How DMX Might Counsel Obama and Google About China

As I skimmed through my bookmarks held on delicious.com, I came across this particular piece from last week. It is titled “China reports on US human rights record”. It is located in the “Foreign and Military Affairs” section of the online newspaper, Chinadaily.com.cn. According to the article, the Chinese Information Office of the State Council has written a document detailing the Human Rights violations of the United States of America in 2009. The article states that the Human Rights Record of the United States in 2009 was in response to the United States’ Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2009, a report that was commissioned by the US Department of State last week.A pretty bold move on the part of the Western Capitalist society that could considering the United States in pocket to China a mouth watering 1.56 Trillion dollars(source here).

It would also seem as though the US is also attempting to appeal to a world audience the need for internet companies like Google to be allowed to be free of censorship and scrutiny in China. While the content wars between Google and China ensue, a light weight contender is feeding off of the frenzy. Chinese search engine, Baidu has jumped 47% of US market shares. The company’s company’s Nasdaq traded stock is being closely watched by US analyst and fund managers who seek to benefit from the possibility of the website to reap the revenues left behind if Google decides to leave China(source here).

Rewind a little further to when the White House hosted the Dalia Lama, a exiled Tibet leader, which caused a major riff in US and Chinese affairs. The wording of China’s leadership was less than impartial on the subject, including statements that the US should “immediately take effective steps to eradicate the malign effects” that they felt the US had created with the meeting (source here).

All of this, oh, and one more thing, a prominent firm of Silicon Valley, Applied Materials, the world’s biggest supplier of components that are implemented in the manufacture of semiconductors, solar panels and flat-panel displays is moving one of its chief technology officer to China. The company has built a research lab there, and last week held its annual shareholders’ meeting there.According to the New York Times, the company is working in China to produce two-thirds of the world’s solar panels by the end of this year (source here).

As most of my older followers know, I have a tendency of relating the macrocosmic political/economic world to those of the microcosmic. It was very difficult for me not to see the relation of these global interactions with that of drug dealers. I would suppose an explanation might be in order for the uninitiated. In considering these events, I am reminded of a DMX song that I hope that President Obama has somewhere in a playlist on his Ipod….

This is Bid, Not Spades!

I was about to text an old associate of mine to help settle a dispute regarding the game of bid whist. Somebody argued with me that you could bid a six no, and I said that why would anyone bid higher than a 5 no? We discussed the issue at length before I grabbed my phone out and began texting. As I began to type, an interesting comparison occurred to me. The flexibility of the game of bid (whist) in comparison to that of the game of spades is a dynamic element that a totally different level of strategy and intrigue to those experiences. I decided to postpone the argument’s conclusion for later as I began to compose this particular piece.

Now, anyone who follows the blog through twitter (If not, I try my best to bless the timeline’s of my followers with thoughtful commentary, if not just entertaining satire. Give me a try @Owlasylum) then you may be familiar with a hashtag (an informal symbolic means of forming themes for ones updates on twitter) that I created in which I discussed various lessons that I had learned about politics while playing spades. As I began to form my query to my friend, I thought about manner in which we lean on our strong suits in situations of conflict. I’ve seen people completely reverse the roles of formal authority simply because their skill set confined them, and they couldn’t adjust to a leader with a different skill set. Well, in most parlances a skill set is also metaphorically referred to as one’s “strong suit.” But what happens when you can’t lean on your strong suit? What happens when life deals your partner a “5 No”? (In bid, for those that may not be familiar, a “4 No” or higher “NO” bid is an automatic win or loss because you are scored double for a bid of “NO”-which means “no trumps”: no suit is has initial power to trump another suit; i.e. spades are the trump suit in spades.)

How do we learn to process the organizational talent to accept that another person may be “running the table” of our affairs, and we should not “cut above them” if possible, in fact, there are going to be times when we actually need to “feed” that person books(Meaning, we need to intentionally feed our partner a card that could possibly be a “trick” or a “book” in order to created a “run”, a consecutive set of winning plays that helps to remove any doubts about what cards could possibly be in the opposition’s hands.)
I am sure that many of us have seen or experienced situations where this type of dynamic partnership, or organizational paradigm would need to be considered. What are some situations that you have been in where you have had to control the urge to “take over” because you felt your strong suit, or strength was more needed than someone on your team? Often in class, I have to shake the often overwhelming desire to argue with older black instructors who are presenting debunked arguments as facts to a class. In the US, institutional racism persists to the point where I often feel so sympathetic toward the American Black as to overlook certain arguments. I especially overlook those arguments in mixed company. Sometimes you have to take one for the team, and always remember that in a team, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, just because you don’t lead the winning hand, doesn’t mean you didn’t win.

The Left, The Right, and The White…

I was watching Bill Maher’s Real Time on HBO this morning. Although I am often offended by his off color remarks with regard to race, and his undercover Jewish habit of thinking because he is having sex with black women he is given the right to speak about black people in an often too blunt manner, I still tuned into the white camel nosed comedian while giving his notoriously uncomical monologue. Later in the show I was blessed with a jewel from the mouth of swine. The greasy political one-liner stated that the Pentagon shooter, John Patrick Bedell was an internet conspiratorialist.

