I don’t know.

It’s like, the more you work towards a thing, the harder the individuals who wish to stop you become. In a lot of ways I see it as a video game. But…I’d rather not give that much credence to the power of those hiding behind screens.

I learned early on that we feed on those weaker than ourselves. The lion and lamb probably shouldn’t be laying that damn close to one another. In a capitalist western dominated society, that means those with titles will attempt to influence the minds of those that have less, or have titles that aren’t as respected. Work in a society such as this implies work for a master. When I write posts on my blog, they are not respected if my blog is not generating fanfare. If I am not making a certain amount of money, my “work” here on my blog is considered useless. We are in deed slaves to the thoughts of others. The very reason you are able to celebrate the Afrikan portion of Barack Obama is because Whites celebrated it. In many ways, the choice to be freed of society’s chains are limited, even after manumission.

And please understand that I’m not here to vilify or pretend that I don’t live according to certain standards. As I’ve stated repeatedly through my posts and else where online, hell, I love expensive suits. I enjoy luxury vehicles. However, I don’t kiss ass. I am the type to face a five to ten sentence for taking someone’s nice things. You can cream and moan all you want about how hard someone worked for whatever, yeah, keep whining. The reason your security in this country exists is because someone took land from someone. The reason your economy exists is because someone forced others to work and took the fruits of their labor. Black women were treated like prostitutes: given extra clothing and trinkets in order to have more babies that would become slaves. Why do you really think this country is in Iraq? Why do you really think this country is in Afghanistan? You are governed by the criminal elite. You sanction the criminal elite. You vote for the criminal elite. You send your children off to be programmed by the criminal elite. You hope they will grow up and be supported by the criminal elite.

What has been Obama’s “cure” for the economic crisis? Give billions to those that caused the imbroglio and make emotional appeals to the middle class so they would work harder. Support the criminals, and pimp the workers. What more would you call it? We live in a capitalist economy. We live in a society that trains its children to look down upon those whose parents didn’t kill enough, didn’t pimp enough, didn’t rob enough, didn’t sell enough drugs or alcohol. We are trained, socialized, to become elite minions. We have mastered the art of being influenced by title holders and money throwers. We are like whores on a stage, shaking our proverbial asses for the person that tips the most.

And we have the nerve to be moralist when the very actions and system we promote, the very ideology that our actions promote creates the criminal class that we wish to frown upon and turn our noses at. How do you think the thought of robbery and burglary gets into the minds of the young ghetto dweller? If you will kiss ass all your life in order to climb the social ladder that the elites have made you believe exist, why not those who find pride a little too bitter to swallow?

Much like my thinking on categorizing and building on topics, my spiritual beliefs and knowledge tend to work the same. I realize that most people reading this might believe that “GOD” or their “Higher Power” has an ego, or a personality, yet, I don’t. I believe that all is ALL. Yeah, I know that statement is about as vague as the initial proposition of a prostitute, yet I have this need to develop all my public explanations of my beliefs in simple terms. Possibly why I was drawn to Twitter in the manner that I was. In a more specific statement, my belief is that everything in existence, the complete set of all that is, even beyond what the senses of the best hearing or seeing or smelling sentient beings can know, is what I refer to as “God”. Some say the “universal mind”, yet I tend to think most people will conceptualize towards the anthropomorphic. That is, they will think of how their mind works, and ascribe the same characteristics of their inner world to that of what we are calling “Universal Mind” or “God”. Which is all the same quite possible, just not something my logic allows me to adhere to at the moment.

If I say that my conceptualization of God, which is for the most part all we can ever discuss, is a mathematical formula, then I’ll lose most of my audience’s understanding. If I say that you are a mathematical formula within the whole of a fractal based on a similar formula, then I might lose you even more. Mainly, I believe that is because most of us like to base our understanding of the human on emotive responses. We tend to think solely about the emotional aspects of the person, and not the consistent patterns that we all share – the more structured and easily enumerated elements. And yet, many of us in certain religious and philosophical communities enjoy saying things like, “Life is math, and math is life.” Of course, the minute I describe sexual and intimate scenarios with mathematical nomenclature, I get treated like the nerd in gym class. Ironically, there are mathematical formulas for the labile, or reactionary in chemistry. In fact, I’d say a precise mind, with enough of a grasp on the abstract, such as in calculus, would be able to formulate a function for pretty much all that exist.

