Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 206

Metrics of the Good Teacher

Muhammad Rasheed - "Raj Chetty, a public economist who teaches at Harvard, took part in two studies that have made headlines because they sought to quantify the value of good teachers. One released in 2012, conducted with economists at Harvard and Columbia, tracked one million students in a large urban school district over 20 years and calculated that replacing an average teacher with an excellent one would raise a single classroom's lifetime earnings by about $1.4 million. Good teachers who lifted standardized test scores also had students less likely to become teenage parents and more likely to attend a good college, among other positive results.

"He is already immersed in his next project, which explores what factors allow children to move up the economic ladder, relative to their parents."

Devin Murphy - Are we defining "good teachers" as "teachers who raise standardized test performance"?

Muhammad Rasheed - It sounds more like "teachers who raise a single classroom's lifetime earnings by about $1.4 million, had students less likely to become teenage parents, students more likely to attend a good college, among other positive results, with 'raising standardized test performances' as an interesting side effect of the above."

Fred Pomeroy - I don't see this as anything new. A good teacher will make the students want to learn more. An interested student will be less likely to drop out and more likely to get better grades and thus graduate. They have been saying for decades that high school and college graduates earn more than dropouts. $1.4 million per classroom per lifetime isn't all that much. With only twenty students that is only $70,000 per career. If someone works for 35 years that is only two thousand per year. I heard the number was near half a million per person half a century ago for the difference between a dropout's lifetime earnings and that of a college graduate.

If he wanted to make the case for hiring a good teacher, he should compare the difference in salary needed to hire a good teacher compared to the tax revenue generated by increased earnings of the more highly educated students.

Muhammad Rasheed - It was very new at the time the study came out, hence the controversy. People objected at the idea of being able to objectively measurable what makes a "good teacher." Being able to accurately predict whether a given classroom will have their earnings increase $1.5 million or not based on the track record of their instructor's performance is a good thing, despite the strawman argument of whether that amount is "all that much" or not (compared to what?).

I presume the objectors to the findings preferred to allow the idea of whether someone was a 'good' teacher or not continue to be in the realm of subjective opinion, so they could continue to bs their supervisors during Annual Appraisal time. Dispassionate & objective data that definitively proved they were effin' up all year, to the detriment of our children, would be their worst nightmare. #shitBirdsHateAccountabilityItTurnsOut

Muhammad Rasheed - I suppose it's also possible that many of them reacted negatively to the findings because they preferred to believe that whether people did well in life had everything to do with race/genetics. Consequently the very idea that anyone could do well in life if artificial, exploitation-based obstacles were removed, caused stinging cognitive dissonance waves to ripple through their selfish, hoarding, sociopathic cortex.

