Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 233

Playing Yourself "On the Strength"

Grey Williamson - [shared link] Lee Daniels admits Dash put 2 mil on him, then made a fortune on "The Butler"... feels no responsibility to hook Dash up because of what he is liable for on paper. Trash. Dash's "paper", and support got you there... you can't break 'im off? Cretin. ... and then you badmouth him in public? Deserves an "Aubrey"... You took the money, Dude... You accepted the "hand". Yep, a righteous "Aubrey"...

Lee Daniels Compares Damon Dash's Investment Lawsuit to 'Shell Game'

Randolph Rudie Carty - I don't know Dash to care for him or not care for him. This article just makes me wonder why do we (as in black folks, people that look like me) do so much business on the strength? Why can't we call up lawyers and draw up contracts. No more oral agreements. I doubt Lee Daniels will have a hard time finding a backer for his next project. That backer will just come with a proper contract.

Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, Daniels agreed to it "on the strength" and then spun around and made sure that actual written contract said something very different.  So are we going to blame capitalism for this behavior, or recognize it for what it is as an individual's lack of personal integrity?

Muhammad Rasheed -  In the Qur'an God says to make sure all of your agreements are in writing. There is no promising "on the strength" of your word. Make sure it is all very clear to both parties involved in a solid written contract. This will ensure solid business practices, as well as maintain your relationships.

Don't tempt people's natural greedy tendencies.

Sneaky Misdirection of the Left

Muhammad Rasheed - It occurred to me that the Left's "trickle-down" accusation towards the Right is actually a misdirection technique. The Marxist-inspired, Communist-friendly Left are ALLL about top-down politics.

Jeremy Travis - How so?

Muhammad Rasheed - They believe in throwing all of their energy towards making an all-powerful State so that it can take control of all resources, guide the peoples' destiny, right all wrongs, redistribute wealth according to their concept of "fairness," and make sure that its citizen children work the society it designs 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' in the way the State's elite figures it ought to be done. If the Right is supposed to be all about the individual's freedoms upheld over a subservient government, the Left's philosophy is the opposite of that, and sees the individual as expendable. Accusing the Right of being all about "trickle-down" is a misdirection from their own traditional 'Red,' state-first-individual-second political goals.

Muhammad Rasheed - So despite all of their accusations that the Right is into "trickle-down economics" that they INSIST isn't for the good of the people, if the Left gets its way, don't be surprised to discover yourself reenacting that scene from the end of Orwell's Animal Farm -- peeking through the window at your Red Elitist handlers, confused as to why you are experiencing the same bullshit they were pretending to deride in Right Wing policies.

To hell with the Right and their do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do, racist, plutocracy-loving, bullshit hypocrisy, and to hell with the Left and their Red Commie, eugenic mass killing, trickle-down bullshit.

Daniel Stone - But the "Right" and "Left" exist in name and label only. Both parties seeks top down rule over individual rights because both are co-opted by the international social and economic elite. They use corporations and corporate lobbying to make sure both parties rule in their favor. They hedge their bets and support both sides. All the while using both leftist and right wing rhetoric to convince the population at large to go along with it. The message changes according to your pre-existing proclivity while the results are always the same.

Keeping people in constant debate over whether the "right" or "left" is CORRECT is the diversion.

Ricky Mujica - I'm with Daniel.

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm with Daniel, too. This isn't an either or. It's multi-layered.  This particular blog post is only referring to one aspect of the bigger problem.

Jeremy Travis - Then can it be said that the anarchists are right and the problem is top-down government with entrenched rulers lording over everyone?

Muhammad Rasheed - The anarchists will never be right. What we have today is flawed and needs a lot of work to get to our ideals, but it is still a great system with much opportunity for people to improve their quality of life. Coming together in a potent grassroots effort to overthrow top-down government (the type of oppressive, bullshit political system the human race has dealt with for the bulk of our existence) is the best thing we can do for our society. The real problem is being lazy citizens, and allowing others to drive our bus. Take control of your own life and stop empowering other flawed, greedy fuckers to drive your bus. Delegate leaders to run the country but make sure you CHECK them so they stay in their damn lane. Above all else, protect and maintain your human/civil rights and your freedoms. Use your superior numbers to run up in there and stomp the shit out of leaders who have zero respect for your freedoms & rights. Our relationship with the police dept is unacceptable. Governments should be afraid of the people, NOT the other way around; the hair of world leaders should turn white much sooner once they are elected... stressed the fuck out that they are going to piss us off and end up hanging from the gibbet.

Anarchy represents no less than surrender, and honestly only the insane keep bringing it up as a viable option (anyone who equates it to libertarianism is just stupid and can't learn). Who the hell wants to live the worst aspects of the American Old Wild West, or the movie The Road starring Viggo Mortensen?

Daniel Stone - well everything comes down to cycles. When the world becomes to chaotic and lawless, forming hierarchies becomes a necessity to ensure safety and security. However, after a few generations, that same safety and security begets laziness, greed, and an unwillingness to exercise ones own will which results in heavy bureaucracy, despotism, and oligarchy. Naturally this then leads to anarchic rebellion. rinse, repeat.

The anarchists aren't right. No one is right. There is no stationary formula for nature when nature works in never ending cycles of growth and decay. So nah, seeking out which political party or ideology that can solve all our problems is really just looking for a spot to sit down and rest for a moment while the rest of the world is running away from lava. You'll always get burned.

A formula that generally works in all situations is to not be a dick to others, occasionally do good things for other people besides yourself, only follow rules you agree with, be willing to die for your friends and family, and remember to do things that make you happy.

Muhammad Rasheed - Daniel Stone wrote: “well everything comes down to cycles.”

Inside of the cycle we should do our best to live at an optimum, for both ourselves and the sake of our children. Should citizens of Old Rome have had a defeatist attitude and abandoned their civilization if they would’ve known their empire wouldn’t survive past that centuries old cycle? I think you do the best you can where you find yourself, and high civilization that represents the very best of the human race’s talents and skills is worth fighting for, tweaking, preserving past the cycles and throughout the ages remaining to us on earth.

Daniel Stone wrote: “When the world becomes to chaotic and lawless, forming hierarchies becomes a necessity to ensure safety and security.”

When the world becomes too chaotic & lawless it means the civilized became complacent and derelict in their duties to protect what they had.

Daniel Stone wrote: “However, after a few generations, that same safety and security begets laziness, greed, and an unwillingness to exercise ones own will which results in heavy bureaucracy, despotism, and oligarchy. Naturally this then leads to anarchic rebellion. rinse, repeat.”

There are people among the human race who have done an excellent job of making sure they encode very specific skillsets into their children – learned in some distant age – that enable them to have a decent quality of life, no matter where they settle, throughout the centuries. But it’s something they want for their people, and work to maintain within their family creeds. No law says that we are obligated to be busted back down to the stone age at the end of every cycle. Like these folk we should actively flex our superior brain power and demonstrate of species’ ability to adapt and conquer anything planet earth can dish out. We don’t have to live like animals if we are determined not to.

Daniel Stone wrote: “The anarchists aren't right. No one is right.”

“No one is right” is an anarchist tenant. Of course some people are right. There are only a handful of things in life that represent basic success for homo sapiens, and the people who managed to develop and master techniques that ensure that success in their communities are the folk who are “right.” Anyone who are blown to and fro in the natural cycles of time, helpless because they don’t use their brain to figure out that puzzle, are wrong.

Daniel Stone wrote: “There is no stationary formula for nature when nature works in never ending cycles of growth and decay.”

By it’s nature, a cycle itself is a formula… a predictable event that can be measured and planned for.

Daniel Stone wrote: “So nah, seeking out which political party or ideology that can solve all our problems is really just looking for a spot to sit down and rest for a moment while the rest of the world is running away from lava. You'll always get burned.”

That’s another anarchist tenant: “you may as well not even try because XYZ.”

Daniel Stone wrote: “A formula that generally works in all situations is to not be a dick to others, occasionally do good things for other people besides yourself, only follow rules you agree with, and remember to do things that make you happy.”

Works in all situations to achieve what, Daniel?

Cos: Silent Stand-Up

Muhammad Rasheed - Bill Cosby is NOT Richard Pryor. He's not going to talk about his negative personal issues with you. Are you kidding? He didn't want to discus his son's death, and the public was 100% sympathetic with him on that. Stop expecting him to open up about that other thing in public the way Pryor would have. That will not happen. 

Pryor would've been 110% candid with you, and even would've worked it into his art. Cosby has always been the polar opposite of that, cut from the Black Elitist cloth, and doesn't believe in "airing dirty laundry."

Muhammad Rasheed - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.../bil......

Rick Drew - I have to respect Cosby. He broke a lot of barriers, was popular with all viewers and pretty well spoke to everyone.  He has an image and wants to maintain that. What's wrong with that and why all the attacks? The American public just loves to see people fail - or seen - gasp - fallible.

Muhammad Rasheed - 1.) They want to see the wealthy and influential punished for their crimes the same as the lower classes are.

2.) Cosby's rants against the bad behaviors of the low class blacks make these allegations... if true... a strong hypocrisy, and many people who sided with those low class blacks against him WANT the allegations to be true.

3.) The feminists want to see a male figure manage to NOT escape his punishment if the allegations are true (and possibly even if they aren't true just to make an example of him).

