Jump to content
Delano

Prison Economics

Recommended Posts

@Delano, you think I aim to greet whenever I use 'Bother' or ''Sister"?  Little is further the truth. I'm old school and my use of those terms is personal, my way of personal connection with Blacki folk; not to gain trust or approval. And here I was thinking my loving, magnetic personality was the unifying element!

 

Not a strict father at all, not even a father, and not because I see children messy, noisy, and expensive, I'm just me; take me as I am or reject me. Everyone else and that I truly love.

 

And, among languages I speak, French is one of them. You are not speaking French.

 

Well, okay, whatever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K2

Donald Trump is SOCIALLY intelligent.

He knows people and how to deal with people, which allowed him to be so good in business.




 

In your assertion you acknowledge the value of college degrees; what people do with advanced knowledge is a matter of moral conduct; survival of fittest, dead by sleepless nights or a guilty conscience. Maybe? Social deviance of the sociopathic kind.


Most of the college degrees that Black people are getting allows them to FIT INTO a system that White men have already built.
But it doesn't teach them to build one for themselves.

I'd go so far as to say that outside of mathematics much of what is taught isn't really KNOWLEDGE but INFORMATION.
And the students who can best memorize that information and give it back to the professor the way he wants it on exams are the ones who get the best grades.

With good grades they are allowed to pass through to a career where THEN they will receive the actual KNOWLEDGE through practical application.


 

 


Again, education is to make our motion better, not get rich, or enjoy material accumulation, those are incidental benefits; I hope people will use not in a deviant manner.


Well you must understand that my moral standards are different than most people's.
Every behavior fits into the positive, negative, or neutral category.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to get rich.  I don't even see hoarding money and being selfish or greedy as being "immoral" in and of themselves.

They are not good or bad actions....they just are NEUTRAL neither helping nor harming others.

Infact, for the person getting rich and stacking up dough.....if that's what they want to do it's actually GOOD.


Now when you use your money to actually HURT people or if you steal money from others, NOW that's crossing over into the negative territory.

But I don't hate on people for being greedy or wanting to get more and more money as long as they aren't directly hurting others in the process.

There is evidence that Christianity purposely introduced the concepts that greed, selfishness, and the accumulation of riches was somehow "wrong" or immoral in order to discourage the masses from seeking to enrich themselves and thus threatening the wealth of those in power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Delano said:

You add a certain , I don't know what to the proceedings . Pardon my French.

 

What is the translation of je ne sais quoi. So I think this is  a good point to end. Since you and I don't communicate well, and it takes too much effort to explain things. I ask you what schools you went to and you post the abbreviations, one of which I couldn't find. So why I am working hard to understand a person who in your words doesn't care to be understood.

@Kalexander2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy, not just study at universities, those individual’s empirical exposures in life complimented, helped develop their natural intelligence. Yes, absolutely, anyone can develop her/his intelligence with proper exposure to advanced information. Do you have the same intellectual capabilities as Gates, Job, Zuckerberg, etc.?

 

SPSS, I didn’t imply I haven’t learned it yet. But it has been a selective effort on my part.

 

@Delano, do you think intend to greet whenever I use the term ‘Brother’ or ‘Sister?” I assure that isn’t the case. I’m old school and those words genuinely, to connect with a Black person, it’s personal and has greater meaning for me. Not gain trust or approval! And here I am thinking my loving, magmatic personality was the unifying element here!

Not a strict father either, my household is double incomes without children, and not because I see children as messy, noisy, and expensive. Love them but the content I don’t any is a relief

.

And, among the languages I speak, French is one of them. You are not speaking French. Or did mean foreign or ‘manner’ of speaking which is not gibberish but not worthy of critical speculative thought either.

 

Okay, well, whatever.

@Dalano, take that back, maybe it is gibberish. OH, UAS University of Alaska Southeast. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kalexander14  Attitude is a factor in swaying my opinion and your playful attitude makes you easy to digest even if i don't always agree with you. I find it hard to swallow the swill of wanna-bes like pioneer.  

 

BTW, you mention Larry Hoover, a notorious figure from Chicago.  Are you from the chicagoland area?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cynique, sister @Pioneer1 isn't a 'wanna-be anything, nor does he need to be, he just is; a person! I learned long ago to not expect much from people it only adds disappointment to frustration  There is something to gain from even unscrupulous persons. I say that reluctantly because he seems to have principles, although a bit distorted.

