Yep, you know the same guy who as president did something that today’s GOP politician would consider sacrilege? Uh huh, Reagan raised taxes something like eleven times. Yep, seven times in his first term, and four more times in the second when he did’t have to according to former GOP Senator, Alan Simpson. Don’t believe me, just ask Douglas Brinkley, the historian who edited Reagan’s memoir who said the Reagan anti-tax zealot was “false mythology.”

But let today’s GOP tell it, Reagan did this because he was envious of rich people; so naturally, he went the class warfare route. Yep, and he did this while adding more to the federal deficit than any other president in history before him. No seriously, most of that current fifteen Kazillion dollar debt came from Reagan; but, nobody ever says that. Nor do they mention how unemployment rose to 10.8% after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Why they never mention this? See the GOP 12th commandment.

But no, president Obama has been bouncing checks left and right in the name of the United States of America; all the while pawning the country’s future to the Chinese. And mind you, these are the same people who would love nothing more than to start a war with Iran over what? Their right to turn on a light switch or two powered by electricity from a nuclear power plant. But naw, they tell us that they’re building a bomb over there and their intent is to wipe little cousin Israel off the map.

Which is pretty fucking stupid because it isn’t like Israel and Iran aren’tneighbors. I mean, wouldn’t dropping a bomb on them be sorta like lighting a stick of dynamite in your own house in an attempt to kill a fucking cockroach? I don’t know, I could be wrong, but then again, I’m no Republican. Speaking of which, take a few minutes to check out this classic from one of my favorite comedians, the late George Carlin. In the following clip, he tells the truth about Republicans and in particular, something about the Reagan administration that is never mentioned; at least not by Republicans.

I’m sure the question is being asked, then, where am I going with this?
It’s really quite simple (and thank you for asking, by the way)… the “revolution” we need is not tied to any anarchist “chant down Babylon” or overthrow the government measures. Warren Buffett is quoted as saying

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.”

As I understand it, Congress themselves would have a hand in making this into law, and in such will NEVER cut their own heads off when many of them are treating this as an entitled lifetime job, thanks to nepotism, partisan politics and dumb luck. Hell, a perfunctory Google search of “Congressmen by age” tells me that 38 of them are beyond the normal US retirement age of 67 already. That suggests to me that you would either have to drag them from their positions kicking and screaming, being them out in a coffin or simply elect someone else into their place.
Wait, you mean to tell me that these are elected positions and these incompetent lummoxes are in their positions after enough people made the subjective decision to allow them to remain there? I will not go into what that does to my opinion of the voting public, except to say “shit, we all make mistakes sometimes,” but we can SURELY do something to fix it.

Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, & Eric Cantor: A Portrait of Obstructionism

If any of us came in to work on Monday morning and did as SHITTY a job as Congress does, then we could expect to be fired by Tuesday. When one factors in the fact that some members of Congress go out of their way to dig in their heels and PURPOSELY not do some things that make sense simply because of WHO presented said ideas would be akin to insubordination and should also be met with a firing.
Since the only way to get a Senator or House Rep “fired” is for them to break a law, the people should take these things into their own hands and fire them ourselves.

“How?” You ask? Every other year for the House and every 6 years for the Senate, the incumbents are up for re-election. If the sitting members have presided over a skid as many in place have between the end of the Clinton administration, then on through the Bush and now Obama years, then they too should be fired by simply not being re-elected.

Never mind party affiliation, never mind who is Liberal, Conservative, Moderate or what the hell ever. If a sitting Congress oversees a continuing quagmire as we’re currently in, the only sensible decision is to simply vote for whoever opposes the incumbent. No, don’t stop and consider friends or party members when doing so, no one should recognize anyone who remains on the other side of this. Considering that all but 12 were born in 1960 or before, we could call this an “early retirement” at best, and most effectively a “firing.” Either way you slice it, the voting public showing up en masse to show their Congresspersons that they WILL show up and get rid of the dead weight politicians who claim to love America out of one side of their mouth, but show with their actions something wholly different, that they must go and if the next group coming in cannot get their act together, then they too will be removed.

