  So maybe she doesn't know what she was paid to do.

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:23:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Funny -- there was just a piece about that. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weezilgirl, backell, denig

        I read it literally right before I read this:
        http://goodmenproject.com/...

        An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

        by Yasuragi on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:24:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Awesome! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yasuragi, denig

          I loved that article!

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:15:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a good site. A lot of the stuff they (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            denig

            run is sort of... jejune, I guess.  But all good-hearted, and some of it really outstanding.

            Yes, that article was terrific.

            (It occurs to me I may not have rec'd this diary -- going back to make sure I do!)

            An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

            by Yasuragi on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:19:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  jejune.... I had to look it up. hahaha (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yasuragi

              Thanks for the new word! And a new site to check out. I just opened it.

              ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

              by denig on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:38:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, denig! Been nice seeing your name (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                denig

                here.  :)

                It's not a word I use often... but I didn't want to actually say something bad about them.  They're a good-hearted site.  But some of their stuff is like... "so you're just catching on to this now?"  Heh.  ;)

                An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

                by Yasuragi on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:18:05 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yasuragi! I've been thinking about you so much (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Yasuragi

                  lately. I keep thinking I'll get on and pm you. But it's been so hectic with the hubby's cancer treatment, I just can't seem to follow through on stuff. It's funny cause I keep avoiding my friends during all this. And I feel so much better after I talk to people. But I avoid it. Sometimes I make no sense to myself.  I think I'm doing so well handling stuff, but just underneath the surface, I'm a friggin' mess. It just sort pours out of me at odd moments. Like you saying, hey denig!  gawd. sorry Yas. cripes. I better go make some more coffee.

                  Oh and to your post, I just spent a while reading that site. I enjoyed it a lot. Some interesting people there. Thanks for the link.

                  Jejune! Love the way it rolls off the tongue.

                  ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                  by denig on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:44:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hang tough, d. I know you're in a major (0+ / 0-)

                    struggle.  How's your husband doing?  PM me if you don't want to get into it here.

                    An angry white man with a gun is a patriot. An angry Muslim man with a gun is a terrorist. An angry black man with a gun is a corpse. -- raptavio

                    by Yasuragi on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:35:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Let me know how you feel when you find that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dallasdunlap, Andrew Lazarus

      someone you were sleeping with has been accumulating damaging info on you and sharing it with an "unnamed 3rd party"to be used to your detriment.  As big of an A@#hole as Sterling may be, this behavior is not admirable even by attaching the "slut shaming" theme to it.

      "Because I am a river to my people."

      by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:10:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you read the diary? It refutes your assessment (5+ / 0-)

        of the situation.  

        If you have facts that dispute the diary words, then state them.

        ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

        by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:15:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Check you read skills because the diarist wrote (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Keeping it Simple

          this

          And, for the record Sterling denies that she gave the tapes to TMZ. Per the AP, she thinks they were turned over by a friend, whom she had given a copy of the recordings for safekeeping.
          What about accumulating detrimental information on someone you're involved in an intimate relationship,and sharing it with a 3rd party, do you find honorable?

          "Because I am a river to my people."

          by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:55:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Understanding is likely being complicated (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            denig, weezilgirl, aitchdee

            because the quoted portion should probably read

            And, for the record Sterling Stiviano denies that she gave the tapes to TMZ.

            "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

            by CaliSista on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:10:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I caught that error, and there still isn't an (0+ / 0-)

              innocent reading of the quote.  She recorded the guy, and gave the recordings to a 3rd party in case she wanted to use them, which could only be to Sterlings detriment.  If she were doing for Sterling she would have simply downloaded the recorded conversations onto a storage device or laptop for retrieval at a later date.

              "Because I am a river to my people."

              by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:18:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Still there is (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                denig, Yasuragi, aitchdee

                " She recorded the guy, and gave the recordings to a 3rd party in case she wanted to use them, which could only be to Sterlings detriment."

                Because she said she kept the recordings on her phone and wanted to keep them somewhere else in case her phone was destroyed or loss. Your ASSUMPTION that there is no possible scenario where it was for safekeeping isn't fact.

                That it ACTUALLY was safe with the third party until it was handed over to Shelly is intriguing.

                Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:26:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You seem fully invested in this "slut shaming" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dallasdunlap

                  critique.  I think you're off base.

                  "Because I am a river to my people."

                  by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:36:15 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually you appear to be the one fully invested (8+ / 0-)

                    in slut-shaming.  You're so convinced that she's all the things you think she is, you can't even entertain the idea that your assessment may be wrong.

                    ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                    by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:25:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Can you avoid the assumption (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Andrew Lazarus

                      that she's a victim? -- that assumption being based solely upon the fact that she's a woman.

                      Why are you assuming she isn't a slut?  Or is she merely a gold-digger who gets by on promises?

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:32:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Are you even reading the people you respond to? (0+ / 0-)

                        Your reply to me, like your reply to Yasuragi is nonsensical.

                        Your reply totally "assumes". Mine has nothing to do with that. In fact the whole point is, why are you assuming she's any of those things?

                         Because you imagine them to be true. But that says nothing about Ms Stiviano. It only speaks to who you are.

                        ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                        by denig on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:29:11 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There is an objective history -- (0+ / 0-)

                          millennia long -- which attributes to her and the facts about her a limited number of possibilities.  She is massively overpaid for someone who claims to be -- and obviously is incompetent at -- an "image consultant".

                          And who gives answers to questions which are at odds with each other -- which spells "incoherent"/"irrational".  People are usually incoherent/irrational in their thinking because either stupid, mentally ill (which I don't assert), or dishonest.  And used to getting away with being dishonest.

                          Behind this "Diary" is the assumption that she is innocent; at most concrete, that she is free to do whatever she pleases, as a lifestyle choice," and no one has any moral justification for judging that "lifestyle choice".  

                          Alas, that isn't how reason and civility work.  If she is a poor widdle calculating sex-selling manipulator taking advantage of an increasingly senile old man who has the hots for her, that is not a defensible "lifestyle choice".

                          The ASSUMPTION that she is "Innocent" is no less an ASSUMPTION that that she isn't.  We don't yet have all the facts; but the facts we do have -- including those from her own mouth -- do not cast her in a favorable, constructive light.  And certainly do not substantiate the hand-wringing ASSUMPTION that she is a victim.

                          Why are you ASSUMING, against that millennia of history -- and the facts we have -- that she ISN'T any of those things?

                          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                          by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Innocent? Of what? Who said that? Not I. Again (0+ / 0-)

                            this is your imagining.

                            I don't pretend to know the particulars of her lifestyle. You are the one imagining what it is. If I say, you don't know that that is true, that means I said she is innocent? That is an illogical leap.  

                            I don't have an emotional attachment to her behavior, to her lifestyle, to her "guilt" or her "innocence". Nor to the idea that she is a victim of Mr Sterling.  Hell I'm not even sure what she's supposed to be guilty or innocent of.

                            You on the other hand are very emotionally attached to your assumptions. She may be a creep. I don't know. I'm certainly not, going to fervently condemn a woman because simply because of my preconceived notions and "history".

                            And that is the point. You. don't. know. I don't know.

                            I don't know who she is. I don't know her story. Therefore, as human beings and their relationships are complex, I find it unreasonable and uncivil to cast her in any light, good or bad.  

                            If it turns out she secretly made and released that tape, then I would have some worthwhile complaints.  

                            All the "gold digging" crap? I don't care.

                            ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                            by denig on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:28:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are mightly emotionally involved (0+ / 0-)

                            in making acusations against me -- especially of my allegedly being emotionally attached.

                            But most of all you are massively emotionally attached to your claim that you don't care.

                            I won't spend my irreplaceable time asking how you accomplish the latter.

                            This "Diary" is ever-more ludicrous.  Silly, even.

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:37:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are, however, spending an inordinate amount (0+ / 0-)

                            of your irreplacable time in a silly and ludicrous diary. Since both logic and civility are obviously wasted on you, I'll reply no further -- the logic escapes you and I'm all out of civility for your comments.

                          •  I'm new here. And I'm here to deal with (0+ / 0-)

                            information, ideas and facts, not with "personalities".

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 01:44:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  What does that even mean? (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo, Yasuragi, aitchdee, denig

                    Yes. I think that slut shaming is wrong. I don't get why you think that's off base.

                    Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                    by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:38:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Recording conversations was SOP b/c Sterling (6+ / 0-)

                has trouble remembering things.  So much for your "bitch set him up" assertions.

                Mrs Sterling filed suit March 7, legal dancing resulted in April 21st request for the not-secretly-recorded tapes.  D'oh!

                Unless you think Mrs Sterling was in on it, too?  

                Based on your combined comments here, I sure hope you never end up on a jury.

                Clive is the man! Woooo! HAHAHAHAHA! Teh martyr weeps tonight...

                by JVolvo on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:02:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who says he has trouble remembering (0+ / 0-)

                  things?  Stiviano, the person who made the recordings -- which recordings include overtly racist comments, which Stiviano doesn't seem able to recognize as being racist, and yet she says he should apologize for them?

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:33:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CaliSista, JVolvo, Yasuragi

              Corrected that.

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:27:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Went back and read your reference and it said (0+ / 0-)

            Stiviano, not Sterling .."denies that she gave the tapes to TMZ". as is stated in your comment.

      •  If that was what happened (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weezilgirl

        Then you'd have a great point.

        But since you UNDERSTAND that is what happened when it's not remotely close to the truth proves mine.

        Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

        by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:41:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess I have a great point because you wrote (0+ / 0-)

          this

          And, for the record Sterling denies that she gave the tapes to TMZ. Per the AP, she thinks they were turned over by a friend, whom she had given a copy of the recordings for safekeeping.
          What about accumulating detrimental information on someone you're involved in an intimate relationship,and sharing it with a 3rd party, do you find honorable?

          "Because I am a river to my people."

          by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:54:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are conflating things (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, weezilgirl

            You said "To be Used to your detriment." The quote says "for safekeeping."

            You're implying that there was a different intent in "sharing" it with that third party.

            According to her, she kept the conversations on her phone. She was worried they would be lost if something happened to her phone, so she shared with an unnamed third party.

            That party had the recordings since November, but they were "leaked" four days after the court ordered they be turned over the Shelly Sterling.

