Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 212

Whites Over-Eager to Find Examples of Black-on-White Attacks for Fake Socio-political Balance

Rick Drew - [shared meme; from The Comical Conservative "Simply Outrageous! SHARE if you can't stand this crap anymore!"]

Rick Drew - Comments?
Beth Gregory - very true.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Officials said Flournoy's injuries are not life-threatening and that they likely did not affect the child she is carrying."
So smacking her upside the head several times is the equivalent to Trayvon getting shot and killed for wearing a hoodie? 
This woman lived in their community. They knew her. This was an attack of anger/drama based on something this woman actually did they all thought was pretty foul. By contrast, Zimmerman did not know Trayvon, and attacked him because he was a black kid in a hoodie. Why did they attack the woman? They claim that she attacked one of the juvenile girls and the two were fighting in the streets. "In court Monday afternoon, the attorney for Herring argued to the judge the evidence is thin, and that there is little evidence of who threw any blows."
Basically it was typical low-life drama (she was probably pregnant with a baby she had no business being pregnant with) and the whole neighborhood was salty and tense about it. Jerry Springer bs that turned into a non-lethal, non-fetus threatening, group slap-fest.
And somehow you really think this is equal to Zimmerman killing that teenager because blacks wearing hoodies is a death penalty offense ("thugvon?")? 
Interesting.
Beth Gregory - Absolutely not equal to the Zimmerman case.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Misleading" indeed. smh

John Olchak - False equivalency.

Rick Drew - Yep... I agree.

Chad Skurkis - What about this one?  Police officer, suspect killed in Omaha shooting

Muhammad Rasheed - She helped go after a convicted felon they had a warrant out for, and got into a fire fight with him. She's a cop.

Did anything happen that was out of line considering her profession? An armed police officer got into a fire fight with a known dangerous convicted convict and gang banger and she was shot.

That's a reasonable expectation for her line of work. "National outrage" wouldn't make any sense. That's like a national outrage resulting from a fire fighter getting 3rd degree burns.

Chad Skurkis - Sorry, I disagree. There is no reasonable person who would say the felon was within his rights to shoot anyone.

With your logic then a criminal can be shot because that is part of the consequences of the behavior they chose.

John Olchak - "False Equivalency for $200 Alex"

Chad Skurkis - Where was the outrage and media coverage when Dillon Taylor was shot and killed?

Muhammad Rasheed - Chad Skurkis wrote: "Sorry, I disagree."

I genuinely don't understand what you are supposed to be disagreeing with. Are you outraged because a pregnant white woman was shot by [I'm going to assume] a non-white? Is that what the "What about this one?" meant?

Chad Skurkis wrote: "There is no reasonable person who would say the felon was within his rights to shoot anyone."

That's a strawman. What I AM asking is why would there be a national outrage if a cop was shot doing her job which is a normal risk associated with that job that even children are aware of?

Chad Skurkis wrote: "With your logic then a criminal can be shot because that is part of the consequences of the behavior they chose."

That's a reasonable and normally understood reason why a criminal would be shot by a cop. At this point I need to to explain what you are arguing exactly so i can understand your point. I want to lean towards a racist assumption, but I'll withhold that until I know more. Please explain.

Chad Skurkis - Of course you're leaning to racism. That's the crutch you use if someone has a different opinion?

My point is there are multiple examples of innocent people of all races being shot or beaten. I don't think it is covered the same for all races.

Muhammad Rasheed - If only racism was really just a crutch. I actually wouldn't be arguing this, and would live in La-La Land with you and your ilk. But alas.

This is a racism topic specifically. Take a glance up at Rick's shared meme and read it if you are confused on that matter. Talking about racism in a racism related subject is a crutch now? Are you used to simply calling racism charges crutches as your thing? Don't do that. It's weird.

Muhammad Rasheed - You are quite correct. It's NOT covered the same, and that is an issue. It's why people are comparing that biker gang incident with the typical cop response to black folk.

Chad Skurkis - Playing the race card is a joke and shows me not to take you seriously. I have friends and family of different races and all are welcome and treasured parts of my life. Maybe instead of labeling people you should get to know them otherwise you're just stereotyping them.

John Olchak - Chad, you need to do some research on understanding the concept of "White Privilege" and "White Fragility" before you start thowing around "racism as a crutch" accusations.

On Racism and White Privilege 

Muhammad Rasheed - Chad Skurkis wrote: "Playing the race card is a joke..."

In my experience, people that use the term "the race card" are the joke. Are you going to prove yourself the exception today, Chad?

Just because there are other races of people in your circle doesn't mean there is no racism in the country experienced by people all the time.

Chad Skurkis - Those bikers are thugs and outlaws, I have not nor will I ever defend them.

Do you know who Dillon Taylor was or will you have to search the Internet?

Chad Skurkis - John, and you need to know a person and their actions before judging.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chad Skurkis wrote: "Those bikers are thugs and outlaws, I have not nor will I ever defend them."

That's not the point. The point is that the white cops have zero problem recognizing separate categories of classes and behaviors among their own kind, but routines treat ALL blacks as if we are of the criminal class. The cops were even able to discern "dangerous" and threatening individual bikers from among that group! They don't treat my folk that way.

Chad Skurkis - Do you know who Dillon Taylor was? This is my third time asking.

Muhammad Rasheed - I had to look him up after I was finished responding to the above posts.

He's the dude that died in the Salt Lake City incident. I started not to respond at all after your "This is my third time asking" comment, considering all the questions from me you conspicuously ducked.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's one hypocrisy point for you btw.

Chad Skurkis - Yes the unarmed white dude who was killed by police.

You just got your hypocrisy point too.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chad Skurkis wrote: "Where was the outrage and media coverage when Dillon Taylor was shot and killed?"

Tell me why should there be outrage. What happened during that incident that would make the populace suspect foul play from the police?

Muhammad Rasheed - Chad Skurkis wrote: "You just got your hypocrisy point too."

Not until you answer the above. Don't make me ask 3 times. wink emoticon

Chad Skurkis - An unarmed white man shot by police when he never touched the officer at any time nor did he rush or threaten the officer. He had headphones on and did not hear the officer.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) Both the suspect and the cop were white. There was no reason to believe the cop operated out of any kind of unfair bias ("He was like a demon!") in the situation.

2.) The people who called the police told them that the suspect WAS armed, and the cop responded to the scene as if the suspect was indeed.

3.) Ear phones or not, the suspect wasn't responding to the cops VERY loud instruction. The cop was already tense and on edge when he showed up.

4.) When the suspect turned around, his hands were absolutely in his waist band as if he were indeed armed.

Nothing happened here that seemed out of order. Even if the suspect had been black, it would still look as if the cop operated in standard procedure that wasn't out of line.

John Olchak - Chad, since you are exhibiting some of the markers of White Fragility it's a perspective you might not have about the race discussion in America. That's all: "White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This paper explicates the dynamics of White Fragility." - The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy Vol 3, No 3 (2011) > DiAngelo

Chad Skurkis - Do you know who DeAndre Joshua is?

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait... were you finished with the other kid? You're not going to give me any pushback?

Chad Skurkis - That's cute John, next time get to know a person before judging them.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol He's judging you based on your documented behavior in this very thread. It's not like you're subtle at all.

Chad Skurkis - What's the point, I can see by your response that you have a very closed mind. Dillon Taylor is shot and it's justified though he was unarmed.

Chad Skurkis - I can say the same of you but honestly a few replies on a thread is hardly enough to analyze a person, unless of course you're into stereotyping.

Chad Skurkis - This is pointless, I wish you well and hope you have a great weekend.

Muhammad Rasheed - A demonstration of a closed mind is one in which you proclaim that it was unfair without analyzing what happened during the event. Like you are doing. All the points I listed were factors that led to him being considered not out of line, but you dismissed them out of hand. That's what a closed mind looks like, Chad.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chad Skurkis wrote: "I can say the same of you..."

It wouldn't bother me since I don't respect your opinion on this topic. I don't trust you enough to take ownership of your opinion of me. No offense.

Chad Skurkis wrote: "...but honestly a few replies on a thread is hardly enough to analyze a person, unless of course you're into stereotyping."

Do I need to stereotype? The point of Rick's found meme was that the Sanford FL woman and the Trayvon incident were the same, yet they absolutely were NOT the same. When I pointed that out you were disappointed, and immediately dug around for similar incidents to fill the void of your false equivalency bag. This is what you are demonstrating with every post.

Muhammad Rasheed - Let me look up this DeAndre Joshua (speaking of stereotypes he sounds like he might be a mixed race Black/Jew).

Chad Skurkis - So asking a question is out of line, good to know. Next time I won't ask "What about this one" because that is a false equivalent.

Chad Skurkis - He was a young black man murdered because he testified to the grand jury.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait! I want to look it up for myself.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Asking a question is out of line" is another strawman.

Are you even going to try to support your actual point, Chad? Why are you upset anyway? Tell me.

Chad Skurkis - Have a great weekend Muhammad and be safe over the holiday weekend.

Chad Skurkis - Have a great weekend, I have things to do.

Muhammad Rasheed - [notices that Snopes.com has a DeAndre Joshua article near the top of the search link list]

*intrigued*

Muhammad Rasheed - uhhh... Is THIS the thing that you brought his name up for?

Were Deandre Joshua and Shawn Gray Murdered After Testifying Before a Grand Jury in Ferguson? (snopes.com)

Muhammad Rasheed - If so you may wish to let that go.

Muhammad Rasheed - Is that the extent of your false equivalency item list then?

"A Highly-Publicized Gift from the Normally Secretive Brothers"

Muhammad Rasheed - Koch brothers donate $25 million to United Negro College Fund
Matthew 6:1-41 "Take care! Don't do your good deeds publicly, to be admired, because then you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven.2 When you give a gift to someone in need, don't shout about it as the hypocrites do -- blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I assure you, they have received all the reward they will ever get.3 But when you give to someone, don't tell your left hand what your right hand is doing.4 Give your gifts in secret, and your Father, who knows all secrets, will reward you.
Ba Sheer Abdul Musawwir - ...these two. Everry time I hear or see of them, all I can think of is Camel through the Eye of A Needle
Debra Ann Collins - Hey, what's that stinky smell?!? Oh, it's Koch money.
Jerry Lee Brice - Blood money.
Gerald Welch - How is this any different than George Soros?
Muhammad Rasheed - Is George Soros normally very secretive about his giving, but throws a parade w/photo-op when he gives money to disenfranchised groups?
Gerald Welch - No, what's the difference between one white guy who gives predominantly to one party and two white guys who give predominantly to the other party?
Muhammad Rasheed - In the article, they're not giving to a "party" they are specifically stepping from behind their wall of philanthropic secrecy to give to a particular GROUP, in a way that sets off the Matthew 6 flag.
Gerald Welch - No, I understand THAT part. I'm just wondering why everyone on the left is so worked up about the Kochs and why everyone on the right is so worked up over Soros.
Muhammad Rasheed - I can't help you with that since I had to look up Soros just now to see who he was.
Gerald Welch - He's the left's version of the Kochs.
Muhammad Rasheed - Is he normally very secretive about his giving, but throws a parade w/photo-op when he gives money to disenfranchised groups?
Muhammad Rasheed - That's the reason why the Koch Bros. got my attention today. Soros hasn't been on my radar.
Gerald Welch - Dunno. I just find it funny when the right is all up in arms about Soros but think the Kochs are just fine and the left is going crazy over the Kochs but have no problem taking Soros' money.
Muhammad Rasheed - I understand your question, but that's not the point of the thread topic.
Muhammad Rasheed - It'll be more fun to compare the two if this Soros did the same thing as the above.
Muhammad Rasheed - If he's a lot more discrete and not such a hypocritical photo-op chaser he'll be a lot more boring and probably won't pop up on my radar.
Gerald Welch - Well, since that is the point of your thread, Soros isn't publicity shy. There is always some kind of announcement of who he is giving money to.So, since the scripture is not about people who are normally shy and THEN tell about their giving, but rather people who call attention to themselves, Soros is equally as guilty.
Muhammad Rasheed - The scripture is about the heart of the person who is doing the giving in public. You can give in public without only doing it to be seen of men, but to be genuinely helpful. It's actually possible. In the Qur'an God says you can give publicly IF you are doing it from the right place. Soros began his philanthropic efforts to genuinely help in the 1970s when he helped struggling blacks attend the University of Cape Town during apartheid, and funded the protesting groups behind the USSR's wall. In his case his public giving functions as a "concerned citizen doing his part" example for the rest of us. The Koch brothers by contrast, gave every impression of a weak and token effort to court the black vote for some project they are planning.
That's the impression they gave ME, and it was as obvious as a blaring noise.
Gerald Welch - I have no doubt it was politically motivated, but I can still recognize the money was sent to a good cause.
Gerald Welch - BTW, my comment was in reference to the first three replies, which appear to only address the fact that they are rich.
Does Ba Sheer think the same thing about Soros?
Does Debra think that Soros money stinks?
Does Jerry Lee Brice think Soros money is blood money?
Muhammad Rasheed - Gerald Welch wrote: "I have no doubt it was politically motivated, but I can still recognize the money was sent to a good cause."
lol Sure, the money is still spendable, Jerry. It's the sliminess of the whole scenario that was the issue. "Ew."
Like the murderous neighborhood drug kingpin buying everyone a spread on Thanksgiving.
Gerald Welch - Did you really just compare them to murderers and drug kingpins?
Muhammad Rasheed - Yup. I'm doing my Ben Carson impression.
Gerald Welch - lol, love me some Ben Carson!
Derrick Okai - Well could the ostentatiousness be a ploy to evoke opulent others to donate.The affluent do like to out bid each other.
Muhammad Rasheed - Derrick Okai wrote: "Well could the ostentatiousness be a ploy to evoke opulent others to donate."
Anything is possible. I seriously doubt that's what the Koch's Bros are doing, but it may be true by some queer twist of fate.
Chris Suess - well then don't accept their money, it's pretty easy.
Muhammad Rasheed [looks around]
Muhammad Rasheed - Nobody gave me any money, Chris.
Chris Suess - I'm talking about the 25 million... if they offend you then don't take their money.
Muhammad Rasheed - [checks my mail box]
Muhammad Rasheed - uhhh... Nobody gave me $25 million, Chris.
Muhammad Rasheed -