On the whole, this would put an end to career politicians who have made their lives dangling the proverbial carrot in front of their constituents as a means of preserving their own pensions when none of the people who put them in that position will be so lucky. It would also show sitting members of congress that the voters are no longer interested in taking any shit. If you want to remain in your position, then the onus is wholly on you as a group to HONESTLY reach across the aisle for solutions beneficial to the American public, lest you will soon BECOME a member of the general American public.

If the fear of an accelerated tumble from grace doesn’t scare them into getting it together, then I am out of ideas.
Ladies and gentlemen, FIRE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!!!

-Phlip
Callmephlip.blogspot.com
@CallMePhlip

However, just for shit’s and giggles — because we know nothing like a moon colony will ever be realized — do me a favor and list the top ten people Newt can take with him to his moon base colony with him, will you? This should be fun! Like you I could name more than ten people, but let’s try to be realistic – we can’t get rid of everybody. Yep, if only we were that lucky, right?

Now today I’m hearing something quite embarrassing from one of the state’s lawmakers. According to GOP Rep. Stacey Campfield, there’s not possible way that anyone can contract the deadly HIV/AIDS virus through heterosexual contact. OK, lemme break it down for some of you slow people: he said there is no way in hell that if a man and woman sleeps together that HIV/AIDS can be contracted. In other words, the only way anyone can get AIDS is by being homosexual. Hopefully you know this is bullshit, right?

This via Raw Story:

Rep. Stacey Campfield (R)

Tennessee state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R) falsely claimed on Thursday that it was nearly impossible for someone to contract AIDS through heterosexual contact.

“Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community,” he told Michelangelo Signorile, who hosts a radio program on SiriusXM OutQ. “It was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall.”

“My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex.”

It is generally accepted that at some point HIVcrossed species from chimps to humans, but there is no evidence that this was caused by bestiality. Rick Sowadsky of the Nevada State Health Division AIDS program noted in 1998 that it highly unlikely that HIV was transmitted through inter-species sexual contact, given the behavior of chimps and the differences between the sexual anatomy of humans and other primates.

According to the the Center for Disease Control, male-to-male sexual contact has been the most common way to transmit AIDS, followed by injection drug use and heterosexual sex.

Campfield briefly gained national attention in 2011 when he introduced legislation that critics derided as “the don’t say gay bill.”

“[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce,” he told Signorile. “It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality. That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school.”

To think that such ignorance actually exists in 2012 is astounding. I mean, the dude that introduced the world to AIDS was a pilot who screwed a monkey? Oh, and it’s just a disease exclusive to gay men? I’m sorry, but this idiot should be locked in a room on some far remote island and not ever allowed to leave. Come to think of it, he definitely needs to be one of the people Newt Gingrich takes with him to colonize the moon. Yep, that’s where all racist, bigots, and xenophobes should go.

I guess this doofus hasn’t heard of women contracting HIV/AIDS. But even if he did, something tells me that this isn’t the type of information he’d like to see kids learn in a school textbook. Why mention something as vile as homosexuality (which is akin to bestiality) in textbooks, right?

The comments of the East Haven mayor, Joe Maturo ignited a firestorm of controversy on top of an already volatile situation. Maturo’s infamous “taco” comment rightfully sparked rage among the people of Connecticut and of the entire country. Calls for his resignation have been made based on his racist remarks. The thing is, Joe Maturo should NOT be forced to resign because of a single interview.

Joe Maturo made a blatantly racist comment, one that construes an attack on the entire Latino population.  That is an egregious offense and Maturo needs to suffer the repercussions. However, Maturo committed  far more dangerous and insidious acts of violence against the Latino community of East Haven. If Maturo should be removed from office, it should be because he allowed a culture of violence and brutality persist in his police force. He should be removed from office because he re-appointed police chief Leonard Gallo (a co-conspirator in the crimes of the officers who were arrested) while there was still an ongoing federal investigation..  He should be forced to step down because he has blinders on when it comes to the racist practices of his police force, and has proven to be a staunch defender of white supremacy in East Haven. The “taco” comment, while extremely offensive, only serves as confirmation of Maturo’s disdain for the Latino community in East Haven.