            Stiviano thinks the third party might be responsible. She could be wrong. The bottom line is that even who actually shared the tapes is unknown.

            It is certainly to emphatically state that she gave she gave the third party the tapes for the purposes of divulging them.

            Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

            by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:03:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Explain the reasoning behind giving the recorded (0+ / 0-)

              conversations of another person to a 3rd party for "safekeeping", without that being to the detriment of the recorded individual.   If this were innocent situation, she would have compiled the recordings and given them to Sterling.

              "Because I am a river to my people."

              by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:15:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                She said she did so because she had them on her phone and she was worried about what would happen if it were lost or destroyed.

                You're making your assumption the only possible scenario. The fact that they were safe for six months WITH that third party and were made public merely days after they were in Shelly's hands is far more interesting to me that your assumptions.

                Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:29:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why not give them to Sterling rather than breach (0+ / 0-)

                  the intimacy of their relationship?  Surely he could afford a jump drive to store them, r a cloud account.

                  "Because I am a river to my people."

                  by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:34:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again, with speculaion (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    denig, justsayjoe, aitchdee

                    Look, we can follow this red herring all day, but it's all assumption driven.

                    What we KNOW is she said she gave it to the friend for safekeeping.

                    We KNOW that it was safe until the recordings were turned over to the wife.

                    Whether it was the friend who made a copy and sold it, or the wife who sold it we don't know. But that's neither here nor there.

                    You want to make your assumptions about her motives something other than what she said. I don't know what your motives are in assuming that, but regardless of what they are, it doesn't mean you're right.

                    I will take HER word about her motives over YOURS because your has absolutely no bearing on anything.

                    Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                    by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:43:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What we know is what she said (0+ / 0-)

                      What we DON'T know is whether what she said is true.

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:36:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Did he 'breach' the intimacy of any of the young (0+ / 0-)

                    girls he probably TRIED to fk and ended up having them suck his d***? He damned sure talked about it. What happened to "don't kiss and tell"? Oh, I forgot, he's a rich old white whore. He doesn't have to play by the rules of decency.

                    If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                    by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:17:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  On what basis do you believe Stiviano (0+ / 0-)

                  is telling the truth?

                  Or would recognize truth? -- she doesn't see his blatantly racist comments as being racist.  And yet she says he should apologize for them.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:35:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I hand a micro-SD to a more organized friend. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                backell, weezilgirl, aitchdee, Bob Duck

                I say "Hey, keep this in your desk for me, hey?"
                Friend (who has a better record than me of keeping track of such things) says, "Sure."
                Friend couldn't care less what's on the SD and I don't bother telling her. And nope, I don't give it to the guy asking me to record him because he's having a hard time remembering what he said. Probably wouldn't frae any better with remembering where he put the micro-SD.

                There's one line of reasoning for you.

                •  And that is speculation (0+ / 0-)

                  We don't even know if she's telling the truth.

                  This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                  by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:38:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course it is. But so is much of what's (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    denig

                    being publicized by the media as "fact". Which is kinda the diarist's point.

                    •  The "Diarists" "point" is to defend (0+ / 0-)

                      Staviano against assumptions that naturally arise based upon thousands of years of history, the actual behavior of some actual women, and the facts we have from -- in particular -- Staviano herself.

                      Massively overpaid for "image consulting"?  And then it turns out she needs an image consultant?

                      The media is only at the beginning of digging into this.  So they report facts -- and apparent facts -- and inferences from the facts and apparent facts -- as they find them.  

                      The "Diary" is not only premature -- as premature as the media may potentially be -- but is also increasingly ludicrous, and even hilarious.  One faction -- the media -- based upon some degree of fact, smells "scandal," and goes after it.  Another faction -- opposed to that faction, and based upon ideology -- says, "Nothing to see here."

                      Mark Twain had a characterization for this sort of thing:

                      Being "drunk on the smell of someone else's cork".

                      Shakespeare said:

                      "Much ado about nothing."  (The "nothing" also referring to the space between a woman's legs.)

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The diarist's point is to highlight (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denig

                        the different standards of journalistic courtesy (or "accuracy") applied to Steviano's alleged poor behavior and Sterling's alleged poor behavior. A point which has been more than adequately borne out in the comment thread following.

                        •  It has nothing to do with "journalistic" anything (0+ / 0-)

                          It has everything to do with defending Staviano against a perceived "slut-shaming" "sexism".

                          That the facts themselves, including those which have fallen out of Staviano's own mouth, tend to lend weight to the assumption "slut" is the problem for the "diarist".  S/he must defend a presumed saintliness of a perceived victim -- Staviano is female, ergo she is a victim -- based upon nothing but the presumption, against the actual "facts" we so far have.

                          It's a pointless exercise -- sort of like a beetle laying on its back and wiggling its legs in the air for no reason but the exercise.

                          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                          by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:42:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  He need do nothing of the sort. (0+ / 0-)

                            Although thank you for your deep concern about the "proper" way to pursue the argument.

                          •  There is reason; and there is bias (0+ / 0-)

                            against perceived "wrongs" -- while reality does its dance at a different location.

                            What I'm pointing to is the fact that there is only one side to the "argument," which means there isn't an "argument".  There is a defense of a person on at-best-shaky grounds from "wrongs" which don't exist except as preemptory projection.

                            It's a pointless exercise -- sort of like a beetle laying on its back and wiggling its legs in the air for no reason but the exercise.

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Mon May 05, 2014 at 01:41:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  How do you know that Sterling didn't receive a (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                backell

                copy of them?

                 Are you a close friend of Sterling? Or Mrs. Sterling? You know, Mrs. Sterling who acted like she was a housing inspector so she could evict "brown people"? And Mr. Sterling who has related that he would have young girls in his limo and they would suck his d***... and he would give them $500? He is no better than the young girls. He's just a rich old white whore. "Sterling" people, huh? It is amazing that you missed mentioning this. Can you defend it?

                If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:15:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The point is that she was in a relationship with (0+ / 0-)

                  him.  If she gave the info to another person for safekeeping (and the info was released), she is responsible for that.  Now in the larger scheme, who cares that Sterling was exposed, but it doesn't present her as admirable to involved in this sordid situation.

                  "Because I am a river to my people."

                  by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:31:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  HOW do you know they were in a relationship? (0+ / 0-)

                    If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                    by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:50:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Who buys a condo, and cars for their secretary? (0+ / 0-)

                      If they aren't in a relationship, then the lawsuit she's facing from his wife has serious merit.  So which is it?  Is she his mistress, or is she a grifter.  Keep on mind, this statement on her character doesn't mitigate Sterling's lack of character.  But she isn't a victim, nor is she someone to be admired for her role in this story.

                      Now tell me why you think there wasn't a relationship.

                      "Because I am a river to my people."

                      by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:10:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  As I said in another thread, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denig

                        I don't know either of them, have never been around them and have to reserve judgment about the relationship angle for now.

                        I don't feel the animosity that a lot of the men on this thread feel.

                        I've left this out of the thread but I worked for Willie Nelson for 4 years and he gave me gifts and facilitated my getting a divorce from a drunken abuser. There was never anything between us other than being close friends. I worked for an oil producer for 2 years and he gave me gifts. My husband was in law school and when my boss  saw that I needed something, he got it for me. He was more like a paternal figure. This was the husband that Willie helped me divorce. It happens. I'm not defending her but I'm proof that you can have a close relationship with a man without doing "sexual favors".

                        I'm watching the Clippers play the Warriors in their 7th game so Mr. Sterling and Ms. Whatshername are on their own for the remainder of the night. :)

                        If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                        by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:51:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If you perceive animosity only from men over this (0+ / 0-)

                          issue I can't explain that.  I certainly can't explain why women would have sympathy for a women in this situation.  But people here are pretending as though the woman in question is a victim/hero. In order to do that, and maintain the values of equality/women's rights/privacy etc. (that people diary and comment on every day here), you have to contort yourself into a pretzel. The funny thing is "she is not even the issue", but I find the hypocrisy hilarious and expected.

                          In regards to your personal situation, Willie Nelson seems like a pretty decent guy, Donal Sterling, not so much.  I'm an extremely nice guy too, but there is absolutely know way I'm going to spend that type of money,or even attention, on someone I'm not having an intimate relationship with.  Very few people will.

                          "Because I am a river to my people."

                          by lordcopper on Sun May 04, 2014 at 06:33:02 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  This says a lot about your outlook. (0+ / 0-)

                            "  I'm an extremely nice guy too, but there is absolutely know way I'm going to spend that type of money,or even attention, on someone I'm not having an intimate relationship with.  Very few people will."

                            Most of what you posted, you can't attribute to me.

                            If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                            by weezilgirl on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:34:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  All it says is that I don't have an infinite (0+ / 0-)

                            amount of time and resources to waste significant amounts on someone with whom I do not share a strong emotional/blood connection.  If you do, then more power to you.

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  She says they were in a relationship -- (0+ / 0-)

                      it isn't exactly cleear the nature of the relationship becasue her answers to those questions are at odds with each other.

                      For the momjent I'll chalk it up to, "She ain't too bright."

                      This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                      by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:40:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Neither is Sterling. You can be rich and not have (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denig

                        common sense. I had a FIL who was an airhead and yet had a lot of money.

                        If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                        by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:52:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not referring to "common sense"; (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm referring to IQ.

                          As for "common sense":

                          "Common sense is much too common." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

                          "Common sense is none too common." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

                          "Common sense" is a kind of "appeal to authority" fallacy.  It refers to an unpolled mob, not proven to exist, that backs and affirms an individual's view.

                          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                          by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:18:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Not-so-by-the-way -- (0+ / 0-)

                            It isn't either/or: I'm not impressed with Sterling either.  

                            But the "Diary" is about the ludicrous claim that poor widdle victim Stiviano is being "slut-shamed" because she put herself in the position of being seen as . . . a slut.

                            On my 16th birthday (which occurred long ago, during last century) I had a conversation with my sleaze-ball brother on this issue.  

                            He pointed to a waitress and said she was a whore.  I asked how he knew she was a whore, and he answered that he'd slept with her.  I asked what that made him.  He said:

                            "A man."

                            So there's a mentality which opposes the existence of whores, yet requires them if one is to be "a man" -- the only alternative being to sleep with other men.

