This is not a Rorschach Test.

But apparently people are seeing different things.

Keep that in mind for right now, but put it in a mental parking lot. I’ll come back to it. Because right now, I have a confession to make. Two of them in fact. One, I’m quite proud of and will glady pat myself on the back for. While the other is largely embarrassing and comically pathetic.

Confession #1: I fixed my car this weekend. For a while I’d hear a metal on metal grind whenever I would come to a slow stop. And it got progressively worse. If you know cars, you know my brakes were worn out. So I decided to do something about it. I called Meineke and asked for a quote, they said in the ballpark of about $350 but could be as high as five or eight hundred dollars plus, which caused me to roll my eyes and hang up the phone. My rent just went up. I got hospital bills to pay. That’s a high price tag. So I decided to do it myself. And back in like September, I went to the auto parts store and bought the brakes. Got home, didn’t have the tools. I work most of the day, so I couldn’t just get up and go get them. So a few days later, I go buy a ratcheting set with 10 sockets, figured I should be good. Still working, but finally found a day to have a solid block of time to take my front wheels off, remove the brake, put a new one on. But then I find, I don’t have the right socket, so then I have to go buy another, then the bolt on the brake was stuck and I had to break that. Finally I did! I removed the brake, put the new one on, put it back on and put my wheel back on and I haven’t felt this manly since the first time I talked back to my mom. All it took was like 8 weeks and nearly $200, but I did it!

Confession #2: I don’t want to speak for most men, but we are GROSSLY miseducated about how women body’s function. But in all fairness, that is TOTALLY not our fault. I blame the media. Why? TV Commercials. We’ve all grew up watching the same ones about femine products. Every Tampax or Playtex commerical will do the same thing. They will talk about discomfort and what women will go through and do the EXACT same product demostration. They’ll show the tampon and then they’ll spill that mysterious blue liquid on it to show it’s effectiveness and we’re supposed to be impressed. Okay cool. Your product works. Only problem is, it took me an embarrassing long time to connect the dots but WOMEN DON’T SECRETE BLUE LIQUIDS! It gets worse. The other day, I found myself at a women’s private facility(longer story, won’t get into it) but I noticed small colorful tube shaped packets in certain areas and it reminded me of a time, not a long, long time ago, where I first noticed these objects whenever I was at or near a women’s restroom or a doctor’s office frequented by women or such locations. I seriously thought to myself “why are they giving women free fruit rollups in the bathroom?” I got jealous, but that was what my mind associated with the small tube-like packaging. Of course I know they were tampons now. And while it’s ridiculous, I didn’t have a frame of reference other than it look like a fruit rollup we’d have for our daily lunch in elementary school.

I don’t have the data to back this, but I doubt I’m the only man to have these experiences. Particularly the second one. Frankly, it’s not something we’re required to know and being completely honest, for the most part, we would rather not even want to think about it. And as much as the women’s body is not something we are actively able to wrap our brains around, to be fair, the science involved is not remotely as perfected as we want it to be. Especially when we’re talking about childbirth and reproduction. Understand this: in the time it takes you to read this sentence, across the world, a preganant woman or her newborn baby has died during the process of child birth. That is just mortality. Complications during pregnancies are largely common, far more common than we typically attribute. This is why we have an entire medical study and prefession of Obstetrics and gynecology dedicated to it. This is precisely why we call it Reproductive Health. Because it is all about their health.

Yet, there are those who have weighed in on this science to make the decisions that, men like me, are making, without fully appreciating the complexities of women’s health. For weeks, many of us have watched an exhausting number of political ads with candidates telling us not just their position on abortion, but their opponents position. Roe vs Wade, which made abortion legal across the nation, has been overturned and multiple states have already banned the practice, with more pressing significant changes to ability to have access to it. Despite multiple candidates candidly stating their complete opposition to it, Governor Glenn Youngkin has stated his intention of signing into law a post 15-week ban on abortion.

The Governor has stated on multiple occasions that 15 weeks is a “reasonable compromise” with those that are pro-life and those that are pro-choice. The only problem is, there was already a reasonable compromise. That was Roe vs Wade. It allowed for women to have a restricted access to their reproductive health. But Republicans are trying to move the goal post on what is considered reasonable based upon a 15-week timeline, which the Governor has said, is when a fetus is able to feel pain. And the only problem with that is the science doesn’t back this position. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, the very profession of people who life’s work is to know the women’s body reproductive ability, has stated that a fetus cannot feel pain until the third trimester, which was where the compromise was when Roe vs Wade was decided. What the Governor is responding to is a fetus’ response to stimuli, which is one of a multitude of abitrary processes that occur during fetal development.

But the reality is, with these Republican candidates, they are the ones compromising with 15 weeks with the absolutism of a complete ban. The compromise is with them, not with the rest of us. This is partly due to the fact that most abortions occur well before 15 weeks. In fact, in 2020, only 2% of all abortions in Virginia occured after 15 weeks, some 800 cases. And I can almost gaurantee that of those 800 cases, about 800 of them didn’t just wake up after being pregnant for 15 weeks and decide to get an abortion. It doesn’t work like that. If a woman is seeking to have an abortion, there are likely reasons why she either could not or did not want to or need to have one earlier. And part of that is, as stated, women’s reproductive health is ever evolving, constantly changing risk throughout their pregnancy. And since the science is imperfect, most life altering complications cannot be discovered until well into the second trimester, far after 15 weeks. Preventing a woman from having access to her reproductive health after 15 weeks, espeically in a case where it very likely means the difference between the life and death the right claims to value, it’s a tragically consequential decision they have to make for themselves and their baby that is being made for them in the WORST way.

