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.

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

Bravo, bravo, bravo (hands clapping). One thing I have learned in writing my last book is the reality of dealing with the new "apologetic negro" which you have settled all doubt that you are. As indicated by you and Ricardo's tag teaming to not address the content of my article, but rather to attack the messenger while failing to address the shameless attacks of our President's opponents. In addition, the date of this article is months ago, but just like many of the "new negroes" or even the "Kneegroes" (two current articles), you like Ricardo choose to walk aroung in the cemetary of the past and ignore the current articles that I have produced on this site that speaks to the heart of the matter.

 

My record is impeccable and I will place it up against yours anyday. Any attempts to attack me or my credibility serves to paint you in the light of the current teaparty/republican party that has no substance and only accusations. I hope that you enjoyed your V.I. trip and maybe you bank at the same bank that hides Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's money to empower him to income tax evade. When you decide to have an intellectual discourse that addresses all of the issues then I will engage you but right now you are attempting to LOWER MY IQ.
 
james wilson said:

Professor,

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.

 

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

The Apologetic Negro: The New 21st Century Negro!!!

 

I decided that since you or Ricardo are loyal members of "Learners Anonymous", I thought that I would help enlighten your level of thought by this piece on the new negro. In other words, consider this piece as your mirror's reflection.  

In the 21st century, we have arising out of the ashes of racism, classism, segregation, legislatively imposed poverty, police brutality/murder, an overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice system, the last hired/the first fired, and the stereotype of being intellectually inferior, a new kind of negro! He is one that you may never recognize because he always makes excuses for the systemic attempt to marginalize and stereotype black men by labeling them as intellectually inferior, lazy, illiterate, athletic, and a deadbeat daddy. He is the one who makes excuses for the stereotype of the black woman who is labeled and stereotyped as being highly sexual, promiscuous, angry, on welfare, and constantly having babies to further herself economically. He will listen to these stereotypes and without favor or thought, will excuse every meanspirited attack on the black race, every siege against the black family, every policy that has been legalized that has murdered, maimed, destroyed, mischaracterized, bankrupted, imprisoned, foreclosed, and oppressed the black race. They are everywhere, on the radio stations, in our pulpits, on our boards, running companies, heading political committees, and in our institutions of higher education. They have a delusion of being accepted by the power establishment which is illogical! Afterall, if they hate the President, they don't care anything about you either.

These will be the persons who argue that our President has never done anything for blacks and support Romney. They will support police brutality because we asked to be ebaten, they will support imprisonment because we had to have done something wrong, they support the racial division in america because the hatemongers are justified by their comments! They have been around since Africa, when they told the slaveowners where to find the tribes so that they could imprison them and place them on a ship to come to america. Yes they are. But they never look in the mirror and they never accept the reality that in america, you will never be looked upon as being an equal! But go ahead and vote against your interests and allow america to be turned into a 3rd world country by Romney and the GOP. Get your tincup ready because you will need it to raise money to survive. So the next time any of you hear them on the radio on the attack, or in the public making excuses for the obvious, just know that this is the apologetic negro, the new negro in america.

Professor C. L. Sanders said:

Bravo, bravo, bravo (hands clapping). One thing I have learned in writing my last book is the reality of dealing with the new "apologetic negro" which you have settled all doubt that you are. As indicated by you and Ricardo's tag teaming to not address the content of my article, but rather to attack the messenger while failing to address the shameless attacks of our President's opponents. In addition, the date of this article is months ago, but just like many of the "new negroes" or even the "Kneegroes" (two current articles), you like Ricardo choose to walk aroung in the cemetary of the past and ignore the current articles that I have produced on this site that speaks to the heart of the matter.

 

My record is impeccable and I will place it up against yours anyday. Any attempts to attack me or my credibility serves to paint you in the light of the current teaparty/republican party that has no substance and only accusations. I hope that you enjoyed your V.I. trip and maybe you bank at the same bank that hides Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's money to empower him to income tax evade. When you decide to have an intellectual discourse that addresses all of the issues then I will engage you but right now you are attempting to LOWER MY IQ.
 
james wilson said:

Professor,

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.

