Black Girl Magic as Religion: bell hooks, Kamala Harris & Keisha Lance Bottoms

What's good, y'all? Welcome back to the Onyx Report. Black masculinist news for the day. Hoping everybody's well. Like, share, subscribe, join, donate, hit the like button, support the show so we can continue to bring you this independent black male thought.

All right, y'all. Uh, you know the deal. Some shows I deal with the sacred black masculine, others I don't. It's an organic thing that happens as things cross my desk. So, they can be things from a century ago. They can be something from yesterday or nothing at all if it just hasn't happened that day.

Well, today I have two. Although, one is uh a bit of a an RIP, if you will. You know, shout out to Sunny Rollins, saxophonist, restless genius of jazz, dead 95 years old. Right. This is ABC News dated May 25th, 2026. Uh, Sunny Rollins, the legendary tenor saxophonist known for his bold tone and constant experimentation, has died at 95. Right. Nice picture of him. New York. Uh, the tenor saxophonist and restless [music] genius whose bold, distinctive tone and constant experimentation kept him on the cutting edge of jazz for more than 50 years died Monday at 95. Spokesman Terry Hint told the Associated Press that Rollins died at his home in Woodstock, New York. She cited no specific cause of death, but said he had been largely housebound for the past couple years because of various physical problems.

From his early days as a teen phenom to his more measured solo work and experimentation um with free jazz, Rollins was revered for his improvisational skill. He was one of the last living greats of the Bbop era and along with John uh John Coltrane and Charlie Parker, one of the most influential saxophonists of his time. Rock fans got a dose of his music with the Rolling Stones 1981 album Tattoo You, which features Rollins' wistful sax solo on the ballad "Waiting on a Friend," devised after watching Mick Jagger dance. Despite his enduring success, Rollins was never quite satisfied with his art, occasionally taking lengthy hiatuses from playing and consistently adopting eclectic new styles. He always referred to himself as a work in progress, saying he wasn't one of those artists who settle into one way of playing. While his early Bbop work was the most popular with his fans, Rollins never looked back, saying he found it excruciating to even listen to the flaws in his older recordings. "I don't consider myself a musician that has learned as much as I want to learn," he told the Associated Press in in 2007. In the 90s and the 2000s, he released a string of critically acclaimed albums. He maintained a rigorous practice regimen and continued to tour into his 80s. Pulmonary fibrosis, a thickening and damaging of the lungs, would eventually force him into retirement. He played his last concert in 2012 and stopped playing altogether in 2014. Damn. Right.

While he missed the adoration of crowds, he missed the actual playing more. "I played a couple of concerts early on where I was out in the open in the afternoon. Uh, I felt [music] a communication. I felt that I was part of something, not the crowd, something bigger," he said in 2020.

Now, I will say this when it comes to what I've heard from some some elders about living long and living well, and that is um, you know, staying tied to your purpose. Um, I once taught at uh a summer program in New Mexico. This is in the, you know, the 2000s, uh, when I was still in graduate school. My son had been born. So, it's after 2005. So I taught a summer class in New Mexico and I was out there and I met a senior scholar who had retired and he sat me down once and he said something. I didn't even know him, but he just decided to share with me. He said, "You know, look," he said, "all of my friends and associates my age. He said, "When we retired, the moment we sat down and turned the TV on, those guys began to die." And he said, "And they have literally all died off." He said, "I'm different. He said, "I never sat down." He said, "I never turn the TV on." He said, "Every day I, you know, shower, get dressed, head out the house in the morning." He said, "I golf, I teach, I do whatever." He said, "I just stay active." And he said, and I can't remember how old he was, but I want to say he was in his he was in his 80s and he was spry. He was active. He was mobile, you know, he was doing his thing. He said, "The moment you sit down is when you begin to die."

So anyway, it seems to be the case with Sunny Rollins. uh, who stayed busy, lived to 95. Shout out to him. Much respect.