It’s only made worse because 15 weeks is their compromise. They’ve already passed a 6-week ban in multiple states and attempting to pass it in others. Which, again, might sound reasonable to many people. If a woman finds out she’s pregnant and then can spend the next 42 days deciding whether she wants to have an abortion of not, might sound fair. Unfortunately, reproductive health doesn’t work like that either. The gestation cycle that determines that, isn’t at conception, where many assume. Frankly, conception is rather impossible to determine since it can take up to five days for that to happen. And since a women’s reproductive cycle is never a determined time itself, the gestation period starts at the last day of the last menstration cycle. This is why most women cannot know they are even pregnant until 5 to 7 weeks in gestation. If you’re banning abortion after 6 weeks then that can mean only a matter of days to decide whether to put your life, your health and your family at risk for a decision you should have full control over.

Now, let’s unpark my first confession about my car. I’ve known my brakes were worn down since early September. I could have spent $300 to $500 to get it fixed then, but I didn’t. I had additional pressing priorities to handle. And the bigger difference between my car and a pregnant woman is, I didn’t have to drive 400, 500 or even 600 or more miles away just to pay $500 to fix my brakes. It is not an easy decision to be able to have such an expense available in your monthly budget. If it takes the time for a woman to be able to make such a decision as it did for me to fix my brakes, that’s already well pass a ban of 6 weeks. If you factor in the length of time it could take for a woman to even know that she has a pregnancy she might need abortion services for, that could extend beyond 15 weeks that Governor Youngkin feels is a resonable restriction for you to make such a decision.

Ultimately, feelings we have surrounding abortion are rather black and white. You either support a women’s choice to have freedom of her own reproductive health and ability or you don’t. You are pro-life or you are pro choice. These are absolutes. This is not a multiple choice test. You are not deciding between 15 weeks, 6 weeks or even zero weeks. Because honestly, this is not a test for your or anyone else to take.

This is not your life.
This is not your body.
This is not your decision.

So if you look at the image above and see something that needs to be controlled, regulated, or otherwise limited… look some place else. Because you are failing misreably.

The TL:DR… I’m about to talk about Star Wars and the SAG-AFTRA strike. 😉

On July 13, 1923, the 50-foot high, flash-bulb popping “HOLLYWOODLAND” sign was dedicated in the Hollywood Hills of Los Angles County. Originally, a bit of a vanity project by a couple of street car tycoons and real estate barons to build an exclusive hillside community with not just upper-class homes and stately mansions, but tennis courts, markets, salons and stables for resident’s horses. The massive sign was erected to be the most visible billboard to attract newcomers to one of America’s fastest growing cities, which quickly became a hallmark for one of America’s fastest growing industries.

Hollywood.

Where “Happily ever after” is a destination.

100 years later, on July 13, 2023, the Screen Actors Guild & American Federation of Television & Radio Artist joined the Writers Guild of America and ceased production and promotion of all projects covered with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers. What this means is that almost every movie and most television shows, shows with performers who are members of the SAG-AFTRA union, are no longer being produced. Big budget blockbusters like Gladiator 2, Deadpool 3, and the sequel to the newest Mission Impossible movie have all ceased production. Television shows like Chicago Fire, Law & Order: SVU, NCIS, and The Simpsons, which would typically be in production for their fall seasons right now, as well as popular streaming shows like Andor and Stranger Things, have all shutdown. So clearly, if you’re a fan of television and movies, you might be slightly disappointed for a little while. Yeah, studios still have completed projects scheduled to be released, but there will be a noticiable delay on whatever your viewing pleasure might be.

So right now, you might be asking yourself…. what does any of this have to do with Star Wars?

I’m glad you asked!

Back in 2016, Lucasfilm Limited and Walt Disney Studios released “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” in theaters. If you’re not a fan, very briefly, Rogue One is a Star Wars movie, which acts as a spiritual pequel to the 1977 blockbuster Star Wars. As a prequel, this 2016 film used many of the same storylines, set designs and characters that were used in the original 1977 Star Wars. While storylines are timeless and sets can be recreated, characters that are played by actors and actresses in 1977 have age or otherwise not available to reprise their roles nearly 40 years later. And where some characters were recast with younger(and well, living) actors, the producer of Rogue One decided to use the budding technology of creating the digital likeness of certain characters. Peter Cushing, who played the villain in the original Star Wars, passed away in 1994. However, when you look at Rogue One, he was very prominently seen in the movie played by an actor whose face was not his own. Just the same with Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in the 1977 movie. At the very end of the 2016 Rogue One, she shows up, not as the 60-year-old woman she was, but as the 20-year-old young woman she was in 1977. The thing is, while abbreviated and digitally articulated, Princess Leia, or at least Carrie Fisher’s face, was in Rogue One, but there’s one detail that was not in Rogue One. And that was Carrie Fisher herself. She was not credited in the film, which also means Carrie Fisher received a total of $0.00 from a film that grossed over one billion dollars in the box office. And this is part of the problem.

The other part of the problem deals with Princess Leia’s on-screen twin brother(here’s your 40-year-old Spoiler Alert), Luke Skywalker. Luke Skywalker was played by Mark Hamill. In 1977, Mark Hamill was 26 years old when audiences first saw him as Luke Skywalker. However, audiences last saw him as Luke Skywalker in 2020 and 2022, when he reprised the role in the streaming series “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett”. Those two shows took place a few years after the character was seen in the original films, which meant, like the actor, the character was to also be in his twenties. So, they also digitally recreated his likeness for these shows as well. However, the producer of these shows actually had Mark Hamill perform the scenes in the show, which means he is a credited performer and was paid for his work.

So what does this have to do with a bunch of overpaid actors going on strike?

I’m getting there! I promise!

