Nordette's blog http://www.blogher.com/blog/7094/atom/feed 2009-08-06T19:08:26-05:00 Killing Spree Shakes Fort Hood, Texas http://www.blogher.com/shooters-kill-7-wound-20-fort-hood-texas 2009-11-05T15:16:19-06:00 2009-11-05T22:33:00-06:00 Nordette Updated 10:20 p.m. CST: Army statements at Fort Hood shooting news conference declare the alleged shooter, Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a U.S. soldier and psychiatrist, was not killed during today's shooting spree on the Texas military base. A new source reports the following:

]]> Updated 10:20 p.m. CST: Army statements at Fort Hood shooting news conference declare the alleged shooter, Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a U.S. soldier and psychiatrist, was not killed during today's shooting spree on the Texas military base. A new source reports the following:

(CNN) -- A solider suspected of fatally shooting 12 and wounding 31 at Fort Hood in Texas on Thursday is not dead as previously reported by the military, the base's commander said Thursday evening.

A civilian officer who was wounded in the incident shot the suspect, who is "in custody and in stable condition," Army Lt. Gen. Robert Cone told reporters.

Furthermore, the USArmy's Twitter page says investigators now believe there was only one shooter. However, the investigation is ongoing. As earlier reported on BlogHer, two of the other suspects have been released. A third who was taken into custody has also been released.

Updated 4:44 p.m.: The death toll in the mass shooting at Fort Hood military base in Texas is now 12, per news sources, and the number of wounded is 31. More updates follow at the end of this post. ABC News identifies one of the shooters as possibly a solider, Major Malik Nadal Hasan. He was killed. Two other suspects, also reported to be soldiers, have been apprehended. Recent CNN report confirms alleged killer was a soldier as well as a licensed psychiatrist.

Earlier post begins here:

Via Twitter @KCENNews and now on CNN, multiple shooters opened fire at a Fort Hood theater/sports dome in Killeen, Texas. News sources report 7 dead and 20 wounded.

"Fort Hood schools are on lockdown," per CentralTexasNow.com, and farther down is a screenshot of a KCEN tweet saying multiple shooters may be involved.

CNN's story is developing. Most recently the following was added:

On the Fort Hood Web site, the word "closed" is posted with the statement, "Effective immediately, Fort Hood is closed. Organizations/units are instructed to execute a 100 percent accountability of all personnel." (CNN)

Huffington Post has added the story as well with details from KXXV.

Seven people have been killed and at least 20 injured after a shooter opened fire on Fort Hood Thursday afternoon.

Fort Hood officials say one person is in custody but are asking people to stay away from windows.

We've learned an incident has taken place at the sports dome, now known as the soldier readiness area. (KXXV)

The Fort Hood website is currently unavailable, but according to GlobalSecurity.org, "Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the United States, and is the only post in the United States that is capable of supporting two full armored divisions.

In addition to the 1st Cavalry Division and the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood is also home for the Headquarters Command III Corps, 3d Personnel Group, 3d Signal Brigade, 13th Corps Support Command (COSCOM), 13th Finance Group, 89th Military Police Brigade, 504th Military Intelligence Brigade, the 21st Cavalry Brigade (Air Combat), the Dental Activity (DENTAC), the Medical Support Activity (MEDDAC), Army Operational Test Command (AOTC) formerly TEXCOM, and various other units and tenant organizations. (GlobalSecurity.org)

As of this posting, FBI agents were headed to the scene, per CNN. KXXV reports, "President Obama has been briefed on the situation"

Update, 3:24 p.m., CST: The American Statesman has added a Twitter stream, FtHoodShootings. Its latest tweet via the AP confirms one shooter is in custody. In addition, WBAP News/Talk radio Texas has updates.

Update 3:33 p.m.: CNN raises death toll to at least 9, and here's video from MSNBC.

BlogHer.com will have more as the story unfolds.

Update video at 3:45 p.m., CNN: The military asks that media bear with them as they try to collect accurate data.

Update 3:54 p.m.: CentralTexasNow confirms 9 dead, ups wounded to 30.

Update 4:18 p.m.: @NewsHour with Jim Lehrer reports "Lt Gen. Bob Cone says no motive known in Ft. Hood shooting."

Update 4:33 p.m.:
@DallsCrime says, "ABC News has learned the main suspect is a Major Malik Nadal Hasan." ABC affiliate WHAM has same information.

Fort Hood, Texas (ABC) - Twelve people have been killed and 31 wounded in a shooting spree at a Texas military base by what officials believe was possibly carried out by an Army officer.

The suspected gunman was identified by ABC News as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.

The shooter was killed and two other suspects, who are also soldiers, have been apprehended, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone said. (WHAM)

As you see, this brings the number dead to 12 and wounded to 31.

Update 5:13 p.m.: @USArmy on Twitter --"One shooter killed; two other suspects have been apprehended. Details will be released as they're confirmed."

Updated 5:49 p.m., CST: From CNN:

The slain gunman was identified as Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, a law enforcement source told CNN. Licensed in Virginia, Hasan was a psychiatrist who previously worked at Walter Reed Army Medical Center but more recently was practicing at Darnall Army Medical Center at Fort Hood, according to professional records.

Update 6:07 p.m.:

Officials says it was not clear what Hasan's religion was, but investigators are trying to determine if Hasan was his birth name or if he may have changed his name and converted to the Islamic faith at some point. (Huffington Post)


Update 6:50 p.m., CST:

Two other soldiers who were detained have been released, but another person of interest is in custody, said Christopher Haug, chief of public affairs at Fort Hood. (CNN)

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com CE. Keep up with all her work at Her 411.