Maturo has proven through his actions that he is unfit as a leader. Calling for his resignation based on ONE COMMENT he made is the wrong tactic. Simply put, if the focus is on ousting Maturo because of a single comment, rather than on his abysmal record concerning the people of color in his community, then Maturo gets to play the victim. He gets to sit back and claim he was pushed out because he “misspoke”. He gets to play the victim, to be a “martyr”. If we call for Maturo to be removed from office it should be based on the entirety of his behavior as mayor, not on a single remark, as offensive as it was.

“I was struck quite deeply by the Mayor’s words as they showed just that: racism. How can a man in such a position lead a community to healing, reconciliation and a better future when thru his words he reveals what is in his heart. Even the way he said it showed not only arrogance, but a kind of contempt. You’re right it kind of brought to my mind images of the old recordings you see from the 1960′s where the minorities are viewed as subhuman by the authorities.

The treatment of minorities in East Haven has been a badly kept secret in the Hispanic community for a long time… How can I spend my hard earned money in a community where its leaders show contempt for me?Last night I couldn’t sleep because I felt so angry. I kept thinking of how I show that hurt and anger in a positive way. Was thinking of sending Maturo tacos for lunch and encouraging others to do the same.”

• “How a Quiet Suburb’s Police Force Drove Out Latinos”

I will never forget the first time my mother called me a faggot. It was Thanksgiving 2004. We had just gotten home from visiting my grandfather in the hospital. My mother and I had gotten into a fight, something that had become quite common since she was diagnosed with several serious mental illnesses in years prior. Driving home I had switched the radio station, which I assume triggered some distant memory as we began to dance a radio tango. She switched the station and I would switch it back.

Mother: “You better start showing me some damn respect. I’m your mother.”

Me: “I’ll show you some respect when you start acting like a mother.”

She went on to slap me across the face as the car was in motion causing my face to hit the driver’s side window. I swerved into oncoming lanes of traffic. Luckily, no cars were coming.

Finally, we made it home and the verbal aggressions continued. My mother looked me dead in the face with her cold, hollow eyes I thought I had become desensitized to. She venomously spewed the words, “Why don’t you suck a dick you faggot?” Suddenly, the tears streamed down my face masking whatever rage was boiling inside of me. How could my own mother say something like that to me?

This was the turbulent memory a climactic scene in Dee Rees’ Pariah brought me back to during a pre-screening of the highly anticipated film a few weeks ago. As 17-year old Alike, played by Adepero Oduye, navigates the blossoming of her sexuality, she also begins defining various parts of her identity in spite of what her mother, Audrey, wishes. Similar to my mother, Audrey, played by Kim Wayans, battles her own issues of love. Their shared issues include insecurity, living their lives based upon very rigid definitions of what it means to be a woman and mother, and perhaps even forgetting to take medication(s). Audrey’s rigid definitions meant she needed to submit to her husband for the sake of imagery, maintain a respectable (read: feminine) appearance and uphold her self against impossibly perfect standards.

Wayans’ performance is riveting, given many of us are familiar with her more comedic roles. Though some will find it hard to sympathetize with her character, Audrey is offered more humanity than I have seen tackled in other films. So often an individual possessing Audrey’s homophobic, narrow beliefs is viewed unsympathetically. We do not want to hear the stories that inform their views or why they are the way they are, despite our disagreement. We simply don’t care to listen. Pariah forces us to bear witness to some of homophobia’s catalysts, if only subliminally.

Throughout the film, I was captivated by Alike’s relationship to her mother. In one scene, I watched as Alike said exactly what she needed to say to her mother in order to begin releasing the demons her mother attempted to plant within Alike. I love you.

As tears flow down Audrey’s face (and my own), audiences capture a glimpse of the inner turmoil Audrey’s rigidity leaves with her. She is miserable. She has spent the majority of her life placing faith in ideas that have only served to isolate her. Audrey would rather remain faithful to those beliefs than begin the process of re-evaluating her relationship to those beliefs and her family.