A long time ago, in a studio far, far away from me, actually around the same time the Hollywood sign was originally erected, the executives of Hollywood studios held an enormous amount of power in the industry. Not very much different than now, but then, performers worked for the studio executives. They were for all intent and purposes, employers of those studios and as an employer they pretty much treated their employees, or actors, the way most employers would treat employees if left to their own devices, and that was pretty detestable. So, a group of actors including Boris Karloff(the guy who played Frankenstein) and Frank Morgan(the Wizard from the Wizard of Oz) along with several other actors and actresses created the Screen Actors Guild, a labor union to protect their rights as workers with studio executives and producers. And they all lived happily ever after…

For about 25 years.

Because at that time, a new invention started to gain traction in American households: Television. Now, Americans didn’t have to go out to theaters and pay to watch actors on screen. They could watch them on television in the comfort of their homes. Studios could sell their products to television networks to allow them to broadcast their films for content. And every time they did it, the studio would get paid a residual stipend with every showing. Do you know who got paid $0.00 for their work on those projects? Writers and actors.

So in 1960 they went on strike. And while it took several weeks for the actors(several months for the writers), eventually, the studio executives came to the conclusion that they were kind of being a bunch of tightwads and relented. They decided to give actors and writers a part of the residuals for work that is broadcast on television. And they lived happily ever after….

For like 20 years.

Because in the early 1980s, another new technology was entering homes across America: VCRs. Yeah, quite antiquated now, the industry was just getting off the ground in 1980. Much like television, studios could package their filmed projects and mass produce them on video tape and sell those video tapes to consumers who could watch their movies in the comfort of their own homes on their televisions. And of course, they received a residual payment for every single video they could sell to consumers. And do you know who got paid $0.00 for the work they did in those projects? Writers and actors.

So, in 1980 they went on strike again(the actors, writer’s struck in 1985 for the same reason). And in case you’re not keeping track, this has become a very visible and alarming pattern. Every time there’s a change in technology or a way entertainment is filmed or broadcast for consumers, film studios and mass media conglomerates of today are there to reap extremely massive rewards for what we give them. We want the content, and they are more than willing to find every way possible to give us this content. First it was by film. Then it was television. After that, it became home media. Now, the latest way to feed us our electronic opium is with the streaming of content and services. This has changed the game dramatically. For decades, since the first WGA and SAG strike of 1960, the formula for writers and actors to receive compensation on television was by episode. An episode is made, and they get paid. And, as structured, a television series would create and air a series for an order of 22 to 24 episodes a season. Of course, if a show runs weekly, that’s roughly six to eight months of compensation. Most people, like you and me, have to work 12 months to live normal lives. So what makes up for the other six months that they are not working are the negotiated residual paychecks that they receive when their work is broadcast on television. For example, I am a huge Law & Order: SVU fan and have probably watched every episode of the series. It stars Mariska Hargitay, who is paid per episode that is made. However, what has allowed me to watch every episode isn’t by watching it on NBC when it airs. But I’ve been able to catch up and watch on the USA network, ION and also MyTVZ. And every time Law & Order: SVU airs on those networks, Mariska Hargitay gets paid a residual income for work she did during filming of the show. Those additional airings supplements her income. And while Mariska Hargitay is very good and very prominent on the show, the reality is that the vast majority of actors on these series are not. The writers definitely aren’t either. So their compensation isn’t as high as many assume. They have to work for a living, which birth the term “working actor”. These are performers that find jobs and are looking for regular employment throughout the year. That is why network shows like Law & Order, Chicago Fire, NCIS, or The Simpsons, shows with long runs, are a reliable source of income for an actor. However, with the industry’s turn to an increase production on streaming content, this has changed. In fact, it has changed so dramatically that the actual workers in the industry have not remotely been able to keep pace.

The difference between network shows and streaming shows is the length. Whereas most broadcast shows are typically over 20 episodes, most streaming shows are less than half that amount. Broadcast shows were made to be vehicles for advertisment. Streaming services have no need to cater to advertisers to that extent, so they do not need to have seasons to span 6 to 8 months. They can be structured for shorter seasons, which could require 2 to 3 months of work. On top of that, the the studio can sell a show to a stream service and instead of the show being sold to and rerun on multiple network for continued income for the work that was actually done, writers and actors only receive a single residual from the streaming service. So not only are they working less, they are also receiving less income. So when Mark Hamill performed in The Mandalorian, he was paid for his work. But when I watch Luke Skywalker rip through a spaceship full of troopers 20 to 30 times a year, Mark Hamill isn’t paid 20 to 30 different times. He gets paid once.

On July 13, the same day the SAG-AFTRA strike was announced, the CEO of the Walt Disney Company, Bob Iger, did an interview with CNBC on the future of Disney as well as it’s relationship with consumers and labor disruptions. He said it was “disturbing” to him to see the writers and actors to go on strike and said that they are not being realistic in their expectations. This is keeping in mind that he is the CEO of the company that owns the film studio that hired Mark Hamill for his singular residual. I pay $10.99 a month for a Disney Plus subscripton, which allows me to watch Mark Hamill’s character destroy a hallway full of robots as often as I want. Bob Iger ostensibly receives residual income from my monthly subscription as I watch Mark Hamill’s character destroy a hallway full of robots every month. Mark Hamill received none of that. He does not receive income for his work that I consume and enjoy, nor would he receive income for the work he did that is digitally copied and used. If I write a book and that book is sold, I will receive income every time that book is sold. And I don’t need to personally write every copy I sell to receive that income. So why is it not realistic for someone to expect to be compensated for their work in the same way?