                            I don't think any more highly of whoremasters than I do of whores.  I recognize that it takes two; and when so overpaid as has been Stiviano, it is impossible to see her as a victim (which does not bar the possibility of being a slut -- er, to be "polite," a "mistress").

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:26:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've never seen her as his victim. (0+ / 0-)

                            If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                            by weezilgirl on Sun May 04, 2014 at 12:00:48 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's possible both are victims (0+ / 0-)

                            of each other.  She being a 'kept" woman, confined (note her own choice in the matter) within that "traditional" role; and he being connivingly manipulated by her for personal gain (of which possibility or likelihood he is not likely unaware).

                            What isn't being confronted in this "Diary" are the racist statements -- let alone his comments about Israeli racism -- those sounding exactly like the racism and anti-
                            Semtism from Neo-Nazis and other white supremacists -- and his support of that.

                            Essentially the "Diarist" is complaining about ephemeral tangentials -- and going off into an elaborate tangent belaboring the ephemoral tangentials.

                            The underlying problem is either/or thinking -- whichone of the two is "the" victim? which one of the two is the "real" slut? -- when the reality of the relationship is both/and.

                            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                            by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:50:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •   he was her boss (0+ / 0-)

                in some ways (she was his paid "assistant" I am pretty sure)
                and they both say they didn't have a sexual relationship.

                I can think of many reasons why someone might want to hold onto recordings of their boss with them and keep them for "safekeeping".

                •  Then that person desperately needs another job. I (0+ / 0-)

                  have had the opportunity to do some dirty things in my life for money, and I am thankful that I have always declined the offer and the financial remuneration.  That's not to brag, just to say that there are somethings I won't do for money.

                  "Because I am a river to my people."

                  by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:34:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  people get into pretty screwed up (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    denig

                    relationships. Inappropriate intimacy with or without sex.
                    It's hard not to judge a book by its cover but we really just don't know all of what goes on between them, including if they are physically intimate if that's one thing you are getting at re something you won't do for money.

    •  oops repeated this down thread (0+ / 0-)
    •  Define "Slut Shaming" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denig

      Slut shaming was, last time I checked, about sexual behavior.  V Stiviano is being called out for being a gold digger.  So is that the same thing?

      Not to me, it isn't.

      BTW, frankly who cares if she is a gold digger either? I care only to the extent that whatever is motivating this young Black/Latino woman is so self-hating in its origins that she can listen to, and record, the anti-Black filth of the man she's sleeping with and STILL KEEP BEING WITH HIM. Not to mention actually saying "he's not a racist."

      Sorry, but fucking a woman of color when you think and talk like Donald Sterling doesn't take you out of the "racist" category.  Indeed, it makes you one of the worst forms, quite consistent with his plantation massa behavior and thought as it relates to the young Black men who are keeping him in wealth through their skill at basketball.

      From my perspective that's the REAL discussion that needs to be had about V Stiviano (unless you count the weirdness with her fashion-coordinated visors, which I don't.)

      At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

      by shanikka on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:06:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sterling may have known that he was being taped (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx

    at the time of the recording?

    If true, that too is weird.

    Donald Sterling finally got what he deserved, but this whole story is truly bizarre.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:00:49 AM PDT

    •  Yes (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro, fou, CenPhx, BlackSheep1, JVolvo

      At the time he was recorded. According to Stiviano this was standard practice. She recorded all there conversations, per his request. So, it wasn't just that he knew about it, he asked for it.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:05:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Also, people insist he was recorded against his (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        backell, sunbro, CS in AZ, weezilgirl

        will in his home when in fact he asked to be recorded in her home.

        •  Sterling: "Please insert my head into that (4+ / 0-)

          guillotine."

          "Whew!....Okay???"

          -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

          by sunbro on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:34:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "...in fact..." that has not been established. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nextstep

          This is a soap opera in which a lawsuit is involved. We don't know the facts of the case.

          •  In fact we do know facts. (5+ / 0-)

            You want to just make this sweeping statement, we don't know the facts of the case. Yet we do know SOME facts, and you want to know some imagined "facts" that "we don't know" override the ones we do know.

            Since what you're accusing her of IS a crime and SHE should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, you should at least have an ACCUSATION of the crime before you convict her.

            The police investigated and didn't find a crime was committed.
            The NBA investigated and found the third party credible.
            Both Stiviano and the third party say that he knew.
            Shelly asked the recordings be turned over, showing the Sterlings were aware of the existence of the so-called "secret" recordings.

            Why do you just brush past the facts which we DO KNOW to rush to the conclusion that she did it without his knowledge?

            And furthermore, the MEDIA needs to do a better job of letting people know these things ARE facts so that people like you don't send her to jail based on your imagination.

            Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

            by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:47:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I am surprised that Sterling did not keep control (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FiredUpInCA, weezilgirl

        of the recordings, if he insisted on them.  This is especially the case as he has a history of being litigious.

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:20:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "slut shaming" is a political term, here misused.. (4+ / 0-)

    ...IMHO, in a non-political, timeless public display of average old gossip. No one really knows what's going on in these people's lives.

    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”
    ― Eleanor Roosevelt

    •  Misued how? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fou, CenPhx, JVolvo, weezilgirl

      They're literally making her how to be a slut and shaming her. So exactly what would you call it?

      And if you take your humble opinion at face value and no one "really knows what don'g on in these people's lives" why is the media reporting as FACT that she is sleeping with him for his money?

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:07:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And who cares? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou, dallasdunlap

        She's done well for herself as they guy's assistant.  She should be fine, assuming she gets to hang on to the assets she got.

        As for men/women who work very closely together and deny a sexual relationship, it usually turns out that there was a sexual relationship.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:23:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Take a poll of DKos women and ask them what they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou

        think of a woman carrying on a relationship with an old, married man.  Include the fact that the wife is substantially older.  This isn't misogyny.

        With regard to

        And if you take your humble opinion at face value and no one "really knows what don'g on in these people's lives" why is the media reporting as FACT that she is sleeping with him for his money?
        Common Sense?

        "Because I am a river to my people."

        by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:39:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's disingenous (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, denig, weezilgirl

          You're saying both that no one really knows what's going on out of one side of your mouth and that everyone knows what's going on out of the other.

          And you're using the way the media has portrayed the relationship as evidence that's the way it should be portrayed.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:00:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The you misread my comment. (0+ / 0-)

            "Because I am a river to my people."

            by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:57:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then I'm not sure what you're driving at. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, weezilgirl

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:30:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obviously. (0+ / 0-)

                "Because I am a river to my people."

                by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:37:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm asking you to clarify (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  What do you mean by this?

                  With regard to

                  And if you take your humble opinion at face value and no one "really knows what don'g on in these people's lives" why is the media reporting as FACT that she is sleeping with him for his money?

                  Common Sense?

                  That comment of mine was in regards to this, by a different commenter
                  ...IMHO, in a non-political, timeless public display of average old gossip. No one really knows what's going on in these people's lives.
                  It sounds to me like you're saying it's "common sense" that she's sleeping with him, but that's in direct contradiction to the statement I was replying to.

                  Is it possible your'e the one who misread my comment?

                  For the record, whether she slept with him or not is moot. People can judge that for themselves. My point is it's not up to the media to decide they're both lying and report as fact she's his girl friend or mistress.

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:54:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Give it up, man. You gave it a decent shot. (7+ / 0-)

                    Some here are, for whatever reason, really set on their "Bitch set him up!" opinion.

                    Interesting (long) piece on espn re the saga starting Friday evening (4/25).

                    Highlights:

                    Sterling confirmed to NBA commissioner's investigator that it was him (Sterling) on the tapes.
                    Stiviano also confirmed to investigator her voice on the tapes.
                    Taping conversations was SOP b/c Sterling was having trouble remembering things.
                    Stiviano worked for Sterling for 4 years.
                    Stiviano has denied any sexual/romantic relationship from the beginning.
                    Wife sued Stiviano March 7th for the jewelry, vehicles and property.  Legal dancing led to wife requesting the not-secret tapes April 21st.

                    It was the wife's legal action that brought all this to a head
                    :
                    And, on March 7 of this year, Sterling's wife, Shelly Sterling, sued her to get it all back (jewelry, vehicles, property ~ JV)

                    Stiviano lawyered up. Her attorneys filed a response to the civil suit, asking that the case be dismissed on April 21. Instead, Shelly Sterling's attorneys requested that Stiviano turn over all tapes and recordings made of herself and Sterling. The law compelled her to do so.

                    Four days later, the tapes surfaced publicly on TMZ.

                    On Monday of this week, Stiviano met with NBA investigator Anders and verified that she and Sterling were indeed the ones on the tape, which was recorded in September. She told them that Sterling knew he was being recorded and that they often taped conversations because Sterling, who sources say has been battling cancer in recent years, forgets things, and explained that part of her job was to help coach him on his image. On one of the tapes, a third person is heard in the background. The NBA also interviewed that third person before Silver made his ruling Tuesday, a fact that could be important later if the legality of the tapes is questioned.  (from espn link above ~ JV)

                    Check out Coach Rivers stepping up to support the Clippers' front-line employees (sales, marketing, fan relations, etc) who had taken the brunt of 24/7 Nation's heat over Sterling's remarks:
                    The employees were getting berated over the phone by angry fans, season-ticket holders and sponsors. White employees were being called "racists" over the phone while minorities were being called "sellouts." Through it all, they were given no guidance or support from a team devoid of an owner.

                    When Rivers heard about their situation, he decided he would pay them a visit Friday morning. After landing back in Los Angeles just before 2 a.m., Rivers went home and watched film of the Clippers' 100-99 loss to the Golden State Warriors until 4 a.m. He then drove to Staples Center and met with the Clippers employees in a conference room inside the arena around 9 a.m.
                    ---
                    "It was really hard to see them," Rivers said. "I didn't realize. Ticket people and marketing people, they're sitting there crying and I felt so bad for them. I was thinking, 'My gosh, we've been in this thing as players and as coaches but you forget these are the people that are on the front line.' They work for the organization, too. You just felt so bad for them today. You're sitting there and they were sharing some of the calls they had. They didn't know the story was breaking and when it broke, like we said, there's no playbook for this."

                    Class act.

                    Clive is the man! Woooo! HAHAHAHAHA! Teh martyr weeps tonight...

                    by JVolvo on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:27:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  And you're saying that you know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Andrew Lazarus

            there wasn't a sexual relationship simply becasue both have denied there was/is.