For me, there is no separation between the spiritual and all else. It is simply a body. My particular body is a composite of billions of ’separate’ entities, and yet all serving one singular purpose, at the moment, to get me to figure out how to explain all this complex shit in a simple and even humorous manner. That means I believe that my politics are spiritual. My economics are spiritual. This shouldn’t be too difficult to grasp for those of us in the United States since our religions are embedded into both our politics and our economics regardless of conventional belief. We say that there is a separation between church and state, and yet “In God We Trust” is visibly printed on all of our bank notes and coins. Our political representatives and even our political pundits have made it a habit to say, “God Bless America”, or “God Bless the United States of America”. In my thinking, religion was actually institutionalized for such purposes. Any statements that suggests differently are nominal at best.

As I’ve hinted at earlier, all of our knowledge, even most of our beliefs are what we call a “build”. They are concepts, hypothesis, and theories, accepted theories (also referred to as facts) that have been dialectically argued, or forcibly agreed upon over the course of human existence and handed to us like a cognitive baton. Often, what we do with these ideas depends on the experiences, critical thinking skills, and ability to forge an identity or even find gain in the beliefs or theories that we have been handed. Integrity be damned, it makes all the sense in the world to me when I see people that I know are actually atheist to publicly promote Christianity in a country that wars under the banner of Christianity for political or economic gain. In the same vein, it makes all the sense in the world to me for a professed anarchist to justify why they stand up at ball games with their hands on their heart during the national anthem. As stated, I don’t separate spirituality from politics or economics, and part of spirituality is an understanding of the more reactive elements that are influenced by forces outside themselves.( I’m a complicated son of a wonderful woman, aren’t I?)

From socialization we are given our template of acceptable behaviors and in many ways our ideologies with regard to race, class, and sex. That template becomes a normalizing influence in our lives. As a person that has a record for rule-breaking and dissenting from social norms, I must admit, it is because I know and recognize the norms that cause me to be successful in rule breaking, or more importantly, effective. The same with the spiritual. There is a governing body of laws that allow the material existence that we must recognize as “the material existence”–or for those that accept the possibility of multiple dimensions, “OUR material existence”–to have order.

Although much of our existence is governed by randomness, the decisions of sentient beings with “will power” or “instincts”, or “natural selection”, there is another area of our existence that is much less protean, and even the labile can be controlled, or at least predictions of their behavior can be accurately surmised. My experiences have shown me that the same way a scientist that understands the rules or the patterns of radical elements can control for the various outcomes of that element’s reactions to other elements, so can one who understands the patterns, or most importantly, the guiding principles, of a labile personality control the behaviors, or at least create conditions that will promote the most desired outcome from such a personality.

Within that understanding comes a need for people to believe in not only a “God” that is nothing more than an all-powerful personage, but also an all caring one. Terms such as “Father” are used in many cultures to embody this idea of a power guide that only hurts as a form of “tough love”. Concomitant with that is this idea of a morally and ethically superior creature that is always right. Justifications for the reasons why good people die abound throughout cultural literature, as means to alleviate the cognitive dissonance that one might experience when considering why such an omnipotent and beneficent being would “allow” such activities to occur. As a standard of practice, those that are members of communities that profess such beliefs collectively, force upon one another absolute codes of morally dictated behaviors. Even those that simply possess the knowledge of said sorts of groups are held to often intolerable levels of human discipline. In the black community, many have mistaken simple awareness, or “consciousness”, as an invite to harshly persecute and judge. Often this is done without considering what a person’s actual ethical responsibilities and priorities lie. Ethical considerations often being relative, I have witnessed this become a very bloody sport, in deed. I am sure that someone reading the title of this post asked themselves,”How he gone say ‘God’ and ’shit’ in the same sentence…?” Sacrilege….indeed.