Chris Suess - maybe I am missing the point of the article then. I'm just saying that if you don't like the Koch brothers, then don't accept their donation.
for example if Soros came up to me and offered me 25 million dollars for what ever reason, I would tell the twat to go fuck himself.
Muhammad Rasheed - And I'm saying that since the Koch bros never offered me any money, I can't reject their offer.
Chris Suess - but the United Negro College fund sucked that shit right up.
Muhammad Rasheed - Well, that's goody-goody-gum-drops for them then, innit? Is the United Negro College Fund commenting in this thread?
Chris Suess - maybe they haven't woken up yet...
Muhammad Rasheed - Maybe you should wait for them to show up and then give them the suggestion, assuming the accepting board members share my point of view, which I doubt.
Chris Suess - I don't think that they are complaining about it... of course you could always say no to them when it's time for your daughter to go to school, or refuse to apply to them.
Muhammad Rasheed - Say "No" to whom, and apply to what, Chris?
Chris Suess - for that dirty money from the United Negro College Fund.
Muhammad Rasheed - By the time River-Jewel is ready for college, that $25 million would be long gone. Plus I don't care about spending dirty money, I just disapprove of that fake photo-op shit (see: Matthew 6:1-4)
Chris Suess - shrugs shoulders... guess I didn't get the point then. according to the article it seems like the UNCF was the one that made the announcement and apparently they have been donating money for years.
Rob Leigh - From what I can glean from the linked article, the announcement of the donation came from the UNCF, not the Koch Bros.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Such a highly-publicized gift is unusual for Charles Koch. His foundation routinely gives away lots of money, but typically with little fanfare. 'Increasing well-being by helping people improve their lives has long been our focus,' Charles Koch said in a statement."
No, it sounds like Koch made the announcement, and the press got a quote from the receiver to tell them how they felt about it.
Muhammad Rasheed - "UNCF president and chief executive Michael Lomax said, 'UNCF is proud to announce this new scholarship program that will help...'"
The UNCF announced what they are doing with the money, but the gift itself came from a "highly-publicized" PR move.
Rob Leigh - Where do you see that the Koch Bros. pulled the trigger first on the announcement? I'm not calling you a liar, but I don't see it.
Chris Suess - you clearly didn't get your updated decoder ring.
Muhammad Rasheed - If it was the UNCF's announcement, then why are they calling it "Such a highly-publicized gift is unusual for Charles?"
Rob Leigh - Because it's the Washington Post.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's the Koch's PR move, and when the UNCF divided it up into the programs they announced what they were doing with it.
Rob Leigh - Are you speculating or do you have info which supports that?
Muhammad Rasheed - It says it right there in the article.
Muhammad Rasheed - Such a highly-publicized gift is unusual for Charles Koch. His foundation routinely gives away lots of money, but typically with little fanfare.
Muhammad Rasheed - Does that sound like the UNCF's initiative?
Rob Leigh - That doesn't indicate a timeline, Muhammad. You're speculating. You may be right, but that can't be determined definitively from this piece.
Chris Suess - I looked for a announcement from Koch Industries and I can't find anything... just a few leftist articles commenting on it, and most of them pretty ungrateful about it.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Georgia-Pacific supported UNCF going back four decades."
Koch Industries acquired the company Georgia-Pacific in 2005.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Rob Leigh - ???
Muhammad Rasheed - They're taking advantage of Georgia-Pacific's relationship with UNCF to heal their reputation in time for the 2014 elections, Rob!
Muhammad Rasheed - Gah!
Chris Suess - you mean being the Communist Parties scapegoats right?
Muhammad Rasheed - Wha?
Muhammad Rasheed - Look... Tonya Mullins is the Communications & Marketing Director for the Charles Koch Foundation. Her team's the one that built the press release fact sheet that all of these reporters are using to write their stories on this. It has all the quotes and shit already built into it, per her expertise. There's also a Melissa Cohlmia, Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC associated with it, and a Anthony Owens for UNCF.
Muhammad Rasheed - Obviously it's a PR campaign announcement from Koch, not the UNCF.
Muhammad Rasheed - BAM!!!
Muhammad Rasheed - Now get off my Timeline!
Gerald Welch - Cool note; the guy the Joker is looking at in that picture is Democratic Senator Patrick Lahey (sp?)!
Ba Sheer Abdul Musawwir - @Gerald Welch: BTW, my comment was in reference to the first three replies, which appear to only address the fact that they are rich. Does Ba Sheer think the same thing about Soros?....Well Gerald, I can not answer for the other people you named, but let me do so for myself. It is not the fact that they are rich. It is some of the things that they have done with their money. Such as the elections in that mid western town where they saturated peoples mailboxes wiith underhanded mail. Having been made aware of their dealings in the past and present, I myself have found these two Innovative accounting principles.... questionable...And yes, I have long ago pulled the list of company names that they dabble in and have long since removed my self contributing to the same.
Chris Suess - I don't think you can Bam your own comment.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'M PRETTY SURE I JUST DID!
Chris Suess - I think it's the internet equivalent of screwing your own mom... but I'm old and not really hip to the younger generation.
Muhammad Rasheed - BAM!!!
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm 43, what do I care about the younger gen? I'm on my own program.
Rob Leigh - BAM nothing. There is no way from the article you cited that you can declare with absolute certainty which party made the announcement first. You are speculating, pure and simple. You may believe it to be so, you may want it to be so, but your own source does not support it.
As I said earlier, I'm not claiming to know whether the charity released the statement first or whether the donor did (who they are is immaterial to the discussion). I'm saying that can't be determined from the piece you supplied. On the other hand, you are making claim to know for sure based on the same article.
I am open to either possibility, you, for reasons known only to yourself have dug in and can't entertain the idea that you may be wrong. That makes me question whether you are truly interested in honest debate and searching for truth or simply desire to declare yourself the smartest person in the room.
I still think you're a heckuva a guy, and hope for only good things to come your way, but I'm more interested in honest, open and enlightening discussion. I suspect you just want win.
(Incidentally, both the UNCF and the CKF websites have posted the same press release, dated yesterday, the first sentence of which reads: “The United Negro College Fund (UNCF), the nation's premier scholarship organization, announced today that it has received a $25 million grant from Koch Industries, Inc. and the Charles Koch Foundation.” You'll note it does not say “The Charles Koch Foundation has announced…” There is no author credited.)
Muhammad Rasheed - Rob Leigh wrote: “BAM nothing.”
How dare you!
Rob Leigh wrote: “There is no way from the article you cited that you can declare with absolute certainty which party made the announcement first.”
Sure I can. If this is a UNCF announcement, then why are they saying "Such a highly-publicized gift is unusual for Charles Koch. His foundation routinely gives away lots of money, but typically with little fanfare.” If it’s UNCF’s thing, why are they calling it Koch’s fanfare?
Rob Leigh wrote: “You are speculating, pure and simple. You may believe it to be so, you may want it to be so, but your own source does not support it. As I said earlier, I'm not claiming to know whether the charity released the statement first or whether the donor did (who they are is immaterial to the discussion). I'm saying that can't be determined from the piece you supplied. On the other hand, you are making claim to know for sure based on the same article.”
I’m analyzing that and the press materials they built from it. The evidence shows it is just a slimy political move from the two slimy billionaires.
Rob Leigh wrote: “I am open to either possibility, you, for reasons known only to yourself have dug in and can't entertain the idea that you may be wrong.”
lol That’s not true, or I wouldn’t have taken you and Chris’ challenge and dug into it deeper. If that were so, I wouldn’t be going back and forth with you two. I would’ve said, “Such-n-such and THAT’S IT!” And the thread would be seven posts long. The fact of the open back and forth represents my open mind. I believe I’m 100% right, but it's possible that I could be wrong and am reading your posts patiently to see what you have. I am also ungenerously inclined to NOT give these two the benefit of the doubt. When I see “old billionaire conservatives with political ambitions” I automatically think “fucking sleazy slimeball assholes,” the same as they think “criminal lowlife thug” when they see a black kid in a hoodie. They’ll be okay. No one is shooting them dead in the streets every two weeks. The evidence shows this is just a big slimeball PR move to court a vote from people they only pretend to give a shit about so they can acquire more power. Like Chris, you’re inclined to lean the other way and give them the benefit of the doubt. You’re not even trying to analyze it, you’re just swallowing Mullins’ PR bs at surface level because they remind you of your uncles or whatever. lol
Rob Leigh wrote: “That makes me question whether you are truly interested in honest debate and searching for truth or simply desire to declare yourself the smartest person in the room.”
I already know I’m not the smartest person in the room, that’s why I want to talk about these things. If it were other wise, then I would contemptuously not even entertain the back and forth.
Rob Leigh wrote: “I still think you're a heckuva a guy, and hope for only good things to come your way…”
Thank you. I want the same for you, of course.
Rob Leigh wrote: “…but I'm more interested in honest, open and enlightening discussion. I suspect you just want win.”
I’m interested in both. When you play chess do you only enjoy the intense back and forth but hold disdain for the win? Is winning the game beneath you? Less noble? lol
Rob Leigh wrote: “(Incidentally, both the UNCF and the CKF websites have posted the same press release, dated yesterday, the first sentence of which reads: “The United Negro College Fund (UNCF), the nation's premier scholarship organization, announced today that it has received a $25 million grant from Koch Industries, Inc. and the Charles Koch Foundation.” You'll note it does not say “The Charles Koch Foundation has announced…” There is no author credited.)”
You can tell from the content that of the two PDFs, the UNCF-Koch FAQ was supplied by Koch, and the UNCF-Koch Fact Sheet was supplied by UNCF. The former explains why they gave them the money, while the latter breaks down what UNCF did with the money and how the programs break down, etc. The press release itself has some of this info, plus many quotes from Charles Koch. That means the release was put together by Koch’s Director of Communications & Marketing who has that info on hand. The release and other articles also go out of their way to talk about the relationship between UNCF and Koch… but they don’t HAVE a relationship. The Atlanta-based Georgia-Pacific had the forty-year relationship with them, and even after their acquisition by Koch, continues to be independently operated and managed, and maintains its relationship with UNCF. “Curley Dossman, president of the Georgia-Pacific Foundation, said it's because of that long-standing relationship that UNCF approached Koch about the new gift.” 
“Koch Industries has a history of supporting UNCF dating to 2005, when it acquired the company Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific supported UNCF going back four decades. Since 1995, Georgia-Pacific and Koch have donated more than $1.5 million to UNCF, according to Koch.”
smh
Koch doesn’t HAVE a history of supporting UNCF, Georgia-Pacific does. That’s bullshit corporate PR opportunistic nonsense.
“The Kochs have relied on a complex tax and campaign finance system to keep most of their donations shrouded in mystery, and several of the groups they fund do not have to disclose the names of their donors in real time. In many cases, years pass before the Kochs' level of giving is disclosed.” (Huff Post article)
UNCF approached Koch, Inc. for a donation because of their link to Georgia-Pacific, and Koch saw it as a PR op. His Director of Communications & Marketing is on the job of using this to clean up their image so they can not get smashed so completely like they did in the last two presidential elections. They need some of that black vote.
“The Charles Koch Foundation's mission, according to its tax forms, is to advance ‘liberty and economic freedom by educating students in a classroom.’ That foundation does not directly fund political operations.”
MORE corporate bullshit speak. Do you HAVE to fund political operations directly?
“Super PACs, officially known as ‘independent-expenditure only committees,’ may not make contributions to candidate campaigns or parties, but may engage in unlimited political spending independently of the campaigns. Unlike traditional PACs, they can raise funds from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size.”
Bullshit corporate-political fucking spin jobs. ALL OF IT!
UNCF is just jumpin’ though the hoops because they need that money, they don’t care. “Yes, Ms Mullins! We’ll write it up just like you say!”
Muhammad Rasheed - BAM!!!!!!


See Also: For Love of Doing Good

The Michael Jackson Trial: What Went Wrong?