 

[Ricardo Jones]

I must say this I have no respect for those who have gained on the backs of others and/or at the expense of others. I have worked from age 9 shinning shoe's and delivering newspapers. I come from a family and people who believe in hard work to success. Many in my family have adopted bad values and no values. Some in my family haves sold their souls to the devil of doggy dog. My Grand Father went to sea as a cabin-boy at age 12 to support his family. He worked the hardest job's to lead his family as a Proud BLACK MAN. My Grand Mother fought for the rights of all Black people to attend college before Brown v. Board of Ed. She taught her students to pass the entrance examination for college which was the requirement for whites only. Easy to talk like a corrupt person when others paid the price for your arrogance. Many Poor and Working Class Blacks never had a chance for BAD Education and vacations.

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

First of all respect is relative and must be earned. Respect implies that there is a relationship between 2 people to a point where that there is a concern over a person's opinion because you respect that person. That is not the case here! Sorry i don't care what you think about me let alone whether you respect me or not. However, since your family has done so much, What are You doing???

[Ricardo Jones]

Only a fool would ask that question!

[james wilson]

Professor,

Thanks again, for telling me more. You are doing a great job in that regard. 

I'm pleased that you brought one of your recent discussions to this page. That way, it keeps this case study's responses on your part in one place. That, of course, makes subsantiation of the diagnostic impression easier because the behavior of interest (your response) is taking place on the same page where the diagnostic impression has been defined.  

What I need you to do is calm down........

Although you complained in one of your recent responses that the "article" being discussed is "months" old and you are ready to move on, etc., please keep in mind that this is a case study. A case study in its nature is a longitudinal process and not a one-time event. Moreover, I have never said anything other than the fact that this is a case study. I defined my response in the very begining, at the time I decided to undertake this project with you, as "Understanding Zealotry Delirium."

I know some times I am quite directive with you, but that approach seems to be the most effective way to get you to tell me more in support of the diagnostic impression. (readers, please understand).  

While I was hoping to begin the final phase of this project with a discussion of Criminal Justice Policy, you obviously don't want to discuss that. So, as expected, your attempts to avoid cognitive dissonance have led you to your (and most zealots / fanatics) favorite escape -- ad hominems.  

For example, how many times are you going to ad hominem me with "kneegrow," etc? As opposed to having a calm discussion about criminal Justice policy? I've already interpreted your "livin' in massuh's house" ad hominem exhaustively. So much so, that I believe it has begun to internalize (sink in). If not with you, then certainly with most lucid folks. 

I will, however, for the sake of review, briefly address some of the points you tried to make in your latest responses. But that is not possible without first placing your responses within the context of the diagnostic impression: zealotry delirium and psychopathic (anti-social) personality disorder (all previously defined), of which I combined into the coined psychopathic zealotry.

In your post about the so-called "New Negro" you wrote about the various issues facing Black americans. But you neither mean, nor understand, any of it. It was behavior consistent with that I described of the psychopath earlier in this case study: the attempt at clever manipulation -- knowing what to say for the moment, for the occasion. For example, you don't care about any attacks on African Americans as a group, your concern is purely for the political (rhetorical) attacks on your idol of worship. That became obvious when you made the following point: "These will be the persons who argue that our president has never done anything for blacks and support Romney."  That behavior on your part is the highest representation of zealotry delirium and is also mitigated by your psychopathic pretending to care about the masses of Blacks. (Also, it shows a political ignorance about Black electoral politics. Only a hand full of Blacks will ever "support Romney.")

In fact, you have attacked with vicuous ad hominems all who dared stand-up for African Americans as a group, if standing up meant disagreeing with your idol of worship. The evidence contradicting your sudden false claim of caring about African Americans as a group is abundant through out this case study, and elsewhere. Even in the posting itself, you attempted psychopathic manipulation (lying) to protect your idol of worship by trying to run (without the talent to pull it off) a spin of exoneration for the cruel anti-Black, anti-poor people policies of your idol of worship. "Legislatively imposed poverty," you claimed, right after writing in your narrative to this conversation that the authors of The Rich, And The Rest of us, had "made up" the data about growing poverty, even though they cited official sources of their data, including the Census Bureau.