See Also:  Old Dunbar High – Fact versus Popular Fictions

Old Dunbar High – Fact versus Popular Fictions

Muhammad Rasheed -  "When the U. S. Supreme Court declared in 1954 that separate schools were inherently inferior, within walking distance of that same Court was an all-black public school whose performance had equaled or surpassed that of white schools in the District of Columbia for more than 80 years.” ~Thomas Sowell, Black Education: Achievements, Myths, and Tragedies
Jeremy Travis - Source. Point? Not challenging you or being facetious, just curious.
Al Bush - Replicate. If one can another can.
Muhammad Rasheed - Paul Laurence Dunbar High School is a public secondary school located in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded as an educational mission at the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church, Dunbar was America's first public high school for black students. It was known for its excellent academics, enough so that some black parents moved to Washington specifically so their children could attend it. It also boasted a remarkably high number of graduates who went on to higher education, and a generally successful student body.
An unusual number of teachers and principals held Ph.D. degrees, including Carter G. Woodson, father of Black history Month and the second African American to earn a Phd. from Harvard (after W. E. B. Du Bois). This was the result of the entrenched white supremacy that pervaded the nation's professions and served to exclude the majority of African-American women and men from faculty positions at predominantly white institutions of higher learning. As a consequence, however, Dunbar High School was considered the nation's best high school for African Americans during the first half of the 20th century. It helped make Washington, DC, an educational and cultural capital.
Muhammad Rasheed - Following desegregation and demolition of the original facility, the school's prestige dropped notably. Through the years, Dunbar High School continued to perform below the standards and was among a list of failing schools identified for turnaround or closure.
Muhammad Rasheed - The point of the status post was that the African American community as a whole made more and greater progress in the pre-Civil Rights Era than afterwards. The policies created under the post Civil Rights Act "civil rights vision" have been reactionary and detrimental to our growth.
Muhammad Rasheed - The once great Dunbar High was yet another casualty of short-sighted and wrong thinking during the integration age.
Al Bush - Annette Johnson today's history lesson. MR--Annette is a local activist, writer and all around delight. She's always posting positive AA history for the good of all. Hat tip to you sir.
Jeremy Travis - Muhammad, if not the Civil Rights movement, what then should have been the course of action taken by disenfranchised Blacks of the time?
Al Bush - The counter being I suppose that the aggregate improvements were greater than the losses. I believe that was true for many years but do not know about it still. No data to cite.
Courtney Perry - Civil rights definitely helped... but the whole under performing schoool thing... thats a huge monster now
Annette Johnson - Al Bush, Thank You!
Al Bush - Thanks to M. Rasheed.
Annette Johnson – “Unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.”  --Justice Thurgood Marshall, Milliken v. Bradley (1974)
Annette Johnson - This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision that required desegregation of public schools in the United States (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). Also: On this anniversary of the Brown decision, we recognize that school integration is still a contentious and unfinished piece of the educational social justice agenda. Recent U.S. Department of Education data (2014) remind us that disparities in the distribution of educational opportunities by race are still a vivid reality. Opportunities to learn should begin with early learning and continue throughout K-12 years in rigorous, culturally responsive learning environments for all students (Gay, 2010). Reminding ourselves of the history of desegregation, including what we have learned from the desegregation movement to this point, is worthwhile and necessary work if we are to critically examine integration as a strategy to increase access, representation, participation and full membership in high-quality and equitable learning environments, close outcomes gaps, and achieve social cohesion. Such analysis can also help us develop considerations for integration in the present.
Annette Johnson - Just my Thoughts!
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Muhammad, if not the Civil Rights movement, what then should have been the course of action taken by disenfranchised Blacks of the time?"
There was a big difference between the movement/struggle that led to the Civil Rights Act being passed w/jim crow being lifted, compared to the policies written after the fact based on a faulty "civil rights vision." The latter caused our progress to stagnate and even atrophy.
Hope & Its Mysterious Alternative
Richard Sherman - The Civil Rights Act is not responsible for that, though, Muhammad, what is responsible for the atrophy, stagnation and continued oppression is the Johnson Administrations' implementation of The Great Society, which was specifically engineered and instituted as a way, in LBJ's (that miserable S.O.B.) own words, to: "Keep them N-----s voting Democrat for the next 200 years."
All the good done by the Civil Rights act was immediately reversed by Johnson's and then Nixon's efforts to control an entire segment of the nation's citizenry.
Though it would be nearly impossible to reverse the damage done by LBJ's Great Society, we CAN move past it and into the future by eliminating the idea that our pigment makes us different. Once we get by that, and stop as segment cultures to see each other as separate and therefore separated, true and truly willing integration and healing will happen as a natural course of life.
Muhammad Rasheed - Richard Sherman wrote: "The Civil Rights Act is not responsible for that, though, Muhammad..."
That's not what I said. I said there is a difference between the civil rights movement's achievement with getting the Civil Rights Act passed and removing jim crow policies compared to the fallacy laden "civil rights vision" that came LATER, which caused the current stagnation.
Moses Mullins - Gill Scott-Heron in "The New Deal" says it eloquently. 
Excerpt: 'cause I believe these smilesin three piece suitswith gracious, liberal demeanortook our movement off of the streetsand took us to the cleanersIn other words, we let up the pressureAnd that was all part of their plan
Full lyrics:"The New Deal"I have believed in my convictionsAnd have been convicted for my beliefsConned by the constitutionAnd harassed by the police.I've been billed for the bill of rightsAnd been treated like I was wrong.I have become a special amendmentFor what included me all along.Like "All men are created equal."(No amendment needed here)I've contributed in every field including cottonFrom Sunset Strip to Washington Square.Back during the non-violent era.I was the only non-violent one.As a matter of fact there was no non-violence'cause too many rednecks had guns.There seems to have been this patternThat a lot of folks failed to pick up on.But all black leaders who dared stand upWuz in jail, in the courtroom or gone.Picked up indiscriminatelyBy the shocktroops of discriminationTo end up in jails or tied up in trailsWhile dirty tricks soured the nation.I've been hoodwinked by professional hoods.My ego has happened to me.It'll be alright, just keep things cool!""And take the people off the street.We'll settle all this at the conference table.You just leave everything to me."Which gets me back to my convictionsAnd being convicted for my belief'cause I believe these smilesin three piece suitswith gracious, liberal demeanortook our movement off of the streetsand took us to the cleanersIn other words, we let up the pressureAnd that was all part of their planAnd every day we allow to slip through our fingersIs playing right into their hands
What is swept under the rug is that the Civil Rights movement did not ask for integration. They asked for desegregation. We were patted on the head and told that what we really wanted was integration.
We got it, and now our youth get a lower quality of education than they got from those poor underpaid, overworked black teachers with inferior resources who loved their students and was determined to see them on the right track..
Bakkah Rasheed-Shabazz - What was the name of that school. I remember reading about it at UofM.
Kristopher Michael Mosby - Yup, good ol' Dunbar. Although back then, Dunbar wasn't free from discrimination, either. It was simply discrimination of a different kind. You may or may have not been admitted Rasheed, the one thing in your favor, you're the right "color". My mother went to a similar public school in Baltimore.
Muhammad Rasheed - In 1899, there were four academic public high schools in Washington, D. C. – one black and three white.  In standardized tests given that year, students in the black high school averaged higher test scores than students in two of the three white high schools.  Today, More than a century later, it would be considered Utopian even to set that as a goal, much less to expect it to actually happen.  Yet what happened back in 1899 was no isolated fluke.  That same repeatedly equaled or exceeded national norms on standardized tests in the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s.  Back in the 1890s, it was called the M Street School and in 1916 it was renamed Dunbar High School.
When this information on Dunbar High School was first published in the 1970s, those few educators who responded at all dismissed the relevance of these findings by saying that these were “middle class” children and therefore their experience was not “relevant” to the education of low-income minority children.  Those who said this had no factual data on the incomes or occupations of the parents of these children – and the data that existed said just the opposite.  The problem, however, was not that these dismissive educators did not have evidence.  The more fundamental problem was that they saw no NEED for evidence.  According to their doctrines, children who did well on standardized tests were middle class.  These children did well on such tests, so therefore they must be middle class.
It so happens that there was evidence on the occupations of the parents of the children at this school as far back as the early 1890s.  As of academic year 1892-93, of the known occupations of these parents, there were 51 laborers, 25 messengers, 12 janitors, and ONE doctor.  That hardly seems middle class.  Over the years, a significant black middle class did develop in Washington and most of them may well have sent their children to the M Street School or to Dunbar High School, as it was later called.  But that is wholly different from saying that most of the children at that school came from middle class homes.
More detailed data on parental occupations are available for a later period, from the later 1930s through the mid 1950s.  These data reveal that there were far more children whose mothers were maids than there were whose fathers were doctors.  Mary Gibson Hundley, who taught at Dunbar for many years, wrote:
 “A large segment of the homes of the students had one or more government employees for support.  Before the 1940s these employees were messengers and clerks, with few exceptions.”
It is possible, of course, to redefine “middle class” in relative terms for the black community as it existed at that time, but such verbal dexterity serves only to salvage words at the expense of reality.  The parents of Dunbar students may or may not have been a random sample of the black parents of their time, either occupationally or in terms for their aspirations for their children, but neither were most of them people with professional careers or levels of income that would be considered middle class by the standards of American society as a whole.  Intellectual or academic achievements for blacks, as for everyone else, no doubt have preconditions but the crucial question is whether these are economic preconditions, as so widely asserted – and so widely assumed to be insuperable barriers to good education for minority children from low-income families.
A related stereotype is that the children who went to Dunbar High School were the light-skinned descendants of the black elite that derived from miscegenation during the era of slavery.  Here again, the facts have been readily available – and widely ignored.  Photographs on old yearbooks from the era of Dunbar’s academic success show no such preponderance of light-skinned blacks.  Here again, there is a fundamental difference between saying that certain types of people were more likely to send their children to Dunbar, or that such children were over-represented, and saying that most of the children who went to Dunbar came from such families.
Whether in economic or other terms, the families from which the students of Dunbar High School came cannot be nearly so atypical as suggested by those who say that they were mostly “Washington’s growing black bourgeoisie.”  For many years, there was only one academic high school for blacks in the District of Columbia and, as late as 1948, one-third of all black youngsters attending high school in Washington attended Dunbar High School.  “If we took only the children of doctors and lawyers,” a former Dunbar principal asked, “how could we have had 1400 black students at one time?”  This was not a “selective” school in the sense in which we normally use that term – it was not necessary to take tests to get in, for example – even though there was undoubtedly self-selection in the sense that students who were serious went to Dunbar and those who were not had other places where they could while away their time, without having to meet high academic standards.
A spot check of attendance records and tardiness records showed that the M Street School at the turn of the century and Dunbar High School at mid-century had less absenteeism and less tardiness than the white high schools in the District of Columbia at those times.  In the nineteenth century, tardiness had at first been a problem, but it was a problem that was apparently not tolerated.  The school had a tradition of being serious, going back to its founders and early principals, who reflected the influence of the New England culture which contrasted so much with that of the culture of most blacks.
~Thomas Sowell, excerpt from Black Education: Achievements, Myths, and Tragedies
Moses Mullins - That's what I like about you Muhammad, you come out swinging with the facts, not emotional rhetoric.
Muhammad Rasheed - So working in DC gives you a special card to enable you to dismiss the facts in favor of old fictions? Gotcha. Can't say I'm surprised that you'd take that attitude.
Muhammad Rasheed - Were/are there light-skinned black elitist upper class? Sure. Were they the only ones attending Dunbar High during its academic golden age? Although a popular fiction propagated by the William Ryan 'Blaming the Victim' followers, the facts of raw data reveal this was absolutely NOT the case when it came to any Dunbar High policy.
Muhammad Rasheed - It turns out, Mosby, that what you merely think you know based on working in DC and enthusiastically swallowing unproductive old stereotypes isn't quite as substantial as what the raw facts of history itself reveal. That's a wall that will stop that mindset cold every time.
Kristopher Michael Mosby - No, but work here, a lifetime in the area, and having family/friends who lived and actually attended Dunbar does give me a better "Card" to call bullshit on some slighted individual's "facts".
Muhammad Rasheed - Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: "No, but work here, a lifetime in the area, and having family/friends who lived..."
You can have every relative in the known universe living there with you, but if every one of you decide to believe in stereotypical nonsense completely divorced from the data that the school itself has collected over the last century, it is still as worthless as shoes on a snake.
Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: "...and actually attended Dunbar..."
During the relevant period in question?
Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: "...does give me a better "Card" to call bullshit on..."
Ignoring facts in favor of generationally echoed fiction will never give you a card of legitimacy in any way, shape, or form.
Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: "...some slighted individual's..."
Strawman? Who's slighted?
Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: " "facts"."
I know, you've demonstrated a complete disdain for facts. I already said I'm not surprised.
Kristopher Michael Mosby - Never stated light skin Blacks were the ONLY ones to attend, just PREDOMINATELY, there's a difference.  There was one dark skin girl in my mother's class, Porscha Smith, she just happened to be the smartest kid in her age group in the entire state. Some kids just couldn't be denied. Not the norm, though.
Muhammad Rasheed - Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: "Never stated light skin Blacks were the ONLY ones to attend, just PREDOMINATELY, there's a difference."
Obviously you didn't read the lengthy Sowell quote I posted above on the topic.
Kristopher Michael Mosby wrote: "There was one dark skin girl in my mother's class, Porscha Smith, she just happened to be the smartest kid in her age group in the entire state. Some kids just couldn't be denied. Not the norm, though."
The modern version of whatever Dunbar turned into in the post-integration era is not the point of this topic. I'm only talking about back when it was the best school in its hey-day. The point of the status.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're babbling, Mosby. The data comes directly from Dunbar's own records, THAT is why anything you type is full of crap right now. Facts are only 'fluid' in your universe.
Muhammad Rasheed –