]]> Domestic Violence Awareness Month a Year After the Hudson Murders http://www.blogher.com/domestic-violence-awareness-month-year-after-hudson-murders 2009-10-28T07:09:14-05:00 2009-10-28T19:24:30-05:00 Nordette Last year during national Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I mean exactly one year ago on October 28, 2008, I wrote about one of the most disturbing cases with a connection to domestic violence the nation had seen in a while. A tale of horror unfolded, the murders of the mother, brother and young nephew of acclaimed actress and singer Jennifer Hudson. The alleged perpetrator, her sister's estranged husband William Balfour, was later arrested.

]]> Last year during national Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and I mean exactly one year ago on October 28, 2008, I wrote about one of the most disturbing cases with a connection to domestic violence the nation had seen in a while. A tale of horror unfolded, the murders of the mother, brother and young nephew of acclaimed actress and singer Jennifer Hudson. The alleged perpetrator, her sister's estranged husband William Balfour, was later arrested.

While we rejoice with Hudson that she appears to have triumphed over tragedy, it's noteworthy that we've heard very little about the murders since Balfour's court appearance in January. After the initial flurry of sensationalistic coverage, the murders and their connection to domestic violence faded away.

Here we are again. It's national Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and we're lamenting other cases we've heard over the past year such as the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident. A tragedy equal to Brown beating the singer is the number of people who blame Rihanna, declaring she must've done something to deserve a whipping like that. Dissecting the young lovers' troubles, we've re-examined other famous domestic violence cases, such as the O.J. Simpson case and the Mike Tyson/Robin Givens case.

The latter still fascinates the public. He was the heavy weight champion, a huge man. She was the thin, glamorous actress. And both are still alive to tell their versions of events.

Tyson, who has released a documentary about his life, appeared on Oprah last month, admitting now that it was an abusive relationship fraught with fights (See video), but still the former boxer seems not to see that it was never a fair fight. If Givens "socked" him and he "socked" her back, how could it be, unless, of course, Robin Givens had an AK-47 in her hands and was a crack shot?

At the time (the Barbara Walter's interview, ~1988), Mike sat at his wife's side, not saying a word. Now, he's ready to talk. (Now, 2009)

"I couldn't believe Robin Givens was saying those lies about me. … I was flabbergasted," he says. "When I look back at it now, I can't believe I sat there and didn't say anything. But then again, if I were to act crazy and start smashing and going crazy in front of television, that's what they would have wanted."

Robin's accusations made Mike furious. "At that particular moment, I truly wanted to sock her, but I just didn't do it. I was young at that time," he says. "I have socked her before, and she socked me before, as well. It was just that kind of relationship."

"You are a very big guy, so it would be hard for some woman to stand up against you physically," Oprah says. "Is there ever an instance where a woman deserves to be struck?"

"I don't know. … Women do kill people and hurt people too," he says. "I just know we're both human beings. … And we have to treat this human being a certain way just from a physical perspective. When I was in this marriage, I was wide open like a puppy dog. She could have done anything. I would have said: 'Okay. I love you still.'" (Tyson on Oprah)

Back near the end of the 80s as their marriage died under a spotlight, the young couple's story nearly split national opinion as much as the Brown/Rihanna incident has today. Some people hated Robin Givens. They said she was a gold digger after the champ's money. Even when I posted in March of this year at my blog on Givens's Larry King live appearance, someone dropped by to say he had inside information that Givens is "evil." I didn't post the incendiary comments supposedly from a former Tyson manager who wanted to remain anonymous.

In addition to these stories that capture the public eye, we may add the domestic violence alleged to have afflicted the Heenes, the family at the center of the reported balloon boy "hoax". Also, Mary Murphy, the bubbly judge from So You Think You Can Dance, recently spoke on Larry King Live and said she was once in a 9-year marriage in which her husband raped and beat her. And this just in yesterday, the wife of professional basketball player Delonte West has filed a domestic violence complaint against him.

I don't know much about West. However, the AP reports he suffers from bipolar disorder. Perhaps you'll hear something about his wife's allegations later because he's a sports star. Yes, you may remember or have heard about the celebrity cases mentioned and can probably name other domestic violence allegations or proven cases of domestic violence involving famous people. For instance, the recent Lifetime Television movie about painter Georgia O'Keefe reveals her husband was controlling and emotionally abusive. (We sometimes overlook that abuse need not be physical.) A victim of his narcissism, O'Keefe ended up in a mental institution, according to the movie.

But what about cases of non-famous people that have been in the news since the Hudson murders, the stories of ordinary people crippled, maimed, or murdered in domestic violence incidents. Do we remember them? Do their stories linger?

  • The Santa Claus massacre, Dec. 2008, man facing divorce shoots up his in-law's house, killing at least 10 people at a party.
  • The death of Ja'Shawn Powell, age 2, Jan. 2009. His father, who maintained no relation with the child, told his mother that finally he wanted to get to know his son. Required by court order to allow visitation, the mother let the child go with his father who took the boy out for a walk and slit his throat. He didn't want to pay child support.
  • Wife beheaded: network CEO beheads wife who reportedly filed for divorce, Feb. 2009.
  • The Samson Alabama massacre, March 2009. It began with the killing of his mother and spread across two counties.
  • The Revelus tragedy: a mentally ill brother stabs one sister to death, kills another by practically decapitating her, and sends a third to the hospital, April 2009.

What of those whose murders weren't sensational enough to make a local or national broadcast or who have not yet been murdered but walk by us daily showing the subtle signs of victim?