It was five years ago today that twelve jurors unanimously acquitted Michael Jackson on various charges of child molestation, conspiracy and providing alcohol to a minor. It is difficult to know how history will remember the Michael Jackson trial. Perhaps as the epitome of western celebrity obsession. Perhaps as a 21st century lynching. Personally, I think it will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history.
It's not until you find yourself digging through newspaper archives and re-watching hours of TV coverage that you truly understand the magnitude of the media's failings. It was industry-wide. No doubt, there were certain reporters and even certain publications and TV stations that overtly favored the prosecution, but many of the media's shortcomings were institutional. In a media obsessed with soundbites, how to you reduce eight hours of testimony into two sentences and remain accurate? In an era of rolling news and instant blogging, how do you resist the temptation to dash out of the courtroom at the earliest opportunity to break news of the latest salacious allegations, even if it means missing a slice of the day's testimony?
Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control. The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension. Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn't even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom. The transcripts show an endless parade of seedy prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves on an almost hourly basis and crumbling under cross examination. The newspaper cuttings and the TV news clips detail day after day of heinous accusations and lurid innuendo.
It was November 18th 2003 when 70 sheriffs swooped on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch. As soon as news of the raid broke, news channels abandoned their schedules and switched to 24 hour coverage. When it emerged that Jackson was accused of molesting young cancer survivor Gavin Arvizo, the boy who famously held the singer's hand in Martin Bashir's 'Living With Michael Jackson', the media went into overdrive. Networks were so obsessed by the Jackson scandal that a terrorist attack in Turkey went almost entirely unreported, with only CNN bothering to broadcast George Bush and Tony Blair's joint press conference about the disaster.
All three major networks immediately set about producing hour-long specials on the Jackson case, apparently undeterred by the fact that nothing was yet known about the allegations and prosecutors weren't answering questions. CBS dedicated an episode of 48 Hours Investigates to the arrest, whileNBC's Dateline and ABC's 20/20 also rushed out Jackson specials. Within two days of the Neverland raid, and before Jackson had even been arrested,VH1 announced a half-hour documentary called 'Michael Jackson Sex Scandal'.
Daily Variety described the Jackson story as "a godsend for... media outlets, particularly cable news channels and local stations looking to pump up Nielsen numbers in the final week of the all-important November sweeps."
Daily Variety was right. Celebrity-oriented news shows saw figures spike when the Jackson story hit. Viewing figures for Access Hollywood were up 10% on the previous week. Entertainment Tonight and Extra both achieved season best audience numbers and Celebrity Justice also enjoyed an 8% rise.
Newspapers reacted just as hysterically as TV stations. 'Sicko!' shrieked the New York Daily News. 'Jacko: Now Get Out Of This One' goaded the New York Post.
The Sun - Britain's biggest newspaper - ran an article titled 'He's Bad, He's Dangerous, He's History'. The piece branded Jackson an 'ex-black ex-superstar', a 'freak' and a 'twisted individual' and called for his children to be taken into care. "If he weren't a pop idol with piles of cash to hide behind," it said, "he would have been picked up years ago."
Encouraged by the audience boosts the Jackson scandal had produced, media outlets made it their mission to milk the case for all that they could.Entertainment Weekly's Tom Sinclair wrote, "Media mavens, from the tackiest tabloid reporter to the nattiest network news anchor, are in overdrive scrambling to fill column inches and airtime with Jacko scoops and talking heads."
"Pressure on news people is enormous," attorney Harland Braun told Sinclair. "So lawyers you've never heard of wind up on television talking about cases that they have no connection to."
Sinclair added, "And not just lawyers. Everyone from doctors, writers, and psychiatrists to convenience-store clerks who once waited on Jackson are weighing in on TV and in print."
While the media was busy badgering a host of quacks and distant acquaintances for their views on the scandal, the team of prosecutors behind the latest Jackson case was engaging in some highly questionable behavior - but the media didn't seem to care.
During the Neverland raid District Attorney Tom Sneddon - the prosecutor who unsuccessfully pursued Jackson in 1993 - and his officers breached the terms of their own search warrant by entering Jackson's office and seizing hoards of irrelevant business papers. They also illegally raided the office of a PI working for Jackson's defense team and lifted defense documents from the home of the singer's personal assistant.
Sneddon also appeared to be tampering with fundamental elements of his case whenever evidence came to light which undermined the Arvizo family's claims. For instance, when the DA found out about two taped interviews in which the entire Arvizo family sang Jackson's praises and denied any abuse, he introduced a conspiracy charge and claimed they'd been forced to lie against their will.
In a similar instance, Jackson's lawyer Mark Geragos appeared on NBC in January 2004 and announced that the singer had a 'concrete, iron-clad alibi' for the dates on the charge sheet. By the time Jackson was re-arraigned in April for the conspiracy charge, the molestation dates on the rap sheet had been shifted by almost two weeks.
Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis.
Not only did the majority of the media overlook this flurry of questionable and occasionally illegal activity on the part of the prosecution, it also seemed perfectly content to perpetuate damning propaganda on the prosecution's behalf, despite a complete lack of corroborative evidence. For example, Diane Dimond appeared on Larry King Live days after Jackson's arrest and spoke repeatedly about a 'stack of love letters' the star had supposedly written to Gavin Arvizo.
"Does anyone here... know of the existence of these letters?" asked King.
"Absolutely," Dimond replied. "I do. I absolutely know of their existence!"
"Diane, have you read them?"
"No, I have not read them."
Dimond admitted that she'd never even seen the letters, let alone read them, but said she knew about them from "high law enforcement sources". But those love letters never materialized. When Dimond said she 'absolutely knew' of their existence she was basing her comments solely on the words of police sources. At best, the police sources were parroting the Arvizos' allegations in good faith. At worst, they'd concocted the story themselves to sully Jackson's name. Either way, the story went around the world with not a shred of evidence to support it.
It was over a year between Jackson's arrest and the beginning of his trial and the media was forced to try to pad the story out for as long as they could in the interim. Aware that Jackson was bound by gag order and therefore powerless to respond, prosecution sympathizers started leaking documents such as Jordan Chandler's 1993 police statement. The media, hungry for scandal and sensationalism, pounced on them.
At the same time, allegations sold to tabloid TV shows by disgruntled ex-employees in the 1990s were constantly re-hashed and presented as news. Small details of the Arvizo family's allegations would also periodically leak.
While most media outlets reported these stories as allegations rather than facts, the sheer amount and frequency of stories connecting Jackson to ugly sexual abuse, coupled with his inability to refute them, had a devastating effect on the star's public image.
The trial began in early 2005 with jury selection. Asked by NBC about prosecution and defense jury selection tactics, Dimond said the difference was that prosecutors would be looking for jurors who had a sense of 'good versus evil' and 'right and wrong'.
No sooner had the jurors been selected than Newsweek was trying to undermine them, claiming that a middle class jury would be unable to fairly judge a family of lower class accusers. In an article titled 'Playing the Class Card' the magazine said, "The Jackson trial may hinge on something other than race. And we don't mean the evidence."
As the trial kicked into gear, it became quickly apparent that the case was full of holes. The prosecution's only 'evidence' was a stack of heterosexual porn magazines and a couple of legal art books. Thomas Mesereau wrote in a court motion, "The effort to try Mr. Jackson for having one of the largest private libraries in the world is alarming. Not since the dark day of almost three quarters of a century ago has anyone witnessed a prosecution which claimed that the possession of books by well known artists were evidence of a crime against the state."
Gavin Arvizo's brother, Star, took the stand early in the trial and claimed to have witnessed two specific acts of molestation but his testimony was completely inconsistent. Regarding one alleged act, he claimed in court that Jackson had been fondling Gavin, but in a previous description of the same incident he told a wildly different story, claiming Jackson had been rubbing his penis against Gavin's buttocks. He also told two different stories about the other alleged act on two consecutive days in court.
During cross examination Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, showed the boy a copy of Barely Legal and repeatedly asked if it was the specific edition Jackson had shown him and his brother. The boy insisted that it was, only for Mesereau to reveal that it was published in August 2003; five months after the Arvizo family had left Neverland.
But this information went almost entirely unreported, the media focusing on the boy's allegations rather than the cross examination which undermined them. Allegations make good soundbites. Complex cross examination does not.
When Gavin Arvizo took the stand, he claimed that Jackson had instigated the first act of molestation by telling him that all boys had to masturbate or else they would turn into rapists. But Mesereau showed under cross examination that the boy had previously admitted his grandmother made that comment, not Jackson, meaning that the whole molestation story was predicated on a lie.
Under cross examination the boy severely undermined the prosecution's conspiracy charge by claiming he'd never felt afraid at Neverland and he'd never wanted to leave. His accounts of the alleged molestation also differed from his brother's.
Unfortunately for Jackson, Gavin Arvizo's cross examination was all but ignored as newspapers giggled and gossiped about what became known as 'pajama day'. On the first day of the boy's direct examination Jackson slipped in his shower, bruised his lung and was rushed to hospital. When Judge Rodney Melville ordered a bench warrant for Jackson's arrest unless he arrived within an hour, the singer sped to the courthouse in the pajama trousers he'd been wearing when he was rushed to hospital.
The photographs of Jackson in his pajamas went all over the word, often with no mention of Jackson's injury or the reason he was wearing them. Many journalists accused Jackson of faking the entire event in order to gain sympathy, although sympathetic is the last word you'd use to describe the media's reaction.
The incident didn't stop the media from sending Gavin Arvizo's lurid allegations around the world the following day. Some outlets even ran the boy's testimony as fact rather than conjecture. "He Said If Boys Don't Do It They Might Turn Into Rapists - Cancer Boy Gavin Tells Court of Jacko Sex," wroteThe Mirror.
But the boy's cross examination was another story. It went almost completely unreported. Instead of stories about Gavin Arvizo's lies and the two brothers' contradictory allegations, newspaper pages were filled with snarky opinion pieces about Jackson's pajamas, even though 'pajama day' had been days previously. Thousands of words were dedicated to whether or not Jackson wore a wig and the Sun even ran an article attacking Jackson for the accessories he pinned to his waistcoats every day. It seemed like the press would write anything to avoid discussing the boy's cross examination, which severely undermined the prosecution's case.
This habit of reporting lurid allegations but ignoring the cross examination which discredited them became a distinct trend throughout Jackson's trial. In an April 2005 interview with Matt Drudge, Fox columnist Roger Friedman explained, "What's not reported is that the cross examination of these witnesses is usually fatal to them." He added that whenever anybody said anything salacious or dramatic about Jackson, the media 'went running outside to report on it' and missed the subsequent cross examination.
Drudge agreed, adding, "You're not hearing how witness after witness is disintegrating on the stand. There is not one witness, at least lately, that hasn't admitted to perjuring themselves in previous proceedings either in this case or in some other case."
This alarming trend of ignoring cross examination was perhaps most apparent in the media's coverage of Kiki Fournier's testimony. Under direct examination by the prosecution, Fournier - a Neverland housekeeper - testified that when at Neverland children often became unruly and she had sometimes seen children so hyperactive that they could, feasibly, have been intoxicated. The media scurried outside to report this apparent bombshell and missed one of the most significant pieces of testimony in the entire trial.
Under cross examination by Thomas Mesereau, Fournier said that during the Arvizo family's final weeks at Neverland - the period during which the molestation supposedly happened - the two boys' guest room had been constantly messy, leading her to believe they'd been sleeping in their own quarters all along - not Michael Jackson's bedroom.
She also testified that Star Arvizo had once pulled a knife on her in the kitchen, explaining that she did not feel it had been intended as a joke and that she thought he'd been 'trying to assert some sort of authority'.
In a devastating blow to the prosecution's increasingly hilarious conspiracy charge, Fournier laughed at the idea that anybody could be held prisoner at Neverland Ranch, telling the jurors that there was no high fence around the property and the family could have walked out at any time 'with ease'.
When Gavin and Star's mother Janet Arvizo took the stand Tom Sneddon was seen with his head in his hands. She claimed that a videotape of herself and her children praising Jackson had been scripted word for word by a German man who barely spoke English. In outtakes she was seen singing Jackson's praises then looking embarrassed and asking if she was being recorded. She said that had been scripted too.
She claimed she'd been held hostage at Neverland even though log books and receipts showed that she'd left the ranch and returned on three occasions during the period of 'captivity'. It became apparent that she was currently under investigation for welfare fraud and had also been falsely obtaining money on the back of her son's illness, holding benefits to pay for his cancer treatment when he was already covered by insurance.
Even the most ardent prosecution supporters had to admit that Janet Arvizo was a disastrous witness for the state. Except Diane Dimond, who in March 2005 seemed to use Janet Arvizo's welfare fraud (she was convicted in the wake of Jackson's trial) as roundabout proof of Jackson's guilt, signing off aNew York Post article with the gob smacking line, "Pedophiles don't target kids with Ozzie and Harriet parents."
Watching their case crumble before their eyes, the prosecution applied to the judge for permission to admit evidence of 'prior bad acts'. Permission was granted. Prosecutors told the jury they would hear evidence of five former victims. But those five prior cases turned out to be even more laughable than the Arvizos' claims.
A parade of disgruntled security guards and housekeepers took the stand to testify that they had witnessed molestation, much of it carried out on three boys; Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin. But those three boys were the defense's first three witnesses, each of them testifying that Jackson had never touched them and they resented the implication.
Moreover, it was revealed that each of these former employees had been fired by Jackson for stealing from his property or had lost a wrongful termination suit and wound up owing Jackson huge amounts of money. They'd also neglected to tell the police when they supposedly witnessed this molestation, even when questioned in connection with Jordy Chandler's 1993 allegations, but subsequently tried to sell stories to the press - sometimes successfully. The more money on the table, the more salacious the allegations became.
Roger Friedman complained in an interview with Matt Drudge that the media was ignoring the cross examination of the 'prior bad acts' witnesses, resulting in skewed reporting. He said, "When Thursday started, that first hour was with this guy Ralph Chacon who had worked at the Ranch as a security guard. He told the most outrageous story. It was so graphic. And of course everybody went running outside to report on it. But there were ten minutes right before the first break on Thursday when Tom Mesereau got up and cross examined this guy and obliterated him."
The fourth 'victim', Jason Francia, took the stand and claimed that when he was a child, Jackson had molested him on three separate occasions. Pushed for details of the 'molestation', he said Jackson had tickled him three times outside his clothes and he'd needed years of therapy to get over it. The jury was seen rolling their eyes but reporters including Dan Abrams heralded him as 'compelling', predicting that he could be the witness who put Jackson behind bars.
The media repeatedly claimed that Francia's allegations had been made in 1990, leading audiences to believe that the Jordy Chandler allegations were predated. In actuality, although Jason Francia claimed that the acts of molestation occurred in 1990, he didn't report them until after the media storm over Chandler's claims, at which point his mother, Neverland maid Blanca Francia, promptly extracted $20,000 from Hard Copy for an interview with Diane Dimond and another $2.4million in a settlement from Jackson.
Moreover, transcripts from police interviews showed that the Francia had repeatedly changed his story and had originally insisted that he'd never been molested. Transcripts also showed that he only said he was molested after police officers repeatedly overstepped the mark during interviews. Officers repeatedly referred to Jackson as a 'molester'. On one occasion they told the boy that Jackson was molesting Macauley Culkin as they spoke, claiming that the only way they could rescue Culkin was if Francia told them he'd been sexually abused by the star. Transcripts also showed that Francia had previously said of the police, "They made me come up with stuff. They kept pushing. I wanted to hit them in the head."The fifth 'victim' was Jordy Chandler, who fled the country rather than testify against his former friend. Thomas Mesereau said in a Harvard lecture later that year, "The prosecutors tried to get him to show up and he wouldn't. If he had, I had witnesses who were going to come in and say he told them it never happened and that he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say. It turned out he'd gone into court and got legal emancipation from his parents."
June Chandler, Jordy's mother, testified that she hadn't spoken to her son in 11 years. Questioned about the 1993 case, she seemed to suffer from a severe case of selective memory. At one point she claimed she couldn't remember being sued by Michael Jackson and at another she said she'd never heard of her own attorney. She also never witnessed any molestation.
When the prosecution rested, the media seemed to lose interest in the trial. The defense case was given comparatively little newspaper space and air time. The Hollywood Reporter, which had been diligently reporting on the Jackson trial, missed out two whole weeks of the defense case. The attitude seemed to be that unless the testimony was graphic and salacious - unless it made a good soundbite - it wasn't worth reporting.
The defense called numerous fantastic witnesses; boys and girls who had stayed with Jackson time and again and never witnessed any inappropriate behavior, employees who had witnessed the Arvizo boys helping themselves to alcohol in Jackson's absence and celebrities who had also been targeted for handouts by the accuser. But little of this testimony was relayed to the public. When DA Tom Sneddon referred to black comic Chris Tucker as 'boy' during his cross examination, the media didn't bat an eyelid.
When both sides rested jurors were told that if they found reasonable doubt, they had to acquit. Anybody who had been paying attention to proceedings could see that the doubt was so far beyond reasonable it wasn't even funny. Almost every single prosecution witness either perjured themselves or wound up helping the defense. There wasn't a shred of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime and there wasn't a single credible witness connecting him to a crime either.
But that didn't stop journalists and pundits from predicting guilty verdicts, CNN's Nancy Grace leading the way. Defense attorney Robert Shapiro, who had once represented the Chandler family, stated with certainty on CNN, "He's going to be convicted." Ex-prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News, "There is no question we will see convictions here."
The hysteria of the fans outside the courthouse was mirrored by that of the reporters who secured seats inside, who were so excitable that Judge Rodney Melville ordered them to 'restrain themselves'. Thomas Mesereau commented retrospectively that the media had been "almost salivating about having [Jackson] hauled off to jail."
When the jury delivered 14 'not guilty' verdicts, the media was 'humiliated', Mesereau said in a subsequent interview. Media analyst Tim Rutten later commented, "So what happened when Jackson was acquitted on all counts? Red faces? Second thoughts? A little soul-searching, perhaps? Maybe one expression of regret for the rush to judgment? Naaawww. The reaction, instead, was rage liberally laced with contempt and the odd puzzled expression. Its targets were the jurors... Hell hath no fury like a cable anchor held up for scorn."
In a post-verdict news conference Sneddon continued to refer to Gavin Arvizo as a 'victim' and said he suspected that the 'celebrity factor' had impeded the jury's judgment - a line many media pundits swiftly appropriated as they set about undermining the jurors and their verdicts.
Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on CourtTV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson's fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution's only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.
"I'm having a crow sandwich right now," she said. "It doesn't taste very good. But you know what? I'm also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody's heart... Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.
"I'm not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state's case, but the reality is I'm not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple."
Grace later stated that Jackson was 'not guilty by reason of celebrity' and was seen attempting to hound jury foreman Paul Rodriguez into saying he believed Jackson had molested children. One of Grace's guests, psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, leveled personal attacks towards one female juror, saying, "This is a woman who has no life."
Over on Fox News, Wendy Murphy branded Jackson 'the Teflon molester' and said that the jurors needed IQ tests. She later added, "I really think it's the celebrity factor, not the evidence. I don't think the jurors even understand how influenced they were by who Michael Jackson is... They basically put targets on the backs of all, especially highly vulnerable, kids that will now come into Michael Jackson's life."
Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told CNN that he thought the 'prior bad acts' testimony had been 'effective evidence', even though various boys at the heart of that testimony had taken the stand as defense witnesses and denied ever being molested. He also claimed that the defense had won because "they could tell a story, and juries, you know, always understand stories rather than sort of individual facts."
Only Robert Shapiro was dignified in the face of the verdicts, telling viewers that they should accept the jurors' decision because the jurors were from "a very conservative part of California and if they had no doubt, none of us should have any doubt."
The following day on Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer upheld the notion that the verdict had been influenced by Jackson's celebrity status. "Are you sure?" she pleaded. "Are you sure that this gigantically renowned guy walking into the room had no influence at all?"
The Washington Post commented, "An acquittal doesn't clear his name, it only muddies the water." Both the New York Post and the New York Daily News ran with the snide headline 'Boy, Oh, Boy!'
In her final New York Post article about the trial, Diane Dimond bemoaned the not guilty verdict, saying that it left Michael Jackson untouchable. She wrote, "He walked out of court a free man, not guilty on all counts. But Michael Jackson is so much more than free. He now has carte blanche to live his life any way he wants, with whomever he wants, because who would ever try to prosecute Michael Jackson now?"
In Britain's Sun newspaper, celebrity rent-a-gob and talking head extraordinaire Jane Moore penned an article titled 'If the jury agree Janet Arvizo is a bad mum (and she IS)... How did they let Jackson off?' It began: "Michael Jackson is innocent. Justice has been done. Or so the loony tunes gathered outside the courthouse would have us believe." She went on to question the jurors' mental capacity and dismiss the American legal system as 'half-baked'. "Nothing and no one truly emerges as a winner from this sorry mess," she finished, "least of all what they laughably call American 'justice'."
Sun contributor Ally Ross dismissed Jackson's fans as 'sad, solitary dick-wits'. Another Sun article, penned by daytime TV presenter Lorraine Kelly, titled 'Don't forget the kids still at risk... Jacko's own', overtly labeled Jackson a guilty man. Kelly - who never attended Jackson's trial - bemoaned the fact that Jackson 'got away with it', complaining that "instead of languishing in jail, Jackson is now back home in Neverland." Jackson, she concluded, was "a sad, sick loser who uses his fame and money to dazzle the parents of children he takes a shine to."
After the initial outrage, the Michael Jackson story slipped out of the headlines. There was little analysis of the not guilty verdicts and how they were reached. An acquittal was considered less profitable than a conviction.
Indeed, Thomas Mesereau said in later years that if Jackson had been convicted it would have created a 'cottage industry' for the media, generating a story a day for years to come. Long-running sagas like custody of Jackson's children, control of his financial empire, other 'victims' filing civil suits and the long-winded appeals process would have generated thousands of stories each for months, years, perhaps even decades.
Jackson's imprisonment would have created a never ending supply of gratuitous headlines; Who is visiting? Who isn't? Is he in solitary confinement? If not, who are his cellmates? What about his prison wardens? Does he have a prison pen-pal girlfriend? Can we fly a helicopter over the prison yard and film him exercising? The possibilities were endless. A bidding war was raging over who would get the first leaked images of Jackson in his cell before the jury even began its deliberations.
A not guilty verdict was not quite so lucrative. In an interview with Newsweek, CNN boss Jonathan Klein recalled watching the not guilty verdicts come in and then telling his deputies, "We have a less interesting story now." The Hollywood Reporter noted that hastily assembled TV specials about Jackson's acquittal performed badly and were beaten in the ratings by a re-run of Nanny 911.
The story was over. There were no apologies and no retractions. There was no scrutiny - no inquiries or investigations. Nobody was held to account for what was done to Michael Jackson. The media was content to let people go on believing their heavily skewed and borderline fictitious account of the trial. That was that.
When Michael Jackson died the media went into overdrive again. What drugs had killed him? How long had he been using them? Who had prescribed them? What else was in his system? How much did he weigh?
But there was one question nobody seemed to want to ask: Why?
Why was Michael Jackson so stressed and so paranoid that he couldn't even get a decent night's sleep unless somebody stuck a tube full of anesthetic into his arm? I think the answer can be found in the results of various polls conducted in the wake of Michael Jackson's trial.
A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury's decision of 'not guilty'. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson's celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were 'saddened' by the verdict and 24% said they were 'outraged'. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was 'wrong' while an additional 25% said 'celebrities buy justice'. A poll by People Weekly found that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury's decision.
The media did a number on its audience and it did a number on Jackson. After battling his way through an exhausting and horrifying trial, riddled with hideous accusations and character assassinations, Michael Jackson should have felt vindicated when the jury delivered 14 unanimous not guilty verdicts. But the media's irresponsible coverage of the trial made it impossible for Jackson to ever feel truly vindicated. The legal system may have declared him innocent but the public, on the whole, still thought otherwise. Allegations which were disproven in court went unchallenged in the press. Shaky testimony was presented as fact. The defense's case was all but ignored.
When asked about those who doubted the verdicts, the jury replied, "They didn't see what we saw."
They're right. We didn't. But we should have done. And those who refused to tell us remain in their jobs unchecked, unpunished and free to do exactly the same thing to anybody they desire.
Now that's what I call injustice.
SOURCE: One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History  by Charles Thomson, June 13, 2010 