            People are known to lie about such things.

            He pays her rent and bought her four expensive cars because she records their conversations?  Or becasue she's a "kept" woman?

            This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

            by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:47:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You mean "working for"? All those sluts at (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denig

          Clippers HQ.  Shame.  Shame.

          Clive is the man! Woooo! HAHAHAHAHA! Teh martyr weeps tonight...

          by JVolvo on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:05:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  well, I'm a DKos woman and... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denig, skohayes, weezilgirl

          I'd like you to also ask what I think of a older married man in the middle of a divorce negotiation who thinks it's a great idea to start an intimate (if not sexual) public relationship with a younger woman. Because sauce for the goose and all that.

          If you're going to reason with me, please use actual reason.

          by jeannesgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:51:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think she's a slut. (0+ / 0-)

        I DO think that her ability to acquire things is pretty darn impressive.

        Owning four cars for one woman is pretty darn shameful.

         One Bentley and one sports car I can see. But she doesn't really seem enough of the outdoorsy type to need the Rover. We usually mock people who use SUVs to drive to to the grocery store to get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk.  A second Bentley? Really?

        The earth is melting. She drives four cars, each of them gas-sucking, carbon-spewing ostentatious displays of  everything that is wrong with this country.

        It's shameful.

        I see a lot of "shaming" for the this sort of materialism within the pages of dailykos.

        As Sterling himself said, I don't care whom she sleeps with.

        © grover


        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:16:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So if a woman owns three cars she's a slut? (0+ / 0-)

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:31:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did you actually read his post? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            grover, weezilgirl

            The very subject line is:

            I don't think she's a slut.
          •  She's more of a ho than a slut... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            grover, Namazga III, fou, weezilgirl

            ...after all, she may be a monogamist gold-digging adultress.

            Sterling is reprehensible for a wide variety of reasons, abject racism being just one of them. I thought the punishment was completely on the mark and that Adam Silver acted decisively and appropriately.

            I just don't see how Stiviano should be viewed as someone to be celebrated.

            I am an economic Keynesian, a social libertarian, a foreign policy internationalist, and militantly anti-authoritarian in every way shape and form.

            by zemongoose on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:10:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Celebrated? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jplanner, Carol in San Antonio

              No, but why is she vilified?

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:31:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did you read my comment? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Andrew Lazarus

                She acts like a member of the 1%.  Have you looked at her Instagram account?

                Since when do we cut people like that ANY slack?

                I don't dislike her much. I don't like her. She's rather like Ivana Trump that way. She's just there, consuming, and not making the world a better place.

                "To those whom much is given, much is expected."

                (And by the way, that's FOUR cars she was given as well as a lot of other stuff.)

                That's my perspective.

                And it seems to me, the perspective of a lot of other people here.

                © grover


                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:12:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Have you looked at her Instagram account? (0+ / 0-)

                  SHE HAS AN INSTAMATIC ACCOUNT?!?!!?!!?!?

                  BURN THE WOMAN!!!!

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:31:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sigh. (0+ / 0-)

                    I was trying to engage with you in good faith.

                    Have a good evening.

                    © grover


                    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                    by grover on Sat May 03, 2014 at 08:05:26 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Because she's vilifiable. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fou, sviscusi

                Copulating with (and enabling) a glorified bag of infected pus for cash and valuable prizes, is generally the act of a below average human being.

                No sane parent wants that for their daughter.

                I am an economic Keynesian, a social libertarian, a foreign policy internationalist, and militantly anti-authoritarian in every way shape and form.

                by zemongoose on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:50:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And HOW do you know she is "copulating" with (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jplanner, denig

                  Sterling? I'm asking HOW?

                  If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                  by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:26:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Let's go with history and stereotypes -- (0+ / 0-)

                    Men don't pay huge amounts of money to "unattahed" female friends gratis.

                    Female freinds do not accept such huge gratuities for nothing -- or if they are refusing to do what is"expected" in exchange.

                    What I don't get is why we must suspend knowledge and experience -- adopt a pure slack-jawed naivete -- in order to avoid making assumptions based upon appearances, and whatever facts we have.

                    What I don't get is why we must pretend to be stupid so as not to see Stiviano playing an age-old role: money for sex.  Why we must instead pretend she's a victim.  Why we must defend her against being "slut-shamed" when she is acting, by all appearances, in the role of slut or "ho".

                    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                    by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:58:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Read my posts. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      denig

                      1. She is not a victim and neither is HE.
                      2. I am not slack-jawed or naive.
                      3. I am not stupid.

                      Yeah, let's go with stereotypes. That always proves you're right.

                      If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                      by weezilgirl on Sun May 04, 2014 at 10:52:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I hardly expressed a conclusion. (0+ / 0-)

                        What I did do was point to the fact that stereotypes have a basis in reality.  And often turn out to be the reality.  We've seen dozens of instances during the last decade in which the parties denied the relationship was about sex.  Only to find out, in the end, that the relationship was about sex.  

                        So you propose we ignore that "rule of thumb" as concerns evaluating potential, equivalent stereotypes?

                        Not-so-BTW: I've not engaged in any personal attacks.  

                        Let's try it this way, as a rule:

                        To call a person "stupid" who isn't stupid is personal attack.

                        To call a person "stupid" who is stupid is a statement of fact.

                        I've made clear that this "diary' is both premature and ludicrous.  Its about "proving" that she is a victim, and unfairly maligned, blah, blah, blah -- but to that end requires ignoring facts -- who pays their employees in expensive gifts instead of salary? -- and "facts" which have fallen out of her mouth.

                        There is no reason for anyone to personalize any of this.

                        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                        by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:08:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  So then let's go rouse them all up (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jplanner, Carol in San Antonio, denig

                  Let's go villify them all! Why single this ONE out? And hell, why worry about facts? Why worry about what they say. Let's jsut go guilty until you say otherwise.

                  She's not a criminal. Period. The rest is just salacious crap to sell papers.  

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:31:02 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't know of an instance (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fou

                    of a woman acting as she has and is, and the appearance she herself has created, who didn't turn out to be -- yes -- a "mistress".

                    But, okay: let's play dumb.

                    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

                    by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:59:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Who is celebrating her? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              denig

              If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

              by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:25:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  gifts given can also be acts of control (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denig, weezilgirl, aitchdee

          over the the 'mistress'( though it doesn't necessarily have to be a woman). in such a situation she often loses control of her choices by becoming the 'bought and paid for' property of the rich man. you could say she 'surrenders' those choices, but that's not necessarily the case. both parties can have very different views on what individual choices the  less powerful party has. i had a view into the life of a rich and controlling person once, and it was chilling to see how he controlled the personal lives of his 'entourage' , because he had 'invested in them', AKA they belonged to him.
          i don't blame anyone in that situation for using whatever they have as leverage , to use in their defense when things go bad.
          that said, i am not losing sleep over any of these people.

          •  Nope, me either. (0+ / 0-)
            that said, i am not losing sleep over any of these people.
            Stiviano is doing what is best for her interests. Shelly Sterling is doing what is best for hers.

            And Donald? Heh.  That's self evident.

            That's kind of why I think this diary is so fascinating.

            © grover


            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sat May 03, 2014 at 05:15:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  She's certainly managed to put herself (0+ / 0-)

        in a situation which lends itself to the tried-and-true history being assumed.

        Is she a gold-digger who only promises?  Or does she keep her word?

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:45:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No it is not a political term. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo, bakeneko

      ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

      by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:32:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The whole conversation disgusted me. (10+ / 0-)

    He's a racist prick who deserved what he got--but I didn't sense a modicum of self respect from her either.  It was a pathetic, disturbing conversation between two people I wouldn't go near with a mile long pole.

    Sue me.

  •  The fact that Sterling may be a horrible (11+ / 0-)

    racist does not mean, necessarily, that she must be a good person.  

    We have pretty clear evidence that he's a horrible racist.  The jury is still out on whether she broke the law by taping him, and on what kind of person she is.  I won't jump to any conclusions that she's either a great person being unfairly demonized, or that all of the bad things being said about her (the "Barbie" thing) are true.  

    To the extent I have ANY opinion of her, it's this. There's one fact that seems pretty undisputed.  She hung around, had a relationship with (whether it was sexual or not) and took a lot of money/presents from, a man who was a horrible racist, while apparently KNOWING he was a horrible racist.  And that fact does not elevate her in my eyes.

    •  Casting Aspersions? (6+ / 0-)

      "The jury is still out on whether she broke the law by taping him, and on what kind of person she is."

      What jury is out on whether she broke the law? Where is ANY evidence at all that it was done illegally? Where is even the accusation from Sterling?

      What it meant that she took gifts from someone she heard saying racist things isn't really relevant here.

      "Black woman receives gifts from racist without rejecting them" doesn't have the same salacious appeal.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:37:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "The jury is out" is an expression for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, nextstep

        a situation where we don't have all the facts and can't make a definitive conclusion yet.  

        •  Duh (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denig, JVolvo, aitchdee

          My point is that there aren't any facts in dispute here. You can't just throw out a baseless accusation and then say the jury is still out.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:10:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's illegal to tape someone without (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fou, VClib, nextstep, allie4fairness

            his/her consent in many places.  

            We have her lawyer saying he consented.  We haven't heard from him yet.  The fact that we have only heard from one side does not mean the facts are not disputed.  It means we've heard from one side.  It means we don't know whether the facts, as her lawyer outlined them, are disputed or not.  We won't know whether the facts as her lawyer outlined them are disputed until his side either says (1) he doesn't dispute them or (2) he does dispute them.  Silence thus far does not mean he does, or does not, dispute the facts her lawyer outlined.  

            •  We haven't heard from him yet (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              denig

              "The fact that we have only heard from one side does not mean the facts are not disputed."

              The fact we have only heard from one side doesn't mean they ARE being disputed, either.

              But as I stated in the article:

              1. According to her, this was standard practice
              2. According to Shelly Sterling, he knew the recordings existed.
              3. The NBA checked with the third party who verified that he knew he was being recorded.

              So it's not just about waiting for both sides to have their case. There is considerable evidence that he knew.

              Yet, in spite of that the media hasn't decorated the word "secret" with "alleged" in the same way they said that the recordings were "alleged" to be of him.