Reflecting on this year of families living dangerously since Jennifer Hudson and the world heard news of her family members' murders in Chicago; examining the life of such stories--how they burst across our screens for days and then fizzle; considering the president's recent visit to New Orleans where a woman asked him about increasing funding for legal aid to domestic violent victims in New Orleans and then reading one reporter's minimization of the question; and after searching my daily newspaper for stories about the domestic violence crisis and finding few fresh articles, I am inclined to agree with Erin Matson, action vice president of the National Organization for Women. Before sending readers to an article with data about the need for funding to protect victims of domestic violence, she writes the following:

Despite all the news hoo-hah about the potentially fatal dangers of H1N1 flu for pregnant women, the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is in fact murder.

For as woefully pervasive as domestic violence remains, it's irritating to see how little attention it gets within the mainstream media and government budgeting priorities, for that matter. (Say It Sister)

The article to which she points also covers the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2010 and has a link to another NOW article about the increase of domestic violence during economic crises like the national recession that started last year before the Hudson case caught the media's eye. Governments tightened their belts, took an ax to budgets, and too frequently the first casualties were domestic violence prevention and victim protection programs.

And you may remember that as the recession loomed, the media flooded us with stories saying expect more cases of spousal of abuse and family tragedy because we're having a financial crisis, people.

While tough times like the recession and disasters like Katrina bring with them increases in domestic violence cases, these human trials don't cause human bouts of rage or escalating abuse. Money problems stress folks out, and people uneducated about how to handle stress or disinclined to self-control sink to humanity's baser instincts, the part of our nature we should overcome. But it's reported that we should expect people, in particular men, to lose their minds and beat wives, whip children, and kick dogs when hard times knock them down.

Gloria Steinem, while scrutinizing The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything and specifically discussing how the report may be misinterpreted to mean women are treated equally, mentioned briefly the expectation that domestic violence increases during crises and what we're willing to assume about male nature.

Increased domestic violence and alcoholism have been reported as if they were inevitable results of a recession—if there were a Men's Anti-Defamation Society, it should sue—and women are being made to feel almost guilty for having a job at all, however poorly paid and rivaled by work at home. ... Steinem

Her words are worthy of meditation. Do we create paradigms in which we expect, tolerate, and excuse abuse? Are we making an excuse for men to react violently to stress as though men, the more common perpetrators of physical violence, are incapable of controlling themselves and perhaps have good reason to indulge rage when they can't find work?

What is our nation doing to help people in extraordinary circumstances manage their frustration and anger before they harm family members? What are we doing to help victims of abuse who get slapped every day of the week regardless of circumstance? After all, habitual abusers never need a reason to abuse another.

From one Domestic Violence Awareness Month to the same time next year, are you taking action to stop domestic violence in your community?

Per the Department of Justice website, National domestic vio.ence hotlines1-800-799-SAFE (7233) and 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

Articles/posts I visited while working on my own:

2009 VH1 Divas - Arrivals

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com CE. Keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com

]]> Top Ten Reasons I Am Not A Racist, Part 2 http://www.blogher.com/top-ten-reasons-i-am-not-racist-part-2 2009-10-19T23:30:16-05:00 2009-10-20T02:05:05-05:00 Nordette For Part 1 of this post, which lays a foundation giving context for those who need clarification on meanings of the word "racism" and "racist," please click this link.

So, given what happened recently in my state of Louisiana, the Justice of the Peace admitting he won't marry interracial couples and the words he used to defend his views,

]]> For Part 1 of this post, which lays a foundation giving context for those who need clarification on meanings of the word "racism" and "racist," please click this link.

So, given what happened recently in my state of Louisiana, the Justice of the Peace admitting he won't marry interracial couples and the words he used to defend his views,
I thought it was time for a review of some situations that have prompted people to make the statement "I am not a racist." Perhaps someone who hasn't considered before why the whole "I am not a racist" statement alienates black people will grasp that it may be one of the worst phrases a white person can utter before or after making a racially-charged statement or doing something that any sane person should know is racially offensive.

Here's the long list with examples and commentary. Scroll down for the simple Top 10 list. However, I advise that you proceed with caution. If you don't know why "I am not a racist" sounds ridiculous as a defense when you may have succumbed to a common human condition, then you should probably read each paragraph. Here we go.

"I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way.

... I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else." (Keith Bardwell, a Louisiana Justice of the Peace in Tangipahoa Parish)

Bardwell was speaking of his refusal to marry a black man to a white woman, and it was not the first time he's refused to marry an interracial couple. Showing not only world ignorance but ignorance of his own state's history, Bardwell said that after talking to both blacks and whites, he thinks neither community would accept such a marriage's biracial offspring. So, he's refusing to marry interracial couples because he fears for their children. When first writing on this story, I prefaced commentary on Bardwell with "... wait for it ... he is not a racist" because the "I am not a racist" qualifier has become the calling card for people making outrageous, racially charged statements.

"I am not a racist." (because I performed CPR on black Celtics basketball player Reggie Lewis)" --Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police. In an exclusive interview with the Boston Herald in relation to the Henry Louis Gates incident, Crowley cited giving the basketball star mouth-to-mouth resuscitation as proof he was not a racist. Without purchasing the story from the Boston Herald to get Crowley's direct quote, it's unclear whether he connected the dots this way or the reporter did, but several reporters definitely connected the dots for him in various stories that attempted to remain objective about Crowley.

"I am not a racist. ..." (but if I had) "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC (oleorosin capsicum, or pepper spray) deserving of his belligerent non-compliance." --Boston police officer Justin Barrett. The officer wrote this in a mass email that made its way to the Boston Globe. The "jungle monkey" name calling is a reference to Henry Louis Gates. Barrett was angry about a Globe editorial that sympathized with Gates, but when Barrett's job was in jeopardy for his commentary, he began a round of apologies that started with "I am not a racist. I did not intend any racial bigotry, harm or prejudice in my words."

