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.
Amen James (Lordy). I had a friend who used that term a lot. James please continue with the professor's rehabilitation. I'm finished its not fun anymore.
james wilson said:
I was right. Thank you. I just won a prize! A friend bet me that after you had been called out for stealing Douglas A. Mcintyre and Alexander E.M. Hess's article 10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 (http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/corporate-political-donations_n_1...), you would try to wiggle your way out of your plagiarism by claiming you forgot to reference your source, in order to save face. But he is a graphic artist by training, and, therefore, knows very little about the intricacies of zealotry / fanaticism or the antisocial / psychopathic personality disorder. Both thinking / behavioral styles of which you manifest cardinal characteristics, so much so, that a diagnostic impression to that effect has been established which guides all my interactions with you. Be clear on that.
I predicted that not only would you not seek a way out of the shameless act of plagiarism, but would redouble your efforts. The fact that you suggested that Ricardo "check out my articles," is indisputable evidence that you continue to claim the work of others as your own despite having already been exposed for intellectual thievery, obviously, proved that I was right about your extreme egocentricity (caring only about yourself at the expense of morality, right over wrong regarding the rights of others), and failure to learn from experience-- both prime characteristics of psychopathic styles.
Then, too, zealotry delirium flared luminously in your continuing statement .."It will debunk many of your myths about our president." Here we see the uncritical thinking typical of the fanatic, the disjointed, and overly enthused, wailing of the zealot without focus, possessing only commitment.
For example, the stolen article talks about political fundraising, Ricardo's posts dealt with political affiliation and sponsorship. Two entirely different dynamics. But to be fair, you did rant about "pay-to-play." Here you inferred that one Wall-Street Corporatist party (Republicans) are more evil than the other Wall-Street Corporatist party (Democrats) because Republicans were raising more campaign cash. This, of course, is the spin that works only on the uncritical zealot's mind. In fact, to be accurate, your concern is not Democrat or Republican. Your concern is the object of your personality-cult worship, the president. But you are so fanatical in that regard, so hell-bent on loathing facts that even the argument you tried to make turned out to be a non sequitur fallacy (a fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it). You see, Professor, the very article itself stated: "While the president has raised more overall, his campaign and the Democratic Party only raised 60 million for his re-election in the month May."
So if the president has "raised more overall," how does the party that has raised less overall, become a party of pay-to-play, and the party that has raised more overall, not be a party of pay -to- play, if, given your model, the amount of cash raised is the independent variable (determining factor) and pay-to-play is the dependent variable (outcome factor)?
This is the typical kind of illogical, superstitious, emotionally propelled nonsense you spew on this site regularly. I remember when you first arrived, sitting all tall and high backed in your saddle, calling everybody "stupid".. "haters" .. "Kneegrows".. "aunt Jemima".."slaves," etc., and disparaging the hosts. Al Sharpton had assigned you to take over the site and turn it into a zealous haven of fanatical foolery (you may recall, I'd surmised that, even before you confessed).
What is particularly interesting, albeit sad, is how you refuse to unschackle yourself from the Democrat-Republican paradigm. This despite the fact that a growing number of people now realize that there is no difference between the two. However, those who sit in front of TVs and avail themselves of that "dumbing down" nosense will never see the light. If they ever do, then the TV has not done its job. One station is pro Right-Wing. The other is fake pro left. It is all one huge con job. For example, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of FOX News (which I don't watch) supported Candidate Obama in 2008, while his news anchors spewed anti Obama rhetoric to its niche audience --Right-Wing zealots. It was / is all about business.
MSNBC, which I don't watch, especially since it became a comedy forum,spots on and on about the Koch Brothers this and that, to its Democratic Party audience. Yet the Democrats have been begging the Koch Brothers for Campaign cash just like the Republicans http:// www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/after-demor-koch-brothers-dscc-them-mo... .
As long as your mind is caught up in that , and Wall-Street (and the Right_Wingers) made sure in 2008 that it would be caught up for at least 4 to 8 years, you'll never be free thinking. You'll blame the poor and worship the rich. You'll place the career interest of individuals over the survival interest of millions and never know, or care about, the difference. You'll be a zealot, worshipping your own demise. Thinking that your life long dream of "livin' in massah's house" has finally been achieved. When the only thing that has been achieved is "massah's" 100% control of your mind by using its created symbol to which you have been conditioned to respond at "massah's" whims. Take away Social Security-- no response. Newt made a racist statement -- full response. Give the schools to Wall-Street-- no response. Take away jobs of millions-no response, require an ID to vote--full response. "You can vote, but you can't work." You can vote, but you can't eat.
