Nate at Cincinatti Black Blog wrote a fairly intense article on Air America's replacing Chuck D with Jerry Springer. It was picked up by Counterpunch and went from there around the globe via email.

One of the shards landed in a mailing list I read and sparked a right interesting conversation(as it happens, Darkstar was in on the discussion too). And one of my old jousting partners made a statement I intend to make liberal use of. I just have to admit I didn't make it up myself, once.

Here's some context. In response to this,from Nate's article:

After being on the air for a year, Air America finds itself struggling to attract and keep listeners, just as the Democratic Party struggles to gain and keep voters. The removal of > Chuck D -- one of only two daily African American talk show hosts -- represents much more > than just the "whitening" of Air America, it symbolizes just how far the Party has drifted > away from the Black community, it's most loyal support base.

Darkstar wrote:

1. that says it all.
2. They don't believe a Black person can kick Rush Limbaugh's ass. The truth is, right now there is no "liberal" person, white or Black, who has what it takes to take on Limbaugh.

And my friend George, he says:

RE: Ed's#2 above

Does anyone believe it?

I don't... not in the existing environment.  His surviving-a-drug-abuse-scandal-with-nary-a-scratch ass *cannot* be kicked in a fight, not under the existing rules of the game.  (The basic game being: which white person will be in charge, NOT which person will be in charge... One of its rules being: so-called "liberals" can't get down in the mud with folks like Limbaugh--they have to play fair while conservatives don't have to.)

Ignore the rules or try another game altogether.  (Did I really need to say that?)

And that's not even the hot one. Because a sister asked:

George,

What kind of games are there left to play (I'm serious)?

And the response was better than flawless...it's useful.

First of all, I can't give you a straight answer that you haven't already heard.  For example, the idea of owning your own media outlet(s) has been mentioned.  Not "renting your own media outlets as long as white folks will let you"--that's another topic and it leads to the perceived necessity to kick Rush Limbaugh's ass, or try to, in the talk-radio ratings.  It is why Jerry Springer replaced Chuck D.

(One discussion of games in the sense of this thread is Carse's "Finite and Infinite Games."  Carse doesn't say not to play, but he does explain the concept of rules and boundaries quite well.  Another discussion of how there seems to be only one game in town for most of the world is in Daniel Quinn's Ishmael books, but not everybody can put up with the gorilla.)

Here is a question for you:  Can you imagine a society of any size, in any place, in which you are not playing by rules that favor (conservative) white people?  If yes, you can and should name your own games.  If no, here is an alternate question:  Can you imagine living in a world of white people's rules, yet playing by those rules only on your own terms and at your convenience?