For the Love of Doing Good

Javier Cruz Winnik - Looks like Beyonce and JayZ have been helping people in Baltimore and Haiti... who knew?
Khary Randolph - Lol maybe sometimes people don't have to brag about anything.
Pumkin Escobar - I wouldn't necessarily call it bragging but transparent visibility. Imagine if during the civil rights movement of the 60s, the likes of Harry Belafonte or Muhammad Ali or Ossie Davis and Ruby Dee didn't want their business or allegiance to that cause made public. When it comes to these sports of matters I don't believe shit should be done in the dark.
Heubert Khan Michael - He has this foundation that helps bright kids go through college, but Jay Z helps even more people and he doesn't want the public to know. He also said through one of his songs that "the greatest form of giving is anonymous to anonymous"  :)
David L. Grant - He also does scholarships for kids and various other things but he doesn't talk about those things.
Javier Cruz Winnik - Khary, my problem with them keeping something like this quiet is that if they desire to truly help these people, their reach along with their personal efforts could impact the situations they want affected even greater by lending their names to it. 
Imagine those that love these two musicians seeing these acts and now feeling like they want to help as well because their favorite artists are a part of it? Would we know so much about the Tibetan Freedom movement if not for The Beastie Boys? I personally wouldn't have, but because I knew them, I listened a bit closer when their name was associated with what was happening.
David L. Grant - If he lends his name it may look like an act of him trying to get money out of the community for album sales etc. like some artists/people do. Good works speak for themselves and people will talk about him. He needs not seek out advertisement.
Javier Cruz Winnik - I'd agree if he was a struggling artist or an artist who did stunts. Jay Z doesn't NEED anything at this point in his life. I believe that any action he does at this point is all about desire.
David L. Grant - Why advertise good works? Those who need to know, know. Those who don't care or are looking to label him badly will continue to do so. If someone really cares to know, do or achieve something they will.
Pumkin Escobar - It's not a matter of advertisement. Nobody thought that Harry Belafonte was trying to sell albums when he marched with and worked with MLK. nobody thought that Ali was trying to sell tickets to fights when he was actively working with and being seen with Malcolm X. They knew that those matters affected them regardless of how much money they made, but they also understood that their visibility within the Civil Rights cause strengthened that cause and bolstered its message.
Muhammad Rasheed - Nobody said Harry faked a baby or was in the illuminati either. People are effin' crazy.
I agree with the way they did it.
Pumkin Escobar - Nobody said those things because he wasn't about that #secretsquirrel life! He was up front and dared the system to fuck with his paper!
Muhammad Rasheed - Right now the charity work is out there and people are starting to know about it. Watch most of those people start talking trash on them in the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" song & dance. It's better to just do what's right based on how YOU see it and keep it moving. Like they did.
Pumkin Escobar - People talk about them now anyway, so my question is, why care either way?
Muhammad Rasheed - That's my point, Pumkin.
Whether they were up front and vocal about it or not, the people will have their own interpretation and spin, usually filtered through negativity. So they might as well have just done it the way they did. They didn't have to make a show about it, and according to sacred scripture, it's best that they didn't anyway.
Khary Randolph - I personally respect it more when you don't air out all your business. If you doing something positive that's good enough for me. Not like it doesn't get out anyways...we talking about it right now.
Muhammad Rasheed - Exactly.
Muhammad Rasheed - People that go around calling themselves "philanthropists" and throwing a press conference every time they write a check always seem so slimy.
Pumkin Escobar - See, from where I sit, it looks just the opposite. It's almost a step away from Michael Jordan not wanting to make a statement on anything because "Republicans buy sneakers too..." I think voice and visibility is VERY important in a social cause.
Muhammad Rasheed - Pumkin Escobar wrote: "See, from where I sit, it looks just the opposite." 
The fact that two people interpret the same action so differently means they should do it the way they did it. The way they thought was best. It just happened to coincide with my stance (and scripture).
Pumkin Escobar - I don't do scripture. Shit, that alone contradicts everything you stated. If that were the case, there'd BE no scripture. Scripture is literally people recording acts and deeds for the world to see and understand what a belief is about and where it stands, no?
Khary Randolph - @Pumkin Escobar… I think the point is someone like Jay-Z or Beyoncé is damned if you do, damned if you don't. They will get scrutiny no matter what. Let's keep in mind these are two people doing something POSITIVE. Therefore, how they choose to go about it doesn't matter much to me. 
A few days ago I could have sworn I saw people on Facebook that Jay-Z doesn't do enough for the community. Now people see he is doing something and it still isn't enough. *kanye shrug*
Muhammad Rasheed - Pumkin Escobar wrote: “I don't do scripture.”
It seems like those two do, and they just helped a bunch of people in a worthy cause. 
Pumkin Escobar wrote: “Shit, that alone contradicts everything you stated.”
How do you figure considering you just admitted that you don’t do scripture? The scripture says it is best to do good deeds in secret lest one should boast. Boastful “upfront” charity is arrogant, and done to be seen by men. It’s weak and slimy.
Pumkin Escobar wrote: “If that were the case, there'd BE no scripture. Scripture is literally people recording acts and deeds for the world to see and understand what a belief is about and where it stands, no?”
A big part of scripture functions as the recorded deeds of people in the past to use as an instruction for the readers’ behavior. In this case, Jay-Z & Beyonce’s behavior reflects what they may have read in the scripture.
Pumkin Escobar - Again, agree to disagree.
Javier Cruz Winnik - so how bout this... why boast about how much flyer you are than me, and how much better than me you are, which is all over their music (putting people down and boosting their cool factor) and yet can't proclaim when they actually help people? Why is it okay to help people on the low, but put them down in public? Isn't that hypocritical? Muhammad, why would you compare what they're doing to scripture when they aren't about that life?
Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) That's the style of his art from that particular genre. It also functions as marketing for his brand as a business move.
2.) The biblical instruction for charity said a very specific thing about how to do it. Since they are actually demonstrating that precise instruction when it comes to that principle, what are you using to support the claim that they aren't about that life? The evidence shows that they are. Is your word -- the proclamation of a random FB user -- sufficient to say what their lives are about or not based on the negative opinion of an outsider?
Pumkin Escobar - So what you're saying is that it is scripturally (#wordbirth) feasible to be openly boastful, to preach avarice and lust so long as it is artful and that is the foundation of your business?
Muhammad Rasheed - lol No, I don't believe in strawman arguments, so that wouldn't be what I was saying. The scripture is giving precise instruction towards a very specific thing -- charity -- and is not giving instruction to how you promote/market your business. Why you would call the latter "scripturally feasible" even though it is not linked to charity at all, is a false argument you are subscribing to my position. I reject it.
Charity is one of the Top Righteous Deeds a believer can do to strengthen his/her soul, and is given great importance in the message of God. By contrast, marketing and promoting your business isn't mentioned at all. I can't help but consider the attempt to link the two to be either intellectually dishonest, or a demonstration of poor scriptural insight. 
btw I thought we were supposed to be agreeing to disagree on this topic?
Javier Cruz Winnik - Can't give someone credit for doing some hung from the Bible and then give them a pass for doing something against the Bible, that's hypocritical.