You'll deliriously attack all those who dare criticize your vicarious validation of "livin' in massah's house" with the ad hominems you so frequently use. You'll look far and wide to find some reason other than the truth, for their disagreement with the object of your vicarious validation. Unable to find a reason, you'll abstract all sorts of delusional ad hominems to explain, to rationalize, your vicarious living in massah's house. And you'll wake up one morning, and all your Social Security and other retirement pensions will be gone, public education will be gone, all the New Deal and Great Society programs (civil rights laws, etc.) will be gone. All civil liberties will be gone. Blacks, those not imprisoned, or in early graves, will be in Reconstruction Era poverty and dispossession. And it all will happen while you are "livin' in massah's house." It could never have happened otherwise. And then, at that moment, you'll understand that you have been played. But it will be too late. As the blues song says, by then, you'll be "too weak to fight."
I'll try to work with you because I believe, as does the United Negro College Fund, that "a mind is a terrible thing to waste." And, unless Sister Bennetta is correct when she says you have not completed your GED, let alone achieved academic qualifications for a professorship, you have made achievements in your personal life that can serve as a positive model for some of our youngsters (not your mind in its current state. Oh, Lordy, please, not your mind). But your academic achievement, which is different from educational achievement.
Therefore, I'm asking you to comport yourself with integrity. UMOJA and others post articles and videos regularly. But not once have they deleted the author's name and replaced it with their own. You are the only one to blatantly plagiarize, and, at the same time, the only who is purporting to be a "professor."
Were I you, I would request that Sharpton reassigns me. Meanwhile, if you choose to not request reassignment, I'd like for you to continue on as a case study in zealotry delirium. I think the final phase of our project should focus on your reported area of expertise--the criminal justice system. Because it is best to proceed with these projects without interruption, I'll wait until Ricardo is finished with you, and gives me his permission to proceed.
Thank you, so very much.
I'm anxious for you to tell me more.
FROM THE MOUTH OF TIM WISE (WHITE MAN). ONE DAY PROFESSOR SANDERS YOU MAY HAVE SUCH COURAGE AND MORALS! YOU MAY NEVER BE A PROUD BLACK MAN. UNCLE-TOM YES!
One scandal in 2005 was Daley explaining $48 million in overruns for the renovation of a terminal at O’Hare International Airport. Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., (D) stated “You can fool some of the people for 16 years – the question is whether the people want to be fooled for 20 years.”
In 2006, A federal investigation of “pervasive fraud” in hiring and contracts at Daley’s City Hall led to 30 indictments, including two senior administrators closely tied to the mayor, and a dozen cabinet-level resignations. The Mayor was also interrogated. About the same time, it was revealed through court records that one of Daley’s allies, the head of the Hispanic Democratic Organization, “helped arrange promotions for politically active city employees and orchestrated campaign work by administration officials.”
In a New York Times article on January 6, 2006, they stated:
Gone is the 38,000-strong patronage army of city workers Richard J. controlled, but it has been replaced by what John Callaway, a political analyst and former host of a Chicago public affairs television program, described as “special forces units,” like the Hispanic Democratic Organization, now under federal scrutiny.
“The main trouble he’s in is with the federal government,” Mr. Callaway said of the mayor. “What are the highest people who have been indicted so far, or subpoenaed, what are they going to say about what Daley knew about what he says he didn’t know?”
Thanks for yielding. I will have the time to resume my case study activities with the "professor" early next week. However, my efforts are not meant to "rehabilitate" him, but to expose him. To date, no clinical intervention has proven to be effective with the psychopathic (aka antisocial) personality disorder. Neurologists are currently researching varies hypotheses, based on long held suspicion by some that the disorder is likely neurologically based. But as of this date--no success.
No one has been able to effectively stop psychopaths from stealing and lying, or to facilitate their developing the ability to experience empathy for others, or have them respect established rules of propriety.