Now, on the second front, as far as the sacred black masculine, this is going to be very brief. Well, I don't know how brief it is, but we'll see. Uh, but this is a shout out to the Freedom House, right? And you can see in the image here, Freedom House Ambulance Service, right? Black men built the system that taught America how to save lives. Um, all right. Says, it reads, "Before 911 existed the way it does today, a medical emergency in a black neighborhood could mean one thing. A cop showed up or a mortician. No treatment, no CPR, no IV, just a [music] ride." That changed in 1967 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Group of foundational black American men from the Hill District were recruited to become something that had never existed before, trained paramedics. These men went through 300 hours of training. They learned to intubate. They learned to read heart monitors. They learned to start IVs in the back of a moving vehicle. One of them was named John Moon. He became the first paramedic to intubate a patient in the field, not in a hospital, in the field. That technique is still used today every time a paramedic saves someone's life before they ever reach a hospital. They called their unit Freedom House Ambulance Services. And their standard uh, their standards became the model for modern EMS across the entire country. Most people riding in an ambulance today have no idea who helped build that system. Now you do. So shout out to the brothers that have performed that uh, demonstrated that, lived that history so that we are still here now.

Anyway, so that's that's the we'll wrap with that as far as the sacred black masculine, but uh, always like to shout out brothers who have been doing their thing uh, often without fanfare. Right.

So now we're going to talk a little bit today about black girl magic, ma, black girl magic as religion. Bell Hooks, Kamala Harris, and Keisha Lance Bottoms. And why am I talking about this? Well, I'm noticing [music] some patterns that I think need to be called out. And I would say, even though I wouldn't call it a black girl magic movement, I'll use that term in the moment simply to point out what I'm talking about. This movement amongst black women that has prioritized only black women and many in many ways has set itself against black men, despite how often black men support it and demonstrate that we are the most progressive men, like it or not. Right? It continues to operate in its own fashion. It's fairly collective. It's pretty persistent and it remains solipsistic, whatever this movement is. Right? And these black feminists that have been mobilizing this political movement for decades, you know, often overlooking that their leadership positions, both in politics and the academy, have been fraught with problematic behavior. Whether you're talking about embezzlement, whether you're talking about corruption, or whether you're talking about exploitation, what we've seen on a consistent basis is a high standard when applied to black men and a dubious one when applied to black women, especially when those black women are caught acting questionably in their positions of authority. Right? They've developed a pretty myopic political focus that pretty much alienates black men while in and of itself lacking accountability.

Well, what do I mean? Well, the first thing I'm going to talk about today is this piece written by Bell Hooks. And this is a piece that has to do with uh the question of erotic student-faculty relationships. Now, I can say as a professor, I've been teaching now for almost 30 years. I think I'm, wait a minute. I think so, in 28, it'll be 30 years. So, I'm about 28 years in. Um, I've seen a lot of this and I've seen it both ways. Um, as far as faculty and student relationships, sometimes depending on the age, it can be, you know, illegal. Uh, other times just considered uh problematic, but, you know, it's kind of a weird focus. When men initiate it, even if it's legal, it's frowned upon. You know, if men, if male professors are dealing with female students, it's frowned upon. And you can find ways to be eliminated from your position uh in certain circumstances, even with tenure. When women do it, it's not talked about at all. It's almost never talked about. I've rarely run across a situation where it's been outwardly discussed when female teachers sleep with their students. My first introduction to this was uh in undergrad. You know, I had been petitioned by a couple of professors and administrators. And I won't uh, I won't uh, I won't actually say that I didn't dabble in those invitations, even though I was usually between 18 and 20. That's really when it happened. And most of them were over 40, you know. So as a young man, it was an experiment. And there were no, I mean, it wasn't a violation. It wasn't illegal in that sense. You know, I wasn't being uh, you know, raped or anything of that nature. But I noticed that there were no moral condemnations of those people, administrators or faculty people, right? There were no, there was no pushback on an institutional level. None of that occurred. It was just something nobody talked about. But I noticed even in undergrad when it was male teachers doing it, there was a kind of sense of condemnation, right? And by the time I got to graduate school at Temple, I was 21 going into my M.A. program and I saw it, you know, much more in your face at that point. It was readily talked about, you know, which professors slept with students, sometimes for grades, sometimes uh, you know, there were accusations that um, you know, some certain faculty were stealing their students' work and publishing it and, you know, but at the same time, having trading sex for grades. It was all kind of stuff going on. And this wasn't, I'm not blaming Temple and I'm definitely not blaming African-American studies. What I found out in my masters was that this was pretty common across disciplines. It wasn't. I'm not at all arguing this is something that just African-Americans were doing in African-American studies. No, this was happening across the board. I just didn't know until I entered grad school and all of a sudden, you know, the discussion was a lot more straightforward, you know, whereas when I was in undergrad, it was kind of like high school. It was something you may hear about here or there. I mean, there was always that story that, you know, the the famous quarterback at the high school finally got to sleep with the Spanish teacher or something, but there was never any, you know, full evidence. It was it was always rumor. But by the time I got to graduate school, it was pretty straightforward, you know. And I remember my one of my first classes, there was a senior faculty woman um, and I remember her name to this day. She's no longer with us, but I remember she stood up and gave a lecture on the very first day. And one of the things she talked about was how it should be common and acceptable that a female professor should be able to sleep with her students in exchange for good grades and that he should be able to provide her services fixing things around her house and carrying her luggage, going with her on conferences and trips, that this should be something that should be accepted. And I remember I'm sitting in this class with my jaw on the floor. Partially because she kept looking looking at me when she said it, but also because this was something that nobody seemed to have a problem with. Now, I'm not, you know, I didn't have a problem with, you know, faculty and students engaging each other sexually as long as it wasn't illegal and there was no age issue as far as being underage, but in exchange for grades, that took it into a whole another area. That bothered me, right?