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:32:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He said "he should have paid her off". Now if you (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                grover, jeannesgirl

                want to place any faith in the words of Donald Sterling, there you go.

                "Because I am a river to my people."

                by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:42:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, he did (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib, denig, weezilgirl

                  But what does that mean?

                  How do you know he wasn't lying?
                  How do you know that means she made the recordings illegally?

                  It's interesting because it leaves the suggestion of an accusation without ACTUALLY making one, like when he said they hadn't verified the tape hadn't been edited yet, or said that she was being "sued for espionage by the Sterling family."

                  Everything that he's said has had an element of suggestion without even saying anything. Saying I should have paid her off implies that she asked to be paid off without saying she did.

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:06:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't take a position as to whether she recorded (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fou, VClib, dallasdunlap, allie4fairness

                    him legally.  My only argument is that it is not honorable to engage in an intimate relationship with someone and betray that trust, particularly by recording your conversations and giving them to a 3rd party for safe keeping.  That's slimy no matter how you look at it.  If I felt I had to engage in such behavior, I simply wouldn't be involved in a relationship with the person.

                    "Because I am a river to my people."

                    by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:31:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why Assume Though (0+ / 0-)

                      Why so many assumptions? How do you know Sterling didn't know she had done that? Why do you assume that the third party and not Shelly is the on who linked the tape? Why is it "slimy" of her if the third party ISN'T the one who did the leaking? Why is it "slimy" if it's a case of misplaced trust? Why does it not seem to matter to you that Sterling still maintains the relationship?

                      And all of this is moot anyway. Suddenly Stiviano's decision making is the culprit, and not Sterling's racial statements.

                      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:57:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Honorable? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      denig

                      "My only argument is that it is not honorable to engage in an intimate relationship with someone and betray that trust,"

                      How do you know she betrayed that trust? How do you know that the 3rd party was responsible for it being turned over. How do you know she didn't get permission from Sterling to do that? How do you know Sterling's wife isnt' the one who turned it over?

                      You're making all kinds of assumptions here and your'e lumping them all together into "That makes it okay for the media to make her out to be a money-grubbing, backstabbing whore."

                      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                      by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:44:31 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Don't sweat the counselor. She's trying to have (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                denig, weezilgirl

                it both ways: loads of legalese to spin you as if we're in a courtroom while using "jury is still out" in an outside-a-courtroom situation.  Then defining it re inside a courtroom usage.

                meh

                Unless you enjoy fencing with a will-o'-the-wisp, I'd save the energy   :o)

                Clive is the man! Woooo! HAHAHAHAHA! Teh martyr weeps tonight...

                by JVolvo on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:34:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  There is also the scenario where the recordings (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              weezilgirl

              made public were not done with Sterlinings consent and knowledge, but there are other recordings that could cause extreme trouble for Sterlining.  Sterling does not bring charges of illegal recordings, to avoid other recordings or documents from being disclosed.

              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:28:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The "jury" hasn't even been called. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aitchdee, denig

          If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

          by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:28:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Why is she incapable of tricking him? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lordcopper, i love san fran, aitchdee

    I haven't gotten that impression. Perhaps she has no intention of tricking him, but she's plenty smart enough to.

    I find this story fascinating (and I really like this diary). I think you're spot on about the slut shaming. Also, I was struck by her insistence that they never had a romantic relationship. What?! She obviously has incentive to deny involvement with him given Shelly Sterling's lawsuit against her; however her insistence that she was his employee will hurt him badly in whatever lawsuit he files against the NBA. I would guess Stiviano is keenly aware of that.

    •  Maybe I'm wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denig

      But have you listened to her being interviewed?

      She doesn't come across as "pretty smart." She certainly doesn't come across as smarter than a man who made million litigating lawsuits.

      And, like I said, you can be incredulous. But the media can't report their incredulity as fact. I"m not so interested in "who she really is" as I am the portrayal being horribly one-sided here.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:39:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I disagree. (5+ / 0-)

        I think she plays dumb. She's smart alright. Smart enough to give those tapes to a third party so that they'd get leaked without her involvement or responsibility.

        Smart enough to deny romantic involvement as a defense in the wife's lawsuit against her, and to insist that she was his personal assistant (which makes his insistence that she remove blacks from her Instagram illegal in CA). Smart enough to insist that the gifts were payment from her employer.

        Come on. She's playing him like a fiddle.

        •  You're entitle to your opinion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          weezilgirl

          But it's her syntax that makes me doubt that.

          Smart enough to deny a romantic involvement and being smart enough to plot this whole scenario where she tricks him into giving her a taped racist rant she used to blackmail him are two different things.

          Taking legal advice from a smart counsel doesn't make her smart enough to plan out things that happened before acquiring the counsel.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:34:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never claimed that she tricked him into (0+ / 0-)

            making tapes. Only that she's played her cards right.

            And what do you mean by her "syntax"? You think the way a person talks is indicative of how smart they are?

            •  Played her cards right (0+ / 0-)

              But you're suggesting that she's been "playing cards" all along.

              I think that the way a person communicates their thoughts is indicative of how clearly they think.

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:01:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course she's been playing cards all along. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dallasdunlap

                And she's got the house and cars to show for it. I'm sorry, but this woman is not a victim. It's not like she was evicted from one of Sterling's apartments for being black.

                •  She has a house and cars to show for it (0+ / 0-)

                  But that doesn't mean she's been deceptive in the relationship.

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:07:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I didn't say she lied, but she's not this (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Namazga III

                    blameless consenting adult you make her out to be. She took money and gifts from a man she knew to be racist, and her presence in his life caused pain for his wife and family. I get your point about media reporting, but this woman is not being slut shamed. If you ask me, they're all scumbags.

                    •  I didn't say you said she lied (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      justsayjoe, weezilgirl

                      But how do you know she's not a blameless consenting adult that I make her out to be?

                      And really I'm not saying she isn't or is a blameless consenting adult. I'm just saying that the media has deliberately portrayed her in a certain light. I'm saying that portrayal has removed a lot people's ability to look at her as a person.

                      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:59:14 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  She's not. She has engaged in what is, at (0+ / 0-)

                        a minimum, an ethically questionable relationship with Donald Sterling. There is ample, factual proof of that. By saying that he's not racist after she received all those gifts and all that money, she's complicit the same charade that allowed him to practice discrimination for decades. That's disgusting.

                        I think the term "slut shaming" should be reserved for situations in which it genuinely applies, situations in which victims of rape or sexual assault are shamed by those who wish to identify with the perpetrator. None of that is applicable here; and while it's true that some are motivated by racism to demonize her, it doesn't mean that she is not a bad person. I think she is. If one is truly "colorblind," then one has to acknowledge first that colorblindness is a fiction. Then one has to understand that it's not about blaming blacks for everything or nothing. It's about seeing beyond all of that to a person's virtues and flaws.

                        V. Stiviano is flawed to say the least.

                        •  She has engaged in what is... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...an ethically questionable relationship with Donald Sterling."

                          No you are ASSUMING she has engaged in such a relationship and you are IMPOSING your ethics on the relationship.

                          Whatever there relationship was, it was between adults, and they both consented. So your attempts to make this an as anything BUT a relationship between two consenting adults needs more support than he gave her lavish gifts.

                          I use "slut shaming" because of EXACTLY what you're doing. You're calling her a "slut" by receiving gifts, and you're throwing shame at her with your declarations about it being "ethically questionable."

                          Sterling was not overcome by her feminine wiles and rendered powerless to her request give her gifts.

                          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:21:33 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I'm not assuming that. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sviscusi

                            Saying that someone isn't a racist when you are heard on tape with them making racist comments? That really happened, and it's highly unethical. I'm not assuming anything.

                          •  I'm not calling her a slut. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm saying she engaged in an unethical relationship. That doesn't make her a slut, it make her an unethical person.

                            It's really not cool that you put those kinds of words in my mouth, and it's also not cool that you can't acknowledge the obvious: that she looked the other way at this guy's racism because he gave her money.

                          •  So what? (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm saying she engaged in an unethical relationship.

                            Should we go go blasting everyone whom you think is engaged in unethical relationships?

                            Are we going to make you the arbiter of ethics in relationships? Seriously, what's the difference between saying she's a slut and saying she's giving Sterling access to her body for expensive gifts?

                            I don't care what WORDS you use if the THOUGHT in your head is the same.

                            Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                            by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm entitled to my fucking opinion (0+ / 0-)

                            of these lowlifes.

                            And I really don't give a shit if you don't like it.

                          •  You're entitled to your opinion (0+ / 0-)

                            And no one is taking it away.

                            But the MEDIA isn't entitled to REPORT their OPINION as fact.

                            Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                            by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:40:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  So is Sterling and he's had longer to be "flawed". (0+ / 0-)

                          His history is despicable and so is his wife's.

                          If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

                          by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:35:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, I don't know. I get the impression that (0+ / 0-)

        Sterling isn't at the top of his game right now.
           Although this very old man is now being clobbered for his personal conversation, the real deal seems to be the battle between the two women in his life over millions of dollars.

  •  She had an affair with a married (9+ / 0-)

    man 50 years her senior, and accepted over $2 million of gifts from him. That is why virtually everyone is disgusted with her.

    •  Yeah, that's pretty obvious. (4+ / 0-)

      She can deny it all she wants, but no one will believe her.

      •  That's not the point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jplanner, Carol in San Antonio

        The point is that the media needs to report both sides of it instead of just saying unequivocally that she's his mistress.

        Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

        by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:47:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh sure. But her adultery is as obvious as his (4+ / 0-)

          racism. That's why the media hasn't bothered to be even handed about either.

          •  But His Racism Was Given the Benefit of the Doubt (7+ / 0-)

            When the recordings were first released, they were always introduced with the word, "alleged."

            And for the record, even if she is sleeping with him, she is not guilty of adultery, he is. You have to be married to commit adultery.

            Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

            by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:01:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree with you there, but sleeping with a (0+ / 0-)

              married man is unethical. It's highly likely that she slept with him.

              •  Yes (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, justsayjoe, weezilgirl

                Probably both things are true, but that's moot.

                The media doesn't serve to evaluate the truth of what they meant, or to render moral judgement on marital indiscretions.

                In other words, I have no problem with YOU as a PERSON feeling that way.