In Star Wars and Rogue One, the characters were fighting against the planet destroying monstrosity called the Death Star. There’s a line(written by a WGA writer and performed by a SAG actor) that asked what chance they have, and the character responded by asking what choice do they have. Bob Iger and other studio executives made the decision to change their business model to focus on streaming projects. This has made it harder for writers and actors to work and to live normal lives. Is there a chance that this strike affects the industry as a whole? Yes. But one side is living very comfortably, and the other side has members living check to check. Unfortunately, they really have no other choice… they deserve the chance to live happily ever after like the rest of us.

Exactly 200 years ago, in 1823, Alexander Twilight graduated from Middlebury College in Vermont. Alexander’s father, Icabod was of mixe raced, as well as his mother Mary. Those facts would be of very little consequence for the next three years until Edward Jones, the son of a emancipated slave from South Carolina graduated from Amherst College in 1826. Amherst College decided to make note that Jones was the first African-American to graduate from an American college. However, when Middlebury College found out about this, they looked at Alexander Twilight, saw that despite him being, at best, a quarter black, he was still sufficiently African-American to be deemed the first actual African-American to have graduated college in United States history.

That was 200 years ago. For 150 years after Alexander Twilight’s mariculation, there were thousands of other African-American graduates of higher education to include the likes of Edward Mitchell, David Peck, Sam Ford McGill, Macon Allen, Ida B. Wells, Carter G. Woodson, Edward Bouchet, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, Patrick Healey, George Carver, James Weldon Johnson, and Thoroughgood Marshall. Among these are the first African-Americans to graduate medical school, or to pass the bar, Ivy League Graduates and even University Presidents. Also among these names is Kellis Earl Parker.

Born in Kinston, North Carolina, Kellis Parker was a lawyer, activist, and scholar. The son of a small business man, Kellis, like many Black kids growing up in the 50’s and 60’s, developed an early interest in music, with him and his brothers starting their own jazz band. It was this very passion that brought him to the path of activism when, as a teenager, he challenged a city ordinance that kept musical groups segregated in the town’s festivals. After high school, Kellis continued his activist streak, becoming one of the first five enrollees at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1960. At North Carolina, he was involved in the student chapter of the NAACP, boycotted business in Durham that refused to intergrate, became a delegate to the United Nations International Students Conference and was elected to represent UNC at the National Student Congress in 1963.

Kellis Parker would complete his undergraduate studies at North Carolina in 1964 and continue his studies at Howard University Law School. At that time in America, there were just over 200,000 black students enrolled in the U.S. colleges and unversities. In ten years, that number had increased to over a million. From 1960 to 1975, the rate of Black enrollment in higher education increased at a rate of more than three and a half times that of total enrollment growth.

So what happened?

Did we all of sudden just get smart in 1960s? Did black people collectively have a eureka moment after the “I Have A Dream” speech? For 200 years we had a piecemeal yet relatively paltry number higher education graduates, but in the last 50 years it has been more than the prior 150 combined because, according to the United States Supreme Court, we just up and decided “maybe we should start going to college.”

The only way this is possible is because it was MADE possible.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925. The order instructed federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure applicants are treated fairly without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. This is the beginning of Affirmative Action in America. Alone, judicial and legislative acts were not sufficient to reach the promise of equality we granted in the Declaration of Independence. Yes, Brown vs. the Board of Education desegregated schools, but it was only when these schools took action and made a plan to recruit promote their willingness to accept candidates of color did it make a difference.

It was the only way. The reality is Black men and women, like ALL men and women, have always been fully capable of everything our white counterparts are, but for our entire history, those capabilities have been staunchly denied. But we persisted, and Affirmative Action programs were there to make sure of it. We simply would not have intergrated and achieved if the opportunity was not there. And the opportunity was ONLY given when Affirmative Action plans were developed and implemented. And, as designed, they worked! The poverty rate for Black families was nearly 35% in 1967. In 2000, it dropped to under 20%. The median income for black families went from $11,000 in 1955 to nearly $24,000 in 1975, which was a higher increase than the rate of all families. Outside of numeric and economic improvements, Affirmative Action’s main goal was to intergrate and diversify a racially homogeneous America and it was doing exactly that. Putting Black and Brown faces where we have historically been denied and the consequence of that has force those who never knew or accepted our agency and ability to see we are fully capable of the exact same achievements as they are. That is the only way to show equality, through action.

But we have seen this story before. The same forces that fought against equality and diversity have been fighting that fight and winning it for years. And those fights have born fruit. Several schools have previously banned Affirmative Action programs over the last 30 years and the results are clear. Studies have shown the number of Black and Brown students enrolled at flagship state universities did not match the share of high school graduates in those same demographics and it did nothing but widen the gap over time. Ironically, a Harvard study found that states that have either banned or overturned Affirmative Action laws have shown a significant decrease in Asian female, Black female, and Latino male representation compared to states that had no such prohibitions. In short, Affirmative Action worked, as designed and without it, it the ill-effects of systemic racism and bias WILL increase. This is not even debatable.

Kellis Parker might have been one of the first Black men to attend the University of North Carolina. The irony that it is his very univerity that is at the center of the United States Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the very action that allowed for him and millions more to achieve what we has historically been denied is not lost. This is a bad decision by a historically bad Court. This is just the latest decision in a bank of decisions that have crippled a nation that does not match their judicial ideology. We are NOT the minority here. They are. But we have been here before. Only difference is that now we have clearly shown what we are capable of when given the opportunity. Affirmative Action is and was that opportunity. Let’s just hope it doesn’t take another 200 years to get back.