Rick Drew - Plus values have changed. Cosby is to "clean" and mild for today. Sadly.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, that would be part of the hypocrisy angle.  People want the allegations to be true so they can make fun and bash him for the now perceived fake "clean & mild" image he projects.

Todd Holland - And there is ALWAYS time to destroy the image of Black men. That's why I refuse to play along with this crap. If it wasn't bad enough to press some charges when it could be PROVEN,it's not bad enough now. I'm not mad at Cosby for saying that Black folks need to pull up our collective pants,and get our shit together. Someone that loves you corrects you,someone that wants your downfall lets you sink into the muck.

Muhammad Rasheed - Just because he may have done some wrong things, doesn't mean he's wrong about everything he ever said.

But some people (The 'Blaming the Victim' crowd) genuinely took offense at him telling them to get their shit together, and want him to burn for it.

Todd Holland - And even if they burn him,they'll still be in their same jacked up situation,following Nicki Minal,Jay Z, and Weezy.

Jeremy Travis - So he can chastise people about their behaviors but no one can chastise him for being silent while having all of these rape allegations against him?

I agree with what he said, to a degree, but he can't run around with all of these allegations, having paid off at least one chick, and then act like this shit isn't real and didn't happen while at the same time telling other Black people to get THEIR shit together. We all can stand to improve something about ourselves, and it is that recognition of mutual imperfection that should tell a serial rapist to calm the fuck down on the chastisement and ridicule of others for their shortcomings.

Wallace Heard Jr. - dipped his spoon into the wrong pudding..

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "So he can chastise people about their behaviors but no one can chastise him for being silent while having all of these rape allegations against him?"

I'm not saying you can't chastise him for it.  I'm saying, based on his style and personal philosophy as a text book Black Elitist, don't expect that silence to be broken, and certainly don't be surprised that he is taking the "none of your business" stance.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "I agree with what he said, to a degree, but he can't run around with all of these allegations, having paid off at least one chick, and then act like this shit isn't real and didn't happen while at the same time telling other Black people to get THEIR shit together."

The difference is that the people he criticized routinely do all of their mess in the streets for everyone to see.  That's a fundamental problem for the way he sees the world.  By contrast, "allegations" means no one knows anything for sure except the people directly involved.   Paying someone off just as easily means you only don't want a public legal circus smearing your name, as it can mean you admit it.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "We all can stand to improve something about ourselves, and it is that recognition of mutual imperfection that should tell a serial rapist to calm the fuck down on the chastisement and ridicule of others for their shortcomings."

His real message -- if these allegations are true -- is to be old school and do your dirt discretely.

Jeremy Travis - Then his real message is shit. There is no way in anybody's hell that public displays of class-trapping ignorance are greater than private rapes. I'd much rather a person wear their pants down to their ankles and speak so incoherently as to make one think they're having a stroke if the alternative was that they drug chicks and have sex with their unconscious bodies.

And to think, this muthafucka has FOUR DAUGHTERS!

Muhammad Rasheed - I'll wait until we find out if the allegations are actually true first before I'm ready to press the caps lock.

Muhammad Rasheed - If they are then I'll agree with you.

Craig Bluntmindthepoet Hargrove - Cosby know how the media is, they like to twist shit around, and misqoute him or anyone. He don't need to say anything silence is golden, but then again it also can be a  bad if you're not defending yourself

Jeremy Travis - To a degree, I'm willing to wait it out as well, but I think that were I in a similar situation, I'd want to address the issue of multiple women who were calling me a rapist, as opposed to paying one of them off and being silent about the rest. You ain't accusing me of shit that I didn't do, especially something as heinous as rape, and think I'm just gonna dummy-up about it. He did SOMETHING, he may as well come clean about it.

Craig Bluntmindthepoet Hargrove - In this age you can say one thing and everyone will flip it around

Jeremy Travis - Silence is golden, unless you're not defending yourself?

What?!

Craig Bluntmindthepoet Hargrove - Its works 50/50, u can be silence but then again it can backfire is what I'm saying

Craig Bluntmindthepoet Hargrove - There a guilty conscious if you're not saying anything in a serious case but then again media can flip shit around if you do say something.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "To a degree, I'm willing to wait it out as well, but I think that were I in a similar situation, I'd want to address the issue of multiple women who were calling me a rapist, as opposed to paying one of them off and being silent about the rest."

You're not a Black Elitist.  If he remains silent the public will gossip and speculate all to their hearts' content, but they will never know.  "Nigga you did SOMETHING!  I just don't know what..."

But if he gives them anything at all, innocent or guilty it can be a weapon.  That's a lesson that MJ learned too late.  Plus it's highly possible his legal team advised him not to say anything publicly as well, which only reinforced his preferred stance anyway.

Craig Bluntmindthepoet Hargrove - ^ worded it better then me

Jeremy Travis - No, never be silent when serious allegations are brought against you. If the allegations are true, then you confess. If they are false, then you defend yourself and present the truth.

I can't think of a good reason to be silent when serious allegations are brought against you.

Muhammad Rasheed - Talking about a pending court case can potentially damage your case, and even have you in contempt of court.

Jeremy Travis - The problem he's having is that he's not being completely quiet, he just won't talk about the allegations. It's pretty ri-damn-diculous to walk around like ain't shit happened, have a retarded-ass PR team ask social media to 'meme' him, and then expect to remain silent about the major issue that everyone wants to ask him about now.

He is truly old school if he thinks that shit won't see the light of day simply because he didn't say anything about it.

Muhammad Rasheed - It'll see the light of day because it's going to court.  lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "The problem he's having is that he's not being completely quiet, he just won't talk about the allegations."

He's completely quiet on the parts of his life he has no interest in sharing, while continuing to live his life.  He'll let the court verdict speak for him on that other thing.

Jeremy Travis - It's going NOW, but before this case was in the works, he was still acting like it didn't happen. If he wants to remain silent pending the case, then fine, say THAT. But if that's the case then he should just fade into the darkness until the case comes up, because no one wants to talk to him about anything else more than they want to talk about those allegations.

Todd Holland - What's going to court?? From what i understand all of this mess is past the statute of limitations. If that's the case IF he did something the ONLY way it's a problem for him is if he was to confess.This is all court of public opinion crap.

Muhammad Rasheed - ^And there ya go.

Jeremy Travis - Also, that bit about not airing dirty laundry can't be true if he was airing the dirty laundry of other people. He just doesn't want to air his own laundry. Fuck that! Your shit is dirty, my shit is dirty. We either clean-up our own respective messes, hide all of our messes, or air all of it out together.

Muhammad Rasheed - If he doesn't have to talk about it, then he is simply not.  Especially if the last one (if true) happened decades ago or something.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Also, that bit about not airing dirty laundry can't be true if he was airing the dirty laundry of other people."

They were airing their own dirty laundry and he was telling them to put it away; that they were making black people look bad.

Jeremy Travis - Oh, OK. Yeah, THAT makes sense. Leave it to the public to figure it all out on their own, and then blame the public for having to figure it out on their own.

Jeremy Travis - No, he wasn't telling then to put it away, hide it, keep it out of the public light. He said to clean it up. Meanwhile, he's got his own stinking pile of mess that he doesn't want anyone to talk about. That's bullshit.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Oh, OK. Yeah, THAT makes sense. Leave it to the public to figure it all out on their own, and then blame the public for having to figure it out on their own."

lol The public isn't going to figure it out on their own, they're going to gossip about what they think happened based on how they feel about him and parade it around as the truth.  And whether it was revealed that he actually did it or not they would still be like that.

Todd Holland - How is saying,my people need to do better dirty laundry...We've got Black kids out here thinking that doing well in school is "Acting White" that's a FACT,because I've worked with them for almost 12 years.Telling folks to "Pull up your pants,and try to look like something worth a damn,when you live in a country that judges you based on appearance isn't a crime.That's someone trying to HELP your ass. We're ready to side with the enemy against someone trying to help,which just proves us to be the damned idiots this place says we are. How many times are we going to co sign while they make Black men "The Face' of all societies ills?? Rape,Child abuse,Domestic violence,street crime,disease??? And if so,then don't get mad when we get blown away shopping in Wal mart or something,because our "Image" is in the damned toilet.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "No, he wasn't telling then to put it away, hide it, keep it out of the public light. He said to clean it up."

If they would've hid it in the beginning, then we wouldn't know that what they had was dirty.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "Meanwhile, he's got his own stinking pile of mess that he doesn't want anyone to talk about. That's bullshit."

All we know for sure is that a very wealthy man is being accused by people who are not wealthy.

Jeremy Travis - The public will know when the women come out and tell it. If the statute of limitations has passed then what does he stand to lose but the same face that he's losing now? Say it didn't happen and move on, or confess and try to make amends. His silence his going to destroy him more than the allegations.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "The public will know when the women come out and tell it."

The people will be aware of what was alleged.  Doesn't mean it was the truth.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "His silence his going to destroy him more than the allegations."

I disagree.  Again look at Michael Jackson.  He made a public statement that he didn't do it and how did that work out for him?  In court they proved that all of the allegations were nonsense, but how did the public act?

I agree with Cosby's silence on that alone.

Todd Holland - That's NOT how that works..A confession is STILL a confession.And depending on if any legal "deals" were made,the POINT is that you don't talk about it.