Kristopher Michael Mosby - MRasheed wrote: "The modern version of whatever Dunbar turned into in the post-integration era is not the point of this topic. I'm only talking about back when it was the best school in its hey-day. The point of the status."
Okay, fair enough. Which White schools did it surpass in the area?
Muhammad Rasheed - Here's the report with the relevant info/data:
Report of the Board of Trustees of Public Schools of the District of Columbia to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia: 1898-1899 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900), pp. 7-11.
Mike Csotd Peterson - So, if I can find a plantation where slaves were well treated, that means the system was good and should not have been overturned.
Muhammad Rasheed - By no means. Everything up to the Civil Rights Act being passed and jim crow laws being removed was great. But at a point shortly afterwards... for some odd reason... the momentum was sabotaged by a shift going from a) fighting for desegregation as a principle that went along with the understanding that the people needed to also work on specific internal development items in order for us to close the socio-economic gap and reach the successes other disenfranchised American groups had attained, to b) destructively substituting it for an "integration as a magical cure all" that would make all of our problems go away. When that shift happened, the "civil rights vision" suddenly became one of quotas, and pushing groups of people around into other areas, and making sure a certain amount of XYZ group was visually represented in ABC institution, and other similarly symbolic but ultimately useless-in-the-big-picture policies. And that's ALL. Even today, that's all that is being fought for, as if that was the magic potion we needed.
Meanwhile, that isn't what we needed. The high educational standards and no nonsense seriousness to achieve success in life represented by the pre-integration era of Dunbar High was what was needed, and programs designed to spread that attitude throughout the African-American community, and build it into the culture. That's what they needed more than anything. Desegregation was just a little box to check off of the many other smaller objectives towards the ultimate goal.
Mutuo Consensu - just as a footnote Muhammad, I am curious if your research shows after 1954, how soon and how many of those "prominent black educators" teaching at Dunbar High School left to teach elsewhere? (I'm not saying any one thing was the cause for the decline leading up to today's status... just curious about any possible contributing factors)
Muhammad Rasheed - Originally Dunbar wasn't a 'neighborhood school.' Every black family from around Washington D.C. that wanted to, sent their kids to it, and people would even move to D.C. from other areas of the country to do the same. Children from around the whole city that were SERIOUS about their future, did whatever they had to do to make their way through those doors promptly at... I'm gonna say 4:25am lol... every school morning. This insured that the school was full of quality minds who wanted to learn, and appreciated the discipline and structured environment that was conducive to doing so.
After the integration laws were passed everything changed. A line was drawn around Dunbar and around other high schools in American cities turning them into neighborhood schools. Now by law, only the people living in that area could attend that school, and by virtue of the truancy laws, they had to. But here's the thing... there was an old saying: "The folk who live closest to Dunbar didn't go to Dunbar" and it was true. Dunbar was in the poorest neighborhood in the city, and although some folk there were serious and did well at Dunbar, statistically, not enough were serious to keep Dunbar's success rates up where they needed to be. The newly-mandated student body couldn't keep up with the work load from the Era of Excellence, while political pressure caused the administration to pass people even if they hadn't done the work, and a disgusted prominent black faculty did indeed leave to teach elsewhere.
Muhammad Rasheed - The policies created that were supposed to help, destroyed Dunbar High.
Mutuo Consensu - While MORE of students were afforded education, the implementation of 1954's version of "no child left behind" simultaneously created an official under-class of (dis)functionally mis-educated children and a new era of black bourgeoisie paid higher wages, but still less than their white counterparts.
Muhammad Rasheed - You remember the movie Lean On Me with Morgan Freeman? Near the beginning, Joe Clark isolated all of those incorrigible, perpetually disruptive students who didn't want to learn anything and expelled them. Imagine if his bosses in the administration betrayed him and forced those kids to stay and undermined his authority at every turn because of the immense pressure from the political sphere. That's what happened to Dunbar High. They refused to let the prominent black educators of legend do what they knew to do to make sure the serious students succeeded, while handing the school over to the ones who didn't care and didn't want anything.