 

Yes ma'am, sister, born and reared in Chicago North and Southside. Although I prefer to describe Mr. Hoover as 'high profile' the brother is known to be notorious. I was associated with a group there polling public opinions concerning my aunt, not  Angela, Charlene (Michell) Alexander, my father's older sister. You may be familiar with her, she is actually the first woman to ever run for president of the US., (1968) certainly the only Black woman, Independent Party ballot as a Communist Party candidate.

 

Of everyone here, you are the most interesting, tough and principled needing no one's validation. You see  I have five sisters myself and a mother with spirit as you display.  And I can still feel the slaps to the back  of my head to proof it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verrry interesting.  i am from Maywood, Illinois, the home town of martyred Black Panther leader, Fred Hampton.  

 

In my internet encounters with "human" entities, very often their personalities transcend their words. some people i instinctively like; others I don't.  C'est la Vie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlene (Michell) Alexander, my father's older sister. You may be familiar with her, she is actually the first woman to ever run for president of the US., (1968) certainly the only Black woman,

And all this time I was thinking Shirley Chisolm was the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pioneer1, then you've been wrong fora very long time, too long don't you think? Other folks believed 'Shirley Temple' (never knew her off stage name) was the first woman, also wrong!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As worded online. Not my words.

 

Shirley Anita Chisholm was an American politician, educator, and author.[1] In 1968, she became the first black woman elected to the United States Congress,[2] and she represented New York's 12th Congressional District for seven terms from 1969 to 1983. In 1972, she became the first black candidate for a major party's nomination for President of the United States, and the first woman to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.[2]

 

As a third-party candidate in the 1968 election, Charlene Alexander Mitchell was the first African-American woman to run for President of the United States. She represented the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and her running mate was Michael "Mike" Zagarell, the National Youth Director of the party. At 23 years of age, he was younger than the constitutionally required age of 35 to hold office. They were entered on the ballots in only two states.[9] Mitchell's brother and sister-in-law Franklin and Kendra Alexander had also been active in the party.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zaji, well, yes and no. Aunt Charlene ran for the office of the presidency twice; the second time was in 1968 and her running mate was none other the Gus Hall. Hall association with that campaign was never officially stricken the library of Congress but not accessible for public consumption. They also reported that uncle Franklin committed suicide, family members say he was killed. Aunt Kendra also died under suspicious circumstances in San Francisco, supposedly a house fire. All from my father's side of the family Augustus Randolph Alexander, damn gangster, an elected official of AFL-CIO. Anut Charlene is still alive, spends a lot of time  in Cuba. And oh yeah, she was on the international ballot and scared the crap of politics because she received an uncomfortable number of votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zaji, I can see from the hyperlinks that you copied the information from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is really hit or miss when it comes to accuracy.  I would never use it is a source for serious research (not saying posting here is serious research). The curation is inconsistent and the information is often biased by people with an agenda.

 

One of the problems on the internet is that Google has elevated Wikipedia in search engine results so much so that sites with more accurate information are undiscoverable so people use Wikipedia.

 

The other problem is that Wikipedia does not pay for it's content, the quality of the information reflects this.  Google (and others) have figured out a ways to monetize Wikipedia's "information." This I argue exploits the people who volunteer to contribute to Wikipedia and makes it harder for professional  researchers and journalist to earn a living.  This all contributes to the proliferation of fake news,

 

I know that was a serious side bar, but I thought some of y'all might find the perspective interesting.  I wrote about this 5 years ago in an article called "The Pimping of Wikipedia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy, I'm fully aware of the slackness that Wikipedia is and don't fully trust them as far as I can throw them. But, it was late and I really didn't fell like spending my time hunting for the information through more reputable sources. So I gave the quick and dirty version from Wikipedia. But to be frank, I don't like them at all. Trust that. For me, they are a quick peek and then I go on to verify anything written there given that it is, in fact, only a community written/edited information center. Anyone can add to Wikipedia. Yes, they've taken to locking certain entries due to either abuse or inaccurate information being purposely or ignorantly added. But in general, they are not to be taken seriously when it comes to the majority of information. I tend to double check, triple check, anything I find on Wikipedia.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I appreciate it. But I am not a Wikipedia groupie. Been hating on them for over a decade now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mor than mere 'slackness,' Wikipedia is called third source authority for a good reason. Most serious ed institution won't accept anything but primary or secondary source authorities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and what you describe is the crux of the problem.  If I'm looking for something a factoid and the like Google serves up wikipedia making the the default source of information -- often right in the search engine results page.  If is not worth my effort to dig deeper.  The kind of thing one had to do when we were forced to go to the library to research a topic.