Todd Holland - Besides,why "feed" the media,and these fuckers that SOOOO want him to be destroyed?? To give that butt hurt comedian his 15 minutes?? Hell, if Cosby never makes another dime hiis royalties from "The Cosby Show" alone will have him set.

Jeremy Travis - So what you're both saying is that we shouldn't give him shit over allegations that he won't dispel because he's trying to help people better themselves? The media and his accusers, not his actions, are making him the face of all of societies ills? Because he said 'pull your pants up', and the pants do need to be pulled up, we shouldn't worry about him being a rapist?

Muhammad Rasheed - No, I'm saying that he shouldn't say anything to the public if he doesn't want to.  Whether he did it or not, it doesn't matter.  The people have already made up their mind and, even before this, they decided they didn't like him anymore anyway because of his critique to the lower class.

I'm also saying don't bother EXPECTING him to say anything either, because he doesn't believe in that.

That's my piece.  Since I have no idea if he's a rapist or not, I don't have any commentary on that.

Jeremy Travis - Muhammad, you leave out the fact that Michael Jackson admitted to letting kids sleep with him in his bed, and that he made a settlement with the parents of one if the kids. THAT is what hurt him. Cosby has also made a settlement with one of his accusers, and admitted that he had an inappropriate relationship with her.

Jeremy Travis - I'll agree with you that he can keep quiet about it if he wants to, but then he should just stay out of the public eye since it's quite clear no one is willing to let it die. If we shouldn't expect him to talk about it, he shouldn't expect it to not be brought up.

Marilyn Oduenyi - The court of public opinion will always make its judgment with or without the facts. Cosby is under no obligation to plead his case to them. No one is.

Todd Holland - The ENTIRE reason Hannibal Buress brought that up was that he was butt hurt that Cosby told Black folks that we need to straighten up on some things..And the truth is even IF Cosby raped everyone of his accusers.He was RIGHT. We don't manage our image,we side with people that DON'T have our best interests at heart.We aren't  cognizant of how some of the shit we support is destroying us. And even if Bill Cosby is run of of town,jailed,or WHATEVER these folks are after he told the truth and the "HIT" dogs are hollering.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Muhammad, you leave out the fact that Michael Jackson admitted to letting kids sleep with him in his bed..."

His sister said he only said that for shock value.  The kids in court said that he always slept separately from them... let them have the bed while he slept on the floor, etc.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "...and that he made a settlement with the parents of one if the kids."

His attorneys advised him to settle the first case so that there wouldn't be a big media circus about it.  The famously shy MJ readily agreed.  When it backfired for literally the exact same reason you keep bringing it up, he regretted settling it, and was determined to fight the others to the end.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "THAT is what hurt him."

Wrong.  And you are foolish to think his career wasn't already damaged before Diane even asked that question.  People alleged it without proof and the public believed it because that's how the public is.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "Cosby has also made a settlement with one of his accusers..."

*shrug*

Jeremy Travis wrote: "...and admitted that he had an inappropriate relationship with her."

Did he?

Andre Moore - First of all they had a settlement. He paid her to make it go away and she took the money. So that means she didn't want him in jail and didn't think it was worth going to court. Anytime someone take the money I'm suspect. If someone did something to my child or wife or whatever I'm taking the bastard to court so it doesn't happen again. 2 if they did do a settlement I'm sure there is a gag order where neither party is suppose to speak of it or say anything about the other party.

Andre Moore - Everybody talking about Bill why the hell aint nobody talking about CELO Green that little dinobot drugged the girl and had the nerve to say it aint rape if the person isn't awake lol! that negro needs to be behind bars!!!!

Luther Johnson I've been a Cosby fan most of my life and I suppose that I belong to the group of black folks that generally agree with his 'get yourself together' comments.  I hate the way how many members of our community have turned their back on him.  I strongly believe that he DID NOT commit the crimes he's accused of.  However, if the allegations are true.....that will be the demise of one of my favorite comedic icons.  :(

Bill Murray - LET HIM WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE....WAIT....WHY IS EVERYONE WALKING AWAY?

Muhammad Rasheed -       




















Muhammad Rasheed -

Tools of the Journey Towards Success

Lana Maria – [shared meme]






















Lana Maria - The bootstrap argument needs to die in a fire.

Kimberly Moseberry - People forget that these same college don't hold the same weight as they use to. I know many college graduates with degrees and have problems finding jobs in our fields. Many of those jobs are being shipped over seas to cheaper workers by greedy companies.

Muhammad Rasheed - There's more than one way to skin a cat (no offense). The big, super-expensive institutions don't have a monopoly on learning. There are plenty of opportunities outside of them to learn valuable skills that others are willing to pay top dollar for.

You just have to want it, and be solutions driven, and persistent.

Lana Maria - School would've been easier to get thru if i was paid more. I juggled 2-3 jobs. I feel i would've done better in college if i didn't have to focus so hard on survival. I still graduated with a high GPA. It just took me 12years. All that working i had to do caused me to miss key networking ops...it's more than working hard. Companies don't always hired the qualified hard worker.

Lana Maria - It's not about being driven. It's about fairness.

Muhammad Rasheed - Lana Maria wrote: “School would've been easier to get thru if i was paid more.”

No doubt. It would’ve been easier for me if they would’ve dumbed down the classes I didn’t like. Or made me exempt from needing to take them.

Lana Maria wrote: “I juggled 2-3 jobs.”

That is genuinely commendable in every way.

Lana Maria wrote: “I feel i would've done better in college if i didn't have to focus so hard on survival.”

Lana mastering your own personal survival techniques while you reach for a worthy goal WAS part of your education. You accomplished this, proved to yourself you could do it, and no one can take that away from you.

Lana Maria wrote: “I still graduated with a high GPA. It just took me 12years.”

The burdens were difficult, and even though it took longer than you preferred, you kicked their asses, when so many others failed/surrendered. When building a team of high-achieving asskickers to get shit done, you will be one of the first I would call to join.

Lana Maria wrote: “All that working i had to do caused me to miss key networking ops...it's more than working hard.”

‘Working hard’ encompasses more than rolling your sleeves up and getting dirty. It involves strategy, planning, constant reassessment, and working towards what you claim you want to achieve.

Lana Maria wrote: “Companies don't always hired the qualified hard worker.”

Companies aren’t the only option for achieving success within your chosen field either, and depending on what you actually want, they may not necessarily be the best option. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Lana Maria wrote: “It's not about being driven. It's about fairness.”

Life will never be fair. Some will always be born further along the road towards ease than others. Even in a land in which there is ample opportunity for anyone to climb the social economic ladder to financial security, some will always have to start at a lower rung than someone else. It will always be that way, in one way or another. Such is life.

Consequently, depending on where you find yourself, it is absolutely all about being driven. It does no good to bemoan the fundamental unfairness of life; wasting that energy is taking away from the time you should be developing the string of objectives you need to conquer in order to reach the goal you desire. That is what it is all about. Figuring out what you want, planning the best way to get there, and walking along that path.

Coming to the Stage

“The great outline of research comes to light best in dialog.” ~Otto Toeplitz, mathematician (1 Aug 1881 – 15 Feb 1940) 
Muhammad Rasheed - Otto is saying that, similar to the debate, people reveal just how prepared they are on a topic once they begin discussing it.  You find out a lot about the person you are dialoging with, such as: 
Have they researched the topic at all or just repeating what they heard?What is the level of that research?Are they merely regurgitating what they read in a book?Are they providing their own insight into the topic based on a study of relevant data and critical thinking of what the material reveals in a bigger picture?Do they practice a blind faith acceptance, reciting a popular ideological viewpoint on a topic (passionately!), and yet are ignorant of the actual historical facts behind it, and can't explain why theirs is the popular view on the topic?Do they think that their passionate, non-factual stance of a historical viewpoint is equal to your research, and dismiss your research-based insight for no other reason than because it is different than what they heard repeated in their circles?  Do they attempt to misdirect from the topic in an effort to hide their ignorance of something they spent the exchange pretending they were expert in?Do they get flustered easily when you attempt to corner them on even basic levels of understanding about the topic, that require more than the cocktail party recitation of popular sound bites that make up the sum total of their actual knowledge?Do they believe that the demonstrated large numbers of people who act the way they do about the topic are sufficient proof that their stance is the true one?Do they believe that because they have a degree in a topic it means you shouldn't question them at all in it, and even for topics outside their expertise you should listen to them because they have a degree?In other words, dialog is the platform on which the fool removes all of your doubts.

And For Each A Home

Al Bush – [shared meme] Intelligent. I'll actually help instead of pretend to help. Nice savings, nice roi. Nice break for the tax payer. Only thing lost is a few jailer and ER jobs that we prefer to not need anyway.




















Muhammad Rasheed - Great. Now Utah is full of thousands of filthy houses that smell like urine and crystal meth.

Al Bush - as opposed to the alley behind your house. WTH?

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Al Bush - Close case Mr. Deadpan.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think it's a good idea, too. Especially the part where the caseworker helps clean off the dried urine, gets them off the meth, and teaches them how to do laundry again. [thumbs up]

Kurt Thiel - Wow, I was wondering if they'd be people actually hating on a successful program that not only saves money, but also reduces homelessness. Guess you never are at a loss for critics;-)

Muhammad Rasheed - I'm only about 2% serious, Kurt. It's a great program. Just recognize that a lot of those folk are in that position because they literally didn't want to be a part of civilization any more, and aren't looking for a way back in. So while they may welcome a chance to get in out of the elements, they will definitely bring an unrepentant savage element with them, and will be problem children in this program, giving those caseworkers hell.