 Mutuo Consensu - i think that "No Child Left Behind", in the most sincere sense of the term would have to be a broad and sweeping grass roots social reform with "real teeth" first, and then an educational system.
Muhammad Rasheed - "They say, 'One bad apple spoils the bunch.' Well, what about three hundred? Rotten to the CORE! Now, you're right, Mrs. Barrett, this is a war. It's a war to save 2,700 other students, most of whom don't have the basic skills to pass the state exam. Now you want to help us, fine. Sit down with the kids, make them study at night. Go get the fathers off welfare..."
"How DARE you talk to these people about welfare???"
"Give our children some pride! Let them get their priorities straight. When Dr. Napier came to me, offering this job, I saw the lightning flash! I heard the thunder ROLL! I felt breakers, crashing, swamping my soul!"
"We are NOT in church, Mr. Clark!"
"I FELL DOWN ON MY KNEES! And I cried, 'My God! Why has thou forsaken me?!" And the Lord said, 'Joe? You're no damn good!' Now, I mean this. More than you realize. 'You're no earthly good at all, unless you take this opportunity and do WHATEVER you have to...' And He didn't say, 'Joe be polite.' 'Do whatever you have to to transform, and transmogrify this school into a special place. Where the hearts and souls and minds of the young can RISE! Where they can grow tall and blossom out from under the shadows of the past. Where the minds of the young are SET FREE!' And I gave my word to God. And that's why I threw those bastards out! And that's all I'm going to say."
Muhammad Rasheed - Mutuo, I think a program to help the poor-minded as you describe would have had to be a completely separate thing, under a completely separate system, designed specifically to get them up to speed. There was clearly zero value in abandoning the serious students who sincerely wanted to better themselves in favor of taking those same resources that they were using and handing them over to the people who didn't want anything out of life.
Moses Mullins - Quite true Muhammad, we have to make some harsh choices. But the bottom line is that we have to help the students that sincerely want to better themselves while keeping the door open for the rest of the students to decide to make a change.What we can't do is drown the good students because of the hard ankles that choose to become slaves on the private prisons plantations.
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. Those among them who finally become tired of eating off of that plate will push it away and start making different choices. In the meantime, they can get the hell out of my school.
Bakkah Rasheed-Shabazz - Thank you, son. I plan on using the picture and history lesson in my workshops this Labor Day weekend in Inkster, MI.  www.dnamuslimconvention.com
Warren Murphy - great discussion, muhammad.

"Tomb" of the Serpent

Tom Luth - Archaeologists To Ben Carson: Ancient Egyptians Wrote Down Why The Pyramids Were Built

It is sad that there is someone so mind-numbingly stupid as Carson. It is tragic that there are millions that regard him as brilliant.

Nina Savino - Ben Carson Shattering Stereotype About Brain Surgeons Being Smart

Muhammad Rasheed - From the article's Pyramid Text link in Tom's article:



Muhammad Rasheed - The Ancient Egyptians were pioneers in high-level meditation technique, with the meditator 'becoming an akh' as the actual goal to gain spiritual insight. The Pyramid Texts are precise instructions on how to perform this mediation correctly to prepare the practitioner for the afterlife, not funerary ritual descriptions as the article claims. The pyramids are NOT tombs.

I don't think they are grain silos either, but that's certainly a more interesting theory than the very uncritical tomb theory.

Nina Savino - Concerning the idea of pyramids not being tombs... sure are a lot of mummies, canopic jars , and funerary materials to not be tombs

Muhammad Rasheed - What mummies, jars, and funerary materials were found within the pyramids of Giza?

The argument against the tomb theory is strong based on the fact when they were first opened, thy were conspicuously empty, with none of the typical egomaniac decorations associated with personal pharaoh. So where are you getting that, please, Nina?

Nina Savino - @Muhammad Rasheed... here's ONE relatively recent citation...

Inside the Great Pyramid

I have been fascinated by and have been reading a variety of sources for better than forty years...

Nina Savino - Here's how scientists know the pyramids were built to store pharaohs, not grain

Nina Savino - Dr. Garry Shaw: Author and Egyptologist: 16 Reasons Why Egypt's Pyramids were Tombs

Muhammad Rasheed - The 'Inside the Great Pyramid' article concerns itself with who could have been the first person who opened the structure, quickly analyzing the most popular accounts. Other than pointing out that someone broke into one of the step pyramids and stuck a mummy into around 100 B.C., they have no idea whether anything was found in the pyramid or not.

Muhammad Rasheed - The problem with the 'Here's how scientists know..." article, is that it is full of smug speculation with little definitive proof. The monkeywrench in the author's (and the scientists that echo these speculations) is that there ARE numerous actual tombs in Egypt found. Highly decorated, covered in elaborate writings, etc., even after they had been thoroughly ransacked by robbers. Conspicuously, the Great Pyramid is naked as an egg. Just because some later rulers decided to save that tomb building money and repurpose some pyramids for burying either himself or relatives, doesn't mean that was what their purpose was. The insistence that they are tombs is not science. It's lazy belief.

Nina Savino - The Great Pyramid is only one pyramid of hundreds... it is written on the walls what they are... by those who built them

Muhammad Rasheed - Post up a pic that shows writing on a Great Pyramid wall that says it is a tomb, please. If it were that simple there would be no controversy.

That comment was pure speculation (to be generous) from someone pretending to have more knowledge than they do.

Nina Savino - It will have to be when I get off work Muhammad

Tom Luth - Why was King Tut buried in a grain silo?

Nina Savino - @Tom Luth... KV 62 isn't a pyramid

Muhammad Rasheed - Regarding the 'Dr. Gary Shaw' article:

1.) I call his bluff that the use of 'mrw' means that pyramid and tomb are synonymous. Since 'mrwt' means 'love' I think the root is referring to something else rather than 'tomb' as he lazily believes.

2.) There is zero evidence that the granite container found within the King's Chamber is supposed to be a sarcophagus. Just because it loosely reminds you of a sarcophagus, and some after-the-fact, unenlightened ruler broke in and shoved his mother-in-law in one, doesn't mean that was the intended purpose.

3.) Can he not see that "associated with" does not equal "that's what it is?" This is the very definition of "reaching."

4.) More importantly, there were also very intense rituals required of the ruler during his lifetime to prepare himself for the afterlife. This part is conspicuously absent from the orthodoxy's lazy version of 'science.'

5.) So?

6.) Was the courtier's tomb a pyramid?

7.) The pyramid texts contain rituals to perform during the ruler's lifetime to prepare for the afterlife which were actually far more important.

8.) The first sentence was as worthless as the #3 item.

9.) Pure speculation based on lazy belief with weak evidence.

10.) It is more likely that the original purpose was not a tomb, it was repurposed into a tomb by a later ruler, and then converted back into a ritual temple structure later by Djoser.

11.) And that proves what now?

12.) After-the-fact unenlightened ruler repurposing does not mean that was the original purpose.

13.) More speculation that conspicuously fails to take into account the 'living king' aspects of the rituals.

14.) Nonsense. It's CLEARLY graffiti.

15.) From Gary's link: Zahi Hawass said there are no plans to run tests to determine the actual age, identity, etc., of the mummy found. Their belief alone is sufficient. (emphasis mine)

hahahaha! In a nutshell that sums up the width & breadth of orthodox "scholarship" on the subject.

16.) I don't care who argues that they are "cenotaphs," but I do reject the "tombs" theory as lazy [and probably Eurocentric] claptrap. And just because we haven't yet found royal tombs from the time periods doesn't mean it is logical to willy-nilly slap the label on everything you DO have.

BOOK REVIEW - The Blacker the Ink: Constructions of Black Identity in Comics and Sequential Art

‘The Blacker the Ink,’ edited by Professor Frances Gateward and John Jennings, is a collection of essays critiquing a diverse selection of significant sequential art works created by Black artists (and those sympathetic to their causes). This book has the distinction of being the first African-American Literature I’ve read since finishing Charles Mills potent book, “The Racial Contract” a few weeks ago. As some of The Blacker the Ink’s scholars broke down the dynamics of multilayered socio-political tissue that composed each subject, I was able to see which of these writers -- both creators and critics -- accepted the exploiter class in their self-appointed role as signatories of the West’s racial social contract or not.