He may have also said his words were taken out of context and that he has black friends. Who can keep up with this kind of doublespeak?

"I am not a racist. I've never made a racist comment and I never attacked him [Obama] personally." --former POTUS Bill Clinton. Yeah, that was Bill talking about Hillary's campaign in 2008 and his offensive comments in South Carolina. He stepped in it when he compared Obama's 2008 win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's '84 and '88 wins. Critics thought the comment was part of a Bill and Hillary strategy to make Obama "the black candidate" in the political sense of blackness.

Clinton's use of race and racism as political strategy is a part of his history that Princeton Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell discusses while examining one of his more recent statements. In a Larry King Live interview, the former president talked about race and the health care debate. The professor took issue with his claim that he's devoted his life to rid the world of racism and wrote about his "checkered past" of using racism as a political tool. File under "I am not racist ... I'm a Democrat."

And Imus in the morning. I am not a racist but them is some nappy-headed hos. No, I am not revisiting this one today in depth, but please keep in mind the misogyny, castrating minstrel performances, and self-hatred of some black rappers, who Don Imus seemed to think he imitated, is a book not a blog post.

"I am not a racist, an Uncle Tom, or a self-hating African-American. I am a black Republican." Similar comments said on any number of occasions by black conservatives who make statements such as the following:

The phony charge of racism is continuously used as a weapon to silence conservatives who dare stand up for our nation's traditional values and oppose the radical socialist agenda of Democrats and the Obama Administration. Limbaugh deserves our gratitude for showing no fear of the race-baiters, fighting back and helping to preserve the freedoms that have made this country great. (Frances Rice)

And here's another:

I am a young black American who does not deny that it is a great accomplishment for Barrack Obama to be the first black American to become President. This does not mean that I have to agree with his policies and socialistic ideas. I do not want murderers who cross the border illegally to be ELIGIBLE for OBAMACARE.

When Barrack Hussein Obama was elected President I was really hoping that much of America's conflict about race would lessen. With so many Americans in government who are black, I wanted to believe that people would stop calling conservatives racists all the time. I wanted my son to live in a world free of racism. But regrettably the opposite has been the case.

I am offended by those in government and the liberal media who are just throwing around the term racist and playing the race card. It is just another way to segregate the Black American once again from being a legitimate part of America. Health Care is not about race and those who make it so are fear mongering. (Shawn Woodhouse)

I know these kinds of statements will confuse progressive white people who've been struggling to understand how African-Americans feel about race and racism in America. Indeed, such statements will also baffle if not anger many black Americans. I'm not going to measure funhouse mirror distortions nor dissect the psychology of brainwashing at this time; however, the words of these black conservatives should at least remind readers that African-Americans don't all think alike. In addition, I direct readers to a post I wrote a while back about the television show Lie to Me: "New Face of Racism: You Too Can Take the Bias Test."

"I am not a racist. I just love the Confederate flag." Nobody in particular to name here either, but Congressman Joe "You lie!" Wilson comes to mind because well ... I've got this thing about people who are willing to romanticize the Confederacy.

Has Rush Limbaugh ever said "I am not a racist"? I don't know. The man has said so much over the past years. More notably he hides behind, "I'm an entertainer.." Still, in case you're wondering how he views charges that he is a racist, please consider that Rush thinks it's all a liberal smear campaign that's kept him from owning an NFL team, the St. Louis Rams. Straight from his website:

Folks, also, I don't know what to do today. I really don't know what to do. The audio sound bite roster is, again, 95% about me. The reason for my indecision here is that -- well, I've talked to you about this before. People lob attacks at you and when you respond to them they think, a-ha, we've hit home runs here. There's so many outrageous, fabricated lies. There is a genuine full-fledged smear campaign being orchestrated by liberal sportswriters and picked up by other liberals in the State-Controlled Media that it's breathtaking. I'm used to being taken out of context, but we have sourced it, we have found where it was found, these fake, totally made up quotes attributed to me which are being repeated without any fact-checking at all by liberal sportswriters. ... As you people know, I'm very uncomfortable using this program to talk about myself. I've run a test, I take an average 45-minute segment of this show and compare the number of times I use the word "I" compared to the number of times Obama uses the word "I" in an average 45 minute speech and it's no contest. I mean I'm a piker compared to the personal pronoun usage of President Obama. (takes a call from caller telling him that his supporters are not racists or "homophobes" and he is their leader.)

RUSH: (continues) Well, this is the dilemma that I admitted having when the program began. I've talked about this a bunch. Brief history. When I started this radio program in 1988, I had never been called a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a homophobe. People who knew me never thought that. It was ridiculous. But then I got on the radio as a conservative and all of a sudden I started being attacked as a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. And I didn't know what to do about it. It had never happened, and there was nobody that could give me any guidance. I just got a bunch of advice and there are basically two pieces of advice I got. "Rush, you gotta hit back! You can't let people make those claims about you and try to ruin your reputation and smear you. You gotta fight back on that!" (Rush transcript)

What's worse, to be a racist or to have narcissistic personality disorder? I'm going to leave Rush alone but solicit your prayers for this man. In the meantime, you may review his ego adventures as presented by a pundit on the left, Keith Olbermann, who operates with almost as much dramatic flair as Limbaugh and argues that the conservative talk-show host has declared himself insane. In addition, Limbaugh credits himself with spawning Glenn Beck.

I am not a racist, and I've got a black side kick, Juan Williams, who agrees with me. That's a mashup of Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's thinking in general, but his flawed logic and slow entry into the 21st century are directly reflected in comments he made in 2007 regarding a trip to Harlem with Rev. Al Sharpton. It's funny in a sad way. He's trying the way people tried back in the 60s. It's his stab at Civil Rights 40 years after the climax of the movement. He expressed surprise that he was around black people and nobody was cussing or fighting.