Muhammad Rasheed - It's absolutely not going to be a utopist, all holding hands in a Kumbaya sing-a-long.

Kurt Thiel - Cool of you to read their minds and know their thoughts and intentions. I'd suppose it isn't out of the realm of possibility that they see no easy way back in. With nothing and no address, it isn't so easy to reintegrate.

I'd suppose those are the ones who aren't moving into the apartments, so 100% isn't realistic but a great improvement nonetheless.

Kumbaya, by the way, is a great song, but to those determined to have a negative worldview, (unrepentant savage?, nice characterization) it has no meaning:-)

Muhammad Rasheed - Some will make great success stories, some will give the caseworkers a hard time, and some will unrepentantly bring that criminal element with them and cause great problems in the program. That's not a "negative worldview" that's how life functions. The program will provide some good to that percentage of the homeless who are looking for that very boost, but it is very naïve to think it will be without challenges.

Do you really think all of those people are out there because of the same reason?

Muhammad Rasheed - There's quite a few out there because they are of the criminal opportunist class, and that is the life they prefer. They will only look upon this program, and the caseworkers, as prey.

Muhammad Rasheed - The program had better have that fact built into its business plan up front. The idea that ♫"They are ALLLL going to love us and live happily ever after!"♫ will cause this whole thing to fail.

Kurt Thiel - I think you're greatly deluded about the homeless. The great, great majority of criminals have access to resources. By far, the only criminality of the homeless are 'crimes to self' > so called substance abuse.

Muhammad Rasheed - There are different types of criminals, Kurt. This type here we're talking about is the lowest level... the completely separated from human civilization level of it.

Kurt Thiel - The last statement is that of nothing more than a critic, thanks God for those who ignore critics and work on accomplishing something:-)

Muhammad Rasheed - You really do think that all of the homeless are there for the exact same reason!

Muhammad Rasheed - Wow...

Kurt Thiel - Scummy bustards, shot 'em all and let God sort em out.

Kurt Thiel - Yea, wow.

Delinda Mccann - Who are the homeless? Low income people who lost an apartment when their roomie moved out and they didn't have money for a new deposit. Families with kids. Women who ran from an abusive husband. Veterans. Adolescents abandoned by their parents. i've worked with them. Their stories include serious illness of one family member. Loss of a job. Some have reasonably good jobs that simply don't pay enough to pay for an apartment.

Muhammad Rasheed - Here's how the program will function (my official prediction):

1.) A certain percentage of the homeless will use the program as a boost to get back on their feet and successfully transition into society (the smallest percentage).
2.) Another percentage will live healthier but still at a very poor state, while still riding that borderline homeless existence (they won't be able to let go of the drug culture).
3.) Another percentage will continue to live the same lifestyle but will just be in out of the elements.
4.) The rest will continue to be the dedicated criminals, taking advantage of the program and preying upon the people in it, and working it to their selfish advantage.

Kurt Thiel - Can't imagine why you'd imagine that I'd imagine that they'd all be there for the exact same reason. But I'd think that roughly 1/2 are there because of substance abuse; 25% there because of severe financial hardship; 20% there (on the younger side) because of severely bad family relationships; and 5% due to being a highly unsuccessful criminal.

Muhammad Rasheed - Delinda Mccann wrote: "Who are the homeless? Low income people who lost an apartment when their roomie moved out and they didn't have money for a new deposit. Families with kids. Women who ran from an abusive husband. Veterans. Adolescents abandoned by their parents. i've worked with them. Their stories include serious illness of one family member. Loss of a job. Some have reasonably good jobs that simply don't pay enough to pay for an apartment."

This will represent that ITEM #1 in my prediction.

Kurt Thiel - Yes, Delinda, exactly. However, perhaps Muhammad has more knowledge and is wise beyond his years regarding his knowledge of the homeless;-)

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Can't imagine why you'd imagine that I'd imagine that they'd all be there for the exact same reason."

Because even though I said some will succeed and some will make the program very challenging, you keep responding as if I said the whole thing will fail. Like you're arguing a one or the other.

Kurt Thiel - Ok, I was overreacting, but I needed a good argument tonight, thanks for providing one;-)

Al Bush - Mo. This story says utahs experience puts the lie to your speculations. It's a pilot for the states that had a demonstrated success. You are right that it's not perfect and some will fail. So what? It is cheaper , it works for many and it's undeniable that others want to try it out. Chill dude.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Ok, I was overreacting, but I needed a good argument tonight, thanks for providing one;-)"

lol That doesn't feel like a good argument since you were taking an odd stance. Granted I began my responses in this thread by acting goofy with Al, so... it's cool.

Al Bush - Ok. True enough. I didn't follow the thread til this moment and not very well. I'll let it lay and read tomorrow. Sleep well all.

Al Bush - I see you're response was to Kurt. Oh well. I'm behind.

Muhammad Rasheed - Who are you again...?

Al Bush - That's correct. Who am I. The universal question. I'm the guy looking for solutions. Lol. I'll take advantage of any that best the odds.

Muhammad Rasheed -  ;)

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Yes, Delinda, exactly. However, perhaps Muhammad has more knowledge and is wise beyond his years regarding his knowledge of the homeless"

The ironic part is that I am literally some random person on the Internet that you have NO IDEA what my past is like... what I've done, what my expertise is in, past jobs I've had... and yet you make a comment like that as if you're my mom or something. lol

Al Bush - If crime is reduced due to this program does it mean we might think anything but what's normal. Lock'em up and teach professional crime lessons for 3 years and let'em go again?

Muhammad Rasheed - Again it is a good program, Al.  But for it to be a GREAT program, one that is a bigger solution, it will have to deal with the criminal element separate from the other clients, and continuously tweak it. They CAN'T have a one-size-fits-all approach that remains the exact same throughout without any efforts to monitor, control, collect data, study data, improve.

Muhammad Rasheed - ...the way the typical tax drain liberal programs function.

Al Bush - I saw that Mo. I agree with you and don't have any illusions about ease or not. It's true. All you've said. I was speculating myself. We have a series of boxes we will put both the. homeless or criminals in. What of crime was reduced by a guaranteed income of room and board and 10,000 a year. Cheaper than courts and Leo and jail. What's interesting to me is to get out of that box.

Al Bush - What I don't understand is that with 333,000,000 people we ought to be able to experiment like mad yet we don't. Why? We think we know. We don't but we think we do.

Kurt Thiel - Well if the photo is any indication of your true age, you're a bit on the young side, and from your comments, a little short on the experience side, that is what I've got to go on and ate reasonable assumptions on my part

Muhammad Rasheed - Al Bush wrote: "I saw that Mo. I agree with you and don't have any illusions about ease or not. It's true. All you've said. I was speculating myself. We have a series of boxes we will put both the. homeless or criminals in. What of crime was reduced by a guaranteed income of room and board and 10,000 a year. Cheaper than courts and Leo and jail. What's interesting to me is to get out of that box."

There are some who only make criminal choices out of desperation, so I would 100% expect a lot of those numbers to drop because of the program, sure. But the dedicated criminal element has always been among mankind and will always be so. He/she likes being a criminal. The program must deal with those folk separately.

Muhammad Rasheed - So you are saying there are no criminals among the homeless?

Kurt Thiel - So it's a liberal plan from Utah, lol

Muhammad Rasheed - So you are saying the program will be 100% successful with a one-size-fits-all approach, and the opposite of everything else I've said? Is that your position? It seems like it, from comments like that.

Kurt Thiel - If you have any real world experience or some special insight or some real stats you can share regarding the homeless, please do so

Muhammad Rasheed - A government program that spends tax dollars to help the population? That's text book "liberal."

Kurt Thiel - You keep speaking in absolutes like '100 %', it won't be perfect, etc. Pretty much everyone knows that, what point are you trying to make?

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt I CLEARLY have more insight into this than you. I'm sorry. But you sound like the kid here. And I'm only 43.

Muhammad Rasheed - I said I personally would "100%" expect the crime numbers to drop based on a percentage of criminal acts being those of a desperate, survival nature.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's not fantasy or magic.

Muhammad Rasheed – Common sense.

Kurt Thiel - Damn guess all those GOP in Utah have some 'splainin' to do, especially one that both saves money and helps people, again what's your problem, that they've made an improvement?

Kurt Thiel - Ha ha, I believe you because .....

Muhammad Rasheed - Where did I say I had a problem? Where did I post that?

Remember it was you saying I was a "hater" and hinted continuously that I thought the program would fail, despite numerous posts to the contrary.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Damn guess all those GOP in Utah have some 'splainin' to do, especially one that both saves money and helps people, again what's your problem, that they've made an improvement?"

The GOP have a history of hypocritical actions. If the demos did this, the GOP would be completely against it. It's okay if they put liberal programs in place though. (bearing in mind I haven't looked into this to see exactly who put this program in place.)

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Kurt Thiel - Well you clearly seem to be irritated that this is being seen as an improvement over the current state of affairs.

One would think that you could take a more positive note on a clearly successful program. Sure it's not totally perfection, but your stance has been mostly negative throughout.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Well you clearly seem to be irritated that this is being seen as an improvement over the current state of affairs."