There are three things that are all but certain to happen in every household on every Thanksgiving in America. The Cowboys giving someone heartburn, someone being in the kitchen who shouldn’t be there and last minute runs to pick up something that was somehow was forgotten for dinner. However, apparently that last item is no longer the simple dash and grab it use to be. Because now we have to go to the store knowing that at any minute some maniac can take a deadly weapon and brutally murder a mass of people at the whim of very pervasive firearm laws. Shopping centers have joined neighborhood streets, homes, churches, schools and nightclubs as the the new battleground in a war innocent lives never consented to. Whether it’s a tormented soul exacting perceived vengeance at his job, an abuser bringing a vicious end to the lives of those he was promised to love, or having the audacity to even go to school, nearly 50,000 lives have been taken by a gun in America. Thousands more irrevocably damaged live on as survivors. The over accessibility and abundance of firearms has secured this nation a pitiful distinction that no other developed nation has. And the only reason why we have been brought to this destination is due to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution was nearly 250 years ago and it was written with a VERY specific reason in mind. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton made these reasons abundantly clear. We had just terminated the rule of King George, a tyrant empowered by a standing army. He used a well-trained and well-armed force against his own people with extreme prejudice and without the consent of those it was there to protect. And with the British rule extinguished, those men devised two constructs to prevent that from ever happening to the new Republic being established. The first way was to have a democratic rule and to give the means to the people to change that rule. The second way was to remove the power to oppress a nation from that rule. The 2nd Amendment was written, to remove the power from a standing army and to give it to the people, the same people that were already given democratic rule.

So it was written, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” During the Revolutionary War, the colonial militia was the citizen force that were called when needed. They were untrained, undisciplined and notoriously unreliable, especially when matched against the well trained and disciplined British Army. This is precisely why they wanted our militia to be a well regulated militia. Because it was necessary for the security of a free State. Even the wording here was not imprecise. State was capitalized because it referenced the entity as one “State” of the “United States”. Madison’s intent with the Amendment was to give each State the ability to protect itself. Again, they wrote a constitution to protect the State. And included the 1st Amendment to address and challenge the State. We DID NOT need arms to do that. They knew full well that just having arms was absolutely inefficient. To be clear, if you THINK the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the country, you can NOT look at what has been happening and think it is doing that at all.

Gun violence is a virus we’ve refused inoculation from. The reasons for this are pathetically misallocated as a threat against liberty. We do not safeguard our society because of the perception that our democracy will lose its ultimate safeguard. However, the trick is that actual safeguard IS the democracy itself. The only thing it leaves in its wake is death and thousands of shattered lives. But it is a protected right. And so, since it is a protected right, advocates will use all legal means to make sure that right is maintained, no matter the consequence. And it is that very protection that has allowed for an unfettered access and use of firearms in our nation’s streets, homes and schools. As long as it is protected, it can be used. And more importantly, as long as it’s protected, it will be abused.

So, I think it’s past time that we no longer protect it.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be fully abolished and it has to be done to protect its citizens. Because it is CERTAINLY not doing that with the way it is currently constructed now. And while it may sound radical that I am advocating the repeal of the Amendment, I am not. There are plenty of nations that still have firearms on the market for civilian use and ownership. If we prefer the right to continue to murder citizens, we can still do that. But we would then be better equipped to stop those that wish to do so than we are now. We cannot continue to use the excuse of “Constitutional Rights” to protect the abused right to murder. The true radicals are the people who can just sit by, watch the news every day, watch every massacre and every memorial and think this is normal.

We have to abolish the 2nd Amendment and it has to be abolished now!

Pleasantville. A movie I just absolutely adore. It was released back in 1998 and, slowly but surely, creeped upon my cinematic pallet. There’s not a lot of action or suspense. It’s not the typical adventure/sci-fi I go after, but more of a family-friendly type with several pointed allegories to our culture and society. It’s about these kids that get stuck in a black and white television show where everything is the idealized 1950s version of “pleasant”. And over the course of the movie, the more the characters begin to act or think in ways that weren’t exactly pleasant, like goofy or sad, angry or even lustful and excited, something in their world would change color. First it would start with small things like flowers or garments that would change from black and white to it’s natural hue. As the movie progressed it would come to include whole places and even people who would be, for an intention term, colored. As I write this, I’m reminded of the scene where the pleasant Black and White people made a set of rules for the town of Pleasantville to follow, particularly for the colored citizens. Rules on places they could go, colors they could use in art, music they could play and even what they’re able to teach and learn in school. The allegory from here mirrors the restrictions upon Black Americans during Jim Crow and of course those put upon European Jews in Nazi Germany.

And this is where we find ourselves today.

I’m sure many of you have read the recent news story coming out of Texas of the school district that is said to have told their teachers that they must teach the “opposing view” of subjects like the Holocaust. It’s jarring to even think about it. But the story has gotten out across the country that Texas wants its teachers to teach the virtues of anti-Semitism, bigotry and White Supremacy. And rational thinking people everywhere immediately were up in arms over something so ludicrous to think that someone wants to teach school children how Nazism was good.

Well, fortunately, the truth of the matter is a lot less salacious, but much more revealing of a larger issue that was bound to come to a head. The school official at the center of the story, Gina Peddy, was caught on a recording during a meeting with teachers about books and other materials in the school library. During the meeting, the subject of recent legislation signed into law came up in conjunction with an inquiry about the Holocaust. Peddy, who fully recognized how terrified teachers are to even teach under these conditions, was recorded reminding the teachers to be mindful of the new laws in the state and that if they have a book on the Holocaust that they, by law, had to have opposing or other perspectives. Of course, the immediate reaction of the room was the one everyone else in America had when they heard the story. Peddy was asked how could they give an oppose view of the Holocaust, as in who in their right mind wouldn’t oppose a systematic mass murder of millions of people.