During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly asserted: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all." O'Reilly also stated: "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it." (Quote from Media Matters, 2007)

Patronizing much, Bill? I applaud any effort on O'Reilly's part to understand anything foreign to him, and perhaps these kinds of shocks to his system, such as an uneventful dinner at Sylvia's and seeing a black Harvard lawyer win the presidency, explain his continuing obsession with black people, but he is so mired in his myopia that he's become a breathing artifact to me.

Here he is more recently debating Detroit Free Press sports writer Drew Sharp. O'Reilly asserts Limbaugh has not ever made any racist statements that O'Reilly's crack research team can find.

Sharp was a little dull there, woefully unprepared for O'Reilly. I'll wager it's because the sports writer assumed that any idiot knows Rush Limbaugh uses racist rhetoric with regularity.

Poor, Drew. He missed the limited edition documentary revealing the alternate universe in which Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh live.

Perhaps he doesn't keep up with today's racism chasers (Field Negro, Racialicious, Aunt Jemima's Revenge, Media Matters, BlogHer CE LainaD, etc.) who document the nonsense of folks like Limbaugh. That's why he didn't have a list ready for O'Reilly. If he had spent a little time reading up on Rush Limbaugh and hate speech before he took his knife to a gun fight, that interview would be more entertaining and educational.

Dear Drew, why did you trust Bill O'Reilly to recognize and find racist statements for a Rush Limbaugh segment? Now that he and Limbaugh can have babies like Glenn Beck, you should anticipate collusion and join the party packing heat.

And finally, drum roll please! --- "I am not racist. I voted for Obama." -- Oh, so many people can lay claim to that quote that the silly logic behind it has been examined already. For instance, Siddity covered that kind of thinking when talking about reaction to the black kids kicked from the Pennsylvania pool. I referenced her piece in "Racism is not for Conservatives Only."

Summing up: The Quick and Dirty 'I am not a Racist' List

  1. I am not a racist. I didn't vomit when I ate dinner with Al Sharpton and I loved the collard greens.
  2. I am not a racist. I let black people use my bathroom.
  3. I am not a racist. I've swapped spit with a black person.
  4. I am not a racist. I'm a Democrat.
  5. I am not a racist. Don't you know Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican?
  6. I am not a racist. That George Lopez is so funny, and my son's dating a Mexican.
  7. I am not a racist. I'm a defender of American values who happens to love those beautiful stories about the antebellum south when black people were slaves and the glory of how we fought for our freedom to own them.
  8. I am not a racist. I have an Asian friend. My BFF is Latina, and I love Beyonce.
  9. I am not a racist. Besides I'm a minority too. 2/16 Cherokee Indian, 1/16 Jewish, some other Eastern Bloc ghetto stuff, and Italian.
  10. I am not a racist. I voted for Barack Obama.

How much pain and frustration could we avoid if people would do a little introspection before opening their mouths?

More Food for Thought

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE and also the African-American Books Examiner. You may keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com

]]> Top Ten Reasons I Am Not A Racist, Part 1 http://www.blogher.com/top-ten-reasons-i-am-not-racist-part-1 2009-10-18T23:30:16-05:00 2009-10-20T02:09:30-05:00 Nordette Did you hear the one about the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple? I did. These stories just sort of pile up on us like loads of dirty laundry, and this one took me down the treacherous path of "I am not a racist but."

]]> Did you hear the one about the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry an interracial couple? I did. These stories just sort of pile up on us like loads of dirty laundry, and this one took me down the treacherous path of "I am not a racist but."

Before I go farther, let's address tit-for-tat mentalities and examine the question "Can black people be racist?" We have to do that so we don't spend time in the comments section, if this post should get comments, with complaints such as "Why are you always talking about race. Black people are racist too. You're a racist because you see race. I don't see color," and so on and so forth. You've probably seen such comments before, the ones that treat any discussion of race like we're back on the schoolyard where we may cry, "Johnny hit me too," and that explains everything.

Can black people be racist? I lean toward "not yet." At least not in the same way that white people have practiced racism, and if we're evolving as a healthy species, then black people will never practice in America the kind of racism white people have practiced because we'll all agree we'd prefer to go forward rather than backward--that this is America, the land of the free, the home of the brave.

Can black people commit hate crimes, as in beat up a white person because he or she is white? Sure, they can. But that kind of retaliatory hate is not the stuff of what we shall speak in this post.

Racism and its practice and perpetuation within the context of this post is viewed as part of a bigger framework that includes access to society's sanctioned forms of power, our current construct that has not yet passed away with a black president ushering in a mythic post-racial America. So, while we may agree that black people can be biased, can subscribe to forms of racial bigotry, are known sometimes to be xenophobic, and may also sometimes prejudge whites based on past experience with racist attitudes, we may conclude that regression to tribalism or acting out with similar hate in response to oppression is not automatically the same as promulgation of white supremacy racism, the belief that the white race is superior and the reality that having such power as a group they are able extend favor and benefits.

BlogHer CE Prof. Kim Pearson once explained the complexity of racism within the context of power this way.

Racism = prejudice + plus power. In this country, historically, the dominant racist ideology has been white supremacy. The belief in white supremacy is not restricted to people who are socially constructed as white. White supremacist discourse has permeated our laws, and culture, so its not surprising that there are people of color who live down the stereotypes they have been taught to believe about themselves. That's called internalized oppression.

Personally, I think that helps to explain the complicity of women and people of color.