By first claiming that no growing poverty exists, you exhibited zealous denial, and then, by acknowledging it, but placing it within a simple legislative context, you exhibited psychopathic manipulation. The legislative branch does not have the final word on budgetary policy. The executive branch submits its fiscal year (FY) budgets to the legislative branch for consideration. However, the executive branch has the final authority to vetoe any legislative branch decision. Therefore, it is simply incorrect to assert that poverty is "legislated" without acknowledging the role of the executive branch. Often, the executive branch has submitted FY budgets to the legislative branch that contained anti-poor spending cuts, such as the FY 2011-12 budget that cut LIHEAP heating and cooling assistance for the poor by 50% (look it up).

You also alluded to "mass incarceration," but that reference is meaningless until you engage in a discussion of current policy in that regard. Instead, you run. But you can't hide.  You alluded to "classism." But you are the one exhibiting "classism," when you wrote that the poor "lacks personal responsibility." What could be more evident (and false) of classism than that delusional belief?

You are a living contradiction. The perfect case study I needed to prove the point of understanding zealotry delirium. Let's review briefly some other zealous things you wrote within your psychopathic style. I will not spend a lot of time on your repeating back to me things that I've said to you, such as "I will place my record against yours any day," etc. And I only have accusations, not facts. Either that statement is one of conscious manipulation on your part (psychopathy), or delusional zealotry. It's not worth any long discussion. Everyone can read and knows who the guilty party is there. That is also an area I've encouraged you to improve in --where are your facts? Those kinds of unimaginative repeats can be expected within the narrow cognitive sphere of zealotry.

Before closing, however, I would like to review some other things you said. First, I didn't take VIP vacation. I'm not a VIP in the sense that you know a VIP to be. SO please, don't start worshipping me!!!! Please, I'm not a VIP!!! I'm simply a common man, who knows game when I see it.

Maybe I bank with the bank where Romney is hiding his money, you wrote fatuously. Well, if ones banks with any bank, it's probably one that is associated in some way with the rich folk like Romney and the president. If one banks with one of the big Wall Street banks, one is certainly banking with a bank that has received, and is still receiving, many trillions (with a T) of tax payers' money from this adminstration free of charge while the poor and middle income groups lose their jobs and homes and are told to "shut up" when they complain too loudly. Even the very poor, are affected when they must turn in desperation to loan sharks (pay day loans) like the ones supported by your "civil rights" leader Al Sharpton (references already provided in this case study), where the Black poor are charged up to 500+% interest on loans.

Did that answer your question? 

In closing, you wrote that if I don't agree with you, then I think like the "tea party." Those are the kind of statements that cause me to worry that perhaps still another diagnostic type might be appropriate to your cognitive state. This you assert right after I've explained to you that your anti-poor confession, leading off the article you stole, makes you ideologically in lock-step with the fictional  tea party and other real racists.

If this case study is to proceed, if it is to be useful in Understanding Zealotry Delirium, it is neccessary to move forward and not go around in circles with your repeating the same ad hominems and psychopathic projections.

Unless you respond to my question about criminal justice policy, I will not keep reinforcing your zealous behavior by summarizing the same points over and again, enabling you to run from facts with obfuscatory delusions.

            Let's close out this case study discussion with criminal justice policy facts. Clearly you must care about the subject, you alluded to it in your "New Negro" zealous rant, plus you teach it too.

Let's get it on. If the situation is too hot for you, as I've advised before--request a reassignment from Sharpton to another site. Maybe there, you'll be amongst other zealots and you all can have a feast. Remember, you're the one who rode onto this site on your horse with your intumesced egocentricity, sitting all high-back like in your zealous saddle, calling every body names; "haters," "aunt Jemima," "kneegrows," and other ignorant mess. It was at that time that I decided to join this site and case study you for all to see.  Maybe next time before you do such a thing, if you don't know, you'll "ask somebody."

Please, tell me more. But only about criminal justice policy. I've posed the first question. It's your turn.

NOTE: To readers, my spell checker is not working. If I've mispelled any words in this haste case note, I apolgize. I'll do better next time.

