The President is a disaster!!!! So says Dr. West......

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

Dr. Cornel West in calling the President a disaster is no surprise. Afterall, when one considers that he was the preeminent intellectual who everyone admired and talked about, next to his sidekick Tavis Smiley. Now here comes that darn Senator from Illinois who had the audacity to become the President! Now they are not getting as much attention as they used to receive. So what do you do to counter that reality? You attack the perceived opponent with old issues that should have been addressed years ago but were never discussed. Issues like poverty-been around for over 50 years but under the Obama presidency, you have a poverty tour! Interestingly enough, there was the State of Black America where the issues that plagued black america was discussed, a book was published by Tavis smiley but no solutions have been proposed to the Obama administration, only complaints from jealous schoolboys who cannot handle their emotions. Where were this dynamic tag team during the Bush administration? Where were they during the torture of prisoners of america? where were they when Troy Davis was murdered? Where were they when the hate language and subtle calls for the assassination of our President over the past 3.5 years took place? Where were they when Newt called the President a food stamp president? Maybe they can weigh in on these questions or admit that they are jealous of the success of another intellectually astute black man who transcends race and is trying to help others and is not sitting in his ivory tower and condescending to the less fortunate. Jealousy is an ugly thing and America will always remember their labor of hate.

[james wilson]

Professor,

What subject (s) do you teach?

Please, tell me more.

[james wilson]

                                                   Understanding Zealotry Delirium

I propose that in order to understand zealotry delirium in the psycho-political context wherein it has become saliently observable, and social / economic / and politically debilitating for many African Americans over the past four or so years, it is first necessary to do three things:

(1) Define it for operational analysis. I define zealotry delirium as enthused  (to the point, or almost to the point, of fanaticism) emotional, irrational, illogical, paradoxical, abstract thinking. Such thinking is grounded in personality-cult worship of individuals or objects of individuals. In this definition, I am careful to note that practitioners of zealotry delirium are generally situational in their zealotry. That is, they may be quite oriented to the three-spheres of person, place, and time; rational, articulate, and even erudite, in all their psychological states, except when it comes to  "sore spot" issues. The sore spot issue is any critical statement about the object of their zealous fixation /obsession.

(2) Know (be able to recognize) its symptoms and signs. Symptomatology is important for the afflicted in order for them to know when it's time for personal remedy, and signs are imperative for the observer to know when zealotry delirium is operating and being observed.

(3) Know how to differentiate between the truly afflicted and mountebank con-hustlers. Truly afflicted folks are the actual believers in whatever worshipping syndrome in which they are held psychologically captive, while hustlers (paid or volunteer), most of whom know better, are simply behaving for rewards, either material or psychic in nature.

However, regardless of cause or motive, the primary defining indicator that zealotry delirium is operating in a political context is the appeal to emotional unthoughtfulness, irrational avoidance of policy specificity, and resorting to ad hominem exhortation as a substitute for factual analysis.

Professor Sander's discussion above provides a textbook behavioral display of zealotry delirium. One that is invaluable for examples of irrational, paradoxical thinking, and ad hominem exhortation as a substitute for policy specificity, and is plain personality-cult worshipping fanaticism as relates to his "sore spot," i,e., criticism of the president.

Note: The intent of my response is not to defend Dr. West and Tavis. Indeed, they are capable of defending themselves. My intent is to use the perfect example of zealotry delirium the professor has provided to describe the signs of the affliction and to further substantiate observations I made in my posted discussion: "Is There a Crisis of Sanity in Much of Today's Black America?"

The professor wrote that Dr. West is "jealous" of the president's success, replacing Dr. West and his "side kick, Tavis" as the "preeminent intellectual" in Black America.