No. I began by being goofy, and making (probably cruel-ish) comments about how nasty the living conditions would be in that housing. But I agreed up front that it was a good idea, outside of my lame jokes.

Kurt Thiel wrote: "One would think that you could take a more positive note on a clearly successful program. Sure it's not totally perfection, but your stance has been mostly negative throughout."

Again, no. I acknowledged a very realistic percentage of the people who take part in it would have better lives. That's positive anyway you look at it. But I also acknowledged the reasons why some of them would NOT be successful... reasons that IF the program directors don't take heed of, the program will end up being a disappointing waste of potential.

That's not being negative. Negative is to say it will fail in every possible way and they shouldn't even try. Did the labeling it as a clear "liberal" program ruffle your feathers? lol You'll be okay, Kurt.

Kurt Thiel - Muhammad wrote: "The GOP have a history of hypocritical actions. If the demos did this, the GOP would be completely against it."

Gotta like that statement:-)

So given that you are more experienced with the homeless, give me the benefit of who you see as the the homeless, percentage wise, as I've given you my estimate.

Muhammad Rasheed - What do you mean? Who the homeless actually are?

Kurt Thiel - Oh no Muhammad, I've a very proud slightly to the left of center sort of liberal, but would never take offense to being characterized as a liberal. Should I find myself in CA, and be to the right of an argument I would be quite offended should anyone call me far right, whose members are the scum of the earth in my opinion.

But thanks for playing the naming game;-)

Kurt Thiel - See earlier post where I give best guess % of why people are homeless.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "Oh no Muhammad, I've a very proud slightly to the left of center sort of liberal... But thanks for playing the naming game;-)"

I didn't say YOU were a liberal, I pointed out that this was a liberal program. You seemed to immediately get up in arms about that. Do you deny it?

This is a government program that uses taxpayers' money to do a perceived charitable act against the taxpayers' wishes. In other words, a 'Vision of the Anointed' program of the very kind that the GOP absolutely hates when the democrats do it. It's a liberal program in every way. Text book definition. So if GOP folk in Utah put it together, why are they okay with it, since it represents everything they hate from their political rivals? (or PRETEND to hate anyway; you know how slimy politicians are.)

Perhaps it's okay on the state level, and the GOP only hates liberal programs when they are initiated by the federal gov? Who knows with them.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: "See earlier post where I give best guess % of why people are homeless... But I'd think that roughly 1/2 are there because of substance abuse; 25% there because of severe financial hardship; 20% there (on the younger side) because of severely bad family relationships; and 5% due to being a highly unsuccessful criminal."

I think that 25% on severe financial hardship is too high. I would replace a chunk of that one with "mental illness" factors. There's these and some sub-categories underneath each that make them more complex, but it still boils down to: 1) how many are reachable and 2) how many are willing to use this program as a tool to help themselves? I think less than a quarter of them will be success stories, the majority will be poor and permanent residents of these facilities, and the rest will be their natural predators.

Kurt Thiel - If it's conceived of a planned by conservatives, it is a conservative plan. When it saves money, conservatives, of course, have no problem owing it.

Sounds like you consider any government plan that helps people by definition liberal:-) Even as anti-far right as I am, I don't believe that conservatives can't conceived and run such a program.

Kurt Thiel - Muhammad, good call on the mental illness, that is indeed a large part. From your posts you had played up the criminal element which I again tell you is more at the petty or substance crimes level.

I'd say that the reachable will be closer to 75%. Perhaps you are looking for full reintegration, in which case, 25% seems reasonable. It is, however, a plus for partial reintegration and staying off the streets and out of jail gives us the 75% and the cost savings even without full reintegration.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kurt Thiel wrote: “If it's conceived of a planned by conservatives, it is a conservative plan. When it saves money, conservatives, of course, have no problem owing it.”

If they make it then they own it. If their political rivals make it, then they automatically hate it. That’s the climate we are in.  It doesn't matter if the program is inherently conservative or liberal in nature.

Kurt Thiel wrote: “Sounds like you consider any government plan that helps people by definition liberal”

Those are the specific elements that the GOP complain about when the other side makes a program: 1) The gov is trying to save people with some program that is charitable in nature 2) by using taxpayer money. The ‘talking point’ buzz phrases they use against them are “pulling yourself up by your boot straps,” and “free government handouts on the taxpayer dime.”

Charitable gov programs using taxpayer funds are liberal programs by definition, and the GOP hates them when they're giving speeches about it. Yet here they are doing it themselves. It’s okay as long as it’s them doing it, is the lesson.

Kurt Thiel wrote: “Even as anti-far right as I am, I don't believe that conservatives can't conceived and run such a program.”

Sure they can. When they do it is called “hypocrisy.”

Kurt Thiel wrote: “Muhammad, good call on the mental illness, that is indeed a large part. From your posts you had played up the criminal element which I again tell you is more at the petty or substance crimes level.”

Again there are different kinds of criminals: white collar criminals, organized criminals, criminals of passion, and the low-life criminal that I am talking about in the context of this thread topic. The low-life level criminals among the homeless come in two forms: 1) The desperate criminal that performs illegal acts for the sake of raw survival 2) and predatory acts from rapists, thieves, homicidal sociopaths, petty scam artists, etc. The first one will be relieved to not have to do those crimes anymore and will take to this program with enthusiasm. Those are among the ones who will contribute to the success stories. The second class of criminal mentioned will not be moved by the program, and in fact will treat these areas like their hunting grounds. They cannot be helped in this way, and different measures will need to be taken in order to, primarily, protect the others from them.

Kurt Thiel wrote: “I'd say that the reachable will be closer to 75%. Perhaps you are looking for full reintegration, in which case, 25% seems reasonable. It is, however, a plus for partial reintegration and staying off the streets and out of jail gives us the 75% and the cost savings even without full reintegration.”

Okay, then if the only goal is to get these folk off the street and into the housing, then yes, I don’t have a problem with the 78% numbers mentioned in the meme above. That’s quite reasonable. Who wants to sleep in the rain? I’m talking about the aspect of adding the caseworkers to the project. Obviously the addition of this staff is to help transition these poor souls into a better way of life, yes? THAT is the part that will by no means have a success rate as high as 70-80%.

No way.

Al Bush - As mentioned now twice this program has been run and some data available. I'd ease into "No Way" I don't see any issues here worth arguing about. Either it saves initial money. I live between a large area of 300,000 dollar homes and 35,000 homes. There are guys walking the neighborhoods all day looking to mow grass. Living on 20 a day. Just sleeping rooms would be a Godsend. Grown men with a little history, petty theft at 30, now can't work at 50. Lost housing in last crash and bounce from apt complex to complex eviction to eviction. Homeless or marginal. Social workers- cheaper than medical and about the same as jailers. Not much difference.

Al Bush - Stability begins the process, add value as possible. As opposed to increased ER visits. Increased crime, substance use, We've all seen trashed out places totally overrun by low-end coping skilled folks. Nothing is easy but 30% ROI. I'll take it.

Muhammad Rasheed - I agree. For those that the program WILL help it is certainly worth it. As mentioned several times myself, I agree it IS a good program. The rest is just analysis.

Kurt Thiel - Both ends of the political spectrum have seen that criminal records have been holding people out of the job market and have been taking steps to alleviate that. As well states like CO and WA have magically made thousands of 'criminals' disappear through legalization of marjiuana which has in turn driven down the overall crime rate. Both positive steps for a country that incarcerates more of its citizens than the rest of the developed world (and much of the underdeveloped world as well)

Kurt Thiel - Can we sing Kumbaya now  ;-)

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Sure.

Muhammad Rasheed - ♪Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Someone's singing Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbayah

Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's laughing, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's crying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's praying, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya

Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Someone's sleeping, Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya♫

Hope & Its Mysterious Alternative

Muhammad Rasheed - In 1965, a Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a comprehensive report compiling data on the experiences and conditions of the Black American poor.  He listed the hardships they went through during slavery and jim crow, and explained how those events contributed to the continued hardships they experienced in the modern day, as contrasted to the Black American middle class who were steadily getting more prosperous, creating an increasing economic gap between the two.  In response to government measures to fix the problem using the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, Moynihan warned that that particular program, in the way it was structured, would actually continue the downward spiral of the poor’s degradation.   Moynihan said that the family unit was one of the few positive things the poor had, but the AFDC’s policy of only providing aid to those families without a father in the home, would actually serve to break up the family, in fact encouraging the father figure to stay away and/or be driven away.  Such a situation, as predicted by Moynihan, would create an increase in juvenile delinquency, which would snowball into increased crime/poverty for the next generations to come.  Statistics of the time, and the statistics collected in the decades since, proved Moynihan’s warnings to be accurate.

The phrase “blaming the victim” is currently used most often in cases of violent crimes such as rape, in which the fault of the crime is placed upon the victim by the perpetrator and his defense team.  But the phrase originally came from a William Ryan, used as the title of his book written as the refutation of Moynihan’s The Negro Family: The Case for National Action report.  Although Moynihan intended the information presented to be the factual working basis of a call to action to save the poor classes of the Black American family, Ryan felt that the report did little but blame the victims for circumstances outside of their control.  Other anti-Moynihan Report vocal opponents also took this stance, making any subsequent efforts to analyze and provide concrete solutions to that demographics’ plight a political hot potato that no one wanted to seriously touch.  Over time, as the “politically correct” era came into its own, “the problem of poor blacks” turned into something of a caricature, and although everyone in the public sphere has expressed unexplored, poorly thought out opinions of the matter [see: Cliven Bundy], no serious efforts have been made to address the issue for fear of being labeled with the ‘blaming the victim’ stamp, potentially losing coveted votes.