The point here is that the individuals cited here are engaging in racist discourse and then exercising their luxury of claiming ignorance about what they are doing. (Professor Kim in BlogHer comments, 2008)

She was responding to someone on Maria Niles's excellent post, "Racism and the race: What's white privilege got to do with it?" The person to whom she wrote had said, "I'm not denying that racism exists. I am saying, though, that it is not limited to one race, or to people without color."

Next, please evaluate the following statement that I included in a response to someone else on BlogHer who, she agrees, misinterpreted something I wrote. She assumed that I was saying people who didn't vote for Obama are racist despite my clear statement that some people consciously did not vote for him based on ideology.

If your quibble is that you don't believe you have subconscious racial fears, then you may wish to take that argument to the psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists who assert that "fear of the other" is a survival instinct and humans with "normal" survival instincts have varying degrees of this fear.

Can anyone of any race honestly say they have no subconscious racial fears or bias? The word "subconscious" modifies the fear to mean a fear of which you are not aware.

... I would say without reservation that there are also people who voted for Obama who have both subconscious and conscious racial fears.

To have voted against Obama is not proof that you are a racist anymore than to have voted for Obama proves you are not a racist. Why do you assume that either statement has been made? (full comment here)

It happens sometimes. We see our fears instead of what is written.

I'm not including that quote to bash the person who misunderstood and later acknowledged that she did. I'm including it so discerning readers will see where I'm coming from when I respond to people declaring "I am not a racist because ..."

Perhaps it's my Christian upbringing, but I think racism affects us the way that Jesus said sin affects us. "All have fallen short of the glory of God." I think anyone who declares him or herself to be racism free treads the same murky ground of those who declare themselves free of sin.

Fellow blogger SJP dropped by on a post at WSATA and had a similar view.

The minute that someone says that they are not a racist then you might want to start looking for their sheet. And the same with anyone who contends and believes that we are in a post-raci(st)al society simply because Obama is Black. The very fact that such has to be said proves that our problems and issues with respect to race still exist. (SJP at WSATA)

After you've lived for nearly five decades in this nation, observed white Americans, worked beside them, lived next door, and in my case, attended boarding school with them as I did in my youth, after you have been well-educated western style, which means soaked in white culture and history, you can't help but develop a virtual sixth sense when it comes to evaluating what type of white person you may be dealing with after they talk to you for a time or you read their words or hear them on the TV or radio. The ability to size up the white person before you is a survival skill that I think black people may be more likely to develop in sizing up those with racial insensitivities than white people have in sizing up blacks. Unless a white person has experienced the flip side of cultural immersion, living with black people and being taught their history and consistently working in an environment in which black people are in charge, then they more than likely lack what I would call "racial climate reading skills."

This is not to say that some white people, after earnestly studying how racism works and influences society, don't develop a gift for spotting racism when they see it. It's to say that they're unlikely to be naturals at sensing racism or racist intent. It's the one area in which white privilege is a disadvantage. Oxymoron there, yes, I know.

All this to give you the Top Ten Reasons I'm Not A Racist list? Yep.

I'm walking on eggshells but hampered by work boots. Lately, most of what I see are knee-jerk responses at people of color's use of the word "racist." America seems to have re-imagined the three Rs--Race, Racist, and Racism--into the three rings of hell in discussions.

Take for instance the Obama speaking at a public school discussion: Was that like Huey's Dream on the Boondocks or what?

And so I felt that in order to write this post I must ease into a list of the Top Ten Reasons I Am Not a Racist. I almost feel the way Russell Peters says he feels in one of his comedy routines, one that has been criticized as "racist" ironically. He says he feels sorry for white people.

White people, my white American friends, I'm here to tell you something. I like you. And I'm not just saying that, you know, to say it. I'm telling you for a reason because I think white people have done some major things in the past 30 years. They've really taken some strides. And I feel bad for them, you know, because all the nonwhite people in the world have them convinced that they're racist. We have them so scared to notice anything of color that they're afraid to describe things accurately now. (Russell Peters, comedian)

I said I almost feel the way Peters says feels. More than likely, however, since he's a comedian, he doesn't feel quite the way he claims.

For Part 2, the list, please click here. This post is cross-posted at WSATA.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE and also the African-American Books Examiner. You may keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com

]]> The Mysterious Case of Mitrice Richardson Missing http://www.blogher.com/mysterious-case-mitrice-richardson-missing 2009-10-01T22:39:49-05:00 2009-10-02T10:41:40-05:00 Nordette While cruising a blog last Friday I heard about the case of Mitrice Richardson, the missing 24-year-old black woman from South Los Angeles who was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on Sept. 16 for not paying a $89.21 restaurant bill in upscale Malibu. After her arrest, she was released at 1:25 in the morning without her cell phone or her purse and no transportation because the police had impounded her 1990 Honda Civic in which they say she had less than an ounce of marijuana.

]]> While cruising a blog last Friday I heard about the case of Mitrice Richardson, the missing 24-year-old black woman from South Los Angeles who was arrested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on Sept. 16 for not paying a $89.21 restaurant bill in upscale Malibu. After her arrest, she was released at 1:25 in the morning without her cell phone or her purse and no transportation because the police had impounded her 1990 Honda Civic in which they say she had less than an ounce of marijuana. Her purse and cell phone were in the car with her identification, according to her family, but the police say she had identification. After that, she vanished. With the exception of a few sightings here and there, the 5 ft 5 young woman just disappeared. (Photo from FindMitrice.info.)

I read this story at Field Negro and my comment was simply, "God, this story is horrible!" That's how I get when something really upsets me. I don't know exactly what to say. I go numb, dumb and mute.