Of course this side diversion was only a tiny part of the reader’s enjoyment, and this book absolutely provided a lot to enjoy. A solid, high-level academic work, my favorite parts of ‘The Blacker the Ink’ involved those socio-politically conscious scholars who would take the time to explain the source-cited details of a real life historical backdrop used by a given work, as well as the sections that introduced gifted talent I had previously been unaware of. The depth of my Wish List expanded continuously in leaps & bounds as fascinating new works were described/analyzed, often forcing me to skim and dodge to prevent spoilers from ruining a newly-anticipated reading experience. 
Highly recommended, this should be on the shelf of any serious fan of the cartooning medium.

SNEAK PEEK! Tales of Sinanju: The Destroyer, book seven "Numbers Game"

Tales of Sinanju: The Destroyer, book seven “Numbers Game” COMING SOON! AERIAL INFECTION - Long has the fiendish Chinese Vampire sought to turn all of humanity with its hive mind madness. Possessing supernatural powers and a terrifying, single-minded focus, the tribe should have been successful centuries ago, but the mighty House of Sinanju has been there to stop them in their tracks time and time again. Today the lead creature known only as The Master has changed tactics. Taking advantage of their ability to infect anyone, the vampire has gained the ability to command modern technology. Now the power of the drone represents a global threat greater than ever, with the two Masters of Sinanju focused right in the cross-hairs!
_______________Graphic novels
6.14” x 9.21”
Perfect binding
66 pages, b&w interiors
www.mrasheed.com

Morality - Differentiating Between Its Origin & Usage

Abdur Rasheed – 


Muhammad Rasheed - Since "what is right" has consistently varied both geographically and throughout time, how do you know what is right from wrong? 
It seems like you were told your morality from whatever cultural norms were currently trending.
Abdur Rasheed - Are you sure that's where "what is right" came from?
People didnt use the religous books as a guide to when you can sell your daughter as a slave or whatever?
Are you sure it was cultural?
Muhammad Rasheed - "What is right" as a cultural norm, is different from the origin of the concept of morality in human society.
Muhammad Rasheed - The former comes from whatever popular thing is trending in society. In 21st century western society, racial discrimination is considered 'wrong.' In 19th century western society, it was considered 'right.' "What is right" among the populace depends on how they are feeling during a given era.
The latter item -- the origin of morality -- originally comes from the source prophets/texts of our religions as a concept introduced to humanity. Individual scriptural commands, however, have never functioned as a short list of what the populace believes encompasses "right & wrong." For example, in the Qur'an, God said that the children of Israel put all kinds of restrictions upon themselves that He had nothing to do with, saying that they made up their own versions of what was right/wrong and subscribed His name to it while they had neither the knowledge nor authority to do so.

A Dying Breed

Wondering Knight - Rising deaths among white middle-aged Americans could exceed Aids toll in US
There exists this idea that only those at the very bottom experience the effects of this incredibly unjust economic disparity. But a runaway economy destroys us in a lot of different ways.
Kwamé Burñey - I wonder if the authorities ever got to the bottom of all those "accidental" banker's deaths. It was on a global scale.
Wondering Knight - I didn't know that happened. Got a link I could read?
Muhammad Rasheed - From the bottom of the article, how is inequality expanding?
Wondering Knight - @Muhammad Rasheed… So the way there are a few primary ways that wealth inequality gap can widen. The first is called stagflation. its a combination of inflation in prices and stagnation wages. This is experinced in phenomena where economic buying power does not keep pace with the real price of goods. While the aboslute amount of money we make might go up hte rate of increase of goods and services goes up faster, which is why our parents in the 50s and 60s could have with a high school education could have worked one job and supported a family and a home. A good example of this is the fight for 15. If Wages had kept pace with the rate of prices our minimum wage would be closer to 15 dollars nationally than the 8 it currently is. 
This increases the income gap simply because there is a direct loss of buying power, and only those on the higher end of income distribution will continue to see no change in their buying power. This trend is set to continue.
Wondering Knight - Another primary way that the income gap continues to widen. Is that lack of circulation in income. Even though the united states has continued to see economic growth in since the economic collapse of 2008, almost none of it has made it into the hands of the American worker. We are experiencing what economists are calling a jobless growth, in other words someone is definitely getting richer- to the tune of billions of dollars a year- but that growth is being hoovered up by 1% of the population and almost none is circulating down.
Wondering Knight - Finally more alarmingly and insidiously, is that the rate of capital growth is almost constant while the rate of economic growth is set to decline. In other words the Americna economy (and in fact all 1st world economies) are slowing down owing to the ability to manufacture things in cheaper places (China, India, and eventually Africa). And when the economy is slows down the ability for those with less capital to accumulate more greatly decreases. 
On the other side Capital (accumulated wealth) once it reaches suffecient size will continue to grow at a steady rate and has done so historically since the 20th century. So economic growht in a strong economy is somehting like 3% a year which is about the same as Capital. But in a slow economy economic growht is down to 1-2% or lower. It seems like a small percent but the implications are pretty staggering on a national level.
It basically boils down that the rich get richer (often by nothing other than already being rich) while the poor get poorer. And the economic forces (the invisible hand) that is supposed to balance this distribution is no where to be found.
Wondering Knight - So when you put all these forces together what you have is that the super wealthy have attained essentially escape velocity. They have so much money that it will keep getting bigger no matter how much they screw up. And the poor have little to no hope of seeing the kind of life their parents got to enjoy. 
The government is no help because it is not designed to do that. In order to get elected to public office many politicians have to spend a lot of money to campaign. Billions in fact. That is not coming from people on the street, but lobbyists who have a vested interest in making sure that certain policies are passed.
Charles Chuck Lett - Muhammad is a master debater, Steven. (Think: Tuvok with a better hairline.) This will get interesting if he's bored and decides to object...though he was probably just seeking clarification of your points.
Wondering Knight - Lol the Black Romulon huh? I also get the idea that he was looking for clarification.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I don't have anything to object to. At first I was thinking the "expanding inequality" comment was denying the civil rights advances we've made since this featured dying demographic broke the "Most Eyeholes Cut Into a Bedsheet" record. 
Thanks, Wondering Knight for both clarifying, and providing more detail in the specific form of inequality the article meant.
Kamau Mkafele Mshale - I only skimmed it. but it sounds like a rich bored peoples issue. I almost don't care. In my opinion if you lived a nice life till 56 and die of drinking too much, its much better than living a shitty life and dying of the same. or being beat to death by cop, or shot by angry neighbor. or dying as cop or soldier not because its your duty, but because its the easiest way to get the money to change your life. if those people grow old happily and kill themselves with vices I don't see much cause for alarm
Wondering Knight - I don't think from the article that is what we are seeing though. They are talking about white Americans who are further down the payscale and have less education. In other words working class whites. So the money they are spending on drugs and pain killers isn't coming out of some trust fund. 
And I'm not thinking its about comparing the systematic oppression of minorities with white privilege. It is to show that the system of economic domination by 1% of the population has unanticipated effects.
No one would be surprised if this number was reported about blacks or minorities, but instead it is about white people who no one was expecting this. Its like how seeing a picture of a polar bear on a piece of ice drifting out to sea really drives home the truth about global warming. The amount people who dies exceeded the amount of people to die during the aids epidemic in the united states. Thats a lot.
Specifically it is about the fact that chose suicide and drug overdose. It is like when James Baldwin and Malcom had that debate, where James says that the atrocities inflicted on Black Bodies was horrific, but that white people who were complicit received some unintentional back blow. IT looks like the system is rotting the soul, and like all plagues it starts with the ppor.
Poor and Middle class working, white people understand subconsciously that someone is going to get fucked over in the system, and were complicit when it was designated minorities, but now ti is starting to happen to them, and as they remember the history of the indignities we have suffered and know what is going to be in their and their children's future, it looks like they are choosing to check out.