Much of the conflicts we observe in our day to day lives either through close proximity, with familiars, or via mass communication have their origins in a quest for control, or influence over a person or group of people. The very concept of property is simply an influential belief that one or many have a right to a piece of land. That is a very simple handling of that concept, but I hope it gives you a brief moment of reflection. We as people in a society are influenced by our socialization, our templates, to accept economic systems of behavior, often without questioning why such patterns even exist, or how they came to be. Many of my colleagues can debate ad infinitum on the ideas of Big Bang theories, and can’t explain why there are more blacks in impoverished communities percentage wise compared to their white counterparts. In analogy, I tend to wonder why people lack the curiosity or critical comprehension to question why they believe what they believe. And as I have stated more than once already, I don’t separate my politics from my spirituality. I completely understand why a person that holds opposing beliefs than those espoused by their religious body would not act out of that belief. Possibly that person has a position among those that share that belief system, and voicing a contradictory opinion, no matter how well-reasoned, might cause them financial suffering, or political defeat.

I hold this sympathetic view even more when assessing those in religious organizations in the black community, where our religious organizations hold the most sway, or influence, over the rest of the American black populace. Social considerations are also a part of my spiritual understanding, and social reactions and responses must be considered. Those that conflict with the more established organizations of belief tend to already have planned for escape, regroup, and revolution. Or least they should.

As I close, or at least break from this particular post, I am reminded of the career of Jim Jones the leader of the People’s Temple. In his younger years, he was an outcast due to class bias and he sought understanding and acceptance from the black community. We have photographs handed down to us from his early years, with his black adopted children. He would go on to form a church and with that church he would develop such an austere reputation for helping in the black community that there are also images of him being guarded by the Nation of Islam’s FOI(The militarily trained men of the Nation of Islam) while giving a lecture to the presiding congregation of “Black Muslims”. It is pretty telling of the influence that Jones had at that time, to be a white man able to speak in front of a group of people that professed a belief in the white man being the devil. Jim Jones’ reputation would become smeared as his activities in the People’s Temple became more wide spread.

His congregation’s devotion to his form of leadership allowed Jim to amass enough money to secure land in Guyana, where he and his congregation built Jonestown. Well, his congregation built it, he simply broadcasted through loud speakers how the rest of the world despised black people while the blacks were diligently working in the fields. Soon, growing weary and beginning to question their place in Jonestown, a number of members formed dissenting opinions about Jonestown. Those members would be labeled as people who begin to think for themselves within these sorts of movements are historically labeled by the “prophets” and leaders of such movements: “fearful”, “unfaithful”, and the dreaded, “hypocrite”. The families of many of the members also became suspicious and I’m sure, quite concerned about their missing relatives and a congressional delegation was subsequently formed and sent to Guyana. Reporters would be passed slips of notes from members of the People’s Temple asking for help. That help would never arrive, nor would some of that delegation make it back home.

An ambush of the delegation left five dead at the airstrip. Jones would commence to order the largest mass suicide of US citizens to date. He ordered black mothers to have their black babies and children drink cyanide-laced grape Flavor Aid. Over 900 people died that day. Close to three hundred of them were children. Jones called it a “revolutionary suicide”. A political act under the auspices of a religious order, with social ramifications that have become cultural indices.

Influence, force and power, is the spirit that guides us all and it can take many forms.
Please be careful with your portion of God…it can get ugly in here…

When I was younger, there was a pattern of behavior that I gleaned from various brothers that I looked up to in high school. It was a certain way with young ladies that worked to establish an hierarchy within the relationship. What occurred was I would use the term, “bitch” in a loose and joking manner when referring to them. When the sister that I was talking to reacted or responded in a manner that seemed like she was offended, I’d simply say,”Damn, bitch, you get mad about stuff like that…women really are sensitive.” Depending on how the young woman took it, after awhile, in private settings, “bitch” was her name. Now, many reading this have been subjected to this similar treatment, and possibly worse.