This story has so many layers that indicate the police don't always protect and serve. It reminds me how black women are not seen as people to protect, that sometimes not only do the cases of missing black women seem to get less attention from law enforcement and the media but so do their murders. While it appears Mitrice's case is getting more attention than the average missing black woman case receives--perhaps because the police may be culpable should she come to physical harm--I can't help but wonder if this slender woman had been white and blonde, had resembled one of those police officers' daughters or wives, would they have taken better care to protect her? Would they have realized that it would have been better to find some excuse to keep her in the cell than to send her out onto canyon roads with nothing in the wee hours of morning, alone into the dark?

And yet something in me says that had these officers been people of color Mitrice may still have been released to nothingness. It's that image of strong black woman thing, Sojourner Truth's "Ain't I A Woman" coming at you from the Twilight Zone. This idea that black women are like strong males, we can pull a plow or fight anything, even wee hour darkness with no phone, the chill of a dark canyon alone with no blanket, coyotes maybe or worse--we can fight a stranger who does not know we too have mothers and fathers who love us.

Another layer: This is not just me as a black woman speaking, wondering about Mitrice and weeping for her, it's me as a mother screaming something is terribly wrong with how Mitrice was handled. As I read the opening of one article on her story by Carla Hall at the L.A. Times, my eyes fill with tears.

Mitrice Richardson is afraid of the dark and always has been, says her mother, Latice Sutton, who remembers that quirk when she thinks about her daughter's release from a jail cell at a Los Angeles County sheriff's substation in Calabasas in the predawn hours of Sept. 17.

Wearing jeans and a dark T-shirt, Richardson, 24, had no car, no cellphone and no purse as she left the station about 1:25 a.m. The nearest Starbucks and fast-food restaurants are about a mile away in a shopping area. Beyond them stretches Las Virgenes Road, which turns into Malibu Canyon Road, winding through Malibu Canyon and emptying onto Pacific Coast Highway near Pepperdine University.

I have a daughter too, one only four years older than Mitrice. She's not afraid of the dark. In fact she walks fearless on the earth like an Amazon warrior, and my fear for her is that she is too sure of herself, not streetwise enough, not as observant as she should be.

I don't want my daughter to be fearful, but I do wish she'd be a little more cautious, and yes, I think, what happened to Mitrice could happen to her. In fact, she walked absent-mindedly out of a restaurant a few months ago after dinner with a group. When the valet went into the restaurant for her to tell her I was waiting outside, she became a little flustered, left and realized after we'd been driving a few minutes that she hadn't paid her bill. I called the restaurant immediately, and they checked. It turned out a young man in her group had paid for her, but the restaurant manager thanked me for calling to check.

She was just a little flustered and can be more than a little absent-minded, but what if she had been alone, without a group; what if she had experienced some kind of inexplicable mental collapse and wandered into a restaurant alone? Would anybody have tried to help her? What would happen if someone called the police?

It could happen to anyone's daughter because Mitrice's family declares the night of September 17, nothing reported to them about Mitrice's behavior sounds like Mitrice. She was behaving "out of character," they maintain.

And before you point a finger saying the police report that she had marijuana in her car, consider that even she did, even if she were a known user, would sending a young woman out into the night be acceptable? Would it have even made sense to release a young man into the dark with nothing--no money, no phone, and no ride because you impounded his car. It's almost as if the police wanted another crime to investigate.

It appears that Mitrice was showing signs of a psychotic break. It could be she was high, but again, why release a person who you think is under the influence of a drug or alcohol into the night with nothing?

News stories report that before her arrest Mitrice showed up at the Geoffrey's Malibu restaurant Thursday, Sept. 17, around 7:00 p.m. behaving strangely. You may read the account of her behavior at Anderson Cooper's CNN blog.

And another layer:

Jeff Peterson, the restaurant’s owner, said her erratic behavior was noticed by customers and employees. “There was something a little strange about her,” he told CNN. “She wasn’t mentally ill, not ranting or raving. You couldn’t put your finger on it.” (AC 360)

First, Mr. Peterson is a restaurant owner, he can't be expected to diagnose mental illness. Nevertheless, I noticed he has a preconceived notion of what mental illness looks like, someone "ranting or raving." Mitrice, according to reports, showed bizarre behavior like "sitting down with a table of six (a group of strangers) and engaging them in conversation."

Second, what do you do if you encounter someone who may strike you as "a little strange," out of touch with reality? Is calling the police the best choice? The truth is, other than the person's family, the police may be your only choice, and the police aren't necessarily trained to diagnose and deal with the mentally ill. Police are trained to deal with people who commit crimes.

Why the restaurant owner couldn't wait for someone from her family to show up, I don't know. I could speculate about how he may have wanted to get this strange young black woman away from his upscale restaurant as soon as possible, but I won't. All I know is that a young woman who was apparently in some type of mental distress was handed over to people who did not have her best interest at heart. Perhaps it says something about how we in America view those who are possibly mentally ill, a lack of resources, treatment facilities, and civil procedures.

I'm spending a little time here with the notion that Mitrice may have been showing signs of mental illness rather than drug abuse because the FindMitrice.info site declares, "She suffers from mental issues." And as I've said in other posts, such as the one on the Revelus tragedy, this country is facing a crisis in lack of funding to properly diagnose and treat mental illness. In fact, a diagnosis of mental illness in your health records may jeopardize your receiving health care insurance should you ever have to apply for private insurance on your own.

The restaurant owner says he called the police because he was concerned for Mitrice's safety, that after eating a Kobe steak dinner she refused to pay, but he was more concerned that she might get in her car and drive under the influence of something he didn't understand. Her family says her refusal to pay is also strange because she had at least $2000 in her bank account.

She called her great-grandmother who offered to pay the bill using her credit card over the phone. According to news stories, the restaurant said it couldn't accept the payment unless the older woman could fax them a copy of her signature. How many women in their 60s or 70s have fax machines at home?