And this was exactly what Peddy was highlighting. To her credit, she immediately acknowledged the impossibility of the demands she explained. It’s not something the news talks about, but as a reminder, the discussion was less about the Holocaust itself but more about the law, specifically Texas’ House Bill 3979 and the situation it has put educators in. House Bill 3979 is a new law in Texas that says, among other things, “teachers who choose to discuss current events or widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs shall, to the best of their ability, strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective”. It was passed over the summer during the heated debates surrounding Critical Race Theory and it’s application in Public School curriculum. Of course, Critical Race Theory is a graduate level study that has nothing to do with what elementary, middle and high school kids learn but it became the placeholder for a larger debate and rage reaction by conservatives who were alarmed by the idea of teachers teaching factual lessons on American history. Unfortunately, American history is not filled with all sunshine and rainbows. It’s full of people who are prone to doing fallible people things. Like enslaving an entire race of people strictly because of their race. Or massacring native inhabitants of their land and taking their homes. The stuff people do if they think their race is inherently better than others. And so, Republicans everywhere, particularly in Texas were so bothered by people learning about their country and their race committing horrific atrocities, they created and passed a law made to punish anyone who would, as the law says, discuss controversial issues of public policy and social affairs. And who exactly determines what “controversial issues” under this new law are? Not the state. Definitely not the teachers. But, as it’s typically been, it’s the parents.

The law was passed in the middle of June of this year. And barely two months later, teachers across the state were expected to capably comply and interpret the law. They were expected to know what they could or could not teach, what they could and could not talk about and what they were now, by law, having to introduce and know all they were expected to have in classrooms and libraries by the start of the school year. And if they did not, if anything they taught or made accessible to students was deemed controversial by a student’s parent, they could be reported to the school board and face disciplinary action. Inevitably, of course, teachers immediately faced criticism. Last month, a 4th Grade teacher in that very district was reprimanded for having an anti-racism book in her class that a parent complained about. She could now lose her job. For teaching AGAINST racism. Teachers have a metaphorical gun to their heads, with their very jobs now on the line set at the whims of parents and legislators who made a law to keep American life Pleasant. Unfortunately, that is not real life. That is not real America or the real world.

Back in Pleasantville, when the kid was reading the list of do’s and don’ts that Black and White Pleasant citizens placed upon their Colored citizens, the last ordinance he read actually said “all elementary and high school curriculums shall teach the “non-changist” view of history- emphasizing continuity over alteration.” They did not want their society to change and codified that by law. Texas’ House Bill 3979 tried to do the same thing but is horribly written even by the ficticous facist rules of a 1950s era TV show. At least they came out and said what teachers are allowed to teach. In Texas’ classrooms, parents can now deem actual historical facts as “controversial issues” and place demands upon willing school boards to target educators. And while something like the Holocaust should be throughly taught and opposed, doing so could mean teachers having to explain the White Supremacy that drives it and that of course can be objected to by parents who feels even that unfairly targets white people. As ugly as it seems, Peddy’s demand to teach Nazism, as we assumed, it’s actually more of a warning, pointing out the hypocrisy of the law and trying to protect her teachers who are teaching in a brand new world.

You know it’s hard to not think about the Virginia Gubernatorial election this year and Glenn Youngkin’s attack of Terry McAuliffe. Youngkin has found fault with McAuliffe saying that he does not want parents telling teachers what they should or should not teach. Well this is why. Even local school boards and parents have found fault with certain books and materials in classrooms. Left to Glenn Youngkin and the parents who support him, some kids would receive no instruction on Jim Crow or White Supremacy. They would receive no instruction on police accountability and the value of Black lives. Learning about their racial, sexual and gender identity would also be taboo. And yes, even Nazism and the Holocaust is debatable by this standard. Welcome to the new Real World folks. Texas might be the first houseguest, but if we’re not careful we’ll be voted in that crazy house too.

Former Vice President and presumptive Democratic Nominee for President Joe Biden is currently in the final stages of a process he’s been through himself. Within a few days, he will be selecting his running mate and Vice Presidential nominee. And the speculation of who he will select has centered on a half dozen women to fill the role. Senators Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Duckworth, Congresswomen Val Demings and Karen Bass and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Each of these candidates have qualities that can enhance Biden’s nomination and make their selection a consequential choice. Each of them also have challenges that could been seen as impediments for the former Vice President and make his election a tougher proposition.

But to know, which candidate embodies the qualities that would either enhance or hinder Biden’s nomination, you have to look at the qualities that go into the selection and historically, what qualities Presidential nominees have sought in making their choices. Our current Vice President, Mike Pence, like most, was chose for several reasons, among them is his experience as a legislator and executive. However, where President Obama relied on such experience from Joe Biden as counsel, under the current administration, Vice President Pence’s role is more of a throwback to Vice Presidents in our history. For you Hamilton fans out there, you might know the first time such a selection was made, back in 1800, with our fourth election for President. Then Vice President Thomas Jefferson, who was running against his President, John Adams had Aaron Burr as his running mate. Burr, who had begun building quite the political machine in New York, was very popular(which of course did not last much longer) in a part of the country that Jefferson, a Southern from Virginia, was not. And that was the precipice behind the selection of Aaron Burr. Of course, Burr proceeded to murder a Founding Father, get arrested for treason, divorced by a wife 20 years younger than him for robbing her blind, who was represented by the son of the Founding Father he murdered that was finalized on the day of his death in an obscure boardinghouse on Staten Island, largely forgotten until a Got Milk commercial and Lin-Manuel Miranda reminded everyone of who he was(it’s called Hamilton after all and not Burr).

Anyway. I digress.