[Ricardo Jones]

We will not support the president (obama) on anything until he addresses Civil Rights for Black People and reforms same. We want the resignation of Jacqueline Berrien EEOC chair immediately or he will hear from US Black People at the election. NO more passes for the president because he looks Black and has a Black wife and daughters. We will march, call for a government work slow-down, boycott corporation/companies, businesses and the government. Civil disobedience if necessary. This is a promisse!

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

Thanks Jonathan for reiterating common sense which is not really too common anymore. What defines this campaign is two very different choices. The President who has kept his word on Iraq where every race of people have lost loved ones, by removing our troops. He has signed into law Healthcare which the republicans have lobbied to destroy and who have voted 37 times to repeal it. Hundreds of thousands of blacks will receive health insurance and will not die from disease of other issues that plague our community due to the clause in the law that makes the healthcare industry provide us with preventive care for free. He has created wall street reform that includes a consumer finance bureau which makes it very difficult for wall street to charge high interest rates on loans, credit cards and other financial instruments. Who has a high number of credit cards? The black community! Because they are so-called ballers! Well they can no longer raise interest rates on them arbitrarily. The credit card is considered late after not 1 minute after the due date, but in 30 days! Our community loves getting new cars which depreciate 20% in value after driving it off of the lot. But he still is making wall street conduct business in a fair and equitable manner. He is reforming the mortgage industry and has been prosecuting the banks for fraud with the attorneys general from NY-a white male and California-a black female. He is planning on rewriting the drug laws to decriminalize many drug laws that incarcerate our blacks in record numbers! But he continues to be stamped with the crazy label of "not doing anything for the blacks." (will address later)

Then you have Romney who hides his money, worships with a faith that demonizes blacks, who closed the eeo office in Mass. when he was Governor, made the blacks who wanted to file discrimination claims pay a tax to file, he refuses to release his tax returns when the President has released 12 years of returns, he earns money from america and hides his money offshore to tax evade. He owns a company that ships jobs off shore to maximize his income while laying people off and raising the unemployment rate. He has told blacks at the NAACP conference that he would erase all of the gains that civil rights groups and blacks have fought to attain! As Governor of Mass. he was at least 47 out of 50 in unemployment which including high rates for blacks. So since these GOP plants are on this site trying to attack my President, tell them to bring the facts with them next time because we can't have different facts. Different opinions but never different facts.
Jonathan Brown said:

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. 

[james wilson]

Professor,

Don't change the subject. And don't hide behind someone else! Let's talk Criminal Justice Policy.

Everything you said above has already been discussed repeatedly and discounted repeatedly. It has been shown that you don't know what you are talking about. The so-called "Health Care" you talk about (The Affordable Care Act) is Republican RomneyCare. A scheme to force everyone to buy inferior healh insurance from Wall Street or be fined thousands of dollars. It is a con game concocted by the ultra right wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation more than 30 years ago. The reason for the concoction was to prevent a loss in insurance companies' profit, which would have resulted from implementation of a low cost, high quality, health care delivery system like they have in every so-called developed country in the world. During the so-called health care debate, the president refused to allow any discussion of the Democratic Party's model of health care reform-- Medicare for all (single payer), or, at least a public option. No witness who supported the Democratic Party's models were allowed to testify before congress. Most informed people know these things. Those who don't know, can look them up. (As I've posted before, the website --health care now-- explains all these points in great detail.) 

No Black person will receive any Health Insurance, unless they buy it. There are no price controls, meaning the for profit health system will forced millions of African Americans into poverty. In other words, you're forced to buy it, even though you can't afford it. If you you don't buy it--you're get fined. The only people who will receive free health care are the extreme indigent, those already receiving it through Medicaid. And even they have seen their co-pays increased across the country as state Medcaid budgets are cut due to a lack of federal matching funds.

But all those who believe the spin, they'll find out the cold truth when it kicks in January 1, 2014.