Here we see zealotry delirium (emotionally grounded) irrational exhortation and policy avoidance in its fullest form. First, the president holds the office of "president," not the office of "intellectual," so how is he a threat, or opponent, to Dr. West in that regard? No rational person would make such a claim and expect to be taken seriously. Only an irrational mind could possibly expect to be taken seriously spouting such nonsense! Moreover, here we see a shift in etiology (cause) of the supposed "jealousy." First it was "personal jealousy" due do an inaugural invitation slight (albeit that was ultimately false and nonsensical because the record shows Dr. West was critical months before the inauguration regarding appointments and policy adaptions), and "jealousy" due to a conference attendance slight. Now the zealots have abstracted another explanatory etiology -- career jealousy. As sad as they are, zealots are interesting in their ability to create falsities in order to protect their personality-cult worship. Amazing!

Professor Sanders also paradoxically wrote that there has always been poverty. A true statement that becomes paradoxical because it illogically negates the documented rise in poverty to historic proportions over the past four years. Perhaps it was this recent rise in poverty, and the growing wealth gap (with Blacks suffering the most) that motivated the poverty tour. But the professor can't think like that, or raise such possibilities, it's better to ad hominem Smiley and West.

The professor also displays his personality-cultism by placing his idol of worship above the interest of all else and all others. For example, he wrote; "Where were they [Smiley and West] when Newt called the president a food stamp president." Note that he raises this question after already having acknowledged that they were on a "poverty tour,"  advocating for the masses of poor people, while the professor was busy worshipping one person and ignoring the plight of millions of people. Amazing!

What is particularly interesting, are the professor's previous posts in which he has referred to all who disagreed with his zealotry as "kneegrows," "Aunt Jemima," "Uncle Toms," and "Black haters." Yet, it is the professor who is insensitive to the suffering of Blacks and attacks with ad hominem savagery anyone who advocates against the suffering of Blacks. Given this reality, it is appropriate to ask: "Who is more of a Black 'hater,' those who care nothing about the suffering of Blacks, if if the manifestation of caring is evident in criticism of responsible policies implemented by a personality of worship, or those who speak out against the suffering?

Also note how he tries to make Smiley and West responsible for the increased poverty, rather than public policy over which they have no control. "They wrote a book," he said, but didn't share it with the administration. In other words, the administration is unaware of the growing poverty, despite having all the data collected by the various departments under its command. So Smiley and West are responsible for the poverty in their not sharing the data. Or, maybe he's saying they should have gotten permission to write the book. Either way -- it's insane!!! Poor man. He's probably smart as a snapper, except when it comes to his "sore spot."

Finally, in the above post, the professor further manifests zealotry delirium in his claim that neither Dr. West nor Tavis advocated for Troy Davis. While that claim is obviously false, a more significant zealous / delirious omission by the professor is his failure to hold those accountable who actually do have the power and could have saved Troy Davis' life but never lifted a finger to do so. But that realization would cause cognitive dissonance, if he is a true zealot, and / or go against his job description if he is simply an agent (paid or volunteer) pushing zealotry on Blacks for material (paid) or delirious (volunteer) rewards.

The professor seems to think that focusing on "hate speech" by a handful of nut-jobs is more exigent to Black interests  than the actualization of hate in policy implementations, e.,g., historic high unemployment (which causes the destruction individuals,  families, and communities); home foreclosures; mass incarceration; growing wealth for the already rich, and austerity (rationing) for the poor and middle income groups; destroying public education for the poor and middle income groups via Wall Street privatization of it, undermining Social Security (by appointing commissions to cut it and implementing "payroll tax" cuts to defund it), cutting other social safety nets. All policy results in which Black's do / will suffer the most.

The professor wants to discuss emotional accusations of which he has no proof, rather than policies that can be quantified and whose effectiveness in the interest of voters can be measured.

I hope he posts again, his behavior provides perfect examples of zealotry delirium. Amazing!!!!

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

Wilson displays the typical reaction by someone who fails to have a grasp on intellectual discourse. Just like my post, he engages in name calling. This is the unfortunate dilemma of our present political climate! Never talk about the reality of what the person speaks about, just simply attack the person with useless rhetoric! However there has always been a place for you and people like you in our history. It is on the plantation in the massah's house doing his bidding for him. So continue doing the job that you do with excellence while we continue to expose the utter hypocrisy of our race and of the country that was once referred to as a democracy....