Anyway, so this is a piece apparently, I'm not, we'll see if I read the whole thing or not, but this is written by Bell Hooks on the question of erotic student-faculty relationships. This is on Dank Professor's web blog, a web blog examining sexual politics and higher education and beyond. And let's see what it says, right? Following are key excerpts from an article by feminist author Bell Hooks, "Passionate Pedagogy: Erotic Student-Faculty Relationships" in Z Magazine in 1996. Ironically, this was the very year I had this exchange or I had this moment in my class in grad school. So, it's interesting. This is one of the best articles written on the subject and I urge readers to savor and critically scrutinize this article.

So, Bell Hooks says, "When I became a professor, I was amazed at the extent to which students, male and female, approached me for romantic and/or sexual encounters. Like many unattached female professors in the academy, I was constantly the subject of student gossip. Often the students I love the most did the most talking. When I complained to them about their obsession with my sex life, they simply responded by telling me to get a grip and accept that it goes with the turf."

Now, I'll be clear. I don't get, you know, I've never, you know, gotten students who asked me about my sex life. Uh, well, that's not true. You know, usually only the brothers when uh, we set up Onyx uh, you know, as a dialogue space [music] and we would talk about real life experiences, but for the most part, in general, no. It's not something I generally would get approached about and I wouldn't invite it because one of the things I learned very early on as a black male professor is that your career is in the hands of every 17-year-old girl walking that campus and having open open sexual conversations um can be a very dangerous thing for a male professor, especially a black male professor. So I would not recommend it except in choice circumstances where you can trust the the person involved. And for me, it was under the it was under the auspices of uh, guiding young black men on navigating the environment, the academic environment on sexual terms, how to do so, you know, without uh, ending your career.

So anyway, uh, she said, "They wanted to understand female sexual agency. They wanted to know how women professors are coping with working in patriarchal institutions and how we were juggling issues of sexual desirability, agency and careerism. They saw us as charting the path they will follow. Many of these students were more than hip to the dangers of getting involved with someone older and more powerful. Contemporary feminist movement has usually interrogated the way men in power within patriarchal culture often use that power to abuse and sexually coerce females. That necessary critical intervention is undermined when it obscures recognition of the way in which desire can be acknowledged in relationships between individuals where there is an unequal power within uh, without being abusive. It is undermined."

Now, that's interesting because when feminists talk about male professors or administrators having sex with female students or so on and so forth, um, the argument is often that that power imbalance can't be made up for. It can't be dismissed. It can't be uh, seen uh, in any other kind of way as as other than as an exploitation of power. But it's interesting to hear this tone in Hooks' work where she's saying that this unequal power can be uh, you know, dealt with without being abusive as long as it's female professors who are initiating the situation. So that's interesting to me. Um, it's not surprising entirely, but it is interesting. Let's see. Okay. All right. Where do I leave off here? Uh, okay. As long as fe uh, Oh, it it is undermined when any individual who is in a less powerful position is represented as being absolutely without choice, as having no agency to act on their own behalf. As long as young young females are socialized to see themselves as incapable of choosing those situations of erotic engagement which would be most constructive for their lives, they will always be more vulnerable to victimization. This does not mean that they will not make mistakes, as countless female students did when they chose to have disappointing, non-productive romantic liaisons with professors. Everyone I interviewed for this piece had no regret about these liaisons. We all um knew they did not have to be negative. The point is that we were not embracing a psychology of female victimization that would have been utterly disempowering. There is clearly a connection between uh, submitting to abuse and the extent to which any of us already feel that we are destined to be victimized."