Muhammad Rasheed - In order to consider it "against the bible," first you have to provide the verse that features the instruction about promoting a business that they are violating. 

Muhammad Rasheed - In order to consider it "against the bible," first you have to provide the verse that features the instruction about promoting a business that they are violating.

Javier Cruz Winnik - Though shalt not covet your neighbors wife...? Do I really need to research and quote all of the sins they are committing Muhammad? Their exhibitions of drunkardness, lust, greed, pride and more are extremely evident in what they talk about quite often.

Muhammad Rasheed - Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Though shalt not covet your neighbors wife...?"

Where did Jaz-Z covet someone's wife?

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Do I really need to research and quote all of the sins they are committing Muhammad?"

Only if you have a heaven or hell to put them in after a formal judgment. It WOULD help if you had a better grasp of scripture though.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Their exhibitions of drunkardness, lust, greed, pride and more are extremely evident in what they talk about quite often."

Talking about it in their art is the same thing as committing the sin? Who says?

Javier Cruz Winnik - I dont remember the actual quote, but one line I remember says that what goes into a man's mouth is not what defies a man because it gets digested and disposed of by the body. What comes out of a man's mouth comes from his heart and that can defile a man.

If you're talking about committing sins, how is that not a sinful? If he is talking about what he knows, then is he not talking about his experiences? He in turn is committing the sins he is talking about.

Muhammad Rasheed - We're judged on our actions, Javier. It's what you do or don't do, based on what physical deeds God Himself listed as sins and righteousness, that we will be judged by.

Talking about actions from the past... long gone... that in a God-fearing man are probably also long repented for, is not a sin.

Pumkin Escobar - You've accused me of making a false argument in order to bolster your position and accused me of intellectual dishonesty, which is rather offensive. I've subscribed no such tags to you or your argument, only debated it. If you are willing to dismiss the obvious parallel between deeds, then, I'll say no more.

Muhammad Rasheed - You did submit a false argument and subscribe it to me.

I didn't accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. I said I couldn't help but consider the attempt to link charity to business promotion either intellectual dishonesty, or a demonstration of poor scriptural insight. Since you are upset at the idea that I could accuse you of the former, then we can agree that it was a demonstration of a lack of scriptural insight.

If you disagree with that one too, then i am certainly open to having a discussion in which you prove that this is not so. Preferably within the topic context.

Naturally I will also consider "I'll say no more" to be on the same degree of seriousness as "agree to disagree" since we've returned for more. lol

Pumkin Escobar - Nope. You got it. Have a good one.

Muhammad Rasheed - You know, it actually makes people smarter to have philosophical arguments with folk of differing viewpoints. My Friend List is FULL of people who hold onto radically different viewpoints than my own (a few I actually consider enemies because of the shear number of nerves they grate upon). Discussions with them force me to support my pet contentions, and if I am honest with myself (and my opponent), I have to let go of those stances that I am forced to admit I can't back up with reason/logic/facts. Consequently I find that I have to fill in the void with items I CAN support, thus making my argument stronger.

No good comes from backing out of an argument, continuing to stubbornly hold onto flimsy ideologies and opinions that fail to hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

Muhammad Rasheed - Have a good day, Pumkin.

Pumkin Escobar - You got it. Have a good one.

Javier Cruz Winnik - It's great to have philosophical debates but you show that you don't want to see the other side of the coin in this debate. Jay doesn't only speak of past transgressions (church would call them testimonials) but currently speaks on those same ills. You say I don't know my scripture (I can't literally quote but I know a lot more than you allow yourself to believe) but it seems that you don't know Jay OR Beyoncé's current catalog since you seem to justify their current songs. Disagreeing about opinions is fine, but facts are facts.

Muhammad Rasheed - Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "It's great to have philosophical debates but you show that you don't want to see the other side of the coin in this debate."

I've given you both ample opportunity to support your side. You respond with subjective negative opinion of what you think about JayZ, and what you think scripture might say.

You don't HAVE a side to the debate. Get your game up.

Javier Cruz Winnik - Muhammad, I've given you scripture about what goes into a man's mouth and what comes out of a man's mouth. You choose not to acknowledge my position. Get out of your own way.
Muhammad Rasheed - So you call a maybe scripture you half heard from somewhere, out of context, that isn't related to the actual list of sins God told us to watch out for, a legitimate response? To what exactly? Are you even going to try to support how this maybe scripture, that you don't even know what it really is, supports the point you make?

I've been acknowledging your position from the start. You contend that JayZ and his wife are not the people of God, that describing their old lifestyle in their art is the same as sinning, you ignore what the scriptures say about charity (one of the Top Good Deeds God requires of us mind) in favor of a maybe scripture that you half heard somewhere that you magically believe is more important than what God said about the charity these two provided. Is this not what you've been arguing? Tell me where my assessment of your side of the discussion is wrong.

Javier Cruz Winnik - See this is what you are doing that is ONLY seeing you're side if the story. I was a born again Christian at one point so the scripture I am talking about is not out of context. It's the Word that I've read and studied. Just because I can't quote the words verbatim doesn't mean I half heard. I've STATED that I knew the text but you decided to impose your own feelings about it. It is Mathew 15:11. Go read it for yourself. It is a verse that speaks on why what you say matters.

You are also ignoring all of the prideful, boastful, disrespectful lyrics they CURRENTLY use. Your personal posts in your page seem quite insiteful and I've liked them but you're really coming off like a pompous and self righteous ass here man. Stop reading what you WANT to read and read what is there. Please don't respond to this. I'm done with this convo.

Muhammad Rasheed - Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “See this is what you are doing that is ONLY seeing you're side if the story.”

lol What side of the story were you supposed to be seeing?  The commitment to your negative opinion about these two?  So far your point is that the content of their lyrics is somehow worse than the righteousness of their charity.  Why in the world would I take that opinion seriously?  

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “I was a born again Christian at one point…”

So it’s funny that you are so stubbornly dismissive against how important charity is on the Path of God.  I guess it doesn’t mean much to used to be born again then, hm?

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “…so the scripture I am talking about is not out of context.”

No?  Okay, then let’s look at it.

The scribes and Pharisees called themselves checking Jesus’ followers by asking him why didn’t they wash their hands before they ate.  Jesus countered by asking them why they were contradicting God’s commandment by telling people they didn’t have to honor their parents.  Then he linked their actions to a prophecy from Elias, pointing out that even though they claimed to be the men of God, they only teach the doctrines of men.  

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “It's the Word that I've read and studied. Just because I can't quote the words verbatim doesn't mean I half heard. I've STATED that I knew the text but you decided to impose your own feelings about it. It is Mathew 15:11. Go read it for yourself. It is a verse that speaks on why what you say matters.”

Now let’s compare it to the issue on topic.  JayZ and Beyonce’s art is not being passed off as doctrinal scripture by anyone.  Not them, not me.  It’s just how they express themselves in their chosen medium, and doesn’t – in any way, shape or form – represent the Pharisees trying to pass off their own doctrines as the Word of God.  They did however perform a potent charitable act that absolutely lined up with the Word.  Their actions represented the fruit of the believer.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “You are also ignoring all of the prideful, boastful, disrespectful lyrics they CURRENTLY use.”

Which one of the Ten Commandments are they breaking by creating fictional music lyrics like this?  Tell me why shouldn’t I ignore this as completely irrelevant?  It’s just songs.  Songs in a genre that often mimic the same formula.   I don’t even follow that music, am quite religious, and yet not even I am as judgmental and negative against it as you are (which sounds like raw haterade, to be honest).  But you really enjoy expressing a committed negativity towards people you don’t know, from an embarrassingly flimsy scriptural base.  

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “Your personal posts in your page seem quite insiteful and I've liked them but you're really coming off like a pompous and self righteous ass here man.”

You’re coming across as if you are desperately attempting to save face.  You’ve failed to use reason and logic to explain your side of the discussion.  You reference the verse without even trying to explain how it’s supposed to support your point.  You mention a former born-again Christian status as if it magically means whatever you say about a biblical reference MUST be the automatic truth, while failing to demonstrate a single trait of a comparative religious scholar.  And now you are calling me ‘pompous’ and ‘self righteous’ for calling you out on your love for negativity and disdain for logic/reason in your arguments.  Tell me why I should take your stance seriously, please.  You don’t have anything to stand on.  If you did then I would like to believe you would try to reveal it.  Or was I asking too much of you…?

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “Stop reading what you WANT to read and read what is there.”

hahaha

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “Please don't respond to this.”

Too late.  Alas.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: “I'm done with this convo.”

You were done a LOOOONG time ago, Javier.  You don’t wear pride very well.  

Carlos Lacayo - People need to be able to visualize leaders
They need to see that people that are like them but make tons of money and are famous care. 
We need famous people to be upfront about it. 
Anonymous is cool when your the avg dude but when your famous your face is just as important as their donations
Muhammad Rasheed - They did it anonymously and the word still got out. I think this way will be more effective. If they made a show about it, people would've been more likely to talk trash than be motivated. "They just trying to stay relevant," et cetera.
Pumkin Escobar - Who said anything about a show, tho?
Muhammad Rasheed - Anyone saying they should've been "upfront."
Perhaps you all need to define what that means? When I read it it sounds like a staged show. 
What does it mean when people say they should be upfront?
Pumkin Escobar - It means the opposite if telling dream hampton to stop tweeting about the very subject and to delete the tweets. It's really THAT simple. Why would I wanna fuck with you if you tweet about your new business venture that you want me to subscribe to, but you wanna be quiet about what you're doing for a very important matter that affects all of us? Why would you have NO problem rapping about your drug dealer exploits, even to this very day, but wanna be hush-hush about matters of social importance? That's shit I can't trust. It's like you wanna keep it quiet so that when someone DOES critique you on it, you can then go, "A-HA!!! But I've done XYZ!" I mean, what does it mean to be up front? As if we haven't seen it before?
Muhammad Rasheed - Pumkin Escobar wrote: “It means the opposite if telling dream hampton to stop tweeting about the very subject and to delete the tweets. It's really THAT simple.”
Jay-Z told this Hampton person to delete tweets? 
Pumkin Escobar wrote: “Why would I wanna fuck with you if you tweet about your new business venture that you want me to subscribe to, but you wanna be quiet about what you're doing for a very important matter that affects all of us?”
Because a businessperson is supposed to market/promote his business, while his opinion about a social cause is irrelevant. EVERYONE has varying opinions about that stuff. It’s definitely not important that this person share his opinion about it.
Pumkin Escobar wrote: “Why would you have NO problem rapping about your drug dealer exploits, even to this very day, but wanna be hush-hush about matters of social importance?”
Because in his art he creates based on what he knows and where the heat of his passion came from. Everyone is opinionated about social items, but who among us really KNOWS it? It’s better that he and his wife create a positive action than make an empty opinionated statement. The action is FAR more powerful.
Pumkin Escobar - We're gonna have to agree to disagree on the matter, bruh.
Javier Cruz Winnik - Muhammad, you mentioned that Jay Z raps about what he knows... doesn't he know philanthropy? Why can't he rap about that? People ALREADY talk trash about him, and usually it's people that say he doesn't do anything to help the place he comes from... why not respond with this action? What it tells me is that he's not promoting it because it's JUST a tax write off... otherwise he'd promote his charity. Most people who do donate speak on it because they want others to follow their example. This smells of fish...
Muhammad Rasheed - Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Muhammad, you mentioned that Jay Z raps about what he knows... doesn't he know philanthropy? Why can't he rap about that?"
"Charity" is helping people because it's the right thing to do, and the principle instructions for it come from religion. In those instructions you don't do it to be seen of men, because it becomes boastful and arrogant. Since that's the example they appear to be following, NOT rapping about it would very much demonstrate he does indeed know about it.
Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "People ALREADY talk trash about him..."
That's why it is best to do it for God and not for what other humans may think.
Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "...and usually it's people that say he doesn't do anything to help the place he comes from..."
Who cares what negative, clueless critics think? Personally I don't believe in EVER doing anything because of what negative critics believe. The hell with those people.
Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "...why not respond with this action?"
This action is their response to what they feel is right. It is a great example for us and their peers. Notice that they didn't have to say a word. The truth comes to light. 
Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "What it tells me is that he's not promoting it because it's JUST a tax write off... otherwise he'd promote his charity."
lol Meanwhile, wealthy folk who do things JUST for the tax right off can't WAIT to label themselves "philanthropists" and go around boasting about what they give. You know the people of God by the fruit they bear, but first, you must know the people of God when you see them. You do that by knowing what the scripture says about these principles. 
Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Most people who do donate speak on it because..."
Because they want to show off all the money they have and their lifestyle, exactly the way scripture said.