                I do have a problem with someone form the MEDIA reporting those (reasonable) suspicions as fact, contrary to what both have stated, and with no facts to the contrary.

                Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:12:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Highly likely? Oh yes it's highly likely in my (0+ / 0-)

                imagination, so wtf? I'll just say it's true. Cause that's the kind of person I am.

                ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:37:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The alternative is that she didn't actually sleep (0+ / 0-)

                with him, but instead allowed him to give the impression that he was having an affair with a beautiful young women. Which would be why he was so upset about her being seen in public apparently being escorted by Magic Johnson.
                  Since she apparently got a couple of mil in gifts for her "relationship" he would have felt that she was acting in bad faith.

                •  Sterling gave a deposition in which he described (0+ / 0-)

                  getting blow jobs from another mistress for money. He says that he refers to women he pays for sex as "honey" because he forgets their names otherwise.

                  He calls her "honey" on the tape repeatedly. Do the math.

                  •  This just makes me sad. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    weezilgirl

                    The math:

                    It is logical to assume that he calls all women he has any kind of relationship "Honey".

                    ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                    by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:02:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Why is it logical to assume that? (0+ / 0-)

                      First of all, an assumption isn't logical by definition. It's a leap of logic. Secondly, I'm inferring that he slept with her from words out of his own mouth. That seems far more logical than an assumption.

                      •  Alright, that's bogus (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        denig

                        The words out of his own mouth were that he didn't sleep with her. At most, it's SELECTIVE worst out of his mouth.

                        And yes, I HAVE been called "honey" by women I did not sleep with.

                        Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                        by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:22:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, he also said that he wasn't racist (0+ / 0-)

                          and that the beliefs expressed on the tapes weren't his. We know that was a lie. Man has no credibility when he insists he's something he's not.

                          We know that he's an adulterer and an execrable racist. So I'm inclined to believe him when he's candid about his affairs.

                          •  Not entirely true (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes. We know the man can lie. That's not the point. How do you know he said that the beliefs expressed on the tape weren't his?

                            Because THAT denial was splashed all over the media. The media reported the DENIAL because that WAS part of the story. They didn't evaluate whether they thought the denial was true and then choose to not report it.

                            With the sexual end of things, though, the media is not reporting the denials of both Sterling and Stiviano. They are often just calling her outright his mistress/girlfriend even though BOTH deny that's the relationship they have.

                            I don't CARE whether it IS their relationship. I CARE about the integrity of the media in reporting that they SAY it isn't.

                            Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                            by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:39:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  let's see if I can make this clearer. (0+ / 0-)

                        I meant to say, 'it is just as logical to assume'  that he calls all women he has any kind of relationship "Honey".

                        Which was to point out, there is more than one way to "do the math" from the taped words you cited.  Your way is only one way and it may be incorrect.

                        ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                        by denig on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:12:14 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Or he was trying to woo her with expensive gifts. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  weezilgirl, denig

                  And she wasn't for sale.

                  Why does there have to be some sort of nefarious motive attached to her?

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:00:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  That was before they confirmed that it was his (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fou

              voice on the recording.

              "Because I am a river to my people."

              by lordcopper on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:44:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Adultery? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fou, weezilgirl

            I thought Sterling and his wife were separated? I admit that I am not as up on the facts as I could be. Do I have that wrong?

            Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. -Thoreau

            by CenPhx on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:15:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Have they been separated since 2010? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lordcopper, CenPhx

              And if they're separated, why is the wife trying to sue for the return of gifts her husband gave?

            •  They are separated. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CenPhx, weezilgirl

              I think she might be suing Stiviano to get "his" property back so that she can have in the divorce/will.

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:36:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, she claims it's community property. (0+ / 0-)

                His and hers.

                •  Are you sure (0+ / 0-)

                  I seem to remember the specific language in the lawsuit says it's from Donald.

                  Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                  by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:06:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I remember reports that the wife claims he gave (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CaliSista

                    his mistress community property. Can she claim that if they're separated?

                  •  If so, then why would it be her business? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fou, weezilgirl

                    As I understood this ridiculous lawsuit, Rochelle is claiming that Stiviano received money from the community property without her permission. Wasn't she also claiming embezzlement? If there was no embezzlement, shouldn't she be suing her "estranged" husband for her half of what Donald gave Stiviano?

                    "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

                    by CaliSista on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:59:02 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah, the embezzlement thing is a farce. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      CaliSista, CenPhx

                      Apparently the word doesn't even appear in the court docs. Basically she's suing her for getting gifts by seducing Sterling out of his money.

                      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:08:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  It's Not Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

                      Y'all don't know anything about California community property law.  So I'm going to post this in this otherwise dead thread (which I came back in to check a reply to.)

                      Under California law, ownership of a married couple's money and assets earned during the time of the marriage belongs to both spouses, regardless of who earned it.  Both therefore have the right to use the funds.  HOWEVER, when using the funds each spouse has a fiduciary duty to the other spouse to put the money and property of the community (that marriage's money) to use only for the benefit of the community (the marriage.)  If one spouse spends money or diverts property to any purpose other than that which benefits the marriage, the other spouse may sue the recipient of the diverted community property for its return.   This lawsuit does not have to be within the context of divorce proceedings - it can be brought at any time.

                      Thus, not only is the lawsuit against V. Stiviano not ridiculous, it is the primary remedy Shelly Sterling has to get the money her husband is spending on his ladies back.

                      Frankly what is interesting is V. Stiviano's assertion of the one defense available to her -- that Shelly knew of the diversion at the time, and essentially acquiesced.

                      Anyhow I just didn't want folks rolling with a false understanding of what the law says about the lawsuit at issue.

                      At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

                      by shanikka on Tue May 06, 2014 at 06:55:03 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Not obvious to me. And she can't commit adultery (3+ / 0-)

            unless she were married. Interesting that you would think she could.

            He's what? 80 years old. And suffering from cancer? I can believe there's no sex.

            Notice I'm not saying there wasn't any. I am saying it's not at all obvious to me.

            Because an 80 year old sick man could easily lavish gifts on a young beautiful woman. Especially if it helps everyone to assume the 80 year old sick man is gettin' it on with the young beautiful woman.

            ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

            by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:24:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  fou, you appear smarter than this.."her adultery (0+ / 0-)

            is as obvious as his". You have to be married to commit adultery.

            If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

            by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:45:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whatever, fine. (0+ / 0-)

              She enabled his adultery for money. Whatever. They're all scumbags.

              •  You THINK she did (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                denig

                You're stating your opinion, unequivocally as fact. Why? Because the media has reported misleading things. Those things have framed a certain perception of the woman and the relationship.

                For the record, the marriage was already estranged when Sterling and Stiviano met in 2010. They both deny it is sexual.

                But hey your opinion is all that matters here, right?

                Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

                by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:34:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Or him, apparently (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weezilgirl, denig

        But with THIS let's make it all about whatever we suppose is true. I mean, after all, you as a complete stranger MUST know what the truth is.

        Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

        by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:35:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  She had an affair? (3+ / 0-)

      Where is your evidence of this? Incredulity is not proof of anything.

      And why is accepting gifts something that is "disgusting."

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:41:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He gave her a Ferrari, two Rolls (8+ / 0-)

        Royces, and a condo. And she didn't even touch his pecker. Right.

        •  That's proof of what? (4+ / 0-)

          That's SUSPICION and understandably, but again, the media can't report suspicion as fact.

          My interest isn't in whether they have had an affair or not. My problem is that the media is reporting a relationship which they both characterize as a father-daughter-type relationship as sexual.

          The media has an obligation to represent what the parties say, not just what they think.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:46:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell you what. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fou, cryonaut, peterfallow, lordcopper, DLWinMI

            You go ahead and believe there was no sexual relationship, that he gave her these millions of dollars of gifts out of pure kindness. If this is something that you choose to believe, what do I really care?

            •  It's not what I believe their relationship is (5+ / 0-)

              The issue here isn't about what I think their relationship is. It's about how the media is portraying it.

              Whether they are in a sexual relationship or not is moot. The media is treating it as FACT that they are in spite of the FACT that both deny it.

              If they want to call it an "alleged" relationship the same way they called it an "alleged" recording then that's fine. But they are saying unequivocally she is his mistress.

              They need to acknowledge, at the very least, that both parties deny that.

              There is no "belief" in that. They HAVE denied it. That is a fact.  

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:58:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  the media has no such obligation (4+ / 0-)

            in what was an obvious gold digger and her sugar daddy scenario. No one cares how they portray it. This is not a court of law, nor is the media a court of law.

            •  No One Cares How They Portray It? (3+ / 0-)

              Well now, that's good to know. That says more about you than it does her, though. Glad to hear you can sit in your chair and judge.

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In fact I'm learning a lot about posters (3+ / 0-)

                in this diary.  It is interesting that people seem to think their own emotional prejudices and preconceptions about others, makes something true. Irregardless of information to the contrary.

                In fact they don't even feel it worthwhile to back off of their assessment a bit, perhaps question their surety.

                Oh no, they just double down and ridicule.  And prove the point of this diary.

                ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

                by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:48:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, who cares about facts in journalism anymore? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              backell, Carol in San Antonio, denig

              That's just so passe. I mean, c'mon, it was OBVIOUS Saddam had WMDs. Right? So why would the media have any obligation to bother investigating such an "obvious" scenario?

              I am not conflating the two situations. I am saying backell's objections are founded in a frustration with slipshod journalism with a nasty layer of sexism (and possibly racism" over the top. Once you extrapolate the frustration with slipshod journalism to a different arena, it changes things quite a lot, doesn't it?

    •  So what? (10+ / 0-)

      A woman had consensual sex with a man? I don't care.
      A woman received money and gifts while having sex with a man? Even if she explicitly did it expecting to be paid, that makes her a prostitute. I'm not interested in stoning her for it.

      A man is a lifelong racist, who screwed over and took advantage of his tenants and anyone else he could? That I care about. Treating his basketball players as if they were workers on a plantation and inviting people to "look at those strong black bodies?" That I care about.

      Her actions affect only her own morality and that of the man she slept with; his impacted innocent people who had no ability to get out from under his racist crap.

      And it is often a tactic in any scandal to gin up outrage about only the sexual choices made by the woman. Where is the outrage that Sterling paid a woman 20 years his junior to have sex with him? No one seems equally disgusted that he bought a young woman, but plenty if disgust gets thrown at her.