Now, Hooks is not known for using documentation. So, even though she says she interviewed a bunch of people, we don't see any data presented, which is common for Hooks. But anyway, "The vast majority of women who are heterosexual in this society are likely to be intimate uh, be in intimate relations with men at some point in their lives who have greater status and power. However, relative, given the nature of capitalism and patriarchy, clearly, it is more important to learn ways to be just in situations where there is a power imbalance rather than to assume that exploitation and abuse are the natural outcome of all such encounters. Notice how such logic fixes those in power in ways that deny their accountability and choice by assuming that they act on behalf of their interests exclusively and that their interests will always be antithetical to the interests of those who are less powerful." Interesting. "Contemporary focus on victimization tends to leave very little cultural space for recognition of the erotic as a space of transgression that can undermine politics of domination. Rather than perceiving desire between faculty and students as always dangerous, negative, and destructive, what does it mean for us to consider the positive uses of that desire? The way the erotic can serve to enhance sexual actualization and growth. We hear much more about the way in which individuals have abused power in faculty-student relations where there is an erotic engagement. We rarely hear anything about the ways erotic desire between teacher and student enhances individual growth."

Good lord. We do not hear about the affectionate bonds that spring from erotic encounters which challenge conventional notions of what is appropriate behavior. So this is interesting. You know, up before this, it was pretty much considered a negative when male professors did this with female students. It was not talked about when female professors did this with male students or female students for that matter. Um, so there, it's interesting to see that now she's making this intervention where she's saying, look, you know, this oppressive component coming out of patriarchy does exist, but there is a way that professors can have sex with students that's okay. You didn't hear this from anybody before this. All right. So, it's interesting to hear that she's she's justifying it in in very particular contexts uh that you wouldn't have heard of prior to this. All right.

"Most professors, even the ones who are guilty, would acknowledge that it is highly problematic and usually unproductive to be romantically involved with students you are directly working with either in the classroom or or on a more individual basis. Yet, prohibitions, rules, and regulations will not keep these relationships from happening. The place of vigilance is not in forbidding such encounters but having a system that effectively prevents harassment and abuse. At every college campus in this country, there are individual male professors who are repeatedly who repeatedly harass and coerce students to engage in sexual relations. For the most part, even when they, there have been ongoing complaints, college administrators have not confronted these individuals or used the already institutionalized procedures governing harassment to compel them to stop abusive behavior. Even though everyone seems to be quite capable of recognizing the difference between those professors who abuse their power and those who may have a romantic relationship with a student that is consensual, by imposing rules and regulations that would affect all faculty and students, they deny this difference."

So she's she's suggesting that there's a difference between professors who abuse their powers and who don't. But strangely enough, most feminists used to argue that, you know, especially as long as it was men doing it, it was always an abuse. They didn't really talk a lot about when women did it, but you usually in these environments, there's no accountability and pushback anyway. So, it's not surprising that there still isn't, right? Uh, some folks want to argue there is no difference, that the student is always more vulnerable. It is true that relationships where there are serious power imbalances can be a breeding ground for victimization. They can begin with mutual consent. Yet this does not ensure that they may not become conflictual in ways that lead the more powerful party to become coercive or abusive. This is true in all relationships in life. Power must be negotiated. Part of maturing is learning how to cope with conflict. Many of these cases where students cite serious exploitation on the part of professors involve graduate students and professors. It is difficult to believe that any graduate student is not fully aware of the risks when they become erotically involved with a professor who has some control over their career. Concurrently, sexism and misogyny have uh, have to be seen as factors at work when individual powerful male professors direct their attention at exceptionally smart female graduate students uh, who easily who could easily become their competitors."