Javier Cruz Winnik - How can you mention JayZ and religion in the same sentence? They both speak on MANY sins they are proud to be a part of. Their actions prove they aren't followers of any religion so why give them credit for following one?

Best to do it for God? They do NOTHING for God, in the Bibleague doesn't it say it's better to be a sinner than to be on the fence? You can't have it both ways or you're worse than the sinner.

Do you honestly believe JayZ and Beyonce are people of God? If that's the case then we will never agree on a subject about this couple. I see nothing Godly about them. Beyonce USE to but now... she's been drinking, she's been drinkin... lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "How can you mention JayZ and religion in the same sentence?"

It's easy when they do stuff that happens to line up to actual religious instruction. Especially stuff that comes across as counter-intuitive to anti-religious folk.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "They both speak on MANY sins they are proud to be a part of."

Such as...?

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Their actions prove they aren't followers of any religion so why give them credit for following one?"

Charity is a major good deed for the believer in the One God. This actually transcends the individual religions themselves. God is equally serious about the concept in both the bible and the Qur'an.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Best to do it for God? They do NOTHING for God..."

This is a subjective, judgmental statement you are making about people you do not know personally. Should I take this comment seriously? Meanwhile, they performed this [very important] spiritual act that actually lined up to religious scripture. YOU said they "do nothing for God," but their actions just showed that they do. Who should I believe? Tell me why I should take you seriously on this item, please. I'm genuinely curious.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "...in the Bibleague doesn't it say it's better to be a sinner than to be on the fence? You can't have it both ways or you're worse than the sinner."

It's the same. You either believe or you don't believe. Your actions reflect your level of belief and your commitment. Do what God says and your actions will reflect that belief. That's how you can know the people of God by the fruit they bear.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Do you honestly believe JayZ and Beyonce are people of God?"

Charity is one of the very top good deeds a believer can do, and God says that it will be best if you did it anonymously. Did these two not reflect that belief? The real question is why do you doubt?

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "If that's the case then we will never agree on a subject about this couple."

I peeped that from the beginning.

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "I see nothing Godly about them."

And what are you using as your criterion for judgment?

Javier Cruz Winnik wrote: "Beyonce USE to but now... she's been drinking, she's been drinkin... lol"

Is drinking considered a sin now? According to what? I'll admit to having an issue with negative judgmental people, who judge others based on their own subjective bias alone. Again, please tell me why I should take your judgmental attitude about these two seriously?

Javier Cruz Winnik - Muhammad, if you don't want to see the lust, pride and disrespect they exhibit in their music, or don't want to see that expression as sinful, then there is nothing left to be said about this.

Muhammad Rasheed - lol Javier, all I'm interested in is what God said about certain items, and what His terms & conditions for those items are. If your negative judgmental opinions about someone you don't know fails to line up to what God said about it, as opposed to opinionated bits based on what you think it might mean, then I'm not interested in it. LOTS of people are passionately opinionated against scripture and religion while not knowing anything about them. I'm not interested in those opinions. They are worthless.
  Carlos Lacayo - They will always be trashed no matter what they do
So just be upfront
Muhammad Rasheed - They will always be trashed no matter what they do, so just do it the way they felt like doing it.
Carlos Lacayo - They can do whatever they want nobody is saying that 
I personally think them being outspoken and actual leaders in plain site is much more valuable tool
But then again jay-z is the same guy trying to make a penny of "occupy wall street"
Muhammad Rasheed - ^Bam! 
Yeah, so it's better if they not make a show of their charity. Just be good and personable the way they did it. Making an "upfront" song & dance over it will just be a waste, and more fodder for people to make up nonsense about.

The Murder of Disco

Muhammad Rasheed - So, let me get this straight…
At a certain point, the new music genre known as “Disco” became very popular, and a segment of the population got upset over it because they preferred a different genre of music. This group decided among themselves to kill the Disco craze, and got the radio DJs around the country to stop playing anymore songs under a “Disco is Dead” movement, and this is why Disco is mentioned with scorn in general society like its some pariah of pop music. Is this accurate?
And who the fuck were these people who subjectively decided they didn’t like disco so no one else was going to like it either? Rock & Roll fans that were afraid the popularity of Disco was going to supplant their favorite genre forever. How fucking retarded was this stupid shit? This is America. Popular trends come and go all the time, and never stay super-popular forever. Yo-yos, hoola-hoops, Cabbage Patch Kids, Tickle Me Elmo, break dancing, etc. They burn bright for a minute and then level off into a niche market where the specific sub-groups that enjoy them may continue to do so without annoying everyone else with it. Which includes Rock & Roll. All except for Disco because some assholes got together and decided to “kill” it because THEY didn’t like it. “Oh noooz!! Disco’s coming to steal our Rock & Roll from us!”
Motherfuckers are always fucking something up based on some imaginary bullshit they pulled out of their ass. “Oh noooz!!! We can’t let THEM vote! It’ll ruin EVERYTHING!”
How about sit the fuck down somewhere???
"That's not true! Disco had to go because it sucked!"
Really? So every single Rock & Roll song EVER was a platinum-worthy event? Get the fuck out of here with your stupid bullshit. Who the fuck asked you??? Stay over THERE and enjoy YOUR shit, asshole!
Muhammad Rasheed - GUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Muhammad Rasheed - *end rant*
Jerry Lee Brice - Good points all the way around!
Danny Bronson - *dang*
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I saw the history of Disco on that Unsung show and it made me mad as hell. 
i hate people.
Lionell D. Parish - Great rant...

Bill O'Neal - As a guy who was in high school in the 1970s in rural Indiana, **I** and all my friends subscribed to the notion that "Disco Sucked."

Let me give you some perspective...  :D

There was a station in Chicago, I kid you not, that played Staying Alive as the only song 24/7 for some ungodly amount of time. Weeks. It might have been, like, a whole damn summer. The notion from the DJs was that people *had* to get tired of it if they played it 24/7... but people *still* kept calling in to request Staying Alive. n't.

Saturday Night Fever was a freakin phenomenon. Every song from that movie by the BeeGees was played to excess. Over and over and over and over.

That station in Chicago that played Staying Alive 24/7 for awhile... they would announce the song, "And here is the Bee Gee's with Staying Alive!"... right after playing Staying Alive. It was a joke... and one the listeners at the time helped to perpetuate.

So 1) we got Disco being PLAYED TO DEATH at the time it came out. The BeeGees were more unavoidable than people's parents!

And 2) There is a certain segment of the population that are going to reject the most popular stuff JUST because it's popular. "If that many people like it, it's gotta be shit." And that's generally a faulty attitude but maybe not necessarily an *unhealthy* attitude.

Throw in 3) your purists. Rock and Rollers, yes, definitely do exhibit a kind of arrogance. Me and my same group of white boy friends pretty much rejected RAP when it came along too... with some of the same reasoning as we did about Disco.

But we *could* point to 30+ years of great stupendous rock and rolls artists... whereas the Disco people had basically the BeeGees and the rap people (initially) had freakin Vanilla Ice!

So there were a *lot* of reasons to truly despise Disco at the time.

Thankfully, the older I get, the more open minded I get. I *do* enjoy rap. And yes, I do enjoy the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack.

But disco? Seriously, dude? Disco is DEAD.

LOL

Sorry. It's reflexive.

Recent studies seem to suggest that most people stop listening to new music in their 30s... which I personally find a bit odd since my radio station is tuned to Top 40 constantly (and I'm in my 50s).

But Disco?

I haven't heard of this "Unsung" show and I'm kinda glad about that. I haven't seen anyone get *this* worked up about Disco since 1989.

Just sayin. tongue emoticon

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm actually not "worked up about Disco," I'm worked up over some people who decide they don't like something so they are going to take it away from everybody else.

That is UNACCEPTABLE & idiotic; I don't give a fuck what the product is.

Muhammad Rasheed - Your perspective is what they already showcased on the show when they showed the genre's history.

EVERYTHING that is super-popular is over-played to excess until it finally levels off. Who doesn't know that?

Muhammad Rasheed - "OH NOOOZZZ!!! Now we're only going to get to listen to The BeeGees until the end of time! We have to save music itself for all of humanity!!"

Muhammad Rasheed - stupid. as. fuck.

Muhammad Rasheed - Wait...

...did you just say rap "initially" had Vanilla Ice???

Bill, get outta my thread!!!!!   >:(

Bill O'Neal - Muhammad, "Your perspective is what they already showcased on the show when they showed the genre's history."

Doesn't sound like it at all to me, dude, because my perspective doesn't include and *never* included the notion that just because I don't like it, it shouldn't be *available.*

I'm a free speech guy to my CORE.

With all due respect, sir, I personally don't know of *anyone* who thinks like you ascribe... not even my old school rock purist friends who haven't moved beyond Led Zepplin. (barf) I know people who think, yes, "Disco Sucks" and won't ever listen to it... but wouldn't give one wit if someone else did.

Kinda the same way with opera.

I *loathe* opera with a passion, frankly, and have *never* acquired a taste for it but I don't give a crap if someone listens to opera or broadcasts it (on a channel I simply won't tune to.)

To each, his own.

And honestly... no matter **how** many dimwitted rockers may want to wipe Disco off the face of the planet... they can't. It's impossibility.

Who has the *capability* to erase the BeeGee's music from existence?

I *get* that people shouldn't be like, "I hate it so it shouldn't exist" but I question how many people *truly* think that way. Any chance maybe that people on that show could be purposely attempting to be outrageous? I've never seen it so I don't know.

I just find this, frankly, *very* weird. The notion "Disco is Dead" is silliness to me. It makes me smile. We BELIEVED it at the time but here we are decades later and it's obviously immortal, like all music.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill O'Neal wrote: "Doesn't sound like it at all to me, dude..."

My status is my opinion rant about the episode, not the episode itself. The episode was a documentary of the history of the short Disco Era (i sure wish they had a chance to develop 30 years worth of artists, too), and it explained how those "Disco is Dead" folk felt about it which is 100% reflected in your perspective narrative above. In every way.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill O'Neal wrote: "Any chance maybe that people on that show could be purposely attempting to be outrageous?"

Look at this: Disco Demolition Night at Comiskey Park in Chicago 1979

Muhammad Rasheed - This functioned as the "Disco is Dead" ritual, and the countries' DJ's agreed to "kill it."

Muhammad Rasheed - Since you haven't seen the Unsung documentary, perhaps you should hold back an opinion of it regarding what is or isn't in it?

Bill O'Neal - "Since you haven't seen the documentary, perhaps you should hold back an opinion of it?"

I do. And I have. I simply questioned the notion that there are people who not only hate disco, they seek to deny it to others (and are so moronic they think that's even possible.) I *asked* if that particular notion was possibly exaggerated because I know *nothing* about this show in question.

I watched the above Disco Demolition YouTube video at Comiskey. It made me laugh. Repeatedly. Thank you.

So now I'll explain my comments so you understand (maybe) my amusement.

1st and Foremost: my best fiend who I have known since High School is a rabid baseball fan. He's a Cubs fan, no less. (I pity him.) He thinks that going to a baseball field is, literally, like going to some kind of American cathedral.

I, on the other hand, find baseball less interesting than crocheted bunnies. I'd rather watch two worms f**k. Having to sit through a baseball game to ME is a kind of torture... one I endured repeatedly growing up because my only brother loved also sports, the total opposite of me.

Sometimes he'd get drug to the museums I liked. Sometimes I'd get drug to a friggin baseball game.

I once missed seeing a triple play at Riverfront stadium because I was reading a Stephen King book. And even though I know intellectually how rare those things are... I have *no* regrets. BoringX3 is still boring.

So in that YouTube video when I hear the announcers talking about how this Disco disruption was "sad" and a "disgrace"... I'm highly amused.

"I think I saw two people having sex behind third base!"

FINALLY a baseball game that has interest for me!

In all, every bit of the commentary from that time sounded like the same commentary old folks did about Woodstock or even KISS concerts. (The late 70s was the age of not just rock but GLAMOR rock. Destruction happened on stages across America. I personally saw Freddy Mercury trash the entire stage because a flash pot failed to go off during a finale. And I saw KISS destroy guitars left and right from, like, literally 1977-1984.)

Old people just don't understand. LOL

As for the rest of it... first of all... Good Lord, dude, this was 1979!!!!!!

That was the year I graduated high school. Do you realize that every single person who took part in storming the field that day are now certifiable public accounts, car dealers, cops, computer programmers, or actually working now at Comiskey field and haven't done anything remotely like that since... well, since 1979?

(Since Disco isn't being broadcast excessively 24/7 and *hasn't* been in 30 years, attitudes have cooled a bit and the record bombings have all but stopped.)

What do you think this actually SAYS about those people back then?

And do you honestly think it says ANYTHING about them NOW-- 30+ years later????

*I* could have been at that baseball game... if I had been able to stay focused on the DISCO SUCKS message and forget I was actually going to a, you know... baseball stadium.

Would I be proud at the age of Fifty-freaking- five that at the age of 18 we got carried away and created a little property damage? Nope. Wouldn't be *proud* of it but would also know that it ONLY HAPPENED THAT ONCE.

("I plead temporary insanity, Your Honor. YOU listen to Staying Alive for the 400,000 time and tell me *you* haven't gone a little mad!")

And please please do *not* discount the very real fact that everyone who ran onto that field knew that it was being broadcast on TV. This at at time when we had only THREE TV STATIONS. (No Reality TV. No CHANCE of being an American Idol. Chances to appear on national TV were actually honestly *rare*.)

Teenagers could say to teenagers, "Did you see me on TV last night? Yeah. Disco sucks."

There is NO VICTIM here, my friend.

None.

What happened during the few events like this one where BeeGee records were blown up as a public stunt (staged, usually, by radio stations)? What happened was rockers who'd NEVER buy Disco albums bought Disco albums to destroy them!

Getting people who'd never buy disco records to buy lots of disco records... that's both insidious (kidding) and genius .