Your other spin about financial reform is even more pathetic. There has been no financial reform. Wall street is 100% in charge now, and has been since 2009. Previously, its control ranged from the lower to mid 90s%. Now it's 100%. J.P. Morgan just lost $5 billion in a gambling spree that tax payers must replace. (While the tax payers lose their jobs and homes with no help. Money allocated by congress in late 2008 and early 2009 to help those struggling with mortgages still sits in the treasury--unspent.) The head of J.P. Morgan bank appeared before the recent congressional hearing wearing presidential cuff links (look it up).

Since the Dodd-Frank bill that you referenced zealously (but don't know anything about) banks have increased their fees, or tried to, in most transactional areas.  It was the public backlash that forced them to cancel their $5 ATM fees, etc., not any legislation. In fact, those and other fee increases have taken place after the so-called reform legislation was passed.

If you want to be a political spinster, then perhaps you should talk about subjects you purportedly know something about like criminal justice. You obviously know nothing about the other issues you are trying to discuss.

On the issue of Romney, I do not support Romney. You do! And the sad part is you don't even know it; due to the classical conditioning (behavioral modification) process you've undergone that I've already explained exhaustively. You, like millions of others, don't even know that you have been behaviorally modified.

For example, you, and many other Blacks, who now support Romney's health care model would never have supported it had it come directly from Romney. But when Wall street stimulus-paired (associated) it with your idol (personality) of cult worship, you respond to it as if it is good, and support it 100%. That's textbook behavioral modification.

Both you and Romney are hypocrits. You support his health care reform model, because it was forced on the American people by your idol of personality-cult worship, but disparges him.  And he disparges his own health care model in order to pretend there is a difference between him and your idol of cult-worship. Both are hypocritical behaviors.

I'm ready to conclude this case study with a calm criminal justice policy discussion. That's your profession. I expect you to know at least the fundamentals of the subject from a policy perspective.

In truth, I don't expect you to engage in such a discussion for two reasons: (1) You know you ain't standing on nothing, can't defend the indefensible, and (2) as a zealot, your style is to try and spin nonsense provided to you by your mind masters, as you did above, in your 100% devotion to your idol of personality-cult worship.

Given this, you'd rather hide behind ad hominems, than talk policy facts. Why? Because every thing you stand on is a lie. If I'm wrong proove it !!!!

Let's calmly discuss criminal justice policy facts in relation to your supposedly great concern for "mass incarceration," and all the other phony crap you have written on this site.

Respond to the question I've already asked, so I can follow up with more. Prove that you are standing on a solid foundation.

Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude this case study with a narrative note that the subject dropped out of the process, and chose to resist examination, preferring to continue residing in a parallel world, where he finds comfort in his grandiose, zealous,  fantasies.

 

[Professor C. L. Sanders]

You want to talk policy? Well at least have the intelligence to speak from reality. There are millions of dollars that are poured into a system that is intent on never changing and intent on giving corporations and special interest groups what they want. The blue dog dems and the Repubs take money to this very day to maintain the status quo. Ted Kennedy attempted to get healthcare passed for over 30 years to no avail. It was our President who delivered a healthcare system for millions of uninsured americans and you want to argue specifics. Unless you are that stupid, you will realize that you get the overall law passed, then you implement changes to the delivery of the law. As for the criminal justice policy of america, it is geared towards keeping this trillion dollar industry in place. An industry that allows private corporations to flourish. Companies like Wackenhut that is the world's largest private prison company. This started out as the Inmate Leasing system and has ended up with the current system that we have in place. Your perspective of the healthcare delivery would have been dead on the floor. One of the single most contributers of incarceration for blacks are our drug laws. That is why our President is targeting them with the current push to decriminalize marijuana laws. Wake up or remain sleep, the choice is yours. 
 
james wilson said:

Professor,

Don't change the subject. And don't hide behind someone else! Let's talk Criminal Justice Policy.