For example, after having been caught "red handed" stealing the work of others, in his failure to credit the authors of the useless article he posted (just as I predicted he would do) he redoubled his efforts and now claims that he gave credit because in the body of the article he lifted, the words "24/7 Wall Street" were presented. But it is common for such individuals to take others for fools. The fact is, the 24/7 Wall Street article (10 top political donors), as posted on that website, contains the names of the authors of the useless piece: Douglas A. McIntyre and Alexander E. M. Hess. He lifted the entire article, but didn't the authors names.
It is plagiarism. And plagiarism is to the academic and literary rules what theft and burglary are to criminal justice rules.
He says he's a criminal justice expert, all Blacks not supporting the present administration's policies (including criminal justice) are "Uncle Toms," etc. We shall see.
Richard J. Daley, politician and self-promoter extraordinaire, from his inauspicious youth on Chicago’s South Side through his rapid climb to the seat of power as mayor and boss of the Democratic Party machine. A bare-all account of Daley’s cardinal sins as well as his milestone achievements, this scathing work by Chicago journalist Mike Royko brings to life the most powerful political figure of his time: his laissez-faire policy toward corruption, his unique brand of public relations, and the widespread influence that earned him the epithet of “king maker.” The politician, the machine, the city—Royko reveals all with witty insight and unwavering honesty, in this incredible portrait of the last of the backroom Caesars.
America’s richest brothers Charles and David Koch generally like to wield their influence from behind closed doors. The conservative billionaire industrialists might be the most influential political donors in the country, but they work quietly, under the radar.
If they’ve been giving millions towards a Republican victory this election cycle, as has been widely reported, they’ve been doing so via nonprofits that don’t disclose their benefactors, so there’s no paper trail. Younger brother David founded right-leaning tax exempt group Americans for Prosperity, but there’s no way of telling whether he or Charles are funding the outfit, which spends millions on anti-Obama ads in swing states.
Want To Boycott Koch Brothers' Products While Shopping? There's An App For That Clare O'ConnorForbes Staff
Sheldon Adelson Tops Romney Donor List That Now Includes 32 Billionaires Clare O'ConnorForbes Staff
Karl Rove's Plot To Take Youth Vote From Obama Just Might Work Clare O'ConnorForbes Staff
Slowly, though, the Kochs are coming out of the shadows as the election draws nearer. This Sunday, David Koch and his wife Julia will host GOP contender Mitt Romney at their palatial summer home on sought-after Meadow Lane in Southampton, New York. This is the first time Koch has hosted an official Romney campaign event — indeed, the first time either Koch has officially come out in support of the Governor’s campaign.
In the fall, the two were firmly behind Herman Cain as their candidate of choice. At an Americans for Prosperity Foundation event I attended in Washington, D.C., Cain called himself a “Koch brother from another mother” to wild applause. Since Cain’s campaign ended, the Kochs have remained mum on who they’d like to see in the White House.
Sunday’s event amounts to a coup for Romney: while he has a significant number of billionaire backers — at least 32 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans at last count — the Kochs are every Republican politician’s dream donors. They’ve made it clear they’ll spend whatever it takes to remove Obama from the top job, and they have deep pockets: $50 billion between them thanks to hugely successful family conglomerate Koch Industries. Some D.C. insiders believe the pair is budgeting about $400 million towards the fight.
Whether Romney-backing super PAC Restore Our Future will benefit from that largesse remains to be seen, but what is clear is that the two are now mobilizing their rich, powerful network out in the open. For years the two have thrown biannual summits where fellow billionaires and power players discuss politics, but these events are shrouded in secrecy, held in resorts that are often completely booked out for privacy purposes. Sunday’s event will see David Koch formally and publicly throwing his hat in the ring for Romney with his rich friends and Hamptons neighbors at his side.
Team Romney isn’t talking about the private dinner, which will cost guests $50,000 a plate ($75,000 per couple). Southampton Police are expected to be out in force alongside the Secret Service on the lush expanse of Meadow Lane, where billionaire tycoon Leon Black and fashion designers Calvin Klein and Tory Burch also have homes.
Also out in force: protesters. As the Koch brothers’ profile has increased, there’s scarcely an event connected to the two that isn’t the target of activists from the Occupy movement. Busloads of Occupy Wall Street protesters from Manhattan will be on the beach on Sunday afternoon, waving signs and chanting. They’ll be joined by like-minded members of the Long Island Progressive Coalition, MoveOn, United New York, Allign New York, and a handful of other organizations, including the somewhat incongruous Occupy the Hamptons.