Conspicuously, the polished rhetoric that has built up to immediately shut down any necessarily “tough love” efforts to seriously address the poor situation in the African-American lower class communities, lacks any kind of solution itself, remaining the same level of angry empty rant that William Ryan’s original work contained.   Throughout human history poverty has only been cured by education/training in valuable skill sets, combined with the practical application of those skills in action in exchange for an appropriate living wage, but the followers and descendants of Ryan’s Blaming the Victim rhetoric feel that message should not be spoken to the lower classes because it’ll make them feel bad.  That it will only remind them of their plight, and the bad memories of the past, and the idea that some of them, for whatever reason, may quit before the training/work combination is complete means that none of them should be given the opportunity to succeed through that actually successful route.

All that is missing is an actual solution from them as to what will fix the problem.  Since they are opposed to the only means of any true hope the poor have to escape their condition, being the tried & true formula of education + hard work + perseverance/determination = success, what formula do they propose instead that will cure/shrink the numbers of poor blacks and reverse the trend of growing poverty? 

Pharrell Williams' journey to success, as expressed during his Oprah interview, gave somewhat of a parallel insight into the attitudes that led to the steady decline of the poor black neighborhoods, and his 'New Black' concept reflects him noticing that to reverse the trend requires a significant change in attitude as the only antidote. The descendants of William Ryan's Blaming the Victim rhetoric... equally as worthless in the modern day as it was in the '60s... criticize his philosophy as being out of touch with the struggle, while continuing to provide an opinion that is not only void of any kind of solution whatsoever, but contributes to the coddled, defeatist attitude that will continue the decades old trend of the black poor's downward spiral into disaster.

Education to Close-up the Inequality Gap

Al Bush - "When I was poor and I complained about inequality, people said I was bitter.  Now I'm rich and I complain about inequality, now they say I'm a hypocrite.  I'm beginning to think they just don't want inequality on the agenda because it is a real problem that needs to be addressed." ~Russell Brand

Tony Cruise - Define "equal".

Al Bush - That's the debate Tony.

Muhammad Rasheed - “The extent to which there are additional costs associated with unsegregated hiring is an empirical question, and no doubt varies from place to place and time to time. However, even during the Jim Crow era in the American South, blacks were seldom paid less by an employer for doing the same job as white employees. Rather, blacks were excluded from certain higher-paying jobs that would have put them on the same plane as whites. In the South especially, the resistance of whites was not so much to physical proximity to blacks, but rather to associating with them on a plane of equality. Blacks were welcome to live in white homes as servants, even by whites who would refuse to sit down at the same table with blacks to discuss business, for the latter implied equality while the former and more intimate association did not.” ~Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture: A World View

Tony Cruise - And that's why we have, (thankfully), the Civil Rights movement.

Muhammad Rasheed - The civil rights movement helped make progress in societal equality between the races, but it didn't (couldn't?) help in equality for classism issues, which is what Brand is talking about.

I think the only way to fix that would be to throw all of our weight behind a free, high quality education for all citizens, along with special programs designed to encourage all families to instill the value of the same into their descendants. Something like that would close the class inequality gap in just a couple generations.

Tony Cruise - I like the way you're thinking Muhammad. I don't understand how we get to "free". Many people qualify for "free" college education. I find that the most difficult hurdle for socioeconomically depressed people are their family settings. Mainly, the lack of importance placed towards education. There are all kinds of programs that are designed to encourage education... Unfortunately, few people can or will attend those meetings to reinforce the importance of the principle of learning. That could be due to several factors.

Keith Bowers - Here's the rub...like Tony said, "free" isn't free.

Also, when discussing equality, please try to avoid confusing "equal" with "fair".

Michael Jordan made over $1B in his lifetime. I've made less than $1M in mine. This is not equal. However, since he's the greatest basketball player in history (and I'm not), it's totally fair.

Remember that human value and economic value are totally separate concepts, and combining them only creates resentment.

Kirk Anderson - We tend to think of inequality as lack of opportunity. That is often true. But there is also a relatively huge inherent cost to being poor. For example, if you can't afford preventative maintenance on a vehicle, the small repairs snowball into large ones. If you can't afford to insulate your home properly, you pay relatively high energy bills. If you can't afford dental insurance, your teeth are more likely to rot out. If you live in a poorer neighborhood, you are subject to more break-ins. If you cannot afford a garage, you are more subject to hail damage, hit and runs, vandalism, and car break-ins. I have watched wealthy people in restaurants cut to the top of the wait list while the rest continued to wait. It's called playing with a stacked deck and it is very real.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tony Cruise wrote: “I like the way you're thinking Muhammad. I don't understand how we get to ‘free.’”

Well, no fees and tuitions. What we pay in taxes can go towards those institutions alone. Instead of giving mega-corporations free subsidies, and contributing trillions towards the war machine, let’s give it to the colleges/universities instead and have them all transform their curriculum to that of the highest level schools in the land. And anyone can just walk in off the street and attend without paying anything extra than what they already pay in taxes.

Tony Cruise wrote: “Many people qualify for ‘free’ college education.”

And for those who perform best, give them a cash reward, or free gasoline for 10 years or whatever.

Tony Cruise wrote: “I find that the most difficult hurdle for socioeconomically depressed people are their family settings. Mainly, the lack of importance placed towards education. There are all kinds of programs that are designed to encourage education... Unfortunately, few people can or will attend those meetings to reinforce the importance of the principle of learning. That could be due to several factors.”

It IS due to several factors, with the primary one being that certain cultures traditionally don’t have “high education first!” built into their fabric. In addition to the free education, and the monetary gift for those high performers, there should also be a continuous, sustained, and SERIOUS effort to advertise the importance of high education marketed towards every citizen in the country. Monetary (or whatever of value) gifts given to any group, individual, organization, institution, film, tv show, etc., that helps push that message in their audience. The public needs to be indoctrinated with it. If your community, ethnicity, etc., doesn’t already push it in their kids, then you will be the target for this message. Math, science, technology, the arts, for EVERYONE, no exceptions.
 
Muhammad Rasheed - Keith Bowers wrote: “…when discussing equality, please try to avoid confusing ‘equal’ with ‘fair.’ Michael Jordan made over $1B in his lifetime. I've made less than $1M in mine. This is not equal. However, since he's the greatest basketball player in history (and I'm not), it's totally fair.”

The “equal” part came in on it this way: MJ became highly skilled at basketball from continuous practice to become a high performer and he entered an industry that both valued and handsomely paid for those skills. He used the money generated from his career to invest in income-producing assets that gave him his current net worth. Absolutely nothing prevented you from doing the same thing in whatever industry your natural talents laid in, and that you had a passion for. The pathway was open for both of you to do the same, therefore you are equal. It doesn’t matter whether you both capitalized on it; the fact was you both could have.

Keith Bowers wrote: “Remember that human value and economic value are totally separate concepts, and combining them only creates resentment.”

Define “human value” so I can be sure to understand your point, please.

Muhammad Rasheed - Kirk Anderson wrote: “We tend to think of inequality as lack of opportunity. That is often true. But there is also a relatively huge inherent cost to being poor. For example, if you can't afford preventative maintenance on a vehicle, the small repairs snowball into large ones. If you can't afford to insulate your home properly, you pay relatively high energy bills. If you can't afford dental insurance, your teeth are more likely to rot out. If you live in a poorer neighborhood, you are subject to more break-ins. If you cannot afford a garage, you are more subject to hail damage, hit and runs, vandalism, and car break-ins. I have watched wealthy people in restaurants cut to the top of the wait list while the rest continued to wait. It's called playing with a stacked deck and it is very real.”

All of this is true, and it can also be a big part of the message that people need to hear as far as using education as a way to escape those depressing scenarios. If you take the time to learn the skills that others are willing to pay top dollar for, you will be able to escape the impoverished lifestyle and move up the socio-economic ladder from lower class to middle class. A series of high-quality marketing campaigns that draw upon those items you’ve described that the poor are very familiar with can help to show them that they don’t have to live this way. If the gov is truly serious about helping them out of that plight, then it should absolutely make the path towards high education as easy as it possibly can. You can’t force them to learn, or take advantage of those opportunities, but you can certainly remove all other barriers that they may have to deal with, and the most important one is the extremely high costs currently associated with a top level, Ivy League education. If we all master mathematics, science, tech, and the arts on that level it will grow our middle class to unprecedented levels of success, increase business and entrepreneurship, and put the country on top of the world as the leader of the Technological Elite in innovation and progress.
 

Response to HuffPost Review: Luc Besson's Lucy

Milan A Johnson – [shared link] Dead on with this article. Especially after seeing Lucy.  @Muhammad Rasheed… check this out. Wish you could see the movie Lucy to understand how irritated I was in the theater.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5627318

Muhammad Rasheed – I did see it. It premiered at the AAFES Theatre right here in my building, and when they found out I was into Luc Besson’s work, my staff treated me for the Eid holiday (my Filipino staff all have crushes on Johansson so they made a big deal out of it).