Everything you said above has already been discussed repeatedly and discounted repeatedly. It has been shown that you don't know what you are talking about. The so-called "Health Care" you talk about (The Affordable Care Act) is Republican RomneyCare. A scheme to force everyone to buy inferior healh insurance from Wall Street or be fined thousands of dollars. It is a con game concocted by the ultra right wing think tank, The Heritage Foundation more than 30 years ago. The reason for the concoction was to prevent a loss in insurance companies' profit, which would have resulted from implementation of a low cost, high quality, health care delivery system like they have in every so-called developed country in the world. During the so-called health care debate, the president refused to allow any discussion of the Democratic Party's model of health care reform-- Medicare for all (single payer), or, at least a public option. No witness who supported the Democratic Party's models were allowed to testify before congress. Most informed people know these things. Those who don't know, can look them up. (As I've posted before, the website --health care now-- explains all these points in great detail.) 

No Black person will receive any Health Insurance, unless they buy it. There are no price controls, meaning the for profit health system will forced millions of African Americans into poverty. In other words, you're forced to buy it, even though you can't afford it. If you you don't buy it--you're get fined. The only people who will receive free health care are the extreme indigent, those already receiving it through Medicaid. And even they have seen their co-pays increased across the country as state Medcaid budgets are cut due to a lack of federal matching funds.

But all those who believe the spin, they'll find out the cold truth when it kicks in January 1, 2014.

Your other spin about financial reform is even more pathetic. There has been no financial reform. Wall street is 100% in charge now, and has been since 2009. Previously, its control ranged from the lower to mid 90s%. Now it's 100%. J.P. Morgan just lost $5 billion in a gambling spree that tax payers must replace. (While the tax payers lose their jobs and homes with no help. Money allocated by congress in late 2008 and early 2009 to help those struggling with mortgages still sits in the treasury--unspent.) The head of J.P. Morgan bank appeared before the recent congressional hearing wearing presidential cuff links (look it up).

Since the Dodd-Frank bill that you referenced zealously (but don't know anything about) banks have increased their fees, or tried to, in most transactional areas.  It was the public backlash that forced them to cancel their $5 ATM fees, etc., not any legislation. In fact, those and other fee increases have taken place after the so-called reform legislation was passed.

If you want to be a political spinster, then perhaps you should talk about subjects you purportedly know something about like criminal justice. You obviously know nothing about the other issues you are trying to discuss.

On the issue of Romney, I do not support Romney. You do! And the sad part is you don't even know it; due to the classical conditioning (behavioral modification) process you've undergone that I've already explained exhaustively. You, like millions of others, don't even know that you have been behaviorally modified.

For example, you, and many other Blacks, who now support Romney's health care model would never have supported it had it come directly from Romney. But when Wall street stimulus-paired (associated) it with your idol (personality) of cult worship, you respond to it as if it is good, and support it 100%. That's textbook behavioral modification.

Both you and Romney are hypocrits. You support his health care reform model, because it was forced on the American people by your idol of personality-cult worship, but disparges him.  And he disparges his own health care model in order to pretend there is a difference between him and your idol of cult-worship. Both are hypocritical behaviors.

I'm ready to conclude this case study with a calm criminal justice policy discussion. That's your profession. I expect you to know at least the fundamentals of the subject from a policy perspective.

In truth, I don't expect you to engage in such a discussion for two reasons: (1) You know you ain't standing on nothing, can't defend the indefensible, and (2) as a zealot, your style is to try and spin nonsense provided to you by your mind masters, as you did above, in your 100% devotion to your idol of personality-cult worship.

Given this, you'd rather hide behind ad hominems, than talk policy facts. Why? Because every thing you stand on is a lie. If I'm wrong proove it !!!!

Let's calmly discuss criminal justice policy facts in relation to your supposedly great concern for "mass incarceration," and all the other phony crap you have written on this site.

Respond to the question I've already asked, so I can follow up with more. Prove that you are standing on a solid foundation.

Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude this case study with a narrative note that the subject dropped out of the process, and chose to resist examination, preferring to continue residing in a parallel world, where he finds comfort in his grandiose, zealous,  fantasies.

 

[Ricardo Jones]

The issues  are JOBS, JOBS AND JOBS???

[james wilson]

Hello, Professor,

Thanks again for telling me more. I want you to know that I deeply appreciate your agreeing (on your own free will) to participate in this case study on Understanding Zealotry Delirium. And, while I've been in some instances quite directive with you (as I will be in this closing discussion), I want you and others to know that every thing was always objective on my part, nothing was ever subjective.