Living in a culture that teaches us our parents are the people who will teach us about our identity, Alike and I know better. For some of us, our parents exit our lives for various reasons. It becomes our friends and lovers who help shape how we identify and express ourselves in the world. Perhaps our parents re-enter. Perhaps they don’t. As Alike’s relationship with her mother deteriorates, she spends a great deal of time talking with her best friend, Laura, played by Pernell Walker, about being sexual with other women, fantasizing and what it means to be an “AG”—a term some women of color use to identify aggressive lesbians.

Eventually Alike meets Bina, played by Aasha Davis, and their exchange provides insight and plenty of social commentary on what identity means, including a conversation on being gay gay, I do not believe it is their relationship Rees wants us focused on. It is not the obvious intimacy between Alike and Bina or Alike’s relation to Audrey that makes Pariah a love story.

The most fascinating relationship in this film is the one Alike has with her self. Beginning the film, Alike is timid about who she is and curious about what she likes. However, through her experiences with other women, like Laura, Bina and Audrey, we see Alike blossom until she can verbally confirm her parents’ suspicions and come out to her mother and father. It gets messy and scars are left, seen and unseen. Like so many of us, Alike takes her negative experiences and transforms them into a pathway for self-discovery.

Rees takes us on this journey, Alike’s expedition towards self-love and acceptance. In the film’s final scenes, Alike recites a poem written in her journal. The voice over plays as we watch Alike step into the many new beginnings of her life. She reads:

Heartbreak opens onto the sunrise.

For even breaking is opening and I am broken.

I am open.

See the love shine in through my cracks.

See the light shine out through me.

My spirit takes journey.

My spirit takes flight, and I am not running, I am choosing.

I am broken.

I am broken open.

Breaking is freeing.

Broken is freedom.

I am not broken.

I am free.

Alike’s freedom begins when she unleashes the pain her mother inflicts upon her and lovingly releases the hold her pain had. Releasing our pain is a choice. The choice is the difference between being held captive and freedom. But this wound takes time to heal.

As I left the theatre, I wondered if Alike’s path to forgiveness would be as tumultuous and expansive as my own. After all, cinema is constricted; in real time, these processes occur in phases. Forgiving her mother on-screen took less than thirty minutes; forgiving my mother in real life took several years. In relating to the story, I wondered if Alike would eventually face similar difficulties. Was the process of forgiveness over for Alike? Would she relapse? How many attempts would she make to reconcile her relationship with her mother before she deemed it hopeless? Was it hopeless? Would she eradicate the internalized homophobia from her mind? One thing was certain: Alike had the power to look in the mirror and see her beauty, inside and out.

Once You Go Black, discussing the politics of examining Black-queer-intellectual life, Robert Reid-Pharr states, “The real action of both politics and culture always takes place at the surface and in the present. Though our efforts at memorialization and recovery may prove to be incredibly important therapeutic strategies, they nonetheless would be hard-pressed to stop a war.” His sentiment expresses the significance of healing and how recovery is a part of freedom. Rees’ film is not only powerful for its narrative but also given its timing. In a moment where the spotlight has been thrust on queer youth, the political nature of Pariah lies in its ability to shine light in places the mainstream frequently overlooks.

While the film acknowledges the forging of chosen community, it also confronts homophobia in family life and how this impacts adolescence. It covers the displacement of LGBT youth who were kicked out after coming out. Yet, as we racialize and gender these numbers, they only increase. Rees’ decision to place themes of homelessness and sex work was strategic as these issues increasingly affect Black queer youth. The Center for American Progress highlights that homeless gay youth have strong racial divides. Black gay youth make up approximately forty-four percent of homeless youth, while Black transgender youth are a staggering sixty-two percent. 

As a white gay man, I was able to watch and listen to Alike’s story and tackle parallels between our journeys and mothers. But I constantly had to remind myself of the distinctions separating our narratives, the obvious being I am not Black nor am I lesbian. These distinctions left me walking out of the theatre with hypothetical questions. After leaving her family behind, would Alike find community in the imaginary safety of some mythically inclusive gay metropolis or be outcast as a Black lesbian? Would she be told the money of “her kind” was not wanted in a mediocre queer establishment, as was the case in a Chicago gay nightclub in 2010?