[james wilson]

In the above post under #1, forth line, I intended to write "situational in their delirium." This is evidenced by the fact that we all know people who are perfectly rational, except when it comes to their "sore spot."

[james wilson]

Professor,

So what I understand you to be saying is I do "not have a grasp on intellectual discourse" in my dissecting your zealotry, but you do have such a grasp in presenting a stream of delirious, emotional, baseless, nonsense.

Those like me, you wrote in your latest response, have always had a place in our history: "It is on the plantation in the massah's house doing his bidding for him." In my crisis of sanity post, I wrote how people like yourself are supporting Right-Wing social policies (outlined in my above post), and Neoliberal economic policies that result in the enriching of the already rich, under the guise of market deregulation and tax cuts (Dec. 2010) for the already rich, while imposing austerity on the already poor.  I further stated that your ilk support these policies while believing that such support is in opposition to these policies because the policies have been associated (stimulus-paired) with a personality of cult- worship via a scientific process of behavioral modification known as classical conditioning. 

Given this theoretical model, it is predictable that your derisive, delusional, statements of " massah's house," and other nonsense would be leveled at those who oppose such policies, while those who support and implement such policies (some who actually live in massah's house) would be considered heroes and good for "our people." This, you steadfastly contend, despite the "disastrous" impact of the policies on African American communities. You view the situation upside down. Unfortunately, situational delirium will not allow you to do an assessment to determine things otherwise. So you are content in assigning guilt to the innocent, and innocence to the guilty. But that's fine with me. Such behavior on your part only serves to substantiate the veracity of my assessment of your mind state, as evidenced by your behavior.

Please be advised that you will be challenged every time you come on this site trying to reinforce zealotry delirium by exhorting ad hominems (in an avoidance of policy facts) and unprovable, abstract, allegations. If you thought you'd have an easy ride, think again. You can whine "foul" all you want to. You might want to seek reassignment, because it's too hot for you over here. Tell Sharpton to send you some place else.

By the way, you never did state what subjects you teach. And as far as name calling goes, I've never name called anyone. My use of the terminology zealotry delirium is not name calling. It is a diagnostic impression, consistent with an established criteria-set, universally used to classify your (and other) psycho-political behavior. Given this, my behavior in this regard is consistent not only with the principles of psycho-political analysis, but "civil debate" as well. You should be the first to know that, your being a "professor" and all.

I'm listening. Please, tell me more. Or, more accurately, please provide further proof of my thesis as outlined in : "Is there a Crisis of Sanity in Much of Today's Black America?" You do an excellent job in that regard.

Please, tell me more.

 

[Sandra Phillips]

I am not certain of Dr. West's and Mr. Smiley's rationale for the presidential criticisms. I do know they address issues as they see fit as anyone else would do.  I believe they are taking the opportunity to get the president's attention on behalf of the African American community in terms of accountability to us for a second term in office.  Although I am very proud of our president, I, too, would love to see him hit a home run for our community in terms of improvements for us.

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

I can certainly understand what you are saying. however there is a insidious plan by the Republican Party that began on the day of our President's inauguration. Unfortunately everyone was not watching him get sworn in. Many racist powerbrokers were so angry at his win, that they hit the ground plotting on how they would ensure that he never served a second term. That is why we must be very careful when we lodge our comments because these same forces are committed to using wedge issues like same sex marriage, while attempting to have us become angry at the President to the point that we don't go to the polls. If that occurs, you can kiss medicaid, healthcare, jobs, social security, unemployment, and racial equality goodbye as the banks finish foreclosing on our homes. A really high price to pay for being disenchanted with the President. Afterall, the President has always indicated that his door is always opened to our leaders! The question that I  would like to leave with you is this: Why have the dynamic duo paid the President a visit to express their concerns? Its been 3.5 years.