I asked you to share with me your Criminal Justice philosophy in relation to current national policy, and you did.  Thank you. Albeit your repsonse, as expected, was consistent with zealotry delirium. For example, rather than keep the discussion of this closing session focused on criminal justice matters, you wanted to get the last word on RomneyCare (which you support, because it has been renamed ObamaCare).

Therefore, dispite the fact that this subject has already been discussed exhaustively, and the positions you take on it have already been disproven, I'll review and correct them one last time for the sake of this closing session. Also you raised new angles not before explicated and discounted. After that, this case study will close with a correcting of the misinformation you zealously supplied regarding criminal justice policy.

1. You asserted that millions of dollars are poured into the current health care system that benefits special interests.

While you are correct in that position, your failure to associate the Affordable Care Act with not only a continuation, but an exacerbation, of that problem speaks volumes in substantiating the fact that information (in your case rote one liners) without an analysis is useless in the decision making process of anything.

Indeed, one of the chief complaints against the nationalized RomneyCare (AKA ObamaCare) is that it further entrenches special monied interests into what is supposed to be a human right -- health care -- for the benefit of insurance corporations and not health care. Plus, it costs twice as much as a real health care reform system would have cost (see Health Care Now).

2. You ranted in implication that Romneycare was not really RomneyCare because Ted Kennedy did whatever, and people had tried for years to pass health care and Our president was the only on to do it, zealous, etc., zealous, etc.

But what you failed to understand is that it is not a matter of passing health care reform that's important, but what kind of reform it is that counts.

I know all about the history of health care reform in America. I've read exstentively over the years on the subject.

A recent article in the New Yorker is a good quick refresher on the subject, particularly the hated mandate. (See,  Unpopular Mandate, by Ezra Klein, June 25, 2012).

Not only does the article reference the late Sen. Kennedy role in the mandate mess, but it also quotes The Preseident (not "Our" or "My"president, because "he's not just the president of blacks alone." Remember?) The president, was quoted as saying that the mandate was ill advised because the only reason people didn't have insurance in the first place is they couldn't afford.

So that raises the question: If he knows this, why did he choose the Republican version in the first place, over the Democratic Party's (progressives not DLC right wingers) version of Single Payer / public option?

While appearing on the CBS TV program "60 Minutes" on December 11, 2011, the president said he chose the Republican version because he believed that if he chose their version, the Republicans wouldn't fight him. (See, President Obama: The full "60 minutes" interview.)  Well, they fought him for a whole year before its passage, and are still fighting him. Yet he has held fast to the Republican Plan. That reality causes some to wonder if his real reason for chosing it doesn' lie elsewhere.

At least he was smart enough to put its effective date (Jan. 1, 2014) off until after the 2012 National Elections. But as Shamus Cooke points out in The Health Care Trap (http://www:counterpunch.org/2012/02/the-health-care-trap/), many a sycophant who have been pushing RomneyCare will have some explaining to do when it kicks in and the people really find out how they have been scammed.

3. You wrote: "It was our president  who delivered a healthcare system for millions of uninsured Americans AND YOU WANT SPECIFICS." (My emphasis.)

And I want specifics? You dog-gone right I want specifics!!!!!!! I'm not a zealot!!! I want the specifics of every major thing I am involved with. I want specifics before I sign any contrcat, believe in something, someone, or anything else. (It is so sad. Or, is pathetic the most fitting word?)

In fact, it was that stement that convinced me to end this case study. Nothing else can be achieved.

Indeed, in my May 6, 2012  introductory note to this case study Understanding Zealotry Delirium (5th paragraph), I defined a cardinal characteristic of zealotry delirium as follows: "...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 ad hominem exhortation as a substitute for factual analysis." BINGO!  

4. Finally, the last word on health care reform, you wrote in reference to me, that unless I'm "stupid" (unless I'm stupid?) I will realize that "you get the overall law passed, then you implement changes to the delivery of the law."