I worry how this film will be celebrated within various queer circles, if at all. My hope is that we do not participate in the too-common practice of de-racializing films, as Pariah is clearly Black. One can count the number of white actors in this film on one hand. Then there is the obvious fact this film centers on one Black family and the complexities of their lives together. In my opinion, Pariah was intended to be a conversation film for Black communities, conversations that need to be had from within and do not need to include white folks.

I hope Pariah will not be placed within the larger queer canon of painting Black families as more homophobic than the rest of society, as we see happening in the age of Obama. Oddly enough, the people making these claims rarely offer sources or stress the pervasive reach of anti-Black racism. Some of the film’s themes are certainly universal, as other reviews have highlighted. However, I think it is imperative we continue to address this film for exactly what it is: Black lesbian cinema. As is the case with many “universally-themed” films, certain elements of the feature become less salient as they garner popularity.

One of the most beautifully bittersweet things about Pariah is that Rees does not seem too concerned with these questions. She gives this film the life it was intended to have: one version of Black lesbianism. However, the questions and challenges that surface from Alike’s inspirational narrative offer each of us an opportunity to self-reflect, as individuals working towards a collective end.

Alike’s story is told with nuance and integrity in a way many films lack today. Rees’ work does not mimic reality, it captures it. Pariah reminds us that regardless of what we have been told in life or how we have been made to feel, we are beautiful and deserving. We can, and must, heal. We are worthy of love from others but, most importantly, from ourselves.

Pariah is in select theatres January 21, 2012.

2011 Trailer

In what should be filed as “shit you just can’t make up,” for news stations and organizations, comes the l;atest news of Tennessee Tea Party activists presenting a list of demands to our state legislators. It would appear that said activists are not happy with quite a few things here in the Volunteer State. So much so that they even held a press conference to discuss their grievances with the general public. Not a very long list; however, a few of the items listed may sound like a joke, or something from a comedy sketch.

According to reports, Hal Rounds, Fayette County attorney and spokesman for the group at a recent press conference, there have been “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.” Yep, you heard that right; there have been “made-up criticisms,” Rounds continued, “The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at.”

So what exactly does the Tea Party propose to this most egregious historical mis-characterization of the Founding Fathers and American history?

During the news conference more than two dozen Tea Party activists handed out material that said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

And that further teaching would also include that “the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy.”

The group demanded, as they had in January of last year, that Tennessee lawmakers change state laws governing school curricula. The group called for textbook selection criteria to include: “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.” (source)

Hal Rounds Loves America; Minorities, Not So Much

Now this isn’t the first time they’ve done this. They pulled the same stunt this time last year. Back then, according to The Memphis Commercial Appeal, Hal Rounds then said, there should be “no portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Now how absurd is that? History should reflect the truth as told by the fucking Tennessee Tea Party? So lemme guess, history in the state of Tennessee is supposed to start with Christopher Columbus sailing up the Mississippi River, Pilgrims landing in Memphis and having a nice dinner with other white people hence Thanksgiving, and skipping over slavery and all of that so as to not offend the sanctity that was the founding Fathers? Yep, no Civil Rights Movement, no Martin Luther King Jr. who was killed in Memphis, and has a nationally observed holiday named after him; yep, none of that. Because to do so would undermine the false notion that white folks were once a bunch of evil people because clearly they’re not like that anymore because, we’re post-racial now? Shit, for the Tea party’s sake, it’s too bad Barack Obama didn’t become president in the 1960s.

Regarding education, the material they distributed said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

You just gotta love America. A country which goes around the world and force-feed democracy and freedom on others, but unwilling to tell the truth about the treatment of Native Americans and other minorities in the state of Tennessee at least. Yep, even the ones who have “reached positions of leadership.” I swear, all this racism is gonna be the death of me one day; hell, and I live here.

So much for the notion of the Tea Party not being racist.