Would anyone venture to say that what I was doing was anything short of being verbally abusive? I seriously doubt it. Would anyone question that I have some how left a psychological scar on the women, even in adulthood? Not anyone who has actually suffered it or been with someone who has. Would anyone be willing to dismiss those scars just because the women I abused in that manner started calling themselves “bitch” in play, or as an affectionate term? Is it always verbal abuse when a man calls a woman a “bitch”?

Pretty much…

What I’ve learned about words is that words are still reflective of the actual power relation. You can’t necessarily usurp the power from a word. You can only defend yourself from the psychological damage of the verbal abuse. Some might say that one shouldn’t be so sensitive, Franz Fanon said that violence is therapeutic. I’ve noticed that most people that profess the “don’t be too sensitive” frame of thinking, either don’t allow themselves to be called “bitch”, or are being verbally abused regularly, and don’t have the strength to stop it. I suppose running from it works too.

I’ve heard the argument often enough. A young boy says “bitch” in a popular song. Young ladies recite the lyrics, and say that they don’t take offense because they aren’t a bitch. It is one of those times when I wish the theory of cognitive dissonance hadn’t become so tainted by the popular. What a young woman in that mindset is really doing is justifying the use of the term. It implies that some women are “bitches”. When in fact, the use of the term with regard to a woman, has always been demeaning. It is a term used to cripple, to embolden the user; to remind women of the place in society men have established for them.

There is no way to remove the sting of the word. As long as the original users of the word in such context still remain in power, the word continues to hold on to its significance. Now, with so many issues that abound in the world of women, such as breast cancer, rape, being stoned for being raped in some places, being discriminated at the work place..should we still be so concerned that men are calling women “bitches”? Would you be concerned if someone called your mother a bitch? Do you like it when someone calls you a bitch…?

Does it matter that teenage pregnancy is back on the rise…? Sure, of course it does. Just because tens of thousands of innocent civilians are being murdered in Afghanistan doesn’t take away the travesty of Aiyana Jones’ murder, or the murder of Oscar Grant. An evil is an evil. That is a reason why jails and the courts of what we refer to as the justice system have dockets that stay full. Proper punishment for the crime, but don’t forget it is still a crime.

One last question for complete comprehension: How would you feel if white people used the word “nigger” in mainstream media as much as men use the term “bitch” in the same forums of mass communication?

That out the way…

Alright, I’d like to freestyle a bit and hopefully I don’t diverge into too many varying directions. From what I’m reading, observing, and hearing from others,it seems to me that there is a lot of fear with regard to intimate relationships and committed romantic involvements. From the discussion of ready made families, fears about games, fears about committing, fears about being with someone with a sordid past, and sexual insecurities in general. I’ve pretty much heard the same sorts of discussions on both sides of the gender aisle: guys saying women have unrealistic expectations, or they don’t want to date a woman who used to only date “thugs” and now that they are older they want to settle down with someone who is a little less aggressive. Women saying men don’t know what they want from a woman, and the guys they are meeting have children with multiple women, or just don’t seem like they are ready to settle down. There does seem to be a certain generational divide, where younger people are a little less prone to want to commit.

With hip hop promoting not only a promiscuous life style, but one in which men are “pimps” or “super players” and women are “gold diggers” or only wanting to be involved with men that are only there to provide finances for their material exploits, there is going to be a difficulty to trust those in the dating pool. With the human propensity for novelty and security figured into that emotional miasma, you can expect a high level of relationships that aren’t, in my opinion, really aren’t worthy of the definition of exclusive.

You’ve got two different social paradigms at play here. On the one hand, you’ve got people who can’t find a mate, or aren’t pleased with their prospects. On the other hand, you’ve got people supposedly committed to someone, and yet they are either not really happy, cheating, sharing themselves openly with others(I might actually tackle that at some point in time), or just in what I call a “professional relationship”. By “professional relationship” I mean, two people basically just together to provide financial support, a good showing at social gatherings, and every now and then, a warm body. The type of scenario in which the parties involved have lost a considerable amount of respect for the bond, a lot of times aren’t even friends and have grown so far apart that their lifestyles could possible be in conflict, ie, he hates her friends, she hates his hobbies, they don’t interact well, well, because they have no common interests and actually despise the type of person the other has become. Those types of situations can get ugly, meaning violent, depending on the persons involved. Plus, there is going to be a difficulty in compromising on a vision for the relationship(an idea of what the couple should be striving for in the future) if their lifestyles are so divergent that their concepts of what a relationship should be like are incompatible. Works for some, it tends to sound like a waste of my time to me.