[Sandra Phillips]

I believe contacting the president is simple enough: 

Contact Us - The White House

www.whitehouse.gov/contact

[james wilson]

Professor,

You just don't get it. Do you? No matter how much patience is taken to explain the most elementary level facts to you, you just don't get it. For example, let's briefly examine the irrational spin you attempted in your last comment (apparently forgetting that I was in this conversation and therefore would correct your "naive" zeal, in some instances, and "creative" zeal in others).

1."Many racist power brokers were so angry at his win, that they hit the ground plotting on how they would ensure that he never served a second term."

That statement is true. Many racists do not want to see "him" living in "Massah's house" (to use your favorite term) even if "he" is doing "massah's bidding."

However, your naivete luxuriantly revealed itself when you wrote: "That is why we must be very careful when we lodge our comments because these same forces are committed to using wedge issues like same sex marriage, while attempting to have us become angry at the president to the point that we don't go to the polls.

In that comment, you clearly imply that just because some racists don't like the president, Blacks must be silent regarding our pain and suffering which the president can, but does not, address. There is no need to restate the real world quantification of these, but I will give an abbreviated reminder: wealth loss (home foreclosures) which money made available by congress was not spent, historically high unemployment, which bills passed by the congress were not supported, etc. (Anyone can look up these matters, the facts are only a keyboard and fingertip away).

On the question of "same sex marriage," he is the one who said what he said. No one else can be held accountable for his statement. If there were any respect for African Americans, he wouldn't have said it. To you it may be simply a "wedge" issue, but to many people, it is a "disrespectful" attack on their faith and way of life. Nothing is more meaningful than that. (But what's new regarding disrespect of Blacks?) I understand the calculation, however, when faced with a choice between an organized interest group playing politics for their interest and a group of mostly zealots (it appears) who worship you and don't respect themselves -- you choose the political group. No rocket science there.

2. You also wrote that if he is not reelected (re-selected) that we can "kiss  [M]edicaid, healthcare, jobs, [S]ocial [S]ecurity, unemplyment, and racial equality goodbye as the banks finish foreclosing our homes."

Are you serious? Well, first, I hope "unemployment" would be gone, because Lord knows Blacks are suffering too greatly from unemployment. And you must know that one of the biggest complaints against this administration is its failure to rein in the banks and impose a moratorium on foreclosure of which Blacks have suffered the most. In fact, what it has done is give the banks tens of billions of dollars in the name of helping home owners, while putting in place no guidelines and therefore facilitating the banks keeping the money and accelerating the foreclosures. Moreover, a recent government report shows that some $8 billion dollars allocated in TARP funds for mortgage relief for the "hardest hit" (which would be Blacks) communities have never been spent some four years later. Additionally, the administration fought against the  50 State Attorneys General efforts to bring the banks to justice for mortgage fraud (look it up) and when a deal was reached it turned out to be a charade that would only give those illegally foreclosed $2, 000 and, in fact, sped up foreclosures. Moreover, some states are using the money intended for foreclosed victims to build more prisons (look it up).

As far as Social Security goes, this administration has taken a Right-Wing position in that regard from the very beginning, appointing a "Deficit Reduction" commission in early 2009 led by two Right-Wingers; former Wyoming Republican Sen. Alan Simpson and former Clinton administration Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowls ( Right-Wing Dem), to cut it and raise the retirement age. The commission is dubbed the "Cat Food Commission," because it would force the elderly to eat cat food for survival. You mean to tell me you don't know that (well look it up). Given this, there is no greater threat to Social Security than this administration. This administration has proposed to cut, or has actually cut, every social safety net(including Social Security and Medicare) that have survived from the FDR and LBJ "New Deal" and "Great Society" administrations. You mean to tell me you are a professor and don't know these things--well, it's never to late to learn. Look them up. This administration has proposed cutting $320 billion in Medicaid benefits, the only health care benefits available for the poor (whom you seem not to care about, at least if caring conflicts with personality cult worship).

On the question of racial equality, you must know that racial equality has gotten worse over the past four years rather than better. I challenge you to name one thing this administration has done to effect "racial equality." In fact, this administration has assaulted affirmative action by ending Defense Department contracts for African Americans in September 2011 by executive order (look it up). Moreover, it argues that Blacks do not exist except for voting purposes --"there is no Black America." Remember?