“The detachment between reality and what he says is so extraordinary, I was just shaking my head as I watched the TV last night,”

And this fool had the gall to continue by saying that president Obama is, “imperiling the future of America.” Now I watched the speech last night, and, well, err, let’s just say that in no way am I feeling “imperiled,” about America’s future right now. I’m not sure if much of what the president proposed will become reality this year, or even if he gains a second term. But, be that as it may, I feel somewhat encouraged. Yep, I’m especially encouraged when I hear the Monday morning quarterbacking from GOP pundits, politicians, and prognosticators. I am, because what they’re saying suggests to me that they are the ones fearful of losing. I mean why wouldn’t you be when you tell everyone that the guy in charge is messing things up while the economy improves. Mind you, the GOP has done nothing by way of passing any form of legislation that we can credit them for improving the economy. Yeah, if I were them, I’d be a little afraid; and no, not just a little bit either.

Yes I Made More Money Than Obama, And Yes I paid Less Taxes Than Him

Clearly Mitt is having problems connecting with all those people corporations who will be deciding on just who the eventual GOP presidential nominee will be. This explains why he — like his competition — will say anything to appeal to voters by making president Obama out to be the worst thing that’s happened to America since 9/11. He’ll continue to say these things, release photos of himself doing his own laundry, or maybe even photos of him hand washing the draws of a homeless person at a shelter to show that he really cares about struggling Americans in the middle class he’s just a regular guy. But the next time anyone tells you that president Obama has done nothing to get the economy going. Ask them if flying over a hurricane ravaged city while Americans are on rooftops begging for help qualifies as doing something. And if they get real slick like they often do when they challenge me by bringing up Black unemployment. Tell them that there are Black people still on rooftops in New Orleans waiting to be rescued by George W. Bush, especially since the Republican lead Congress hasn’t done a damn thing to help anybody unemployed in this country.

One job president Obama needs to create, is that of an official angry translator like this…

I can’t imagine myself saying aloud that people of color are not deserving of citizenship and are “illegal”. I would never bring myself to say that inner city kids could dumpster-dive for food during school breaks instead of the government increasing Food Stamps and other benefit programs (so that they can eat!). I cannot imagine myself saying people with same sex/same gender loving attractions are worst than terrorists. So I honestly, genuinely, sincerely wonder what flows through Rick Santorum’s mind when he says things like, ‘well, rape sucks but if God blesses you with a kid, you gotta deal with it because abortion is bad.’ I mean, did anybody seem him on Piers Morgan?

Now, admittedly, I may have caused a bit more of a ruckus than Piers Morgan and argued that point, but whatever. Conception, conshmeption. Maybe I’d have said, ‘Okay, Mr. Santorum, Should rape victims be thankful for the risk of sexually transmitted infections resulting from forced intercourse which, I assume, was unprotected since a child was conceived?’ I expect that he would know not how to respond. Or maybe he would. I can’t imagine where his mind would go from there. I might find myself questioning a bit harder.

Come On, What Am I Supposed To Say?

‘Mr. Santorum, did you know that victims of sexual assaultare 3 times more likely to suffer from depression, 6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, 13 times more likely to abuse alcohol, 26 times more likely to abuse drugs, and 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide?’

I would like a genuine response to his lack of concern about the welfare of victims, but I anticipate, especially given his devote Catholicism, that he’d discuss how killing herself after the rape is also the victim’s fault. I’d probably get angry, but I’d likely want to continue to engage. So I’d say, ‘Mr. Santorum, you realize that post-traumatic stress disorder comes POST trauma, correct? And that because someone else assumed power to violate a victim’s body, they’ve been traumatized to the point that they no longer want to live? That 13% of all rape victims make serious suicide attempts?‘

And when he gets too frustrated or speechless to address me, or simply satisfied with himself that he can call me another angry Black woman, I’m certain that he’ll want to leave the conversation. So, as a final attempt to appeal to his logic, and while I know the argument is equally about abortion as it is about rape/sexual assault and less about race, I’d probably say quietly to him as a checkmate to satisfy myself, ‘OK, sir. How would you feel if your either woman in your life became pregnant as a result of a rape by a Black man?’

I think I could get through to him.

I know that this is not proper thinking. I am not promoting an idea about Black masculinity. What I am saying is that we know how fondly Mr. Santorum is of Black people; we also know that not-a-one of these racist Republicans want their daughters speaking to Black men, let alone willingly engaging in sexual intercourse with any. You think if someone he loved was raped by a Black man he wouldn’t rush them to an abortion provider and pay for it himself? You out your mind.