Which sort of brings us full circle. If we aren’t seeing many healthy relationships, and the ones we have been in weren’t experiences we’d like to repeat, we are bringing negative emotions into the dating pool. The direction that I’m hearing a lot of people going is the “cuddy buddy with emotional investments route”. Let me describe this…its a commitment that isn’t a commitment. It’s sex, dinner, movies, and social gatherings with hand holding…but no formal agreement between the two people involved that they are actually a couple. It’s the “we are exclusive but not exclusive enough for you to obligate me to anything relationship-y…” route. Its the “you can’t claim me” game. From my experience, observations, and discussions, these tend to be pretty messy. There is no definition! It’s Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” for intimates! I’ve personally learned that, for me, I’d rather take my chances on a break up than an emotional investment that doesn’t really exist. I tend be better suited for situations the have some sort of rules of engagement. And another thing, I’ve had a lot of experiences with people testing boundaries, it is my practice in most social involvements to lay down some sort of understanding of “this far, and no further”. Of course, I tend to be quite old school in my views regarding intimate bonds.

Per the earlier disclaimer…these are simply my expressed ruminations about romantic coupling. However, in a society where wealth and power are controlled by families that don’t seem to want to ease up on their stranglehold, you’re probably going to want other people to at least be accepting of the idea of a committed relationship. I personally would hope that they are loving couples, because loving couples tend to rear emotionally nourished children. Friends tend to make time more enjoyable, so it seems logical that two people who are sharing the sort of intimate space that couples routinely do, they should probably have some common interests and enjoy a healthy loyalty to one another.

Eh…between debating half wits online and hoping Kanye West stops making homosexual rappers look bad, I tend to grow gray hairs…

I don’t always know what attracts certain types to my twtr stream, but I do feel that people see the “Asylum” bit and automatically assume the worst. I’ve actually been told,”I can’t respect the words of a person that calls himself ‘Asylum’”. Which is fine and dandy. But don’t question my scholarship either. I believe we have a difficult time stepping outside of the framework set up for us by society. We tend to believe in stereotypes, and we tend to want to believe the standards set for us through media are true. This can be dangerous. And that is why I was too surprised when I read the article…

Oh, what article, right?

You know the one…

Slate writer Farhad Manjoo relates the activities of Black twitter users in the article entitled,“How Black People Use TwitterThe latest research on race and microblogging.” Now, this article is a discussion about a study conducted by a Carnegie Mellon doctoral candidate in which the manner in which Twtr was being used by Black people. Now I don’t want to deal too much with how racially insensitive that is, but I do want to address the racial nature of the study. What exactly is being studied here? Is it really about how black people who are as diverse as Andre3000 and Jeezy in the same location? Or is it about the fact that Blacks– who are not considered to be web savvy, or an influential part of the technological thrust we are experience via the interweb– have been able to direct the conversation on one of our era’s most talked about forms of media communication?

One of the major themes of the piece is how blacks are able to get on twtr’s trending topic list. And that is an interesting bit of study, I must admit. Without media backing, or popular culture trends outside of twtr, black people are able to create memes. Almost as if out of the air, some user types a hashtag, adds a witty statement, and twtr gets its flash of life for the evening. And someone wants to know how Blacks are doing that…

It really says something about how influential the black blogosphere actually might be. Sure, Slate is not going to come out and say,”Black people are influential on the one of the world’s most influential mediums”. But if you read between the lines, that is what is being stated. That information is a diamond in the hands of a marketing strategist. Disney has to pay twtr to get on movies on the trending topics list. Young Blacks are able to do it with the use of culture paradigms learned on the school yard and watching auntie and grandmother organize family reunions. In the same way we have taught the world to recite rhymes with a staccato cadence, we have shown them how to transform 140 into a mirth filled way to explore a thought, and even to share social ills and information.