 

At any rate, you are the choir, hopefully the message will make an impact on other readers here.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy. Let me add, a lot of companies have taken to adding Wikipedia to their resources. For example, Apple has it built into the Dictionary program a selection for Wikipedia. This way, if I search for a word, I can see the definition, synonym and any Wikipedia entries for that word. When I first saw this a few years ago, I felt it was an assault on my intelligence and intrusion. Still feel that way. I am allowed to "uncheck" the box for Wikipedia so the entries don't show when I do a word search, but they do not have an option for me to delete the mess. I would need to go in and find the folders with the raw file and get rid of it, if that is possible.  I am forever tweaking my computer to block all sorts of things. I primarily use my Hosts file to block any websites I feel are intrusive. I tend to block a lot of ad sites via my Hosts files. While Safari and Firefox have plugins/extensions that can do this, I block some of them from my system level in the Hosts file. I also use a program that monitors outgoing/incoming connections. Nothing I don't want gets to phone home about my internet usage. I additionally use a VPN 99% of the day.

 

Wikipedia has become intrusive on a whole other level. And the fact that Apple is endorsing this and allowing them to intrude on my Dictionary program is outrageous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy, brother you MA status allows you a lifetime email and access to your university's online library. Short of that, The Library of Congress and APSA is a primary source authority (free for all things politics); APA, ASA, for sciences (fee memberships). If this discussion is pursuant to my post, just ask! Most things I'm open to disclosure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troy said:

@zaji, I can see from the hyperlinks that you copied the information from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is really hit or miss when it comes to accuracy.  I would never use it is a source for serious research (not saying posting here is serious research).

 

@Troy   Wikipedia is a resource that contains primary and secondary source information.  There is no need to dismiss Wikipedia when you can actually challenge and update information.  Besides, if it doesn't come directly from personal experience everything is to be attributed as "reported by /referenced" ... And who  writes a dissertation and cites Wikipedia, anyway?  That's not what it's for...it's a collaborative work that is neither conclusive nor definitive.  

Anyway,  Shirley Chisholm's  page contains 71 reference sources - so unless you dispute all those references  then Chisholm's Wikipedia page is a good source. 

Oh, and signed a veteran journalist who wasn't even allowed to use the newspaper as a source when researching and reporting:P

Edited by Mel Hopkins
added reference
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins. Yes Mel. I scroll straight down in Wikipedia to the sources and go through them before taking the final word of what is written. That is why although I don't care for it, it is an ok first step to help me on my journey to finding facts and primary sources of information. They usually provide the primary sources up front.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

Oh, and signed a veteran journalist who wasn't even allowed to use the newspaper as a source when researching and reporting

What does this mean ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zaji said:

That is why although I don't care for it, it is an ok first step to help me on my journey to finding facts and primary sources of information.

 

Yes!  And I even have an account to edit  entries ( @Troy does too :D)  but I just don't have time to fight with those others nerds...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mel Hopkins  I have an account as well. LOL. But have never done a thing with it.

 

I think my fear is it turning into some sort of Orwellian machine where they begin to change history/knowledge without people realizing it. Even primary sources can be rewritten, erased. Happens all the time. Look at history books? They are always trying to change history. Look at our ancient knowledge? Much of it, gone, erased.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Delano said:

What does this mean ?

 

@Delano  It means that I'm a purist when it comes to source material or at least when I was reporting for public record.  At that time I couldn't even use the newspaper as a source. I could only use primary sources to write the story for publication.  So, don't get it twisted when I stick up for Wikipedia but I recognize it's a good reference starting point. 

1 minute ago, zaji said:

Even primary sources can be rewritten, erased. Happens all the time. Look at history books? They are always trying to change history. Look at our ancient knowledge? Much of it, gone, erased.

 

@zajiI agree and that's what makes me feel bad for not participating in the editing.   But I do have adobe's convert this webpage into a pdf and before that I used to copy & paste and I have files that no longer exist on the web - which is a bit scary to me too!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mel Hopkins said:

I agree and that's what makes me feel bad for not participating in the editing.   But I do have adobe's convert this webpage into a pdf and before that I used to copy & paste and I have files that no longer exist on the web - which is a bit scary to me too!