If you had paid attention to the "specifics," instead of zealously worshipping some one you'd never heard of before, you would know that the direction in which the law proceeded is counter the direction of real reform: single payer, or, at least a public option. You don't eliminate the "corporations" that you crowed about, by further entrenching them. Indeed, incremental progress to achieve a long term goal must always move in the direction of the goal to be achieved, not in the opposite direction. To use your logic, the the best way to travel from New York to Miami is to head North.

Now, let's briefly discuss criminal justice --your specialty:

1. You accurately talked about how the criminal system is geared towards keeping this trillion industry in place. An industry that allows private corporations to flourish," etc.

Of course, you are correct. And, but for your zealotry delirium, you might really grow to understand your profession. The problem is, your zealotry is blinding you from making a factual connection between the problems you rant about and your idol of personality-cult worship. Otherwise, you might be of some educational use to African Americans.

According to the Justice Policy Institute (JPI), a progressive research and criminal justice policy advocacy organization: "Despite the fact that prison populations have fallen for the first time in 40 years, President Obama FY2013 budget released this week devotes more than $27 billion to prison and policing." ( See, Behind the Times: President Obama's FY2013 Budget. Justice Policy Institute, Feb. 16, 2012.)

Regarding the administrations previous 2012 budget, the JPI wrote: "The proposed 2012 budget for the U.S. Department of Justice puts locking people up ahead of reducing delinquency, protecting youth, and improving outcomes for the formerly incacerated." (See, Federal Folly: FY2012 U.S. Department of Justice Budget Gorges on Prisons, Gouges Juvenile Justice. Nov 21, 2011.)

Now who do you think I'm to believe, you a subjective personality-cult worshipper, or a highly respected research organization like the JPI staffed by researchers, policy experts, and social scientists?

In your typical zealous spin, in rgards to the "drug wars," you wrote: "That is why our president is targeting them with current push to decriminalize marijuana." (My emphasis,)

Since you abhor details and "specifics," perhaps you really believed what you wrote. Perhaps you heard a speech. But for those who do want specifics, like the JPI, speeches and reality become two different things entirely.

In the 7 page report Doing the Same Thing and Expecting Different Results (regarding the FY2012 budget), the JPI scholars wrote in the Prisons and Detention section (P. 5): "The text accompanying the President's budget mentions the need to reduce rates of incarceration. However, this sentiment is not borne out by the numbers. The bureau of Prisons currently confines approximately 219,075 people. With an additional $116 million over Fy2010 budget for buildings and facitities, the federal government plans on constructing new prisons, including one in Alabama, increasing the number of prison beds and the potential for more people in prison." (These of course, include privat prisons.)

Where do you get your zealous spins, other than your imgination? Because what you say is not true, then it can only be delusional, if you actually believe it to be true, or psychopathic lying if you actually know better. My assessment is it is a combination of both. Hence, psychopathic zealotry.

For example, your claims about the president's decriminalizing marijuana is untrue. The truth is, for good or bad, all such efforts to lessen marijuana penalties have been at the municipal, county, and state levels. Not at the federal level as you claim. According to news and sociological reports, even in states like California, where less restrictions on the drug have been voted into state law by the citizenry, federal laws are being used to over ride state law in that regard. (See, Obama Administration's War on Pot: Oaksterdam Founder Richard Lee's Exclusive Interview After Raid," by Lucia Graves, Huffpost April 18, 2012.)

Even today, White folks used to using drugs and getting away with it, are protesting the president's crack down on marijuana use on the West Coast. (See, Obama Protest In Oakland: Hundreds of Cannabis Activists Gather at City Hall (Photos), by Carly Schwartz, HuffPost, July 23, 2012.)

In conclusion, this ends the case study. I have since May 6, 2012  engaged you in dialogue designed to draw out of you every definition of Zealotry Delirium as defined and described in my introductory narrative to this case study itself.

With your latest self-disclosure (admission) that specifics are not important to you when making significant life decisions of whether or not to support some one, or some thing-- there's nothing more to prove.

I'm sure you'll respond with more zealotry. As your egocentricity will not allow you not to have the last word. Go ahead. But I will not respond. At this point, you've been so completely exposed that I do not believe a case summary narrative is even necessary.

This Case Study Is hereby Concluded.