So, although I am utterly disgusted by this article and the study, I do understand how nonblacks can be simply amazed by our ability to transmit and influence the electromagnetic spectrum with our common touch. Now if we could just get Jeezy to stop selling cocaine over mixtapes, we’d be in business…*Smiles*

Applaud yourselves black people…they are watching…still.

Which can often be strange to me, well, in person more so than online, because I don’t deem myself a talkative person. And “talkative” is highly subjective, of course. “Talkative” is also not a prerequisite for debate prone personalities, it is just easier to be attacked for views, or attacking opinions when you’re actually talking, than not. I’ve seriously digressed here…

As stated, I find myself defending and attacking viewpoints and opinions with people, and sometimes dogs, in many of my travels. As of late, I’ve come to the understanding that most people rely on appeals to emotions, more than well reasoned, or well informed, logical statements. In fact, I’ve had people actually denounce logic as a western(European) construct. Which is very telling, since the quadrivium and trivium were both based on the disciplines found in the temple of Luxor. Logic being reasoned discourse among the hierophants. But, I understand the power of the emotion, and the need for many people to hold sway over the audience, even if it means neglecting sound thought.

This is not disparage my reactionary people in the least bit, however. I also realize that over analysis and lack of decisive actions are the bedrock of the formally trained. If I am in a precarious situation, I usually don’t call on people that need to be reasoned with. I tend to call on people I know I can get to act without asking questions first. This might place them in a box for most people, but trust me, if you have ever been shot at or locked up, you know that it helps to have people that only ask,”Where are you?”

Of course, reactionary types tend to make me not want to debate. Unfortunately, we all are pretty bond by our beliefs, which is cool. Cool meaning understandable. Yet, beliefs originate from the same place that our defense mechanism originate, which can be dangerous when attempting to elevate a person’s mind. It is like pulling teeth when I discuss religion because so many are personally tied to their beliefs. We have a tendency to incorporate our religious beliefs in a way similar to identification. When I say many people that practice Islam are being indoctrinated into Arab culture, I am called “uninformed”. I am yelled at. Once I was even threatened with death.

I’m not one of those shaman that just gives light, I tend to give life. I teach people how to see beyond the constructs of their worldview. I can’t lean on arguments of authority. There are none that be an authority over truth. I can’t lean on arguments that attack people, ad homenim statements. Everybody is not going to be able to fit the standards of wealth, popularity, or attractiveness. Just because a person has a lifestyle I deem savage, doesn’t mean they can’t provide a well reasoned thought. I can’t rely on statistics, even if I’m the primary source because even my sampling can be a limited view of the total group. Logic does have its faults. Formal debate has limits. Although I hate having to humble myself to charismatic debaters, I understand that people believe what they deem necessary. I am willing to calm myself for truth. Well, at least my well reasoned understanding of such.

I know what it feels like to have your worldview crumble on you mentally. We call it cognitive dissonance, but I don’t believe that that concept even explains the pain well enough.

Alright…where should we start…

First, let me give the disclaimer I usually give when discussing things that deal with celebrities and their personal lives. Although these are public personalities, and legally open to the verbal gun fire of guys like myself–with consideration for slander and the like–they are still people that I don’t know. I state this because it is quite easy for me to roll out of my bed, read scathing comments about celebrities, and then whip up some less than laudatory statements myself. Granted, this is pretty acceptable, and I have my moments, but the truth is, I’m a media communicator and analyst, however, in most instances, I could give two half pennies of a concern about the choices made by people in the privacy of their homes. Judging another person’s moral decisions that don’t affect a critical mass isn’t my forte.

With that out of the way…

So…Larry Fishburne’s daughter wants the world to know her milkshake brings all the male porno stars to her yard. My take is that she is a grown woman. I understand that most father’s would disown their daughters for such career(yeah, I had to muffle my laughter, too) choices. I can think of a few deranged individuals who might actually applaud that behavior, but they are definitely in the minority. And double standards aside for a paragraph or two, I’ve seen the clip and the sister might want to drain these few minutes of fame, swallow her pride, and find new track to ride. Of course, considering that I haven’t used her name once in this post thus far, we realize that if she wasn’t Larry’s daughter, I wouldn’t be critiquing a pornography performance on a blog with a majority female readership.