The Great Divider

Gary McCoy – 


Sandy Brown Zumbro - Worst President Ever.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'll admit to genuine confusion as to how Obama divided the country exactly. 
As close as I can tell, it may be the suggestion that a Black person deciding to run for that office... and winning... caused a lot of race-based dialogues. Or maybe it's because of the false idea that racism was cured when he took office, freeing racists to be more vocal than they would have been otherwise? Or are we blaming the GOP's commitment to becoming the Party of 'No!' so they could block the president from achieving his goals (as heralded by Mitch McConnell's infamous comment) on Obama?
Jake Fuller - Maybe it's by Obama politciizing the DOJ and constantly jumping the gun and blaming the police for perceived racism, or refusing to prosecute New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, or buddying up to race pimp Al Sharpton and the racist Black Lives Matter group, etc.....It's the Alinsky model of dividing citizens and creating racial animosity as a means of control!
Sandy Brown Zumbro - Spot on!
Gary McCoy - Thanks, Jake. I couldn't have put it any better.
Muhammad Rasheed - Unfortunately nothing Jake typed explained how Obama is dividing the nation. He did regurgitate a bunch of unsubstantiated GOP propaganda talking points though. What an interesting world it would be indeed if those things actually possessed the ability to cure confusion. 
But I'll bite. I'll need more clarification on Jake's items so i can at least pretend what he posted actually held weight & substance.
1.) Give me a measurable example of how Obama 'politciized' the DOJ, please.
2.) RE: The President "jumping the gun," did you see that FBI report where they found the white supremacists infiltrating the nation's police forces and military (presumably so they could kickstart their beloved Turner Diaries scenario)? If not, then please read it and tell me if it alters your opinion on this item.
FBI Report – White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement
3.) lol What's this NBP "voter intimidation" that you feel requires fed "prosecution?" Please explain further so I am clear.
4.) Any white person who considers Al Sharpton a "race pimp" is a racist. Why do I think that? Well, because Black Americans are of the exploited class, and have weak political protection compared to other ethnic groups. They are disenfranchised. Because of this, no one comes to their defense when they are attacked by stronger groups. Sharpton has stepped up to provide a measure of political protection and societal awareness for victims who would otherwise get swallowed up in the machine. Anyone who gets upset when he shows up is on the wrong side of history. I look forward to how you plan to support your 'race pimp' stance. 
5.) How is the 'Black Lives Matter' group racist? '' Because they don 't believe that the lives of their people should be casually destroyed? Or do you believe that it is impossible for them to celebrate and support their own people without hating your people? Please explain.
My issue with this "great divider" thing is the fact that Obama did well working with his ideological rivals "across the aisle" throughout his pre-POTUS career, and was confident he would continue the trend when he moved into the White House. The McConnell quote alone throws a hefty monkeywrench into you all's opinion blaming this 'divider' nonsense upon the President. This is crazy to me.
Jake Fuller - Believe what you want. Anything I say is not going to change your mind. I'm not a racist but I believe that Obama is and you are defending him because of your blind devotion to the color of his skin. I would venture to say that you would not defend Dr. Carson with the same enthusiasm.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jake Fuller wrote: "Believe what you want."
Thanks. I've been waiting on someone to grant me that permission.
Jake Fuller wrote: "Anything I say is not going to change your mind."
A strong and convincing argument using reason, logic & wit (optional) would change my mind. Is this a tap-out?
Jake Fuller wrote: "I'm not a racist but I believe that Obama is..."
Based on what exactly? Partisan-based wishes & feelings?
Jake Fuller wrote: "...and you are defending him because of your blind devotion to the color of his skin."
Based on what? Your encyclopedic knowledge of everything about me? Or are you indulging in a bit of racist stereotyping?
Jake Fuller wrote: "I would venture to say that you would not defend Dr. Carson with the same enthusiasm."
Based on what?   Ben Carson & His One-Man War Against PC

Jake Fuller - Let it go. Everyone knows where you're coming from. You're fairly transparent. Have a nice day!

Muhammad Rasheed - Who is "everyone?"

Jake Fuller - Everyone who isn't governed by their emotions and blind loyalty to a president who can't open his mouth without lying....but, I digress.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jake, at this point... after you've ducked questions and basically chickened out of a serious debate... your insults aren't worth much. You don't have the ability to get under my skin because you lack any intellectual force.

Or at least you're refusing to reveal it. I'm willing to give you that on a probationary basis.