      Therein lies the hypocrisy, sexism and slutshaming. So long as it was a consensual sex act between two competent adults, it's not my place to judge. His racism which affected other people? That is where I feel we should all be judging.

      Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. -Thoreau

      by CenPhx on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:14:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If she did sleep with him, I don't know why you (4+ / 0-)

      care or why anybody cares.

      If he gave her stuff, I don't why you care. I don't know why anybody cares.

      I mean bfd.

      Virtually everyone?

      Oh bullshit.  I'm a 66 year old woman and what I'm shocked at is your attitude. You sound like my fundamentalist mother.

      As long as the patriarchy has existed many men have used money and power to attract young beautiful women. And many women have used their youth and beauty to attract men with money and power.

      ...wispy longings for a time before Elvis and the Beatles, back when "a girl could cook and still would". You know before the troubles.~Hunter.

      by denig on Sat May 03, 2014 at 04:15:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She had an affair with a married man (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weezilgirl, Carol in San Antonio

      Based on what do you conclude that?

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:34:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not disgusted. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denig

      Rich, racist idiots deserve to have their wealth extracted from wherever they've squirreled it away. I don't care about the particulars. I'm only disappointed she was unable to extract more.

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:56:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  During the game last night a crawler (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, weezilgirl

    quoted Sterling as saying he wished he'd just paid Stiviano off.

    Suggests to me that the big fight here is Shelly & her peeps vs Donald and Stiviano. The Ugly will get deeper.

    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

    by BlackSheep1 on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:35:00 AM PDT

    •  I found that ironic` (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fou, weezilgirl

      While she was defending him, he was throwing her under the bus.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:38:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't see her comments as defending him. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        weezilgirl

        I think she's trying to demonstrate that she's not out to get him. There's a difference.

        •  She said he wasn't racist (0+ / 0-)

          And she's pretty much the only one saying that.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:06:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, but she also thinks he should apologize. (0+ / 0-)

            And his wife also insists he's not. Stiviano has an incentive to say he's not. What does she look like if she took gifts from a person she thought to be racist? Pretty bad. She was managing her image. She wasn't defending him per se. He probably knows that, which is why he threw her under the bus.

          •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

            And that means either she's still trying to keep the money flowing from him by defending him, or the level of self-hate surrounding her Blackness is in the realm of diagnosable mental illness.  Since she does not appear to be mentally ill, just vacuous, I'm going with Door number 1.

            At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

            by shanikka on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:17:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Stiviano has not committed any criminal act (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, dallasdunlap, schumann

    All she is doing is having an personal relationship with an extremely wealthy older man, a relationship that has apparently netted her substantial and valuable gifts. In this, she is doing nothing that hasn't been done by women in many different cultures throughout human history. It's reflective of the unequal nature of power held by men and women, and of the relationships between the rich and the not-so-rich, and between the old and the young.

    Acknowledging that fact doesn't require turning off one's critical faculties. If Donald Sterling was stripped of all of his assets and was forced to live on wages earned as a Wal-Mart greeter, who honestly thinks that Stiviano would stay with him any longer than it would take her to find a new patron? Her "affection" for him would last as long as his assets are around.

    She doesn't deserve abuse for her relationship—there are obviously millions of things far worse that people can do with their lives—but neither is the rest of the world required to act as though we'd nod approvingly if our daughters had similar relationships with repulsive creeps like Sterling.

    •  I agree with all of that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justsayjoe

      My contention is more with the slanted coverage than with how great a person she is or whether she needs better decision-making skills.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:44:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She doesn't deserve abuse for her relationship... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fou

      ...but, for her lack of character - which is insignificant next to her sugar daddie's.

      I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

      by labradog on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:22:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But her lack of character (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denig

        Is all generated by media hype.

        Nobody cared about her before this all blew up, and if she didn't turn in the tapes, she has nothing to do with the hype now.

        Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

        by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:26:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What I'm driving at is this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denig

        People have a certain perception of her, in large part based on the biased way the media has presented her.

        Now, they treat those assumptions as facts, and use the assumed facts to justify the media presentation.

        It's all circular. The media shouldn't be trying to sell the most salacious angle, they should be presenting the relationship as it's stated by the parties involved. Your are totally free to be incredulous. THEY are not.

        Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

        by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:31:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  About "Barbie" ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, weezilgirl, Carol in San Antonio

    Despite everything, 40 years of feminist rhetoric, so many expensive and "necessary accessories,  the Bratz franchise --  Matel's Barbie is still with us.

    Mothers still buy the dolls for their daughters --  and sometimes even for themselves.

    And while Barbie wouldn't be MY first choice for an ideal imago on which young girls should fixate ... she has "come a long way baby" from the  "Talking Barbie says: 'Math is Hard,' days."

    And what to say about "Olivia Pope?"

    Point:  "Comely and well-dressed" is NOT necessarily an indicator of Bad Character -- ask any HR Administrator.

  •  I have a different understanding of "slut- (9+ / 0-)

    shaming" and don't feel it applies to how I feel about Stiviano.

    A much better example by a Texas judge is on the rec list right now.

    I don't know (and don't care) whether she had sex with Sterling. Where is her pride as a person of color? He tells her basically that she can do whatever she likes in private but in public he doesn't want her to associate with Black men? WTF? He wants to think of her as a delicate Latina lady or a delicate White lady and she defends him? She may not have been so aware of his past before but she surely knows now what he and his wife did and said in the housing discrimination cases.

    People are acting like she she's some naive teenager who doesn't know any better. She is a grown woman apparently raised in an urban environment (as opposed to some tiny backwoods town or impoverished country) and is savvy enough to end up with some serious swag. It is certainly not against the law to accept "gifts" but then she (or others on her behalf) shouldn't expect her to be portrayed as a victim.

    "Someone just turned the lights on in the bar and the sexiest state doesn't look so pretty anymore" CA Treasurer Bill Lockyer on Texas budget mess

    by CaliSista on Sat May 03, 2014 at 11:45:41 AM PDT

    •  I'm not saying that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i love san fran, Puddytat

      I'm saying that the media is portraying her as a criminal and a whore.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:11:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Being a materialistic skeeza... (0+ / 0-)

        ...does not make one a criminal, nor a victim.

        I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud

        by labradog on Sat May 03, 2014 at 01:19:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  She is probably not a criminal (0+ / 0-)

        although the eavesdropping law is out there, maybe the facts don't fit.

        She isn't, apparently, a whore because (1) they didn't have sex [if this is true, most likely his impotence] and (2) she didn't respect his privacy and allowed intimate tapes to be leaked though careless (or careful!) choice of who had access to them. I'd say that's Professional Whores 2, Amateur Stiriano 0.

        •  More assumptions (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          weezilgirl

          " she didn't respect his privacy and allowed intimate tapes to be leaked though careless (or careful!) choice of who had access to them. "

          How do you know that was the source? She said that's what she suspects, but they were safe there for six months and they were leaked within days of getting to Shelly.

          Is it REALLY impossible that the bitter wife is mad at her husband and the woman she perceives to be his mistress and wouldn't try to get at both of them?

          Why was it not until she got the recordings they were divulged?

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 06:39:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How do you know Shelly got the recordings? (0+ / 0-)

            I know it was stated earlier that Shelly asked for the recordings.  Where is the evidence she got them?

            The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

            by LiberalLady on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:42:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Court Ordered then Turned Over Four Days (0+ / 0-)

              piror to the release. I don't know if she actually got them or not. I"m just saying that there's some interesting timing involved there.

              How do you know she didn't? I don't have to prove, beyond any doubt, another scenario was possible to prove that Stiviano was directly/indirectly responsible for them being turned over.

              I will tell you this. She was with Sterling before she did the 20/20 interview. It doesn't seem like HE is holding her responsible.

              Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

              by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:29:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  great comment. completely agree. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CaliSista, Puddytat, Andrew Lazarus

      nt

    •  This will appear in Top Comments tonight (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CaliSista, fou

      It's been flagged by 2 different Kossacks, too.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Sat May 03, 2014 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Amen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CaliSista

      And Amen again.  Thank you so much for this comment.

      At this point, I just want America to admit that it still doesn't want its Black citizens to live in any state other than terror, subservience and inferiority, under pain of death. I can handle American racism, but I can't handle American denial.

      by shanikka on Sun May 04, 2014 at 11:14:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have no sympathy for gold-diggers. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, schumann, Namazga III

    "Go well through life"-Me (As far as I know)
    This message will self-destruct upon arrival in the NSA archives in Utah.

    by MTmofo on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:00:51 PM PDT

  •  just sayin' (0+ / 0-)

    There is nothing any one could say to me that would make me say that my significant other could sleep with someone, but not be seen in public with them. Nothing.

    If you're going to reason with me, please use actual reason.

    by jeannesgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 02:43:54 PM PDT

  •  V Stiviano does not need your sympathy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, shanikka

    Save your sympathy for all the people Sterling has hurt through his illegal housing practices and racist manipulation.  VS was well compensated for the pleasure of her company and was free to leave at any time.  Sterling stated in court testimony that he enjoyed the company of young women in his limo and the sexual favors they provided him.  Over 1.8 million in gifts?  That is not Sterling's style for his employees.

    From the LA Times:

    In the original lawsuit, Baylor said that Sterling had a “vision of a Southern plantation-type structure” for the Clippers and accused the owner of a “pervasive and ongoing racist attitude” during long-ago contract negotiations with Danny Manning. The lawsuit also quoted Sterling as telling Manning's agent, “I’m offering you a lot of money for a poor black kid.”

    http://www.latimes.com/...

    •  This isn't about her getting sympathy (0+ / 0-)

      It's about the media getting scorn.

      They've made this as much a story about her as Sterling, and with no foundation.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:40:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stirling asked me to complain about racist-shaming (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou

    I thought we had moved beyond calling people bad names like "racist" just because they don't conform to societal norms. Stirling is smart and very successful in business.

    Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it.

    You think Ms Stiriano hung out with Stirling for his scintillating conversation? LOL. She hung out with him for the lifestyle and for the gifts. If they haven't had sex, it's only because he is no longer capable.

    The truth is, I'm a little confused by the diary's intent. Is it to deny that she is a trophy girlfriend, or to claim that being a trophy girlfriend is an honorable profession?