If campuses really want to effectively address the problems of abuse in faculty-student relationships, then we should be socializing undergraduates to be realistic about the problems that can arise in such encounters. So she talks about sexism and misogyny uh, only when it pertains to male professors and exceptionally smart female graduate students, but she doesn't talk about uh, misandry and the extent to which you can have female professors who exploit male students, not only because they can, but they see it as a get back against patriarchy. And this is one of the things I witnessed at a couple universities, right, where you have these overtly feminist professors who exploited male students and, you know, were basically high-fiving each other as a demonstration of their their own dominance over their male students, some of whom were in undergrad, some of whom were in grad school. I had a professor in undergrad as well who hit on me and she was at the time the director of her position and uh, it was incredibly uncomfortable. I didn't know where to go with that because I knew that this woman held my career, my future career after graduation in her hands. You know, it was a weird feeling. And, you know, I wasn't particularly attracted to her, but I was also so young, young and naive at the time, you know, cuz I want to say that was probably somewhere between sophomore and junior year, so I hadn't even entertained those questions yet. And I I didn't even know she was flirting with me. And that was probably the only thing that kept her from, you know, destroying my grade. She knew that I didn't know what she was doing. And that's probably the only thing that saved me, cuz otherwise, if, you know, had I said no to her, I wouldn't have known what her retribution might have been, you know. Um, so anyway, but it's interesting to kind of hear that she only the only reservation she has about uh, professor-student sexual dynamics is these male professors exploiting these uh, smart female graduate students. But she makes no qualifications for the even of even the possibility at least so far that male students could be violated in the same way, but on instead of misogyny, in terms of misandry, and she makes no qualification that black men don't benefit and operate in the same way as white men do. So there would be differences in that line too.

Anyway, I'm not going to read all of this, but I'll just leave it there. And um, as usual, if this is something you want access to, I can put the link in the description box if you so desire, but you can also look for Dank Professor's web blog. Apparently, this is Barry M. Dank, an emeritus professor of sociology at Cal State Long Beach, uh, where he taught students and engaged in various forms of professional dissent for some 35 years. All right, so this is my first time seeing this. Um, [music] and uh, if you guys want a part two where I finish it, let me know. Um, but anyway, I wanted to kind of put that there because we're talking about the religion of black girl magic and the treatment or at least uh, levels of accountability in regard to when black women are in positions of leadership. So, Bell Hooks, not only as a leader um, of herself in the feminist, black feminist movement, but at the various universities she's taught at, you know, there's no real discussion about accountability as it relates to black feminist professors' behavior and how they they engage others. And here we're talking about a power dynamic between professors and students that she excuses when black women engage in it or when women engage in it. And the only qualification she has for the problematic nature of it seems to be when it's a male professor. There's no acknowledgment that it can go another way. Right?

So, this is in the realm of the academy. Obviously, we're going to have a conversation now and shift over to something that's recently taking place politically. Right? So, this is uh, the 2026 elections as it relates to the Georgia results for the 2026 primaries and caucuses. And you can see on the Democrat side of things, Keisha Lance Bottoms has done well, right? 50 uh, 56.2% of the vote, 607,342 votes. So, um, she's actually done extremely well in the Democratic primary. And there's a response um, that I did not expect to see that was kind of interesting to me. Right. This is coming from uh, somebody named Kasha L. Holland. Uh, [snorts] she is the director of Lift Every Vote and Rise, a political strategist and freelance journalist. You can go to see her work at uh, Kashana Holland. Uh, and yeah, kashanaholland.net. So I hope I didn't butcher her name. And this is a short piece entitled "When Black Girl Magic Becomes a Campaign Strategy." She says, "Georgia's primary elections continue to expose a growing problem within our political culture. Voters are making emotional decisions based on branding and social media energy versus preparedness and substance. The primary season once again delivered a familiar political narrative centering on the celebration of black girl magic as both campaign branding and a voter rallying cry. As a black woman deeply engaged in the voter advocacy space, this is not a condemnation of black excellence or the cultural significance behind black girl magic. I understand firsthand the power of representation and seeing black women ascend into spaces that have historically excluded us. My concern in this moment is not identity. My concern is the growing tendency to substitute identity for leadership. Vibes are not a governing plan. The most recent wave of Black Girl Magic campaigns in Georgia has created an environment where identity-driven enthusiasm often overshadows necessary conversations about real leadership capacity."