Now it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for me to accept the shock spot of the desperate clown, except that HBO’s jester was borrowing sound bites from CNN. CNN is supposedly an objective news source, but with republican sponsored advertisements disparaging the Health Care Bill being presented by the president of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party. Now what I want to explain is what is supposed to be the difference between the right-wing and the left wing, left to center, and right to center.

Bill Maher’s supposedly represents himself as leftist. In the United States, “left” is more a political stance that attempts to improve the conditions of the middle class. The Right is the part of the political spectrum that symbolizes the ideas of the rich and the status quo. The major ideas of the right are rooted in the preservation and extension of the “American Idea”, and in many ways the White US American, or Old US American way of expanding the market through genocide and cultural imperialism. The Right is the political stance most represented by Fox News anchors and conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Glenn Beck. Although these are all extreme examples, they are the voice of the visible media conduits of these political wings, or spectrums.

Center, as one might guess, is the place where policies and stances on issues get balanced and interchanged. Barack Obama is a left to center president of a country that is right to center. Capitalism is a conservative state of mind that employs military means to expand markets that benefit the status quo while objectifying the working class. The observative political scientist needs to understand that the basis of all political decisions in this country is weighed heavily against a very rightist base of economics and social system. The average US K-12 student is highly seeped in a belief that if you work hard, you will achieve financial stability and possibly financial comfort. The student is socialized to believe that if anyone does not possess particular material possessions or a certain type of job, then it is their fault. These types of people, for some reason, lack the ability or motivation to be mobile in this country and they are a burden on the “taxpayer”. This is often an immature political and socio-economic viewpoint that lacks to consider the actual lack of laissez-faire as the government offers loans and grant subsidies to business ventures without the rightist stigma placed on the citizen. Laissez-faire is the political ideology and state of affairs where the government is supposed to allow entities involved in business ventures free reign from government regulation. But as we all have seen this administration continue the practices of the former with regard to the billion dollar bailout of corporate and banking interests. the same interests that buttressed the decline of the US economy to begin with.

The question becomes if we are such a centered nation, at what point does Republican and Democratic interest become divergent? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both received campaign donations from Bill Gates, as did George Bush. Bill Clinton opened more prisons during his administration than any other president in history. Bill Clinton created a bill that hinders anyone convicted of drug trafficking from receiving financial aid from the government. Two very obvious attacks on the poor. This is supposedly left wing behavior, and a liberal stance. Even Barack Obama displays a right wing ideology when making statements regarding the poor that the poor have to work their way up like everyone else. Well, not quite Mr. President, seeing that your administration has helped bankers and corporations survive financial setbacks that would have surely sent them to the asking about how many stamps they get monthly on their EBT card.

From the point of view of the citizen, the question you need to prepare yourself with is where do you stand on certain issues. If I was living in a country that was administrated by American Blacks than my stance on most issues would be considered right wing, highly nationalistic. Even in the US, I would have a difficult time placing my take on issues on the spectrum. I don’t support abortion, but I don’t think abortion should be a question of legislation. Well, I should say, I don’t think the US government should have any say in the matter. This is the type of analysis you should begin in your own thinking.

Where do you fall in the spectrum?

What is ‘Politics’?

“After revolution has failed, all questions must center on how a new revolutionary consciousness can be mobilized around a new set of class antagonisms that have been created by the authoritarian reign of terror.” – George Jackson, “Blood In My Eye”

I was involved in two conversations today that caused me to realize that many of us are not using the dictionary. Both conversations surrounded the misuse and misunderstanding of the word ‘politics’. As I was trained to say during my days as an activist, ‘politics’ is the ‘who, what, where, when, and how of power.’

‘Politics’ is a study, a STUDY, of the activities of those who we allow to have influence over us. Politics is not Obama becoming president, but simply an element with which we study when studying the political science of the society of the United States of North America. Politics is simply a label we used when referring to power plays.

Many have said to me that politics is a scam. I have to rebuttal and say that the use of power in many situations is based on gaining the confidence of the many with less than honest dealings. But politics itself, is simply a study and reference to those behaviors. The use of the term as a specific activity is wrong, and we all should be ever mindful of how we use words.

I have even been involved in conversations were people have told me that I need not be concerned with politics and focus on Jesus. Jesus according to the bible was a political entity. According to the bible, Jesus was against the status quo who used religious and spiritual terminology and institutions to gain power and influences. To say that I shouldn’t focus on religion as opposed to a myopic focus on Jesus is to show one’s lack of understanding. Politics is a term that reflects something that is embedded into every social relationship known.

There is politics in the father reigning over his household. There is politics in my typing that last statement. There is politics in the woman who uses her body to persuade a man to pay her bills. There is politics in that last statement. The play of power is within every social activity and should be considered as such. The failings of the American Black are irrevocably tied to our inability to understand that particular nuance.

Politics is not just democrats and republicans. Politics is also schools being closed down in order to build entertainment facilities. Politics is not just Health Care Bills. It is also more churches and liquor stores in the American Black community than institutions of learning controlled by American Blacks.

The terms “democracy”, “socialism”, “fascism”, and “capitalisms” are only terms used to situate nuance when discussing politics. Politics is a higher framework that includes all forms of human behavior with regard to influence and power over other humans. It is simply a study of the manipulations and systems of leadership that humans have used over time, and are using now.