If Donald Sterling was any more toxic he’d be radioactive

Donald Sterling is a vile, despicable octogenarian billionaire racist who for many years has been a pathetic owner of the NBA Los Angeles Clippers.

And now sponsors are pulling a fast break away from the Clippers in light of his purported comments to V. Stiviano, who is the poster child for the girlfriend from hell even if she’s hot enough to ignite a California forest fire and is 50 years younger than Sterling.

The NBA is holding a press conference tomorrow about its investigation into Sterling, who files lawsuits as frequently as V., evidently too special to have a first name, files her nails.

The NBA should suspend Sterling for the remainder of the playoffs and fine his ugly ass even if it is a symbolic gesture considering his wealth.

The league should also tar and feather him at halftime of Tuesday night’s Clippers game but that wouldn’t be too PC.

And then Sterling’s fellow NBA owners should drum his ass out of the league in the offseason.

Sterling brings a slave owner’s mentality to owning a team in a league that is primarily black.

He evidently disdains them as field hands even if he pays them well enough to live in mansions.

The Clippers have sucked for years. And now that they have a good shot at the NBA title, their train wreck of an owner may have derailed his own team.

That’s Donald Sterling for you.

I suspect he won’t be Time Magazine’s Man of the Year.

Running to a glorious resurrection takes back the streets of Boston

Boston Strong seemed to risk becoming just a feel-good-about-ourselves marketing slogan.

But Boston Strong was a living, breathing, sweating and running reality today.

A poignant and powerful mass demonstration against those who would sacrifice American lives and defile American institutions with violence.

The Boston Marathon, an annual reverential rite of spring for decades until last year’s two pressure-cooker bombs desecrated its tabernacle with hellish trauma — killing three and injuring 264, underwent an almost religious resurrection the day after Easter.

The volume of the redemption was breathtaking in scope, stoking the power of the resilient American spirit.

Arguably the most pivotal journey in Boston since the midnight ride of Paul Revere.

More than 32,000 people thronged with ghosts and horrid flashbacks crossed the starting line Monday at the Boston Marathon in an awesome in-your-face show of defiance.

It was a day they ran to prove more things transcendent than merely proving to themselves that they could run 26.2 miles in such a marquee event.

They ran, with lungs heaving in search of oxygen and legs threatening to stumble and then crumble, to prove something about their sport, their city and their country.

Many ran to honor the dead and wounded of a year ago. Many runners had the names of the victims scrawled on their bodies or race bib.

They did it all amidst extraordinary security that included a battery of surveillance cameras, more than 90 bomb-sniffing dogs and officers posted on roofs.

And in a finish so inspiring and fitting that it seemed almost scripted, Meb Keflezighi, a 38-year-old U.S. citizen who came to this country from Eritrea as a boy, became the first American in 31 years to win the men’s race.

Keflezighi wrote the names of the three dead on his bib along with that of the MIT police officer who was killed during the manhunt that paralyzed Boston.

Granted, much of the bombing damage inflicted last year will forever follow the victims, shadows growing longer with each setting sun.

But in a broader sense, the Boston Marathon now is no longer a bloody boulevard of broken bodies.

Boston Strong indeed.

Last one to Mars is a rotten asteroid

Remember NASA?

You know, the folks who turned the early astronauts into rock stars back when we thought that Americans soon would be spending more time in space than the folks on Star Trek, Star Wars and The Jetsons.

Then budget cuts essentially grounded NASA’s high profile and in turn America’s fascination with space.

But hold on to your rocket ships.

NASA plans some high-flying projects regarding space exploration — like grabbing an asteroid and throwing it at the moon just for kicks, sending people to Mars where real estate prices are cheaper, and laying the groundwork for permanent human settlements in the solar system so the NFL can expand.

With a lot of road work forthcoming on Berks County bridges and the West Shore Bypass, I can’t wait to either trade in my Lamborghini for one of those flying cars featured on The Jetsons or book a flight to check out Martian chicks.

Supreme Court opens the floodgates on political spending

If you’ve money to burn, don’t turn it into mere ash.

Buy an election or two.

Courtesy of the Supreme Court.

Politics used to be all about hot air.

Granted, there still is plenty of that.

Why do you think we have global warming everywhere but in red states?

But now cold cash is even hotter as a molten political currency.

The Supreme Court opened the door for even more money to be pumped into the political system with its Wednesday ruling on McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down overall limits on campaign contributions.

The decision means that a single donor will soon be able to contribute millions of hard dollars — in limited contributions — to political parties, candidates and political action committees.

The truly elite donors are poised to be the big winners with the decision, with money giving them the power to set and limit the party agendas.

Candidates for sale. Like meat on the hoof.

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote along ideological lines, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority, was a sequel of sorts to Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.

But that ruling did nothing to affect the other main form of campaign finance regulation: caps on direct contributions to candidates and political parties.

Wednesday’s decision addressed that second kind of regulation.

It did not affect familiar base limits on contributions from individuals to candidates, currently $2,600 per candidate in primary and general elections.

But it said that overall limits of $48,600 by individuals every two years for contributions to all federal candidates violated the First Amendment, as did separate aggregate limits on contributions to political party committees, currently $74,600.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for four justices in the controlling opinion, said the First Amendment required striking down the limits.

“There is no right in our democracy more basic,” he wrote, “than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”

Dissenting from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer called the decision a blow to the First Amendment and American democracy.

“If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”

Amazing how two Supremes could vary so widely on their interpretation of the First Amendment. Didn’t they both go to law school?

Of course, politics usually do color Supreme Court decisions.

It’s as American as apple pie and Obamacare (well, perhaps not).