Troy

Hey DT how many books have you actually written? Is you event schedule posted anywhere. I plan to attend some events in the south over the next couple of weeks. If I can connect with one of yours I will.

Del I gave you plenty of examples. But you are changing the parameters to make your point rather than understanding or even accepting mine. If you are going to say Donald is the perfect Trump because he is Donald Trump. Then one can argue EVERYONE is perfect as it is, including you or I. And that would be the end of the conversation. However your original subject was "self improvement". You then posed the question, "What do you consistently do to become a better person?" implying that you believe people can improve. My reaction was anyone can improve on any aspect of their lives -- an idea you have inexplicably rejected. However you admit your counter-arguments are unconvincing, a statement of the obvious if you ask me At any rate, you want to argue that the 911 bombers were right in the actions because they felt it was their religious duty. So killing thousands of innocent people becomes right because the mass murders felt it was their religious duty? Using that logic, NOTHING can be wrong. Again the conversation dead ends. Del, If you wrote, "To be charitable can be a religious imperative, but not doing so does not make one unethical". Sure that can be true but that does not negate anything I've written. Giving is just once aspect of some religions and one can make an argument that it is unethical for the wealthy not to give to the underprivileged. To summarizing your beliefs, as you've expressed them, people are perfect just as they are and nothing is universally wrong. Obviously I'm diametrically opposed to these positions.

While this is a great way to check out a book before making a purchase. Or even pulling up on your tablet device and enjoying it with your child, without having to buy the book at all. It does seem like copyright infringement. The idea that the person who took the time to read the book and produce the video is is hidden behind an a silhouette avatar and the name "OU93" clearing indicates that the person is not interested in revealing their identity. At this stage of the web's development I don't think anyone should be able to do anything and remain completely anonymous hidden behind a fake name, but that is a conversation for another post... At any rate, I guess one can argue that this is a really old book and who cares. Or that what is the difference between having the book read to you on-line and going to Barnes & Noble and reading the book with your child there? Isn't it amazing how many people pull up into a B&N superstore with children in tow, spending hours reading books to their children -- without buying a thing? But I digress once again. Suppose someone posted a YouTube video of someone reading a novel aloud, would that be cool? I'm sure the person downloading the video to the Ipod and listening to the book like a free audio book would think it is cool. But I suspect the author, publisher and whoever had the audio rights would disagree. I have yet to look for a song on Youtube and not find it. I can find music on Youtube that I can't find on Itunes. Again anyone can download all this music and listen to it for free. I understand that most teens simply do not buy music. Maybe that is why concert tickets are so expensive. The New York Daily News ran an article with an image from one of my Youtube Videos, the Daily News did not even bother to attribute the image to me. It seems to me that Youtube, a great platform, but also seems to be one of the worse offenders of copyright infringement, in the history of the legal concept and is making tremendous amounts of money in the process. Indeed I can even profit (a little, very little) by showing videos like this on my website, enhancing my website's content -- all for free. The author and publisher never have to be paid and or even informed. This model seems to be screwed up. But hey, what the heck do I know?

Aunt Flossie's Hats (and Crab Cakes Later) by Elizabeth Fitzgerald Howard and James E. Ransome (Illustrator) Age Range: 5 - 8 years Paperback: 32 pages Publisher: HMH Books for Young Readers; Reprint edition (February 1, 1995)

Cynique as we used to say, "WORD!"