Now, obviously, this is something that can easily be applied to Kamala Harris in the last national election. There were a lot of debates uh, in and outside the black community as to her preparedness for the presidential seat. You know, how she conducted herself in interviews, how well she was able to articulate herself. Usually, there were a lot of accusations of word salad, confusing uh, contradictory statements, unclear statements, things that, you know, really didn't give people the impression that she was prepared to sit at the top seat, top seat in the land, right? But you couldn't say that in the black community without setting off a gender war, right? Because the push in many parts, in many ways was simply about, you know, the first woman president and, you know, and from that vantage point, it was a difficult thing to have a discussion about leading up to the election itself, although many were upset that there was no primary, many were upset that, you know, she was just kind of artificially chosen, yet they couldn't point to anything that she did during her vice presidency that suggested that she was qualified, so on and so forth. So, even though I'm not sure if Miss Holland is directing her critiques directly to Kamala Harris, but you have to kind of admit that it seems like she's doing so because uh, between Keisha Lance Bottoms um, and Kamala Harris, those seem to be the two standout kind of positions that fall under what she's talking about in the last, you know, year or two, or, you know, I guess you can point at other figures, but those would be, you know, two significant ones because she starts out talking about Georgia, which is what lets you know she's also bringing in Keisha Lance Bottoms, but we just had a national election and that cannot be ignored in light of these statements.

So anyway, she says, uh, "The most recent wave of Black Girl Magic campaigns in Georgia has created an environment where identity-driven enthusiasm often overshadows necessary conversations about real leadership capacity. And while celebrating black women in politics is not the issue, treating representation as a replacement for strategy absolutely is. The election season has been littered with AI-generated photos, carefully crafted that chat uh oh, carefully crafted ChatGPT statements, emotionally driven speeches, sorority roll calls, and internet applause. However, once the primary excitement fades, these enthusiastic campaigns often head into November with no real infrastructure, lackluster fundraising, inconsistent messaging, and no viable plan to win a general election."

So, we're talking here about black girl magic not only as a campaign strategy, but more to the point, as a religion or as a way of life in all contexts. And I think many of us, many men like myself, are starting to challenge these narratives because in and of themselves, they don't point to anything substantive. Now, black men actually don't seem to have a problem with voting for women, contrary to what Barack Obama has accused black men of. And before and after that statement, black men disproved his argument. And and he didn't apologize for making it, right? The idea that black men were just sexist and that they couldn't handle a woman in power, when in actuality, there are more of us that grow up under women in power than probably any other demographic. You know, because if you're talking about, you know, female-led households, or you're talking about female-led, uh, you know, taught classes from in elementary school all the way through graduate school, men have been in environments in female-led spaces for the longest, and black men more so at home and in the institutions that children and young adults are, you know, have to attend. And yet, we're still accused of being sexist. But that doesn't mean you can't raise questions about the efficacy of a person running for position just because they're women. And there are many women that seem to believe that that is a foul, right? That that's something you're not supposed to be able to do simply because she's a woman, right? So, black men became the face of it. Black men were accused of sabotaging uh, Kamala Harris's presidential bid from the moment it was announced that she was going to be the front runner for the Democratic party. I heard accusations start that early on social media uh, coming from black feminists um, and political insiders, right? And there was this run for a couple years prior to that, you know, to get a black woman on any ticket possible. Whether you were talking about the Supreme Court, whether you were talking about any kind of electoral position, this rampant run to get black women in positions of authority. In and of themselves, black men have not demonstrated any issue with women in leadership positions. I want to repeat that because apparently, according to voting patterns, black men are the second most enthusiastic in regard to black women run um, you know, campaigns. Even though they're not credited as such, even after election after election demonstrates this with their actual voting patterns, they're not given the credit of being supporters of women going into office. And yet, at the same time, when black men question the efficacy of this, when these women, these female candidates are not offering anything substantive, they're hyper-punished for it. So they're punished for being uh uh uh saboteurs, those who sabotage these campaigns when they are the second highest voting group after black women. And then they're further punished if they raise questions as to whether or not something of substance is being offered to voters, particularly, and this is something I'm waiting for black men to learn, particularly as it relates to their own political interests. And at some point, we have to be able to have that conversation about what our political needs actually are and force candidates, white, black, male, female, whatever, as to whether or not they can address those needs, whether or not they're willing to. And if the only model put forth, you know, that we've seen with Kamala Harris and um, you know, one other uh, person who's who escapes me, she's also in Atlanta, um, the only model we're going to see is that they're going to offer black men, you know, policies that exist for everyone's benefit already. That's not a plan. That's not a platform. And black men may need to withdraw their presence at the polls until that need is felt. But I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter. Holler at me, let me know. Look forward to hearing them. And I'll talk to y'all later. Peace.