It's easy to look back at a time that you weren't a part of---not *fully* understand the *silliness* of the time and get outraged about silliness, thinking it's actually serious.

You wrote... "EVERYTHING that is super-popular is over-played to excess until it finally levels off. Who doesn't know that?"

What you do *not* have an appreciation for is that notion of "leveling off." For decades, rock songs appeared on the charts, rose, hit the top, stayed there a while, and disappeared. That had happened, literally, since the birth of rock in the 1950s. Then in the late 70s, along comes the BeeGees stuff on Saturday Night Fever. Beyond being #1 for something like 32 weeks, they stayed on the radio/charts for a couple YEARS. No level of saturation had *ever* been like that theretofore and that saturation (again: more inescapable than grandma) lead to events like Comisky above.

If people were 1) acting like this still today and you had a video that *wasn't* 30+ years old, perhaps I might not be so amused... and if it were true that ANYWHERE you could back up the notion that people advocate that disco be *unavailable* to those who want it... I'd see harm and real cause for outrage.

But seriously... even in the "ripping the field apart" video above that includes sex behind third base... NO ONE in that video said Disco should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's just a bunch of extremely young (probably drunk) kids bonded together by a mutual hatred of particular type of art who are acting out big time because they know it's their 15 minutes of fame. ("Hey, ma! I'm on TV!")

Nothing Orwellian to see here, dude.

And again: even if people *are* saying Disco shouldn't be available to those who want it (which I've yet to see any evidence of).... if they say that, they are FOOLS. The Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack, as of something like 2010, was in the top 10 grossing albums of All Time.

Finally, if you happen to be someone like my best friend love baseball... please don't kill this blasphemer.

Disco just sucks. It's OPERA that should be utterly unavailable to the masses. wink emoticon

Muhammad Rasheed - You said a LOT of stuff in this post that directly contradicts the actual history of that genre.

In the Age of Radio, the new genre was actively demonized and killed off by the special interest group that actually had the power to do so: Radio DJs. There were only so many areas where we listened to music in those days, and if radio air play was being picketed by a major force in music during the time... who actually represented one of the faces of popular media, with the inherent indoctrination powers that come with that, it explains why people always blush and act sheepish whenever they casually admit to enjoying disco.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Disco craze was also just on the other side of its peak, just starting to come down at that point of over-saturation when it would drop off naturally. The active social movement attack against it worked as a death blow during that time of vulnerability. There was nothing wrong with Disco; just like every other art genre it also had the high art super star stuff at the top, a bunch of mediocre journeyman stuff, and the genuine crap at the bottom, crapped out just to make a buck off the craze. Of course the insane critics seized upon the latter to represent the whole.

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill O'Neal wrote: "For decades, rock songs appeared on the charts, rose, hit the top, stayed there a while, and disappeared. That had happened, literally, since the birth of rock in the 1950s."

It also had a chance to evolve as an art form over that time, as new artist/innovators brought along new sounds that represented mini-eras along Rock's history. Disco was sabotaged before it had a chance to do the same.

No More Defense!

Steve Mack – ARE THEY REALLY DOIN THIS DUMMMM SH%T...
How Do You Condition YOUR Chin? [shared video]
Keith Stewart - Saw this shit earlier. So fucked up. Someone needs to beat that motherfucker down!
Keith Stewart - That's ending careers before they even begin!
Lee John Barton - wtf
Colin Mcmillan - WTF
Adam Garcia - Brain damage and it actually gives you a weak chin overtime
Jack Hubert -  ...
Richard Hedges - I'd much rather work on my ability to slip punches and counter than be continuously smacked in the face
Muhammad Rasheed - This is the direct response from that "ducking-running-giving the fans what they want" nonsense.#noMoreDefenseBecauseFakeFansAreIgnorant #stopListeningToMaurice
Muhammad Rasheed - @Richard... You only think that way because you are a real boxing fan that actually has some sense.
Keith Stewart - I don't care who you are everybody wants to see an exciting fight. Defence is very important however we all like action too. Some fighters with great defence can still be exciting too though, but if everybody just fucused on defense and potshots boxing wouldn't be as interesting as it is.
Muhammad Rasheed - The problem is that the whiners were just focused on the strategy of the Classic Boxer, and ignored the responsibility of the challenger who is supposed to take the big risks in order to penetrate the champion's defense. The excitement comes directly from the challenger's attempts to solve that problem. If he gives up, it is not the Classic Boxer's job to give away his title just because the over-hyped challenger couldn't live up to what 5 years’ worth of shit talking insisted he could do.
Keith Stewart - Oh yeah man, I agree with you completely I may have been rooting for Manny, but he let us all down. I'm very dissappointed with his performance. I expected so much more from him.
Muhammad Rasheed - Unfortunately THEY expected to cheat...

Manny's Failure

Crim Roll - Boxing News :: Just Face It, Manny Pacquiao Ruined The Mega-Fight For Boxing

Jahnell Parkinson - Exactly!

George Winbush - Hey this is the god honest truth accept it and move on

Jahnell Parkinson - Maidana, Cotto, Hatton and even Ortiz stayed in floyds face all night and that's why thoses fights were all exciting. We thought Pacquico would bring even more fire power... We were wrong! All them fighters fought with way more heart than Pacquico did, they even showed more skill.

Dwight Kincy - Be a man dude

Maurice Lao - its manny's fault for being too slow to catch him? lol floyd got permission to run away from his opponent? is this writer paul malignanni? magno for short? the same paul that said pac will get knocked out? u guys are retarded

George Winbush - Pacquiao lost get over it

Maurice Lao - who cares.. screw pacquiao.. floyd is a coward and nothing will change that

Jahnell Parkinson – Precision Hits – Rounds 6 thru 12

Does this look like running or give a lesson!

Muhammad Rasheed - It was his fans' fault for blowing this little dude up into the mythical Chosen One figure. It wasn't his fault he couldn't live up to it.

Misha SF - Same ppl same argument....to be consistent: Floyd won and schooled Manny.

Good article though.

Maurice Lao - jahnell and those are floyd's best punches throughout the fight, how sad. wheres the rest? ha!! running ffrom pac... oops muhammad rashid and the floydtards are back

Jahnell Parkinson - Pacquico landed only 19% of his punches, was off balance all night and stayed at bay for 90% of the fights how the hell u think he won that fight?

Misha SF - Here's the rest. Let's give this topic a rest.


Maurice Lao - yeah and floyd only fights if everything goes HIS WAY. his hometown, hisref, his purse, his ring, his scheduled date may 2... AND STILL RAN AWAY DURING THE FIGHT... What a shame.. pac lost, floyd is a coward scam artist.. moving on

Jahnell Parkinson - Pacquico and Roach both looked like amateurs that night. Floyd made Pacquico look the worst he ever looked can u say the same about Floyd?

Misha SF - Yes, Floyd got his terms, made more money and for a guy who can't read was able to fill out his paperwork correctly instead of lying to everyone.

Jahnell Parkinson - He's at that point, besides Pacquico never had a problem fighting in Vegas before did he?

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm trying to figure out why maurice joined a boxing group. Dude, the pokemon group is down the hall to the left.

Misha SF - Floyd did what we all knew he would do. Everyone was hoping for Manny to force the fight. Instead he looked like stepping and cutting angles was new to him.

Maurice Lao - pac lost and floyd is a scam artist coward... anfd theres 20 floyd die hard fans here... we all get it, its not running, its 'work of art' right? suuuureee... moving on before im bombarded with floyd photo memes

Misha SF - I think you are the only hardcore Pacman fan here we hear. I like Floyd because he is master of his craft and I like to watch him make fighters look ordinary, but gimme a GGG like style and I watch that any day.

Maurice Lao - muhammad rashed, its you who is a floyd groupie..im far more well versed in the art of fighting and in over 10 years of training, i never knew running being a skill until i ran into you guys... LOL! Work of art, 'masterpiece' shut up.. hugging and running is called being a pussy.. stop it

Misha SF - Explain to me why there is a double standard here. Floyd is the scam artist, but Manny is the one who lied???

Muhammad Rasheed - Manny's camp put all their money on him being able to get his toradol shot before the fight, enabling him to walk through his opponents' punches (which is where the juicing rumors came from). When the shot was refused they were stunned & confused. Even though Floyd isn't heavy-handed, Manny was further disappointed and angered to discover he couldn't power his way through the champion's counter right hands without his magic shot.

Too bad, so sad. Stay in your lane and know your role, li'l guy.

Maurice Lao - pacman fan? read above, i said screw pac, he lost, and floyd is a chicken

Maurice Lao - floyd is a pussy

Maurice Lao - coward... vagina.. fake... scam artist... everything must go his way.. and pacquiao lost.. done

Eric Stone - hahahaha, kick yourself Muhammad.. since when does becoming the only boxer in history to climb up and win 10 world titles in 8 weight divisions not constitute being talked about as a great boxer? your hatred runs deep for the Pacman.

Muhammad Rasheed - Amazed @ maurice's demonstration of expert boxing analysis.

You're lucky I'm not a mod, doc.

Misha SF - Floyd is the guy ppl love to hate. Your posts are case and point. He gathers traction with his marketing and annoys most, especially those who don't appreciate good defensive boxing, with his super safe style.

I'm sure every boxing fan secretly wanted for Manny to pop Floyd real good at least once, worse than Shane did, but he couldn't. Floyd is that good at playing the game.

Maurice Lao - manny cannot go through floyd because floyd won the fight already through negotiations, everything must go his way or hes not fighting... thats it... and even when EVERYTHING went his way, he STILL RAN AWAY DURING THE FIGHT... what a chicken.. he should have ko'ed pac.. in fact, i think he lost.. but i dont want to hurt u guys feelings.. so ill just say pac lost and floyd is a coward.. fair enough

Misha SF - "Floyd is that good at playing the game"

Manny/his camp/Arum should know all about playing games, making Oscar and Cotto drain down.

It's the business of boxing.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Eric… I say let him do it again without the toradol and see how well he performs.

Misha SF - I say give Manny as many shots of the shit he was taking when he beat the crap out of Oscar, Cotto and Maragarito. Double dose in fact. Maybe the he has a shot.

Eric Stone - I'm over the fight and a rematch both past their primes when it would of meant something and/or shook up the welterweight division.. too much young talent comin up

Misha SF - Maybe he can drink Marquez's piss, too. Give him that extra edge.

Muhammad Rasheed - After 5 years of telling the Floyd fans that the champ was ducking this li'l guy, I'll be over it when the 5 year shit talking balance has been paid in full.

Misha SF - Maurice does have a subtle point in his own right. Both these guys failed to produce the fireworks. F-em. Like Eric said, let the guys who want to entertain fight. Focus on them.

Martin Schlander - I think you have to give Manny some credit for Floyd not staying in the pocket as much as he did against most other dudes in recent years. Shows you Floyd had some respect for Manny and didn't want to play around.

Muhammad Rasheed - Five years ago that fight wouldn't have meant anything. The "Manny is the Chosen One!" hype-machine hadn't started yet, and Floyd was younger & faster. 5 years ago the fight wouldn't have been as fun as watching the manny fans build themselves up to a giant optimistic tower, only to see them fall on their faces to realize... in front of the whole world... their guy was NOTHING compared to mayweather.

#goodTimes

Misha SF - Floyd is clearly far superior. I don't think anyone can question that. Floyd just didn't take the risks needed. As you said, a younger Floyd would have.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Martin... Floyd didn't stay in the pocket because, as a southpaw, Manny was "awkward" and the risk was higher. That's all. If manny was an orthodox stance fighter, Floyd would have treated him EXACTLY the way he treated marquez.

Misha SF - Floyd should blasted Manny's liver and left eye...but he just picked him apart.

Muhammad Rasheed - The bottom line is that Manny's fans convinced themselves that Manny was a better infighter/brawler than Floyd was a Classic Boxer. They INSISTED that Manny had exactly what it took to power through Floyd's celebrated defensive skills and force the champion to fight the way he wanted him to fight and score the upset.

Meanwhile, Manny ended up proving that he was just an average infighter/brawler that Floyd had zero problems neutralizing, and the retarded Manny fan's now create the false narrative that somehow Floyd was supposed to lessen his skills and fight down to the inferior fighter's level in order to appease Manny's fans. "Coward" indeed.

Muhammad Rasheed - They deserved to lose that money. For being stupid.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Misha… That was part of the fun; that he treated the Chosen One like he was nothing special, picked him apart in the most mundane way, and there was NOTHING he could do about it. In front of all his true believers.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's why their butthurt energy is strong enough to power the Deathstar.

Larry B. Fortner - Yep...Pac didn't live up to what he and Roach said they would live up to

Charles Greaves - FUCKKKKKKKKKK!

Ronnie Richardson - Maurice Lao is at it again I see..

How would you describe Ali's style?

And I'm still waiting on an excuse for the lie you told about round 1 and 2 'hug and Run' hahahahaha.

I'm sorry I'm just a purist

Ronnie Richardson - Misha SF.. A younger Floyd would have taken risks, but a younger Pacman would have too IMO, resulting in a stoppage for Pretty Boy

Jahnell Parkinson - Lmao

Muhammad Rasheed - A younger Pacquiao would not have gotten past a younger Mayweather's jab. He simply wouldn't have allowed him to.