I liked it. I gave it a ‘B.’ I also read Olivia’s review of it the other day, and although her general point – that the Caucasian Male Dominance mindset of Hollywood treats white folk as “default normal” – and there are absolutely aspects of that concept present in this film as she described, there was more to the movie than that. Olivia even ignored or misinterpreted important aspects of the story so that she could force her point about it, making her review inaccurate in some areas.

First, this is a genre film. Category: science-fiction. Sub-category: superhero. That’s the reason why I wanted to see it. The first time I heard about it was when your mom and I saw the trailer in front of Captain America: The Winter Soldier and I was all in. “A superpowerful chick fuckin’ shit up with mental abilities? I’m THERE!” lol I love that shit. It’s the reason why I love Limitless so much, and the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, that Lucy has so much in common with. I LOOOOVE the superpowers, and they gave me all I could handle and more, hence the ‘B.’ Besson’s writing isn’t as smooth as it was in his earlier films, and this one got pretty wonky at times. Often I would find myself wishing they would shut up with the loose, funky pseudo-science talk and flip another car over. The science part wasn’t its strength, it clearly wasn’t Besson’s strong suit despite his obvious enthusiasm for the material. It gave the impression that he JUST discovered this stuff a couple months before he wrote the script and got excited enough to want to make a movie about it, before he finished understanding it.

Hollywood does have a thing with indoctrinating the public with the idea that white folk are 1) humans at their default normal setting 2) that they represent the most evolved version of humanity 3) blond hair and blue eyes represent the BEST human traits of all. But this idea doesn’t belong to them alone, in fact, they didn’t even make it up. It comes from prejudiced mindsets within the science institutions… stuff we were taught in school that radiated out into mainstream pop culture in America, and apparently, all the way to the Philippines. You can’t escape it, unless you just stop watching movies and tv. We can make the decision to only watch movies made by other ethnic groups, but they are colored by those ideas, too and subconsciously those same types of prejudices will surface in their films: all the good guys are light-skinned, all the ratchet villains are dark-skinned, etc. An active and deliberate effort to deprogram ourselves from that mess would have to be a movement all of itself.

In the movie, Lucy’s eyes did flash blue whenever the synthetic super-drug CPH4 did its thing to cause her to mutate up to another power level. Within the context of the story obviously this only happened because the chemical itself was blue, and being aware of that fact, I dismissed it easily enough. But symbolically, it was a different matter. Subliminally it reinforces the “whites are the most evolved humans” baggage and functions as a powerful symbol of that racist concept. It’s not as ugly and blatant as it is in movies such as Dune or Dragonball Z, where there is NO explanation given as to why the superhuman version of a person now has blue eyes other than *koff*racism*koff* . lol In Lucy I saw it, noted it, recognized that it was the same purplish-blue of the drug, and put it away. It wasn’t as big of a deal as Olivia made it in that context. If the drug was YELLOW then, yeah, I would’ve been really irritated. But since the eyes made sense in the context of the tale, and there were other films that were far more obvious in that regard, I was able to push that aside and just enjoy the movie. “Pick my battles.”

Next, this wasn’t a story about evolution, despite all the forced visuals, the play on the titular character’s name, and the influential link up with Arthur C. Clarke’s story. The power came from a synthetic drug, one that was implanted into several people, and through an accident it ended up being absorbed into Lucy’s system. That accident could’ve happened to any of them particularly that Arab-looking dude who bolted from the French police. He could’ve easily had some kind of accident that leaked the trash into his body, too. So it wasn’t like it leaked into everybody’s systems, and only the blond/blue eyed white chick had the evolutionary fortitude to take human kind to the next level or some crazy bullshit like that. It could’ve happened to any of them. As a young, pretty female she was the one in the best position to get abused by their captors-handlers on the way to delivery to cause the accident. If there were other females in the group of mules, she probably wouldn’t have been the only one to have the CPH4 accident, really. Also, there was a lab somewhere where chemists were still in the process of making the stuff. Her blood samples were still in that Taiwan hospital… they could extract the drug from that and recreate it, too. Potentially, any and everybody can take the stuff and max out their mental performance. Like Limitless, this kind of story shows a superhuman who got that way from an invention made by normal humans, that any other human could take part in if they so desired. It really represents the heights of where our technology can go, wrenching our fate away from the cold hands of the random evolutionary process. So because of that aspect of the story, the “evolution” angle never fell on me that way, and all talk of it in the film was more of a distraction to me from what story was really unfolding on the screen.

Olivia mentioned that the movie’s “premise rests on the idea of reimagining the past, present and future,” but I really don’t see that. Lucy’s powers enabled her to see MORE, and figure out stuff that our science is already heading towards FASTER. All her abilities were (loosely) based on scientific principles that we already understand about the universe and how it works. The point is that her super-intellect gives her a level of mastery over those principles so great, that she doesn’t need the physical crutch of instrumentation/technology to make the laws of physics bend for her, and she can see the furthest reaches of scientific knowledge that our scientists are verrrrry slowly plodding along to get to. So she was kind enough to create a computer, process everything that she sees/understands, and gave it to Freeman on a mobile USB drive. So the story isn’t “reimagining” anything. Basically it’s like if the full Secrets of the Universe could fit in a ten volume encyclopedia set, and the 21st century scientist had only mastered up to about 1/8th of the first volume. At the end of this story, Lucy gave the rest of the entire 10 volume set to Morgan Freeman’s character on a thumb drive. The movie wasn’t supposed to be revealing anything new, but creating a sci-fi tale from the info we think we already know, as filtered through Luc Besson’s understanding of it.

As far as Olivia’s being tired of seeing yet another white woman on the screen, I understand where she’s coming from, but realistically this is all about money and big business. Scarlett Johansson happens to be the Hollywood “It Girl” right now, and generates a lot of money through her star power, as demonstrated by her film outperforming The Rock’s Hercules movie on its opening weekend as an action vehicle (Hercules could’ve performed a LOT better if it had a fresher script that played up to the superhero fans the way it should have. I don’t know what they were thinking with that garbage).

Another angle from this type of story, that I go into the theater already expecting and braced for, is that it functions on the assumption that there is no afterlife/God/spirit. That after we die then that’s it. You can see it in Limitless, too. The super-drug NZT-48 also gives Eddie Morra superhuman intellect, and how does he use it? To over-indulge his physical senses, and make himself cool. He’s very selfish, all the way to the end. And the script doesn’t mention God and the spirit at all, because it’s just understood that those are a fiction. So you can do whatever you can get away with. It’s okay. There is no Ultimate Consequence for our actions. If the police never catch you then it’s all good. "Use these powers to build up a vast fortune and live like an emperor until you die because that’s all life is about, baby." Lucy is the same, it just takes it to a different level. There also isn’t any spirit in that world, but Lucy’s mind quickly evolves past the base-level materialism that Eddie Morra was focused on. She recognized that the star stuff energy that our physical bodies is made of… even the electric impulses that make up our thoughts and memories… will simply return to the background star stuff energy around us when we die to probably recycle into whole new worlds later on. So in that sense “we never really die” as she said. That’s why, despite her super-evolved mental state and insight, she had such a cavalier attitude about killing people. Without God/afterlife/spirit it’s just not a big deal, and no police force on earth could stop her anyway. The atheist crowd wants to replace religion with a secular-humanist view of our species eventual ‘becoming’ into our ultimate state through technology, instead of through reincarnating into our ‘spirit man’ form after death, and feel that should be a more attractive option to the rational mind. They think to choose it means you are more intelligent than those who choose religion.

I think Olivia was right about Lucy going back through New York’s time in the distant past and finding the Australopithecus Lucy there. She definitely WOULDN’T have been there. Did the director just want to show his special effect of Lucy flipping through the time stream the way we flip through smart phone screens and ignored that fact on purpose for artistic license, or did he simply not know, or forgot?

So other than some minor racism-tainted tropes that inevitably made their way into the script, Lucy wasn’t the poster child for that type of story as Olivia is trying to make it be in her review. Was it perfect? No. Did it tap into that bag? A little. But not enough to ruin the film for me. I got out of it what I went to see it for. Superhero stuff! And it performed it very well. It reminds me of the controversies around the first Star Wars prequel “The Phantom Menace.” The fans went on and on about how bad they thought it was, and how Lucas had dropped the ball, etc., but I gave that one a ‘B,’ too. In a previous article I read about it, creator George Lucas said it was to represent the Golden Age of the franchise’s superheroes the Jedi... warrior monks with psychic powers and laser swords. Honestly, that’s the only part that I’ve EVER cared about in the Star Wars tales, and in The Phantom Menace I got everything I wanted that Lucas had promised me. Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi Wan were badasses in that movie, and I was good. They could keep the rest. I wasn’t into raw science fiction stuff anyway. Space ships and aliens and stuff? Meh. I just like the powers.

That’s my bottom line about the Lucy film. I already knew going in that there was going to be SOME of the old Hollywood nonsense. We’re not going to escape that while they are the “mainstream” power, but fortunately I don’t feel that the movie overwhelmed me with it. Certain things I expected were there, and I neatly and easily compartmentalized them out of my way. And they gave me everything that I went to see the movie for. So I liked it. Other than Besson tightening up his writing, I think it was as good as I could reasonably expect it to be.

Timeless Lovers Artificially Estranged

Muhammad Rasheed - Faith is the belief that it is out there, even when science has not yet (or will ever) find the proof of it.

Clifton Hatchett - Firm belief in something for which there is no proof. That is the closest definition that I could find chief.