More contemporary, the reason of giving your candidacy a geographical balance has also been a quality Presidential nominees have sought after. Particular when it means those electoral votes can be on the line. Hillary Clinton selected Tim Kaine, due in part to this reason. With him, like Jefferson being from Virginia(and both Clinton and Burr were from New York… interesting). That sort of balance also helped Governor Jimmy Carter select Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale as his running mate as well as the two “Boston-Austin” candidacies of Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentson and John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

Another factor that went into Johnson’s nomination was his rather aggressive campaign for the presidency himself in 1960. The Democratic Party thought that uniting the different facets of the party under one ticket would not only send a message of unity, but assure voters that their concerns will be taken into account and excite the base. It was after tough primaries that other candidates also found running mates. reagan selected his running mate, George Bush under such conditions. Although with much less acrimony, John Kerry selected his running mate, John Edwards when he gave a strong showing in the 2004 Democratic Primaries.

However, there were other factors that caused Kerry to pick Edwards as well. Where John Edwards had strengths in foreign policy, legislative and military experience, many questioned his charisma and connection to the base of the Democratic Party, which Edwards successfully campaigned on as Senator and as candidate for president. There have been several nominees that have selected running mates with qualities they either are perceived to lack or outright might be a hindrance. Joe Biden himself was chosen because of the trepidation voters would have voting for Barack Obama with very little legislative and foreign policy experience.

Similarly, George Bush selected Dan Quayle because of the perception of his age being a possible barrier to his candidacy. He choose a candidate who not only was much younger, but Vice President Bush selected Quayle as a barometer of his party’s future. Future Republican Presidential nominees John McCain and Mitt Romney selected Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan respectively, also attempting to buoy their age with the future of the party. However, when a potential nominee is selecting a candidate with youth on their side, the immediate worry is to not simply their lack of experience in government, but concern of their ability to be President of the United States if the time comes.

There was little doubt with Barack Obama that Joe Biden could be president if something were to happen. He had twice run national campaigns and had served in the senate for well over 30 years. Governor Bush selected former White House Chief of State, Minority Whip and Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney as his running mate, someone who he also had confidence in being able to be President if he could not serve. Now, despite inexperience being their impediment, Senator Bob Dole selected Jack Kemp to be his running mate who, like Cheney was a Member of Congress and Cabinet Secretary, but trusted to be able to lead if age were to be an impediment the other way.

Of course the obvious cannot be underscored, the fact that this will only be the third time a woman will be on the ticket for a major party nomination. Sarah Palin of course being the second, but the first was when former Vice President Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate, igniting a under represented demographic in each of those elections. However, Biden isn’t simply interested in the diversity of gender, but also the diversity of race is something he’s pledged to factor into his decision in selected a running mate and administration.

So to put it all together, these are the qualities, questions and considerations that Joe Biden is looking at when he chooses his running mate this week.

Karen Bass
Val Demings
Tammy Duckworth
Kamala Harris
Susan Rice
Elizabeth Warren

Will one of these candidates give him a geographic(or demographic) edge? How will the importance of running a national campaign and having a profile help his nomination? How important is it to unite the party and ignite the base? How important is it to find a running mate that can be a trusted advisor and someone you are comfortable with running a campaign with? Does he need a candidate to reflect the future of the party or should he have a candidate that is ready to lead in his stead? Should all of these factors be considered? Is one more consequential than all others?

Will Joe Biden pick his own Joe Biden for himself or will Joe Biden pick history’s next Aaron Burr?

I feel I owe a bit of an explanation behind the name you’re reading. I call this exercise “Your Friendly Neighborhood Black Man” as a play off the wording of catchphrase of the popular comic book character Spider-Man, who often reminds people that he’s your “Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man.”

More on that later. But in case you don’t know this about me, I’m a pretty huge geek about comics and their culture. One of the reasons why is I think they’re able to tell our story and our history in a way that’s actually a safe medium for people to understand without it being too serious. And one of the better books and characters to ever do this in comics is The Uncanny X-Men. You know the group of superheroes like Wolverine, Storm, Cyclops and Iceman. Now, the thing that makes these superheroes so unique is the qualities of their superpowers. Whereas someone like Spiderman got bit by a spider to mimic their abilities or Superman gains his powers from his strange alien physiology and Iron Man built things and used his mind to make him “super”, the X-Men were born with their special abilities. 

As it has been written in the comics, these heroes, who were collectively called “mutants” by the public at large that often shunned them, were born with certain qualities that made them different. Some of their abilities were rather conspicuous , like Nightcrawler’s blue skin or Angel’s feathery wings, which made them a strange oddity by appearance alone. Other characters had abilities that were more hidden that you couldn’t outwardly see. Jean Grey could move things with her mind but otherwise looked like a normal teenage girl. Rogue, who also looked normal, could kill or injure a person with just a simple touch. Obviously, the characters that looked strange or foreign to regular people were immediate outcast. But those who felt they had to “hide themselves”, their abilities and who they really are from a public that would also shun them if they knew that they were different, walked the same path. They too were “mutants”, ie. people with differences that don’t fit in among regular people.

If you haven’t figured out by now, a kid growing up reading these comic books in the 1960s could gain much more insight on the plight of minorities and marginalized people than their parents would ever assume. While they think they’re reading stories about heroic characters fight against menacing villains, they were learning what it’s like to walk in the shoes of those who society treats different and less than and what it feels like. Obviously, the characters like Nightcrawler and Angel with their appearance tell the story of Black Americans living in a America that refuses to treat them as the Americans that they are. But what about the X-Men characters like Jean Grey and and Rogue who look “normal” but they know they are different and if society found out how different they are, they too would be treated like the other X-Men? What story in the 1960s told their tale?

51 years ago this week, something happened in a bar in Greenwich Village, New York City. During the heyday of mob activity and organized crime, Mafia soldier, “Fat Tony” Lauria bought a rather small and rather dilapidated “Christopher Street Club” pretty cheap. It had no running water at the makeshift bat. No liquor license. The bathrooms hardly worked and the toilets would constantly overflow.  Fat Tony(always seems to be a “Fat Tony” in at least every Mob family) renovated the club, illegally sold alcohol, controlled the sale of cigarettes and even controlled the money made from the jukebox and he reopened the club as a exclusively gay club.  They called it the “Stonewall Inn.”