Giving the Fans What They Want

LaVerne Mack – [shared link]

LaVerne Mack – Ugh!! We always tear each other down before anyone else. If only we all could stand together on something; anything! Now she admits racism is still alive, so why not let the first lady's comments rock because that's basically all she was saying. Too easy. Thirst for the lime light or her own 
Jay Mac - I don't have the time or patience for those cooning negros......
Steve DelRay - Any Black person on Fox's comments are void.
Muhammad Rasheed - Stop reading & sharing that foolishness. Racists whites hate it when you bring up racial items, too. Should I be surprised when their slaves feel the same way? ("Wha's a matta, massa? WE sick?")
Muhammad Rasheed - Hi, LaVerne! How did you like the fight? As I recall you were one of those talkin' big trash as to what that peewee challenger was going to do.
So what happened?
LaVerne Mack - Wait... Did you just tell me to stop reading and sharing? Really??
Muhammad Rasheed - Stop trying to change the subject.  lol
LaVerne Mack - The fight Sucked! There was no fight... I think I through more punches in my last playground brawl. Waste of time and money! Total sham.
Muhammad Rasheed - LaVerne Mack wrote: "The fight Sucked! There was no fight..."
Oh. You're not a boxing fan. Sorry. I withdraw the question. 
Anyway, YEAH! Stop reading and sharing stupid stuff you find on the 'Net! It'll rot your brain!
LaVerne Mack - No.. Major fan. Have been since the age of 5. Don't assume. And my assessment stands - the fight sucked. Floyd collected a check. 
And don't tell me what to read or share!
Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, I'm not assuming. The fact that you said it wasn't a fight meant you didn't know what you were looking at, and only pretend to be a boxing fan. O_O
Muhammad Rasheed - tsk. smh
Jay Mac - It was a BORING boxing match. The biggest Heist known to man. A bamboozle. 
LOL!
Terrible.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay Mac wrote: “It was a BORING boxing match."
That's what everybody says when their guy gets beat up in a one-sided match when they were SURE he was going to knock the other guy out.
Muhammad Rasheed - tsk. smh
Muhammad Rasheed - I thought it was very exciting.
LaVerne Mack - I don't pretend. Maybe pretending right now that I care about this conversation. But that's about it. We all know going in Floyd was solid on fundamentals, but if he's going to Bill the fight as fight of the century; and giving the fans what they want... Then fight the man.
Muhammad Rasheed - HA!
It was Manny's true believer fans that made it "The Fight of the Century" super-hype event. They are the ones that INSISTED their guy had exactly what it took to penetrate Floyd's celebrated defensive skills and corner him with a barrage of combos. In fact, it was this belief that they based their "ducking/chicken" comments on. Manny failed to make it happen. Floyd merely used the skills he trained all his life to master: Classic Boxing.
Are you REALLY suggesting that the champion lessen himself to fight down to an inferior challenger's ability? lol And you claim to be a boxing fan, huh?
Muhammad Rasheed - tsk. smh
Jay Mac - Snooze.
I almost dozed off in the 5th round.
I was taking NoDoze and drinking coffee.
LOL!
Muhammad Rasheed - I know, because you were mad and disappointed that Manny was unable to do anything beyond what Floyd's normal walk-in-the-park opponents have done in the past. Once you saw that you had indeed bet on the wrong horse, you turned away in disgust and didn’t want to see anymore. I understand. awwww...
Muhammad Rasheed - Next time you'll listen to Uncle Muhammad.
Muhammad Rasheed - LaVerne Mack wrote: "...and giving the fans what they want..."
I'm a Floyd fan and he gave me exactly what I wanted. I expected the champion to use his natural advantages, and his hard-won skills, to dominate, and he did so. 
It was Manny who failed to give HIS fans what they wanted. As both the shorter man with the natural disadvantage, and the challenger, it was Pacquiao's job to take the big risks; to get inside the Classic Boxer's reach where he had a shot of winning by fighting on the inside. It was NOT Floyd's job to help Manny do HIS job. Hence the word "fight." Manny's job was to take the big risks and FORCE the champion to fight his way and demonstrate to his fans that he was a better inside fighter/brawler than Floyd was a Classic Boxer. 
He failed. And that's why he failed.
Funny how you didn't seem to know this even though you insist that you are really, truly, gosh-golly for real an actual boxing fan.
Muhammad Rasheed - Perhaps you should read more boxing books, and less FoxNews coonery?

Chris Ray - Because a person doesn't appreciate Floyd's style, that means they aren't a fan of the sport? So becasue Tim Duncan is incredibly fundamentally sound, but I'd rather see Steph Curry fire away, I'm not a basketball fan? Floyd is a great boxer. Floyd's fight are also boring, if you want to see more than counter punches and defense.

LaVerne Mack - How about you delete my posts or skip over them. The Coon you see in others is actually the one staring at you in the mirror. You are no different from the woman on Fox that I posted about.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Chris... I would consider you to not be a fan of the sport if you proclaimed that there was no basketball game because Tim Duncan was doing his thing and not Curry. I think there's a difference between preferring one style over another, versus saying there was no fight at all. Someone who considers him/herself a "fan" should at least be able to appreciate the game on a high level.

Muhammad Rasheed - @LaVerne... Is this how you counter the accusation that you aren't a real fan of the sport? By calling me names? No boxing jargon or nothing? lol

Muhammad Rasheed - I know you are mad that Pacquiao lost, and I told you I was going to come back and clown you when it happened because of all the big trash you talked. No need to get nasty.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Ray wrote: "Floyd's fight are also boring, if you want to see more than counter punches and defense."

Isn't that what the other guy is for? There ARE two people involved in the boxing match though. If one of them is counter-punching & defending, doesn't that mean that somebody else is punching first & offending? The level of excitement is generated from how bad that one wants it. It's also generated by five years of talking shit until finally the champion makes the shit talkers eat their words.

Chris Ray - An exciting fight is exciting to all those viewing the bout. Even if Pac got his block knocked off, it would have been much better than the hug fest for the and the jogging that went on for about 9 rounds. I understand the concept of hitting and not being hit. Yet, when the fight is over and both fighters can go to the club without needing some Advil and and ice, to me, that's boring. And yes, Pac could have contributed to making the fight more exciting, it wasn't not all May's fault. But I've watched many of Floyd's fights, and most end the same way. Again, great tactician, but when I watch boxing, I want to see somebody doing the wabble before the fight is over.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Ray wrote: "An exciting fight is exciting to all those viewing the bout."

I'm just saying that if people are bored because it doesn't look like what they see in Rocky, or some other fictionalized version of it designed for the layperson, just maybe they should stop pretending they are "fans" and watch hobo street fights on YouTube instead.

Chris Ray wrote: "Even if Pac got his block knocked off, it would have been much better than the hug fest for the and the jogging that went on for about 9 rounds."

I agree that watching Pacquiao getting the crap knocked out of him -- with his family watching at ringside -- would've been awesome. But it was 100% the challenger's job to take the risk to put himself in that position. Is Pacquiao unaware that the Classic Boxer with the height advantage will absolutely attempt to keep the shorter fighter at the end of his jab, and tie him up whenever he gets close enough to infight where he stands a chance of winning? Of course he knows that. Okay, then where was The Chosen One's strategy for how he was going to neutralize these Classic Boxer tactics that every Classic Boxer in the universe performs?

No where.

The reason the fight wasn't as exciting as hoped was because the legions of Pacquiao fans put all of their hopes & dreams into this lesser fighter to do what so many others failed to do, and he came up short and hurt their feelings. If Manny was as good as you all said he was these last five years, then the fight would've been as exciting as you wanted it to be.

Chris Ray - Hahaha. Spoken like a true Mayweather fan. The dude's fights are boring, period point blank. That's awesome that he's getting paid well and charting his own destiny in the sport, but I simply don't like it. Give me a dude with some KO power and his quickness, and you have me as a fan. But that whites of the gloves Olympic points accumulation creates a yawn fest for me. The Memphis Grizzlies are a great team, but I would rather watch G State's free flowing style than Memphis with that rock fight setup. But hey, I don't like smash mouth football either.

Muhammad Rasheed - I am a Mayweather fan, and I am also a boxing student and fan of the discipline. Between Floyd and Roy Jones, Jr., I enjoyed Roy more because he was heavy-handed even when he moved up in weight (KO'ing Virgil Hill with a body shot! O_O ), but Roy lost me by staying in there long enough to allow himself to get pummeled by tomato cans. And now the undefeated little guy has my full backing as the pinnacle of what the sport has to offer. I think Floyd wears it well.

Chris Ray - I loved Roy, but like most, he did hang around too long. Floyd looks like he may get out unscathed, which is a testament to his work. He just doesn't do it for me. And the whole Money Team persona doesn't help win me over.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Ray wrote: "The dude's fights are boring, period point blank."

It's difficult to take subjective bias presented as definitive truths seriously. I don't find the high-level game boring. I love it.

What I hate are when fighters deliberately use less of their skills to appease the layperson. I find that kind of stuff boring. Primarily because I was never a fan of The Toughman Competition, and similar fake boxing exhibitions. I don't like watching the amateurs either, and prefer the skilled game.

Muhammad Rasheed - The Money Team thing is part of his marketing/promotion/merchandise business, and doesn't bother me either way. Similar to Ali's "I AM THE GREATEST!" he can do it all day for all of me as long as he can back it up. That's the only thing I care about.

Chris Ray - To each his own doctor.

The Champ Says No More Rewards for the Fake Hero Challenger

Muhammad Rasheed – Speaking to Jim Gray during an interview that will premiere on SHOWTIME this Saturday night, Mayweather called Pacquiao a "coward" and a "sore loser" before going on to say he has changed his mind about the possibility of that rematch.

Muhammad Rasheed - *APPROVED*

Fuck Manny’s camp.

Todd Holland - "What had happened was....." LOL!!! The hype for the "rematch" begins....

Derek Mason - So this dude hit women, but Manny's the coward ? Riiiiight

Karla Holland - ^^^^Thank you.

Todd Holland - I think he's an equal opportunity hitter......Not like he won't whip a dude's ass too.

Karla Holland - ^^^^Blocked.

Kristopher Militant Mosby - The last time Floyd hit a woman was May 2, 2015 in front of the whole world.

Adam Reilly - I wonder if that was the reason they had Manny played by a woman in that SNL skit. At times I have no idea if they are being racist or making subversive commentary. I am not sure they know either.

Kristopher Militant Mosby - Hahaha!!!! I don't watch SNL, so I have no idea. That's funny, though.

Muhammad Rasheed - Mayweather gets suspended sentence

Muhammad Rasheed – Floyd Mayweather Jr. agrees to plea deal, is sentenced to 90 days in jail on battery charges

Muhammad Rasheed – Floyd Mayweather Jr. sought in case

Kristopher Militant Mosby - Since making the business decision to shift gears and manage his own brand, every move Mayweather makes is intentional, calculated and three steps ahead of the boxing industry. More than mastering the craft, he’s mastered how to effectively market his movement.

Floyd Mayweather sells an unmatched work ethic, unparalleled dedication and an unwavering will to be the best ever. The other side of his brand flaunts an unapologetic bravado and brash delivery, excessively spending money and engaging in well-documented social media wars. His handling of the media is meticulously strategized and mapped out to mirror a specific marketing agenda. In the end, it all works in his favor, further solidifying his bullet-proof business model.

Mayweather approaches boxing as an entertainment enterprise, fueled by conflict, excitement and the desire of many to see a prideful champion fall from grace. Knowing this, he has embraced the bad boy persona artfully and made it his mission to eliminate the line between boxing and entertainment, making every experience in his career a combination of the two.

When you fully understand your brand, perfect your craft, outwork the competition and possess incredible skill – the only fate in front of you is an unbeatable one. Though there are several swirling debates spanning across social media, sports bars and barber shops nationwide as to where Mayweather ranks amongst best fighters of all time – one thing is certain: nobody has ever earned the name “Money” like Floyd Mayweather.

Floyd Mayweather: The Brilliant Business Behind Boxing's Undisputed King (Forbes)

Adam Reilly - There was an interesting documentary I watched which covers his incarceration and how he took control over his own career. It's called "Mayweather" and narrated by LL Cool J.

Hopefully it hasn't been removed yet.

Floyd Mayweather "Full Mayweather Documentary"

Muhammad Rasheed - As easy as it is to sit on the outside judging people that we don't know, and creating our own biased and twisted narrative of what we want to believe their lives are like, we really don't know what's going on with them. In the articles I posted above, there is more than enough material where the discerning reader can see other angles that make the situations much more complex than his unforgiving critics want to see.

Should he have hit these people? No. Do greedy people have a history of starting mess so they can hopefully win a large payout from a lawsuit? Yes. And a judge ordered Floyd to get some impulse control and therapy, and since the fighter/businessman has done so, he hasn't had any more of those incidents reported. There doesn't seem to be any real point to continue throwing that stuff in his face and calling him a coward all the time since he seems to have gotten past that stuff.

Meanwhile, despite Manny putting on the same performance of Floyd’s average opponent, with absolutely nobody attempting to ice this supposedly damaged shoulder during the fight, the Pacquiao camp refuses to admit they lost fair and square to the superior technician. This because admitting that he was out of his league would question the point of a rematch, and they wouldn’t want to miss out on that money, no. So he tries to manipulate Floyd into a rematch with more of the same bullshit Mayweather has heard from Manny and his fans for five years now. Refusing to acknowledge he lost, continuing with the childish taunts, means he absolutely doesn’t deserve that shot.

Todd Holland - I don't care much for Mayweather,but damn if I don't see a familiar "Friend" behind the level of the dislike....This yearning to see him "humbled" thing is ringing of the old "Uppity" Ni###r syndrome....If you don't like the guy,why give the dude $100 of your money??? Doesn't make sense UNLESS it was to see him "Put in his Place"...And if that's the case Floyd is a HELL of a lot smarter than his critics.

Fake Hero

Muhammad Rasheed - Has Pacquiao been in the habit of asking for this shot of toradol before every fight since he first started moving up in weight? Enabling him to walk through people's punches? Is that what started the rumors that he was juicing?

So his camp expected him to be able to do this before the Mayweather fight, it was refused, and he found he couldn't power through Floyd's counter rights, no more than his rival Juan Manuel Marquez could. So during the whole fight he was actually mad that he had to feel pain like a normal fighter, planning the strategy for a rematch using this fictitious shoulder injury so he could make sure he would get his toradol shot next time.

That's why all the top boxing analysts expressed confusion over what appeared to be a strange strategy for Pacquiao's camp to use against Floyd, because Roach didn't think it would matter as long as his guy got his magic shot. Floyd hasn't knocked anyone out in there since his lighter weight days, and isn't particularly heavy-handed, so they expected the toradol to be more effective than it usually is and for Pacquiao to dominate no matter what strategy he used.

And this character was supposed to be the hero of the story, eh? smh