Interesting story Cynique. I started Syracuse University during the Summer of 1980. At the time, I had no idea what a fraternity was. The following is an exchange I had in July of 1980. I'm walking with a Brother, I just met, from Rochester New York. We were both Black but he seemed very different than myself. He was certainly more civilized in terms of his behavior. Tony, the Brother from Rochester asked, "Troy you goin' to the Alpha party?" I looked at Tony, not really sure what he just asked me, and replied, "What?" "Are you going to the Alpha party this weekend?" I was always down for a party, but I had no clue what an Alpha was. "What's an Alpha?" "What's an Alpha? You, mean you don't know what an Alpha is?!", Tony said, almost incredulous. I knew alpha was the first letter in the Greek alphabet but I knew that is not what it meant in this content. So I asked again "Yeah, what's an Alpha?" "It is a fraternity." Ok now I'm becoming more confused, because I know I'm no dummy. In the 5th grade, I was reading on a college level, but this Brother managed to drop two words in a causal conversation that I did not know the meaning of. Too astonished to make believe I knew what he was talking about, which is standard protocol for my hood, I continued with the questions, "What's a fraternity?" "You don't know what a fraternity is?" Completely unashamed of my ignorance and anxious to get up to speed I responded, "No." With much more patience than I would have shown him, Tony said, "Well, the Alpha's are a Black Greek letter fraternity." At this point, I'm completely lost and have no idea what Tony is talking about. I had actually seen the the 1978 film Animal House one of my favorite films at the time. But at that moment I failed to draw a connection between Animal House and the Alphas. Tony contiinued, "Just come to the party, you'll see." I did indeed see. Ultimately, Tony would pledge Alpha, but would leave school soon after crossing. I saw what pledging and hazing was like and I had less than zero desire to go through the process. The Que's used to brand themselves. That just seemed crazy to me (still does -- all due respect to my Omega Brothers). The benefits did not seem to warrant the punishment. I attended the fraternity parties, I had no problem getting a girl and I had plenty of friends -- some of them even members of the Black fraternities. My mindset in college was very similar to the Brother in the video. I almost got into a fight with a Alpha at Cornel University. I was making fun of him by mocking the stomping of feet called "stepping". Stepping was something completely new to me at college. I'd never heard of stepping or seen it before. Years later I learned I have many relatives in Black Greek letter organizations. I don't think any better or worse of them, or anyone, as a result. But today I understand people have many good reasons to pledge or not to pledge. It really is a matter of one's personality and what they need to get though this thing called life. Today some of my closest friends are Brothers of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. I also know that Cornel University was where the Alpha Phi Alpha was founded. If I knew what I knew today I would never had made fun of that Brother that day, over 30 years ago. Then again, there are a great many things I would not do, knowing what I know today Some people thrive in structured organizations where conformance in ideas, behavior and dress is important. I'm just not one of those people. This is one of the reason I liked the sister in Can you see her pledging AKA At the same time, one of my oldest friends is an AKA, from Syracuse University. Her mother, as well as her grandmother, are AKA's. Legacy is important too. If my father and grandfather were Alpha's I'm certain I will have done my best to become one too.

Del, "wonton killing" means an inhumane, cruel, unprovoked, merciless killing. Surely you'd don't mean to suggest that if we can get individuals to stop doing this that it would not, necessarily be an improvement? I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between morals and ethics as if they are opposite sides of a coin, or not in the least bit related. Ethics without a moral foundation are just rules. Like holding your fork in your left had while eating. "Most professions have a code of ethics." Sure the Hippocratic Oath ask new medical professionals not to do harm to anyone "Whereas religion has morality tales." I'm not sure what you mean by that but if you look at the 10 commandments one says don't kill anyone. Here Ethics and Morality, as you've defined them intersect. Again my only points are anyone and anything can improve. There are things everyone (reasonable people anyway) can agree are absolutely wrong (ex. wanton killings, pedophilia, etc) and any cessation of these activities would be an improvement of the person doing them. Laws for criminal conduct, professional ethics, morality (religious or otherwise) are inextricably intertwined. For they are all based upon the same things: Helping people improve and stopping them from allowing someone else to improve.

Well everything and anybody can be improved. Lebron James can improve as a basketball player, but since he is so much better than everyone else, maybe the extra effort required to improve on the basketball is not worth the extra time. Right now I would like to improve my fitness. I had a period of a couple of years recently when I was in the best shape I've been in during the last 15 years. But my business requires more time and I like to socialize. As a result working out has become a lower priority and my fitness is waning as a result. If I get too out of shape I'll dedicate more time to exercising. Everyone body has different priorities. Whether one "needs" to improve anything is purely subjective and, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, up to the individual -- not anyone else.

I hear you Pioneer. But... I do however think she is beautiful, no, not in a superficial, easy on the eyes, Zoe Saldana, type of beauty, but in the more substantial characteristics like "articulate, intelligent, and...good heart". We have the freedom to be ourselves -- completely -- why not do it? Even if some think we are "mannish". It is not about conforming to someone else's standards but your own -- sure she may have difficulty securing a corporate gig -- but who cares.... This is why I liked the I rather have a conversation with a non-conformist like Da Button Pusher than someone who is dependent upon an organization for self-esteem or a sense of worth.

Harry it is simple, Black people had no choice but to depend upon each other back then. The law prevented Black people from enjoying some very basic rights. We banned together because we HAD to. Today this same is true, but people simply don't recognize it. Sure the laws have changed, but the relative situation and outcomes have not. Look at Black incarceration rates, employment rate in the best jobs, how poorly our children are being educated, etc. I think ultimately we will come to the conclusion that we have to support each other because no one, least of all the government, will.