    •  Neither (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Carol in San Antonio

      It's to point out the media has portrayed her to be a whore who criminally obtained a secret recording of him, violated his free speech and right to privacy and turned him into a victim.

      I honestly don't care about her one way or the other, but I think the media is repulsive for making this story as much about her as it is about him.  

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sat May 03, 2014 at 03:39:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, you are confused because it sounds (0+ / 0-)

       like you didn't read the diary, just the comments.

      If I wasn't Bob Dylan, I'd probably think that Bob Dylan has a lot of answers myself. Bob Dylan

      by weezilgirl on Sat May 03, 2014 at 07:05:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The flip side of slut-shaming (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    backell, weezilgirl

    The flip-side of slut-shaming is that somehow the man is powerless against his own sexual impulses.

    For a male age 15, this is entirely plausible. For a man in his 20s, still possible but less likely. If he's older than that, this shit's on him because he should have grown the fuck up by now.

    But I suppose if you're past 70 and sliding into your dotage, and you have the wealthy white male privilege thing going for you - piles of cash and the ability to do damn near anything without suffering significant consequences - what the rest of us might consider normal bounds of decency may not enter into the equation.

  •  Not the life I'd want for my daughter. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou, Namazga III

    Both of these people are repulsive.

    I'd much rather she get an education and good job and be self sufficient. I don't want her to depend on anyone for her survival. It's also not the life I'd want for my boys either. I would hope they find an independent and self sufficient mate and also not be dependent on a woman or anyone else to survive.

    BTW my friend just died of prostate cancer. Diagnosed and dead in one year.

  •  There are even accusations that she is... (4+ / 0-)

    ...a transwoman, because, you know, nothing worse.

  •  2 separate issues here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou

    Issue 1: who the woman sleeps with and why.  Couldn't care less, media shaming her for this is unacceptable.

    Issue 2: releasing the tapes.  Whoever did that is a goddamn jerk.  Sure, we like it when the guy getting embarrassed is a racist asshole... but it's a petty, pointless thing to do.  I don't care if he knew he was being taped or not; the tapes and comments were not intended for publication.  This is gonna become a bigger and bigger issue as years go by... everybody with a cell phone and Google Glass.  Y'all may miss the privacy of your living room when it's gone.

    Somewhat similar: I don't look down on Monica for blowing the president, not one little bit, but keeping the dress for evidence was low.  Separate issues.

  •  there was a whiff of it here when the story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    backell

    first surfaced also. That she must be a sleeze who was illegally taping this man for her own financial gain, but going on about how sleezy she was.

  •  Slut-shaming is saying there is something (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carol in San Antonio

    wrong with being a money-grubbing whore.  This diary seems to embody slut-shaming, in trying to say that being a money-grubbing whore is bad.  It's not.

    Although I SERIOUSLY doubt at his age that any sexual intercourse was involved.  I believe them both, I think they are telling the truth.  Obviously their relationship is sexual, but there are lots of ways to be sexual without engaging in what most of us would consider sex.

    •  I See Where You're Coming From (0+ / 0-)

      But I'm talking about the media, not Stiviano here. Whether you think it's bad, I think it's bad or whatever, MOST people think it's bad and that's what the media is doing.

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:26:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, please: you take all this seriously? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Namazga III, shanikka, fou

    Watch her interview with Barbara Walters: try to make sense of the vacuous whatever-it-is that Stiviano gives as answers.

    Is she simply out-of-touch?  Or is she as stupid as seems?  As example:

    That which Sterling said is overtly racist -- but she doesn't see it as racist.  Asked if he should apologize for his statements (which she doesn't see as racist)?  She answers, "Yes."

    If they aren't racist, or otherwise offensive, then why should he apologize for them?

    The effort to portray her as a victim is ludicrous: she either knew what she was doing, or she didn't.  Either way, she was amazingly well rewarded.  And her answers to the questions are so at odds with each other that it is impossible to take her seriously.

    This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

    by JJustin on Sat May 03, 2014 at 09:12:12 PM PDT

    •  Why is it ludicrous? (0+ / 0-)

      She either knew what she was doing or she didn't is a nice way of universally indicting her.

      But WHAT WAS SHE DOING that was wrong?

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:24:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Holly Jesus shit -- (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fou, shanikka

        Your are riding a moral high-horse while defending "anything goes" without anyone evaluating the morality of that "anything goes".

        Is she a manipulative gold-digger taking advantage of a vulnerable old man who has the hots for her?  If so, is taking advantage of the vulnerable a defensible "lifestyle choice"?

        This who diary is premature.  We don't yet know all the facts -- and all we've heard is from contending/opposing parties and or is itself contentious.  Listen to Stiviano's characterization of their relationship -- contradicted by his saying, "I should have paid her off."

        Paid her off for what?  For that which she bizarrely characterizes as "image consulting"?

        I'm not alone in joining you in playing stupid in order to depict this massively overpaid poor widdle sex-selling gold-digger as a victim.

        We don't yet know if EITHER was a victim; but there is NO evidence that she was.  And she is certainly NOT a victim -- by her own presentation of herself and the "facts".

        If she knew what she was doing, and it was negative and destructive, then yes: she is to be "indicted" based upon those facts.  And if she is instead stupid, then she is to be "indicted" for the fact of being stupid.

        What you are arguing is that she is to be presumed a saint -- let's ignore the garbled "What did she just say!?" coming out of her mouth -- of which YOU want her to be "indicted".

        What she needs is an "image consultant" . . .

        This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

        by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:09:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not alone in NOT joining you in playing (0+ / 0-)

          stupid . . . .

          Fixed.

          This is the country of those three great rights: freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and the wisdom never to exercise either of them. -- Mark Twain.

          by JJustin on Sun May 04, 2014 at 08:12:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Slut-shaming" is the wrong phrase... (0+ / 0-)

    Having sex for money makes her a whore, not a slut.

  •  Waste of breathe here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Namazga III, shanikka, fou

    I don't think any of us know enough about V Stiviano to judge, truthfully.

    I do agree that the media, and others, jump to conclusions without having all the facts -- or any facts sometimes.

    But I don't see a defense of Stiviano as any more enlightened than a conservatives defense of Sterling (on privacy grounds, etc).  They both say more about the defender than about Sterling/Stiviano.  

    I think they are both pitiful human beings who  don't deserve any more of our attention.

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Sat May 03, 2014 at 10:50:19 PM PDT

    •  Not the same as Sterling at all (0+ / 0-)

      What has Stiviano done wrong? Have a consenting, adult relationship?

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:22:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  She had a relationship with a married man! (0+ / 0-)

        For Christ's sake! She caused his wife and family pain. That's fucked up.

        •  She also (0+ / 0-)

          agreed to take down photos of herself posing with black people to make her sugar daddy happy. No integrity.  Self hatred.

          The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

          by LiberalLady on Sun May 04, 2014 at 03:43:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Allegedly. (0+ / 0-)

          And that "married man" and his "wife" weren't "caused pain" by her. HE has a brain and a will. That's just silly to blame the whole relationship, EVEN IF it's sexual on her.

          And the marriage was estranged long before Stiviano.

          Get your facts straight.

          Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

          by backell on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:14:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  No sex -- makes sense now. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    backell

    If you actually listened to the recording, he tells Stiviano that 'you can sleep with them ... just don't broadcast it.

    Clearly, what he's worrid about in the tape is the OPTICS of things... As a jew  who's family fled hitler's holocaust, he  grew up in the shadow of 40s and 50s  US Racism. He changed his name to help pass as just another white guy.  

    With that history, it's not surprising that he's coaching Stiviano to follow the same path... she just wants nothing to do with it. She grew up in a world where being latino was possibly more of a problem than being black.

    Her comments are completely in sync with the recording.  The media reports are, for the most part, not.

  •  Putting $2M in gifts in context. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    denig

    $2Million in gifts sounds like a lot, but given what Sterling is worth, his $2M in gifts to her is less than 0.1% of his net worth.  It's kinda like me giving someone a $200 tip -- except that $200 might actually have an effect on my day-to-day budget.

  •  People who believe Donald Trump! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    denig

    Marc Cuban and Donald Trump -- the former indirectly and the latter loudly and stupidly -- started the "illegal recording by mistress" angle because they were asked for comment on the night the recordings broke. Cuban said, essentially, that he hated to think that he might be recorded and have that come back.

    The Donald, though, has set the narrative for all the people here.

    In the absence of information, and in the absence of reading what the diary says, they go with the short fingered vulgarian.

    "man, proud man,/ Drest in a little brief authority,. . . Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven/ As make the angels weep; who, with our spleens,/ Would all themselves laugh mortal." -- Shakespeare, Measure for Measure II ii, 117-23

    by The Geogre on Sun May 04, 2014 at 05:48:50 AM PDT

  •  Well, Stiviano (through her attorney) says... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou
    Although she denies that they had a romantic relationship, Sterling is described in court papers by her attorney as "a highly public figure who is well known to be 'keeping women' other than his wife and who has done so for very many years with a big toothy grin brandishing his sexual prowess in the faces of the Paparazzi and caring less of what anyone thought, the least of which, his own wife."
    (Source: ESPN)

    If we take this statement at face value and consider it indicative of Stiviano's beliefs, one can reasonably infer that:

    * she was being used,
    * she knew she was being used,
    * she took gifts in exchange for being used, and
    * she was content to do so.

    She may not have had a sexual/romantic relationship with Sterling, but she certainly--and knowingly--sold herself, because she knew the conclusions that would be drawn by others. In fact, her legal team (presumably with her agreement) is now citing those very specific conclusions and inferences in their arguments to the court.

    I find it difficult to summon sympathy for her in this matter.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Sun May 04, 2014 at 07:24:22 AM PDT

  •  She damned sure isn't a saint (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fou

    Her version of the "narrative" is the only legitimate one? She could very easily have made a copy of the tapes and either sold or gave them a third party, allowing her to "truthfully" claim that she didn't do the leaking?

    •  I didn't say she is (0+ / 0-)

      Or that her narrative is the only one. I"m saying that the media shouldn't be doing a better job of at least pointing out that there IS another narrative though.

      Your hypotehticals about what she "could" have done are really not relevant here.  

      Discourse is better served if we can stick to the rules of logic.

      by backell on Tue May 06, 2014 at 08:11:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site