 

Yeess!!! I also have information on my computer that I can no longer find ANYWHERE. It's frightening! 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zaji said:

Yeess!!! I also have information on my computer that I can no longer find ANYWHERE. It's frightening! 

 

 

 

LOL!  I'm going to look for the oldest record I have relating to this topic and see if I can find it through google today. :o

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where ya been, Mel?  missed you.  As far as Wiki goes,  it works for me.  Familiarizes me with subjects i am curious about.  i am not involved in projects that require extensive research.  The same goes for Google; another quick fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, there are some great citations on Wikipedia as well as some shitty ones too, but the inconsistency of the citations is just one problem.   

 

The biggest problem is that companies like Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple have exploited the platform for profit.

 

Why does this matter? Because the people who do the work of producing the information are NOT PAID!  They do not share in the wealth they create for the planet's most wealth firms.  I would not be so critical of the platform were it not for this fact.  

 

I will never volunteer to contribute content to Wikipedia so that Apple can make more money.  This is no different than the reason for me no longer publishing real content on Facebook.

 

I, like many others, I post links back to my site on social media and Wikipedia.  I'll also let you in on a secret: Wikipedia is much better at driving traffic than social media, perhaps because wikipedia does not use an algorithm to determine what people get to see to keep people glued to their website. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy. Disinformation, misinformation is big business in the 21st century. I’m of the opinion that Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Apple are deliberate distractions. Except Apple which is more original product oriented. The biggest profit is, always has been to misguide the masses. Facebook and Google standout because their part only promotes (redirect) back to virtually everything else, Government, Apple, and all White entities.

 

How powerful is the word of one over thousands, all with the same message in different ways? Of course, we focus on the ‘what’s in it for me’ part of a much larger problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy  Good points. Wikipedia is always having some fundraiser, banner splashed across my screen taking up 3/4 of the page sometimes. Yet, if I were to add/update/edit using my knowledge and research time, I get nothing from it. Nothing. Just a pat on the back and a thank you for advancing humanity, as they enjoy yachts, planes and mansions. And the freedom to do for self. Maybe some of the in-house editors get paid, but not the majority of people who have built Wikipedia to what it is today, a resource that helps lead people, at times, to primary or secondary information. Wikipedia is mining our intellect for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zaji. Ah, a true thinker. Yeah, sister, and that’s just the obvious of a massive ploy. Wikipedia is just one of the players on the misinformation/disinformation relay team, those fundraiser banners is an optional distraction to either get something from or give you more of nothing. Those so-called unpaid resources are not left out in the cold though. Until they get their own yacht, plane or mansion they have google ‘bait and click.’ The primary and secondary research resource authority, now those guys are the heavy hitters. Doctors, lawyers, philosophers, and scientists with their thesis, peer reviews, and dissertations; who’d question them, except people like you and Troy? I’d take and/or give what’s convenient and equitable too. Got to be honest with self, right?

 

Everybody’s in on, whatever. That’s why we Black folk better learn what to think (for ourselves) and what to contemplate, quickly. We fall for the ruse by believing we need to know how to think, however, everybody knows how to do that naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do i not give a damn about the ulterior motives of Wikipedia and Google?  Nothing is free in this world.  If they make a profit by supplying me with answers for my trivia questions, then so what.  if FaceBook monitors me for advertiser to target, i don't care, as long as my "delete" button works. I get my instant gratification and life goes on,  just like it will for the "Black Panther" fans.  These things do not have a personal impact on me because i have become a spectator, having lost my passion for being a participant in the sound and fury of this crazy world.  I'm more into other dimensions. 

 

i can only concede that my being old has something to do with my attitude.  i won't be around to have to deal with the consequences of what this manipulation might lead to.  Sorry, kiddies.  I've pretty much resigned myself to the possibilities of not even seeing the final season of "Game of Thrones" which will take place in 2019!  Just trying to make it to my 85th birthday in August.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you get to see the 2019 version of GOT too.

 

The writers who write for wikipedia do it for free. 

 

Not only would I never write forWikipedia (for free) I would never EVER give them money.  Their soliciting donations is ludicrous -- Wikipedia need to be going after Google who is using their information -- probably more than Wikipedia does themselves.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×