Organizer Aaron Black said he sees the Kochs as a representation of everything that’s wrong with US politics. “Our election’s not for sale,” he said. “We’re tired of these guys trying to buy our government.” (Forbes, 2012)
I'm back from a wonderful 7- day vacation in the Virgin Islands. Therefore, it's time to resume my case study with you. Thanks again for telling me more.
Let's review your last comment on this page in response to my calling you out for plagiarism. While you are showing improvement in that regard -- you did cite your sources in your last posting above -- you need to improve in other ways too.
One area you need to improve in is egocentricity. For example, you unabashedly claimed that by pointing out your plagiaristic behavior, I was trying to "smear" you. This despite the fact that your behavior was open and clear for all to see.
Given this, do I understand you to be saying that when obvious facts are pointed out about your behavior, it's a "smear." But when you make unsubstaniated (indeed, unsubstaniatable) slanderous comments about others (such as those you made against the hosts in your narrative to this discussion) it's not an attempt to "smear"?
Those are the types of behaviors that you have exhibited that led to your psychopathic diagnostic impression in the first place: lying and a propensity to smear others without any compunction, in a process of perceived self-gain. In your case, the self-gain is extreme zealotry delirium as manifested in unquestioned devotion (not loyalty, but devotion) to a personality of cult-worship.
Moreover, you stated that "you guys run a smear campaign against anyone who thanks (sic) and are (sic) black."
Do I understand you to be saying that you are Black (have a patent on being Black) simply because you are a personality cult-worshipper, but anyone who stands up for the Black poor is not Black? Is the new definition of Black in your mind a personality cult-worshipper, fighting in support of his / her own abuse and demise because of a failure to think critically? Is it one who either ignores the facts, or fails to search for facts in the first place?
If ignorance is the new Black, then I'll gladly remain in the old Black category. The Black who places the community before media created personalities and knows the difference. The Black who takes the time to know people before trusting them unconditionally. The type of Black who gets his strenght from the legacy of our people, and not from vicariously "livin' in massah's house," via worshipping those who literally live in "massah's house," and then insanely projecting the insanity onto sane Blacks.
If vicariously living in "massah's house" makes one "black" in your parallel universe, then my only question is -- what's the weather like there, do you all have seasons?
Additionally, you like to use the term "kneegrow" to describe sane Black folks. But what do you call a Black person who believes and sardonically writes that the Black poor are poor because they lack "personal responsiblity," as you stated in the opening sentence of the article you stole? How can you believe as the racists believe about poor Blacks, and at the same time declare yourself the guardian of "Blackness"?
Your comments are replete with contradictions. Contradictions are most likely to occur when a person does not think critically -- when he /she is not anchored in anything. Phony.
Moreover, the fact that you are unconcerned about the sufferings of others has long been obvious to me. As I pointed out in Is there a crisis of sanity in much of today's Black America?; those like you attack anyone who makes a critique about policies that neglect Blacks and the poor because you have no concern for those whose needs the critiques address. Your concern is only for your cult-God. You have proven that fact, beyond the possibility of contradiction, repeatedly. In a very real way, I pity you.
Lastly, your grammar was horrible. But I do not hold that against you (as you did me). It would be hypocritical of me to do so. Especially, since I make grammatical errors myself, often writing in a hurry and all. Nor will I go German on you and call you a "Swine," as was done to me by another hysterical zealot.
In summary, you have improved in citing your sources. However, further improvement is expected of you in the realm of critical thinking. For example, your post immediately above is on a fatuous intellectual level. The Koch brothers this and that. What are you trying to prove? You continue to pathologically deny the fact that there is no difference between the two media parties.
Do a search on this subject: "Democrats ask Koch brothers for funds."
Hopefully, after you have done that, we can begin the final phase of this case study with a discussion on criminal justice policy. That's where the rubber will meet the road--that being your specialty and all.
First question: What has this adminstration done to end the policy of mass incarceration of Blacks as discussed in Michelle Alexander's illuminating book: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness?
Don't embarrass yourself with "reduced crack cocaine to 18 to 1" and all of that. Believe me, I'm way past that. Hint: 18 to 1 is not fair. 1 to 1 is fair. As if that was the problem in the first place, which it's not.
Please, tell me more.