Being Radical - Protecting the Markets

Gerald Welch – 


Muhammad Rasheed - ...and to prevent the formation of monopolies and cartels that threaten Free Market competition.
Gerald Welch - Sorry, I don't see that power enumerated in the Constitution.
Muhammad Rasheed - When corporations monopolize the market, it is no longer free and competitive, allocating resources in the most efficient manner. You're only against monopolies when the gov does it? 
Is that the Libertarian stance?
Muhammad Rasheed - The government should protect the Free Market, which protects our capitalist way of life.
Gerald Welch - Yes, it is. The Tenth Amendment specifically gives the limitation to the powers of the Federal Government.
The only possible option is Article I, Section 8, which allows Congress to regulate state to state commerce, but that still does not give it power to, say, break up a company as it did Ma Bell in the early 80's.
That being said, it ALSO should not have bailed out all of those "Too big to fail" corporations in 2008. See, that's what puzzles me. If they claim they have this power, then why didn't they bust up THOSE businesses?
Oh, could it be that Wall Street is so heavily invested in both parties is the real reason they are "too big to fail"?
Marcellus Shane Jackson - I don't see anything preventing monopolies and cartels from doing anything.
Muhammad Rasheed - Gerald Welch wrote: "Yes, it is."
No. Libertarianism is all about a free and competitive market. Monopolies are the natural predator of the Free Market; without competition it doesn't exist.
Gerald Welch - Libertarianism is also about a small government, the size regulated by the Constitution. No Libertarian would say that the Federal Government would not have the authority to use Article I, Section 8 in that manner.
Muhammad Rasheed - @Marcellus… The only thing that I know of that prevented a monopoly/cartel from forming (and even broke up one) was the Obama Administration, proving he's the most pro-American POTUS in recent history. 
By definition that would make him a "radical in the White House." lol
Gerald Welch - Actually, as I referred to, Ma Bell was broke up in the early 80's.
Jonah Juarez - But, Libertarianism doesn't believe the government should be the agent to protect against monopolies, either. It is for free market but trusts individuals to prevent monopolies... Somehow... It is one of the failings of a True Libertarian stance. Most logical humans aren't that extreme in their stance and utilize whatever faculties they can to fill in the blanks like that with other legitimate means, like Gerald Welch holding that state governments should have some reach and ability to act in that way IF constituents push for that OR at the national level have an amendment passed first.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Actually," I only used breaking up a monopoly as a parenthesis side note. I was specifically emphasizing its prevention because of Marcellus' comment.
Muhammad Rasheed - Libertarianism believes in using the government's Force where it is most applicable and involves common sense. Your "somehow" doesn't compute.
Muhammad Rasheed - They believe in "limited" gov, not zero gov.
Jonah Juarez - Taken to its logical extreme, it would prefer zero government, is what I meant. It always strives for minimal government due to a preference for individual freedoms.
Jonah Juarez - That's why I included the caveat that most people who identify as Libertarian, especially intelligent types, tend not to be that extreme.
Muhammad Rasheed - Libertarianism has never been for a zero gov. That's what the folk who have zero idea of what it actually is about echo.
From the very beginning they stressed limited government, with it's primary job of using Force so the average citizen wouldn't have to walk around shooting people.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jonah, why would the extreme section of any party be the median point of the discussion? Is that logical?
Muhammad Rasheed - In my experience, it isn't "extreme Libertarians" that believe Libertarianism = zero gov/anarchy, but dismissive non-Libertarians that don't bother to learn what the party really is about.
Jonah Juarez - Um... It's not but I never said that, either. But, it's always important to keep in mind the pitfalls of any particular stance. Skepticism is logical.
Jonah Juarez - In my experience, that is true but also extreme Libertarians. However, anecdotal evidence isn't as good as other forms of evidence, so, that's a moot point.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol How would focusing on the crazy fringe members of any group be an identification of the pitfalls within the ideology itself?
Jonah Juarez - The Libertarian Party official website and Libertarian wiki article seem to imply personal freedom is more important than anything else for that perspective, certainly, more important than the preservation of any governmental power... But maybe my interpretation is faulty...
Jonah Juarez - Ah! That is an interesting point... Again, this can actually be taken either of two different ways and I see what your position is but I see both sides.
1) The individual retains the right to protect their own freedoms; no "real" need for government
2) We make the concession that enough people can't be expected to protect themselves in a just society without an objective government to protect them and we grant them that ability
Both are valid as "libertarian" but the more "extreme" it is the more it refines itself as different from some other perspective.
I mean, you're not wrong. Most of us are actually independents and/or moderates... But identifying with any stances implies a focus stemming from their base ideologies with a hint of their more extreme form. Otherwise... Why bother to identify, at all?
Muhammad Rasheed - I will never agree that the "extreme" stance should be used in the general philosophical discussion. It actually doesn't make since why you would even WANT to legitimize any fringe. 
A foundational aspect of Libertarianism is the delegation of Force to the government, and to have a strong court system. The lack of these isn't an extreme version of that ideology, it's a different ideology altogether.
Jonah Juarez - Interesting, I've actually NEVER heard it described that way. Not even in any basic definitions... Hmm..
Jonah Juarez - I don't say it to legitimize it. As I explained, I say it to draw the line in the sand for where problems can occur; a sort of "Beyond this point, there be dragons!"
Muhammad Rasheed - What are your sources, Jonah?
Muhammad Rasheed - At this point it seems like you're getting those definitions from liberal propaganda tracts. lol
Jonah Juarez - ...directly from the Libertarian Party official [Facebook] FAQ page..?
Jonah Juarez - I don't see them talking about "delegating Force to the government"...ever.
Jonah Juarez - ...directly from the Libertarian Party official FAQ page..?
Jonah Juarez - I don't see them talking about "delegating Force to the government"...ever.
Jonah Juarez - Direct quote: "Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions." That doesn't sound like advocating for any government, if at all, possible... Just sayin', lol... But again, as a thinking, logical person, I assume that most concede that a certain amount is necessary. Part of my worry lies in the disagreements of how much is "necessary." That's all. Nothing more.
Muhammad Rasheed - There's a difference between gov interference, versus gov protection, Jonah.
Muhammad Rasheed - I would think that someone priding himself on having a logical mind would recognize that.
Jonah Juarez - Oh! Lol, is there? Oh, boy... (

Believe me, I understand that. I don't know if you realize but I'm quite the student of philosophy. If my college had still had a philosophy degree, I'd have double-majored in it (and psychology). I definitely know what you're saying.
But, from a philosophical perspective, playing Devil's advocate, if we will, what exactly is that difference? Is it anything like when our minimal government protected the "heathens" from their previous "devil-worship" and helped convert them to Christianity? Who exactly decides when it is protection and when it is interference? The People? The "majority"? Lol... Just messing around, though. But truly, we always have to be careful. Stanley Milgram taught us that quite well...
Jonah Juarez - Gerald Welch--and many others--brings up often that whatever the government has the power to protect us from gives the government the power to take that away from us...something like that... Does anyone have the exact quote handy? I can look it up...
Jonah Juarez - And I'm not "priding" myself on having a logical mind. I'm just doing the best I can with what I have.
Muhammad Rasheed - Both Benjamin Tucker, and Ayn Rand, pointed out that gov (especially the ideal limited gov of libertarians), has no rights accept those delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose. www.libertarianism.org
Jonah Juarez - Thanks!
Muhammad Rasheed - Gerald is right in that regard, but that is the reason why they advocate for the "limited" gov concept. A small gov is manageable by the citizens so they can make sure it performs as intended. The bigger it is, it becomes a dangerous entity that functions as a nation within a nation, and that's where the problems arise.
Jonah Juarez - I fully agree with that. It's something I've said often. I'd love to figure out a way to make EVERY addition to government/governmental power always start on a limited timeline and have a set deadline when it would expire.
Muhammad Rasheed - The people make the constitution that defines the rights delegated to the government., to answer your devil's advocate question. The people are also responsible for holding the gov accountable so that it conforms to the limitations imposed upon it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Voting would be that way; no need to re-invent the wheel.
Gerald Welch - I agree with Mo. Libertarians have never been for ZERO government, just VERY SMALL government, confined by the Tenth Amendment limitations of the Constitution.
Jonah Juarez - Maybe I'm nitpicking too much but, again, I use that skepticism as a way to hem in problems in thinking before they happen. I see it as a sort of logical strategy. Lol, maybe I should keep it more to myself, lol...
Jonah Juarez - I guess when I look at it, myself, I think it's also nice if the government does things like "make sure the apples aren't an endangered species of the plant that might be wiped out by over harvesting" (like the banana that no longer exists that was used to create the artificial flavor...which is why it doesn't ACTUALLY taste like any banana I've ever eaten...)... I can imagine a few other things that a larger government has the resources to do and probably should do, if possible...
Muhammad Rasheed - Protecting us is a fundamental job of the gov. Protecting the underground water reserves, and the food-bearing plants would/should be a part of that.
Jonah Juarez - My feelings, as well...
Jonah Juarez - But, usually, when I voice those, people think I'm a socialist or a liberal, lol
Muhammad Rasheed - That's because they have no idea what libertarianism actually is, as I mentioned earlier. lol
The protection of individual rights is the primary role for the gov, per Libertarianism. And if the individual is unable to fairly compete in the markets because competition has been choked off by a cartel of corporatists, then the gov has failed in its duty.
Jonah Juarez - I guess I have only met either extremists or Repubs and Dems that think the opposites are flawed and vilify me for aligning with the "wrong" cause. I don't identify. I try to remain entirely objective.
See Also:
REVEALED! Obama's Commitment to America's Future

Obama's Commitment to America II: "Death to Monopolies & Cartels!"