It is difficult for me to not understand Larry’s concern. Not sure if I’d be willing to pay the substantial amount of money that is being quoted to cease distribution of the video, but I also don’t swim in those socio-economic waters. Ultimately, I think Larry should have remained silent, I mean, the production was that bad in my opinion, and many people wouldn’t have even known about it. If it is her choice to bump uglies with the likes of Brian Pumper for the triple x audience, then it shouldn’t smear Larry’s impeccable career and reputation. Some might argue that her work(tongue in cheek is an art, I swear…), will point to a lack of good fathering, but that is as subjective as the double standard that causes her to gain the attention she is now receiving. I don’t know the sister, but by watching her interview with her standing next to the Goldie of The Mack fame reject, I am reminded of Ginger and Lester Diamond in Casino. I suppose pimping really ain’t dead…

Eh…pulling out of that topic…

Wyclef has signed papers announcing his plans to become president of Haiti. Not quite sure how I feel about that. I don’t think it is one of those topics that should be overly critiqued from the angles I’m seeing. What I’ve been reading mostly are reasons why Wyclef shouldn’t be attempting to become the president. And the discussion regarding why he shouldn’t be president lacks a much needed balance of political understanding. I’m not from Haiti, nor have I ever lived in Haiti. What I know about Haiti is from the media and few friends and associates who are expatriates. I don’t think anyone in the United States who isn’t living in Haiti presently, or having plans to do such, has a properly informed opinion to say what Haiti needs emotionally, economically, or politically. And if we are still discussing the accusations of Yele, the first thing that pops in my mind is ACORN. If the premise is lack of experience, then my rebuttal is the present holder of the office of the President of the United States.

Sure, there are humongous concerns facing Haiti at the moment. Earthquake disaster, an economy that was underdeveloped before the earthquake, and an inhumane contract with France and now possibly the World Bank. However, I was one of those writers that showed concern regarding the support networks of western countries. Much of the reason for Haiti’s inability to deal with the earthquake in a less than catastrophic manner was lack of western support and France’s repugnant insistence on demanding money from the shopping of humans.

Yes, these are troubling times for Haiti, and for much of Haiti’s existence, they have suffered through troubling times. The US is in troubling times as well. If Wyclef is to be denounced as simply opportunistic or simply a symbol of hope, I am reminded of the reasons people stood in lines that circled buildings trying to vote for “Change” and “Hope” back in 2008. I am reminded of the words of the Great Marcus Mosiah Garvey when he asked where were our great men of affairs at. As a person that is sick and tired of being sick and tired of seeing young black males gamble their lives on dreams of being entertainers and athletes, I am pleasantly pleased that Wyclef is willing to take this chance. If one doesn’t believe he is qualified, then don’t vote for him…oh, and if you can’t vote for him…then why disparage his efforts from a distance?

On to the next…

Google and Verizon are said to be in a deal that will allow Google to transfer information from their sites faster. This discussion is being toted as the end of Net Neutrality and the beginning of the decline of the independent web. I tend to agree. As a web master, it is my greatest hope that the web can remain as open and fairly distributed as possible. Unfortunately, in most cases, this is already impossible. With transfer fees, hosting fees, server fees, database management and such concerns, it is always going to be more difficult for some to take advantage of the interweb than others. It would be nice if beyond those financial impediments those that provide access to the interweb wouldn’t strike deals with companies to hamper the independently competitive nature of the interweb. Deals such as these set dangerous precedents and further constrain the tools of mass communication into the hands of a few rich corporations. And as with most things societal, it will be the consumer and the end-user to suffer the most.

So, I say in closing: Hands off Haiti, Hands off the InterWeb…and um…hands off Larry’s Daughter’s arse…or something like that…

Had a great conversation early about the need for bloggers to be sincere with their content. It wasn’t another one of those “keep it real” type of discussions, more so about writing what you feel without limitation. I was reminded of a post I read earlier this week that touched on a few of the same ideas.