To keep the police at bay, Fat Tony would have the club managers pay off the police with a $300 weekly bribe. What they got in return was information. As typical with many gay bars in those days, they were raided quite regularly. The Stonewall Inn’s management would be able to get tipped off when raids were imminent and frankly they were done early enough that they hardly interrupted business. They had time to hide their booze, alert patrons and when the raids would happen, patrons would produce identification and police would leave(with their bribe) and the night would continue. But of course, Fat Tony and the mob got greedy and found a new racket out of the Stonewall Inn; extortion. They began to extort some of the more prominent patrons who were not out publicly or those who felt comfort in their gender identity behind the walls of the club. This new income stream quickly began to cut into the kickbacks to the police, which lead to the early morning hours of June 28, 1969.

Different than most raids, this night the Stonewall Inn was raided hours after the time raids typically happened. Not to mention, the managers received no tip off either. Moreover, the police weren’t really prepared to actually conduct the raid and many of the club-goers were practically held in the club with the police without actually being arrested or allowed to leave. Things exploded when the police, who were not only sexually assaulting the gay female patrons and physically assaulting the male patrons, none of which weren’t exactly rare occurrences for patrons at Stonewall, they finally did both to one particular female by whole heaving her forcibly into a police vehicle.  The crowd that had formed outside reacted to the police’s tactics. From there, the police barricaded themselves in the club, the Club itself was practically destroyed and soon, the riot police showed up to further inflame and assault those who were there.  After the press reported on what happened through the night, more protest continued the following days.

The aftermath of the Stonewall Riots was an awakening of yet another segment of America that realized that their rights and dignities were being neglected the mainstream and oppressed by those in power. Like Black America with the Civil Rights Movement and women in the Women’s Liberation Movement, Gay and Lesbian men and women found their cause in Stonewall and spoke up. Quite loudly.

And why shouldn’t they? They are as human as the rest of us. They live, they love, they feel and they exist like the rest of us and are exposed to a society that has and will reject them for doing ANY of that.  Of course they would have a problem with being rejected. And as a person of color, we should understand that as much as anyone.  And that’s the rub.

Over the last few months, we’ve seen this country transform with an awakening of what it’s like to be black in America and what we have to live through. I have had white friends of mine, from ALL walks of life, from the very conservative to the very liberal, personally reach out to me with concern and thoughts of appreciation and empathy.  Many black people have seen our White allies do this.  And honestly, it’s a goddamn shame and embarrassment that the Black Community has not and can not toe the line and stand with the LGBT Community as the White allies have done for us. I mean, I get it. There is an immediacy in Black Lives we’re seeing today. It’s deserving of the attention. But frankly, it shouldn’t have taken a death of a George Floyd, Breonna Taylor or Ahmaud Arbery to awaken the public consciousness of what we go through in America and our Gay brothers and sisters don’t need another Stonewall Riot for us to wake the fuck up to the constant barrage of embarrassment, slights and humiliations they are forced to accept legally or socially by a society that they every right to be a part of as all of us do.

And this is the worst part.  It is physically impossible for White America to walk our path and to know our truth. Apologies to John Howard Griffin, but can only empathize.  Many gay and Transgender men and women are every bit of Black and American as I am. If anything it shouldn’t be that hard to know what it feels like to live a life in society’s margins. Their Black lives matter as much as mine. But with the circumstances of their sexual or gender identity, as well as their racial identity being constantly at odds with the expectations of our societal standards, they EASILY walk a harder path than anything I could EVER experience on my worse day!

Now, I cannot accuse anyone in particular of blatant discrimination, but as clear as I’ve see White Americans step up to the plate for Black Lives, we have to accept the truth in our community, that in our own lives, we have not returned the favor to a community we definitely can and should empathize with. And frankly, it shouldn’t take a shared struggle for us to realize this. And it shouldn’t even have to take us knowing someone who is gay or transgender and wanting them to be happy and safe like you would want for ANYONE who you love and respect. Even that is a disgracefully low bar. Yes, I have gay friends. But damnit, they’re human. That is the standard for which we all should demand dignity and rights. I shouldn’t have to know you to know your life matters.

So, despite the outward appearance of the X-Men’s Nightcrawler and Angel, who can hardly hide who they are, they are still on the same team of Jean Grey and Rogue who are just an action away from being outed as a societal outcast.  They obviously have their differences, but they are still one team. They fight the same fight against ignorance and hate from people who can never understand their path.  Just same, we share some of the very same stressors and microaggressions as the LGBT community. They understand the code-switching and moderating how you sound and act to be more socially accepted. They know what it feels like to not feel welcomed in certain places and with certain people because despite however much they try subjects and behaviors makes it hard to fit in.  They definitely can understand negative and dangerous assumptions of sexuality and state of mind that are way too often thrusted upon us as well.  They can’t help being gay no more than I can help being Black. It’s a part of who I am, as it’s who they are. So why can’t we join them in the fight for the same respect and dignity that they have fought for themselves? How dare we expect White America to join us and our struggle, but we refuse to join the LGBT Community for theirs? Yes, being black in America is hard enough alone. But damnit, we’re not expecting White folks to fight our fight. We just want them to give a shit and respect our lives as much as their own.

That is not a lot to ask. And I, for one, have the capacity to do the same for people I know have the pain of acceptance as I have had in my own life.

We know what they experience is wrong. We know we don’t accept it for ourselves. But we insist on treating them and their lives with the same regard we reject in our own. And that has to stop. Yes we fight different villains. But they all have the same superpower of hate and ignorance. We know how to defend and fight against it. Fight for their team too. Because they are already on ours.