Your statement that the administration has an open door policy but the "duo" has not taken advantage of it is sheer delusional. Dr. West was not even invited to the inauguration because he made critical statements in the fall of 2008 about emerging Right-Wing policies and appointments of people with no interest or relationship with Blacks or any other common people (an observation that has proven to be correct). So how in the world can he (or Smiley) just up and go the White House at will? Moreover, the CBC could not get a meeting with the administration for 2.5 + years, and they are elected officials representing most of its base constituency -- African Americans (look it up).

On the matter of "health care," we do not have any "health care." We have RomneyCare. Health care is "single payer -- Medicare for all." Anyone interested in further understanding why we have been forced to accept the Republican --Wall Street enriching--RomneyCare for national health care reform, rather than real reform that most people want should visit the website "health care now."

(Note: For all those who think that the Right-Wing Hertigage Foundation concocted sham-- that Newt Gingerich and other 1% worshipping Repubs have tried to swindle onto the public for years, unsuccessfully -- that passed for health care reform in 2010 is good for you, just wait until it takes affect in 2014. If the fact that implementation was put off until after the 2012 presidential election didn't give you a clue, then just wait. We'll see how much you personality worship when your premiums go up 40% and you get a tax fine for not buying it from Wall Street.)

I don't know what subject (s) you teach because you've refused to say. But I know you don't teach social, behavioral, or political science. If you did, you would know that no one can cause people not to vote when they believe that voting is within their interest. If you taught (or even studied) any of theses disciplines, you would know that voter apathy results from the perception that voting doesn't make a difference. Not some one's critique, or advocacy for the poor. (I see you and Sharpton setting up your zealous narrative -- paid hustling in Sharpton's case -- to place blame and run amok against other Blacks should the president lose.) A good place to look would be on the policy level. Don't you think?

You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to take advantage of naive people. Or, maybe you actually believe these things yourself. I don't know which. But as promised, every time I catch you trying to confuse people, or expressing your own acute confusional state (zealotry delirium), I will straighten you out. In love, of course.

 

.

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

If you don't mind James, perhaps you can speak in coherent English.

[james wilson]

The issue is not my English, the issue is the zealous falsities you raised and I countered. If my English is not coherent to you, then that further substantiates the fact that you are in a delirious "acute confusional state." 

If you are referring to my use of "confusional" rather than "confused," the former "confusional" is the professional term. The fact you don't know that proves you ain't no professor. (How did you like that English?)

By the way, I corrected your failure to capitalize the words "Social Security" by capitalizing those words in brackets, which is what one does when correcting poor grammar in quotes. Secondly, when you wrote we can "kiss unemployment" goodbye, did you mean unemployment insurance? (speaking of writing incoherently). If you did mean unemployment insurance, I've got something for you on that point too.

Now back to the issues.

[Jonathan Brown]

Ok, I'd like to jump in here. 

I'm not going to even pretend to get in the middle of the "discourse" going on between the OP and Brother Wilson. 

To respond to the professor on your OP.

I am not sure where Dr. West and Brother Smiley have been in the last 3.5 years. I will not have an answer that satisfies, mainly because I am neither Dr. West or Brother Smiley. To be honest, I don't even think the point matters that they were or were not doing something 5 or 7 years ago. What does matter, however, is that they are doing something. There are plenty of black "leaders" that have sat by passively allowing so many ills ravage their communities. 

These two men are only 2 men. We should honestly be asking where was I. I'll start....Where have I been in the last 3.5 years when I could have been lobbying? I was at my jon, where we work with low-income first generation kids that seek to acquire a college degree, and aided them through the process to where they have low or NO debt. 

We all need to do our parts. The only difference between leaders and the others in the black community is that some wait to be lead; while others lead before there are ever followers. I don't know where Dr. West and Brother Smiley were, but it doesn't matter. We have to be accountable for ourselves, and document what we were doing and where we plan to be in the fight for our communities.