Much of what I discuss here is media analysis and social commentary. However, that shouldn’t mean that I am obligated, or that anyone is obligated for that matter to use their blog or their mini-blog for the promotion of consciousness raising on any level. I personally feel driven to discuss certain issues, while at the same time my blog and my mini-blog can cover superficial topics that deem interesting enough to write about. I’m not that one dimensional to sincerely write content on one topic. Furthermore, if it comes to my attention and I have an opinion about it, I’m most likely going to write about it.

Another thing that I’d like to discuss tonight that holds some relevance to this discussion is the stalking of people’s mini-blogs and social media accounts by human resource workers. What one says on their Facebook page or their Twitter stream, if not work related, shouldn’t be used as means to gauge their work performance. We as a citizenry have truly allowed the marketplace to dictate far too many rules of our personal behavior. We are already in a situation where most of our lives are controlled by how we make our money, and we spend most of our lives at the workplace. Many of us hate our jobs and now we have to worry about job security in our personal online associations.

There may not be much one can do about the draconian practices of the corporate world, so I’ve been advising many of those that respect my advice to make two accounts and stop using identifying names as your login name. If that is more than you are willing to do, I say boycott the social media application altogether. We are the writers, artists, bloggers, what have you that provide the content for all of the web. What is twitter without people making updates? What is the point of having a twitter account, or a Facebook account that you can’t openly express yourself on?

The more I spend time on the web, the more I realize how much it reminds me of the blinking boxes in George Orwell’s “1984″. We have truly given up much of our private lives in the pursuit of entertainment and information that is not being fairly appreciated by those we do business with. Without the person interacting through these mediums, they cease to exist. And I believe that a message needs to go out that it is end-users that should be given the highest regards in certain matters. Even with private accounts the owners are able to sell information about our surfing habits with advertisers and who knows who else. I enjoy using the service, but I have read three people thus far expressing how a company has gone through their time line and suffered some sort of reprimand. I don’t personally fear expressing myself, yet, when will this stop? I understand that it is a public forum, so is a restaurant. I don’t expect the waiter to pass my credit card information on to any other businesses.

We make the web what it is.

“Shortly after that summer, black women in SNCC complained to the male leadership that they could not develop relationships with black men as long as black men could so easily turn to involvement with white women.” – Michele Wallace, “Black Macho And The Myth Of The Superwoman”

Eh…words will be the death of me..

So, last week I wrote a post. In the body of the post I mentioned a quote from my step-father with regard to white women. As an addedum to the quote I mentioned that I didn’t date white women anymore. It was possibly worded in a way for many that makes me read much like the reverse John Mayer. And like Mayer I received a stream of responses in the subliminal.

Alright. I’ve been here before, right?

Understand that the Asylum is no longer a blog with an audience of my coolest classmates. The Asylum is no longer a blog, in a lot of ways. And most importantly, it must be understood that the Asylum is the favored spot of one thousand or more visits a day. The Asylum entertains and informs people from all of the varied walks of life. Cool.

But…

The Asylum is still the writings and thoughts of a guy whose story has so many twists and turns I can’t always digitally transcribe them without causing the average human resource worker to cringe. I’m a very live character. An adventurer even. I tell my story here, because this is what I have to tell my story. And it is still MY STORY.

Granted, the Asylum is ours, now. I get that. And it is home to more than just one gender, and one race. I am totally aware of that. However…

I can’t appease everybody. I’m not condemning interracial relationships. I’m not demeaning white women. I’m just stating that I am in a place where sacrificing my lust and limiting my lust simply makes sense. I come from a people that have very few sensible cultural patterns. Most of our cultural patterns are based on slavery. And those are based on emotional acts, and expressions of physical extensions that entertain the elite. My people behave for money thrown at them. In a society that only respects those that have collective respect, I have chosen to sacrifice my life for the team. I understand that all this bullshit is bullshit. But my people need somebody to show them just how much of a game society is.

So I don’t date white women.

Does that make me the bad guy?