Muhammad Rasheed - Closest definition for what?

Clifton Hatchett - Faith. Stop doing that thing you do.

Muhammad Rasheed - So how is that not the same, just worded differently again?

Muhammad Rasheed - "I don't have the proof, but I do have a firm belief that the thing I don't have proof for is out there to find."

Clifton Hatchett - Agreed. Not logical.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Doesn't mean you will find it, but I do believe it is there."

Clifton Hatchett - So do I, but you gave me hell for it.

Muhammad Rasheed - When the scientist inventor fails in experiment after experiment to discover the secret of technological flight, is it not logical for him to believe that he can still do it?

Muhammad Rasheed - He believes the secret of the airplane is out there, he just can't physically prove it yet. Is that illogical?

Muhammad Rasheed - Obviously his system uses a logic, but the naysayers are using a logical argument model that doesn't fit.

Clifton Hatchett - Yes.

Clifton Hatchett - I'm not in disagreement with your post, just perplexed as to why you dawned the position of contrariety when I made a similar assessment, but as you say ''worded differently''.

Jeremy Travis - That's a bad analogy, Muhammad. If said scientist/inventor fails time and again to build a flying machine, he wouldn't need faith to believe that it's possible, all he'd need is to keep in mind that birds, bats, and bugs can do it, so then it must be doable. Because he has that as proof, he does not need faith.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: "So do I, but you gave me hell for it."

I didn't give you a hard time; I challenged you to defend your position in a Gentlemen's Duel. You responded with a shuffling dance. Any hard time was self-inflicted.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Jeremy - The animals aren't flying using technology. He believes it can be done with a combustible engine.

Clifton Hatchett - From your lips to GODS ears...lol

Clifton Hatchett - You know that the combustible engine isn't the point. That's the thing you do.

Jeremy Travis - 1. You're needlessly changing the analogy to fit. 2. It still doesn't fit because that has nothing to do with the ability of a machine to fly.

Clifton Hachett –













Jeremy Travis - Further, at some point, one MUST give up in the pursuit of a thing if the pursuit goes on for too long, or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the pursuit will end up fruitless.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "1. You're needlessly changing the analogy to fit."

How in the world am I changing the analogy at all? What DO we use to fly with, Jeremy? Bat wings?

Jeremy Travis wrote: "2. It still doesn't fit because that has nothing to do with the ability of a machine to fly."

It fits because his experiments with tech-based flight have failed up to that point, but he has faith that he can eventually make it work if he continues the pursuit.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Further, at some point, one MUST give up in the pursuit of a thing if the pursuit goes on for too long, or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the pursuit will end up fruitless."

Giving up on one's ability to accomplish something doesn't mean you give up on it being able to be accomplished at all. You still have faith that it can be done, even if you lose faith in the extent of your own skill/learning.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hachett posted: "He's right you know."

How would you know?

Jeremy Travis - You added the bit about a combustible engine as if that makes a difference in either his experiment or in your analogy when in fact it makes no difference in either. Just because his experiments in tech-based flight have failed doesn't mean he needs faith to believe it possible as their is sufficient reason and evidence to believe it possible just from the laws of physics alone.

As for giving up on the doing of something versus giving up on the possibility, those are two different things. At some point, after trying for so many times, there may come a point where one realizes that what one was attempting to accomplish is, in fact, not possible, and THAT is when one should give up. If every day I took a dolphin up on a helicopter and dropped it in the hopes of getting it to fly by flapping its flippers, sooner or later, I should come to the conclusion that, no matter how much faith I have in it, it is not possible.

Faith exists because there is no proof otherwise, but one's attachment to faith should not trump proof when it arises.

Jeremy Travis - Also, this idea that 'faith, by definition, is a belief that the truth is out there to find' is both not true AND poorly worded.

It's not true because there is not dictionary that defines 'faith' in such a way. To suggest otherwise is to attempt to make the word mean what you want it to mean so that it fits into your narrative. It's poorly worded because the truth is ALWAYS out there to be found, and because faith says that 'I think this may be the truth, despite there being insufficient evidence or reason to prove it', which is something completely different from 'I think the truth is out there for me to find'.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "You added the bit about a combustible engine as if that makes a difference in either his experiment or in your analogy when in fact it makes no difference in either."

Considering I began the analogy specifically with the airplane reference, it actually makes a difference to both. His experiment is based on logic. Your throwing a dolphin out of a helicopter is not.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "Just because his experiments in tech-based flight have failed doesn't mean he needs faith to believe it possible as their is sufficient reason and evidence to believe it possible just from the laws of physics alone."

He has faith that the laws of physics will enable his experiments to become successful.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "As for giving up on the doing of something versus giving up on the possibility, those are two different things."

Of course.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "At some point, after trying for so many times, there may come a point where one realizes that what one was attempting to accomplish is, in fact, not possible, and THAT is when one should give up."

I'm sure there are many would-be manned-flight inventors before the Wright Bros. who came to that very conclusion. They became "flight atheists" based on just such an interpretation from their own narrow-minded views.  Meanwhile the Wright Bros. continued to believe even in the face of continued setbacks, and were eventually rewarded for that faith and patient perseverance.  In this is a sign for those who believe.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "If every day I took a dolphin up on a helicopter and dropped it in the hopes of getting it to fly by flapping its flippers, sooner or later, I should come to the conclusion that, no matter how much faith I have in it, it is not possible."

Since you came to the conclusion to try this illogical experiment in the first place, from what would I conclude that you WOULD eventually come to that epiphany? Obviously you'd be an idiot.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "Faith exists because there is no proof otherwise, but one's attachment to faith should not trump proof when it arises."

Agreed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "It's not true because there is not dictionary that defines 'faith' in such a way."

That's poorly worded.

Muhammad Rasheed - So paraphrasing it differently from the literal dictionary definition is evil or something and completely negates my point?

Do you have ebola or something?

Jeremy Travis - You didn't 'paraphrase it different from the literal dictionary definition', you made a new definition for it so that you can use the word the way you want to and not the way it's meant to be used.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "It's poorly worded because the truth is ALWAYS out there to be found..."

The truth is always out there, and I have faith that it is out there whether humans find it or not.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "...and because faith says that 'I think this may be the truth, despite there being insufficient evidence or reason to prove it'"

Exactly like the failed airplane inventor analogy.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "...which is something completely different from 'I think the truth is out there for me to find'."

No, it is not.

Jeremy Travis - Muhammad Rasheed wrote: "Jeremy Travis wrote: "It's not true because there is not dictionary that defines 'faith' in such a way."

That's poorly worded."

It's only poorly worded because I typed 'not' when I meant 'no'. And that statement still stands because you said that 'faith, BY DEFINITION...' and then you listed something incongruous with the definition.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "You didn't 'paraphrase it different from the literal dictionary definition', you made a new definition for it so that you can use the word the way you want to and not the way it's meant to be used."

Just because you are determined to confine the definition of 'faith' to mentions of God and only mentions of God, doesn't mean the definition used is wrong.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "It's only poorly worded because I typed 'not' when I meant 'no'. And that statement still stands because you said that 'faith, BY DEFINITION...' and then you listed something incongruous with the definition."

lol Mine is only 'poorly worded' because you disagree with it.

Jeremy Travis - 1. That's not how I confine it, because... 2. I do not confine it, because... 3. It is confined by how it is defined and it is defined in a different way then how you use it.

Further, let the record show that it was you who mentioned God, not me.

Jeremy Travis - Since you brought up God in all of this, I will say that I have noticed that believers are, for some weird reason, prone to redefining words on the fly so that those words will fit their beliefs and their narratives. I mean, I can get the literal, verbatim definitions of a word from ten different dictionaries, and they will all agree with each other, but not with the believer, and the believer will STILL hold fast to their own definition.

It's really weird.

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "1. That's not how I confine it, because..."

You are confining it to a narrow definition that fits the way you prefer to argue against it.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "2. I do not confine it, because..."

By saying you reject the definition I'm using in preference to one you prefer you absolutely are confining it.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "3. It is confined by how it is defined and it is defined in a different way then how you use it."

By whom? In the 8 different definitions that describe it in dictionary.com, six of them involve belief in something that the believer believes can be potentially found by someone if pursued.

Jeremy Travis wrote: "Further, let the record show that it was you who mentioned God, not me."

lol Is this our first conversation, you? Have I never witnessed you argue against faith before?

Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Since you brought up God in all of this, I will say that I have noticed that believers are, for some weird reason, prone to redefining words on the fly so that those words will fit their beliefs and their narratives. I mean, I can get the literal, verbatim definitions of a word from ten different dictionaries, and they will all agree with each other, but not with the believer, and the believer will STILL hold fast to their own definition. It's really weird."

In the context of the status meme, using God/spirit/unseen are the "truth" mentioned. So compared to the dictionary.com definitions, how is mine a redefining?

1. "confidence or trust in a person or thing" - My faith gives me confidence and trust in the truth of God's reality that is out there to be found by anyone that pursues it.

2. "belief that is not based on proof" - My faith in the truth of God is out there to be found by others willing to pursue him if they are also willing to have faith without scientific proofs.

3. "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion" - My faith in the truth of God and in his teachings of religion is out there for anyone to pursue.

4. "a system of religious belief" - My faith in Al-Islam is out there to be found by others willing to pursue it.

Jeremy Travis - Oh, OK.