Defense of the Gold Standard & the Discovery of Freedom, pt 1 of 7

Talkin' in That Ol' Code

Riley Freeman –



Riley Freeman - Yup

Muhammad Rasheed - Nah. Just a certain demographic of gun owner.

Riley Freeman - I agree with #2.

Muhammad Rasheed - The bulk of the welfare pie is made up of free subsidies to for-profit corporations, and 'cash crop' farms that mega-corporations own patents on. So I'm going to consider that #2 to be a nonsense partisan talking point by some dick "gun owner." lol

Riley Freeman - But it's still true. Welfare is given money while social security is supposed to be an earned acruement set aside for retirement. And, even though the majority of the working class pays a third of their paychecks towards this, it's consistently in danger of being cut.

Muhammad Rasheed - Part of it is true. The part designed to blame the poor for the country's ills.

Riley Freeman - How is that phrase wrong and blaming the poor?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Well, for one I don't "constantly hear it."  :P

For two, the 'Muslims' reference, combined with the defensive "gun owners" comment, is giving this away as a partisan nonsense talking point... one that i butt heads with all the time. It's saying Obama is a Mooslem that wants to protect his fellow Mooslems, and all the real patriots who support unregulated gun ownership are the real victims, and "all the people on welfare" (code for "blacks") are the problem with gov and our culture. #bringBackTheGoodOleDays

Riley Freeman - I think you read far too much into factual information. You still have not explained to me how the statement about welfare and social security is inaccurate.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yes, I did, Riley. This nonsense FB meme is 100% exactly what I said in the last post above. That's the message.

And you've been on FB long enough to recognize that.

Riley Freeman - You're failed to state that it was inaccurate or how. If anything, your provided more facts that make state the scenario even more of a travesty.

Muhammad Rasheed - "These two sentences tell you a lot about our government and culture."

There are 2 sentences in the first bullet, 3 in the second bullet, and both of them of partisan talking point drivel that continue the regular ongoing narrative that Muslims are being protected by this administration, gun owners are persecuted, and the lazy people on welfare are a BIG problem.

The meme tells me that the people who wrote it tell me a lot about our culture.

Riley Freeman - That's not what I asked sir. It's the second statement true or no?

Muhammad Rasheed - I already answered that. No, I don't "constantly hear" about SS "going to run out of money." We don't hear about welfare running out because we are on the fiat system and can create money out of thin air at will with unlimited credit (as long as the people accept it). And I didn't find the ending comment "interesting" at all.

Wrong on ALL counts.

Riley Freeman - So you're saying that you've never heard that social security is in danger of running out of funds a few decades from now?

Muhammad Rasheed - I said I don't hear about it "constantly."

Riley Freeman - How could you not when it's at least a yearly topic.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol There's LOTS of topics I don't partake in, Riley. Do you continuously engage in the hot topic of whether Ali should've been the first Rashidun Caliph of Islam?

Riley Freeman - Partaking in a topic and a topic being discussed by major news outlets and across the Internet is two different things. I don't claim to be completely savvy when it comes to politics but even i, as a person employed in America am privy to this major topic. If the topic of Ali were a major news topic, then yes I would know. But it's a personal topic that pertains to your religious beliefs and, no disrespect meant, but only matters to you and those with similar interests to you. It does not pertain to me. As far as the two statements go, as u said from the start, I agree with statement #2. I have very mixed feelings on the first because I believe in gun control. But regardless of subsidies, poor, rich, big business, rural America, inner city America, or whatnot, there has never been talk it the welfare system running out of funds.

Muhammad Rasheed - It doesn't pertain to my religious beliefs since I'm not a Shiite, but the controversy is a heated one, and involves more humans than the SS one does. I heard of the SS thing before, but I do not partake in it. I certainly don’t listen to people go on and on and on about it constantly as the idiot who wrote this meme claimed. It does not pertain to me since I'm not a Repub/Tea Partier who walks around with that in my talking point GOP man-bag.

The government coffers can't run out of funds on this Fed Reserve fiat system. That's why we're on it, because it gives us unlimited, self-fulfilled credit.

Riley Freeman - But the question, all along, was have you heard the topic. Now, after several posts, side tracks, stalls, and evasive maneuvers, you actual give the answer after actually claiming to have done so already. And even now, you essentially just glanced over it quickly. These are the same maneuvers that they use so how can you truly separate yourself from them if you choose to arm yourself with the exact same tactics that you claim to despise rather than just being straight forward and up front? Whether you are left wing, or right wing, if this is how you choose to deploy your message, then you're just two wings in the same bird and are both headed in the same direction.

Muhammad Rasheed - Hearing about it before isn't the same as "constantly" hearing about it as the meme author said. The only evasive maneuvers, etc. I've seen involved you pretending this meme wasn't a GOP talking point and should be taken at face value. It shouldn't. I don't respect the message, that I btw didn't have to dig to find.

Riley Freeman - I asked you straight up had you heard of it. A plain and simple question. Regardless of being a constant topic or you being engaged in it, you choose to use the tactics you employed rather than give a straight answer. This is the same thing that if a tea party candidate were called a liar for that they would come or back with saying that the didn't lie they didn't answer the question in the fashion that I desired. Which would be true but, if you're not going to give a straight up answer to a straight up question, then you're playing their game. You can't distance yourself from them if you choose to act like them.

Muhammad Rasheed - You asked me several questions and I straight answered them all. One of them I answered flippantly, and you decided whether I actively engaged in continuous debate with the anti-Welfare for the poor crowd or not was the most important question of the thread. lol

1.) Responding sarcastically to the meme itself, I said I didn’t constantly hear that argument.

2.) You asked how could I not since YOU heard it all the time.

3.) I countered with the fact that I hear arguments all the time that you don’t hear.

4.) Then you decided that the “real question” was whether I had heard the argument “at all.”

Riley Freeman - I never decided, accused, or inferred that your actively engaged in the topic. Seeing as how you pride yourself with being very knowledgeable when it comes to political topics, I found it hard to fathom that you never even heard of the topic i brought up. You stated you hadn't even heard about it, then you changed your answer not one but twice. Now you're trying to justify your outright lie? That asking with the fact that you're still stewing and steaming about this post ten days later is beyond sad. In the immortal words if the bard, Dr. Frazier Crane, I wish you good mental health. Unfortunately I am no longer listening. Nite nite. Lol

Muhammad Rasheed - You found it hard to fathom because you made it up, Riley. I said -- contrary to the meme's statement -- that I hadn't been constantly hearing it. You're the one that made it into "I never heard it."

For the record, that's what a strawman argument looks like.



See Also:  Respect the FLOTUS