Hi Del I try to behave as ethically and morally as possible. I see no distinction in the terms -- certainly in terms of determining what is more or ethical. I don't always succeed and I'm bothered by it when I fail -- sometimes for an extended period of time. There is behavior condoned by my group (lack of reverence for the elderly) that I don't believe is moral or ethical behavior and there are things that are illegal that I do believe is both moral and ethical (smoking marijuana). Del, of course there are things you can say that are better for others. It is better for people not to wantonly kill others, and so forth. Wouldn't you agree?

Sure if the poor souls can't control themselves castration sounds good to me. I have no issue with Homosexuality or anything two (or more) adults do that does not infringe upon the rights of others -- like forcing others else to accept homosexuality as "normal". People like Pioneer are free to reject homosexuality as normal as long as they are not forcing others to reject it as well.

Mister and Lady Day Billie Holiday and the Dog Who Loved Her by Amy Novesky, Vanessa Brantley Newton (Illustrator) Jimi: Sounds Like a Rainbow: A Story of the Young Jimi Hendrix by Gary Golio, Javaka Steptoe (Illustrator) Spirit Seeker: John Coltrane's Musical Journey by Gary Golio, Rudy Gutierrez (Illustrator) Acoustic Rooster and His Barnyard Band by Kwame Alexander, Tim Bowers (Illustrator)

I think some people need to be told what to do. Some thrive under those conditions -- others would be miserable. There are profound differences between taking orders to achieve a goal and exercising one's free will to do the same. I think the problem "we" have is behaving as if the so called "AfroAmericans" are all the same. We are not -- not by a long shot. This is why attempts to unify us fail. We are not the same. No do we have a desire to be the same -- indeed we fight against this, because it is natural. It is as absurd as grouping "Hispanics" or "Asians" together in one monolithic group. It makes no sense. But I agree people do need to strive for something -- even if it is just the next meal...

If were a pedophile in 2013 America I would try to change. I'll also go out on a limb and say that would be an improvement were I successful.

"There are certain things that DO offend me and make me angry but I try not to broadcast them publicly so as not to let people know what buttons to push." Precisely, Pioneer. You never struck me as someone who would make this tactical error here, or in the real world. Next time you see your lesbian student, ask her if she was offended by Hibbert's No Homo comment and, more importantly, if he deserved to be fined 75 large for the infraction. Also Pioneer back in 2005 someone created an account under the name of a journalist, Lola Ogunnaike and began posing as her even using here photo. Now this type of activity is wrong and potentially damaging. Even though at the time I did not know who she was and there were certainly more famous people posting here. Other than rare instances like that I don't think anyone ELSE can say something that will damage YOUR reputation with anyone that matters. Unless you are running for political office -- then all bets are off :-)

This question makes me thing about a video I just posted here: near the end the woman emphasizes being yourself. Sure we all know this but how many actually try to do this. But that does pose a dilemma. We should all try to be our true selves, but suppose that person is just bad. If I'm a pedophile should I try to change my nature? Most of us are capable to doing things that would hurt others, if left to our own devices. We must try to avoid doing these bad things; striking a balance between being your true self and fitting into a civilized world. In our world we have to figure all this out and make money too -- no easy feat. Or we could just go live, by ourselves, in the woods somewhere. Del changing something based upon whether it works or not is the definition of improvement ;-)

For premium positions the minimum commission is $50 Paid 30 days after client's campaign begins.

AALBC.com's premium advertising positions are, prominently displayed on every AALBC.com, reach a targeted audience and cost effective. Visit: http://aalbc.it/best-ads, call 347-692-2522, or email troy@aalbc.com to get started or to learn more. Interested in becoming an affiliate and earning commissions on advertisements you sell on AALBC.com? Contact us too.

"Pioneer has apparently decided that anybody who is not black is white" That logic works for me! Seriously I can remember thinking that way. Then I encountered a much larger world. My next lesson was to learn Black people are vastly different from each other. So much so, that many Black people have white friends that they have more in common with than they have with members of their own family.

Wow Cynique it would have never occurred to me that you, being relatively active on-line never heard of Google+. What a reality check. I know Google will have issues with getting people to actually use Google+, it did not dawn on me that there were people unaware of it's existence Facebook is annoying. Facebook presents ads in such a way that it is not clear you are looking an advertisement. Eventually all social platforms go route of MySpace... riddled with ads, reckless spammers and people who self promote beyond all reason. People ultimately move onto the next shiny thing to repeat the process. I have a particular fondness for newspapers now.