Mitrice is a college graduate and an executive assistant who lives with her grandmother. Her family says that members began getting strange text messages from her on September 16. Some stories regarding her behavior in the restaurant indicate she may have been hearing voices.

Whatever the restaurant owner may have told the police, it's clear that the police did not treat her as someone who deserved their protection. They treated her as a criminal, and claim they released her into the night because there was no room in the jail. Her family disputes the claim of no room. From MSNBC:

... Michael Richardson said deputies told him they were not running a baby-sitting service. He told Lauer he was also told that there was no room to keep her at the jail, but the father said he checked police records and discovered that there was only one other prisoner at the jail that day between 1:30 a.m. and that afternoon.

“It’s all inconsistencies,” Michael Richardson told Lauer. “I’ve talked to them several times.” He said he was first told that deputies told his daughter she could sleep in the lobby. Then, he said, he was told she was offered a bed in a cell. Then he says he was told about the alleged overcrowding.

Richardson’s parents and attorney say they have not been able to obtain police reports on the arrest.

Police deny any wrongdoing. A sheriff’s department spokesman declined to go on the air, but told NBC News that Mitrice Richardson is an adult, and there was no reason to keep her in custody after charging her because she showed no signs of being intoxicated. (MSNBC)

From Anderson Cooper's 360 Blog:

Lattice Sutton said she told the officers that she would be there around 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. to pick up her daughter. But she said when she called again to check on her, she was told Richardson was already released. (Anderson Cooper's 360 blog)

The L.A. Times update on the search which has turned up nothing:

Later, about 6:30 a.m., a homeowner in the Malibu Canyon area called to say a woman was resting in the backyard. When deputies arrived, she was gone. Whitmore said the department is almost certain it was Richardson.

On Saturday afternoon, as her friends stood on Pacific Coast Highway, holding up fliers featuring the missing woman's face, sympathetic passersby stopped to chat with Sutton. One even offered a clue.

"I think I may have seen her walking," said middle school teacher Janette Goeglein.

About 7:30 a.m. Sept. 17, Goeglein said she was driving to a meeting when she saw a woman walking south on the road through Malibu Canyon. "I thought it's strange to see a black woman walking in the canyon," she said.

This is a horrible story, and the police say they did nothing wrong.

Additional Info

  • JasmyneCannick.com reports that tonight, Oct. 1., the family's attorney will air communication tapes obtained from the Lost Hill Sheriff’s Department on 790 KABC between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. PST.
  • This Black Sista suggests the signature on Mitrice's release paper does not appear to match Mitrice's handwriting.
  • Monie on the Outside reports that the L.A. County board of supervisors is offering a $10,000 reward for information about Mitrice's disappearance.
  • HipHop Crunch has MSNBC video and a quote from Mitrice's mother that Mitrice is "not street savvy."
  • According to news sources, Mitrice has also competed in beauty pageants. Some bloggers have linked to a MySpace page. It is not known if Mitrice put this page up herself.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.CE. You will find links to her other writing at Her411. This post is cross-posted in draft at WSATA.

]]> Should Obama Be Killed Poll is No Joke: Secret Service Investigates http://www.blogher.com/should-obama-be-killed-poll-no-joke-secret-service-investigates 2009-09-28T18:57:57-05:00 2009-09-28T23:38:22-05:00 Nordette Somebody on Facebook created a disturbing poll with the question "Should Obama Be Killed?" The Secret Service is investigating, confirm news sources, and blogger GottaLaff at The Political Carnival says she's gotten a "thank you" call from the agency for supplying it with a screen shot of the poll. The agency caller told her "without it, they wouldn't have been able to address the matter." She writes:

Last night I posted about a scary Facebook entry, specifically a poll asking whether Obama should be killed. ...

]]> Somebody on Facebook created a disturbing poll with the question "Should Obama Be Killed?" The Secret Service is investigating, confirm news sources, and blogger GottaLaff at The Political Carnival says she's gotten a "thank you" call from the agency for supplying it with a screen shot of the poll. The agency caller told her "without it, they wouldn't have been able to address the matter." She writes:
Last night I posted about a scary Facebook entry, specifically a poll asking whether Obama should be killed. ... (The caller) thanked me over and over, emphatically, saying that there would be no way for the Secret Service to catch something like this without assistance. The Internets are too vast for that. (Read more by GottaLaff)

The assassination poll's questions had potential answers of "yes," "maybe," "if he cuts my health care," and "no," per HP. At one point the poll had more than 730 responses, about 10 percent advocating violence, reports Raw Story.

Raw Story also reports that the "Should Obama be killed?" poll appeared Sunday night, and while Facebook removed it, the social website did not issue a statement when first asked about the incident.

One Facebook user posted in the poll’s comments area: “What kind of sicko even puts up a poll like this? Where are the moderators of Facebook, don’t they even monitor some of this crap? I am stunned!”

“It’s scary that 10 percent agreed on some level,” another user commented.

As of press time, Facebook had not responded to RAW STORY’s inquiries, and there was no mention of the poll on Facebook’s own Facebook page, or on its press releases page. (Raw Story)

I don't think the social networking site has to issue a statement unless this story gets picked up by more of the press asking questions about Facebook moderation. (Since the first posting of this story, it has gotten more attention from MSM and Facebook has issued a statement of sorts.) Facebook is not responsible for some wackadoo posting a crazy poll and has done what it can by taking it down. All any website can do is warn users that if they violate guidelines, the site will remove their content and possibly block them, and then enforce the guidelines. I assume the person has been kicked off Facebook (maybe FB should say that), but getting kicked off FB is nothing compared to the heat the Secret Service will bring.

Asking people to vote on the potential assassination of any president is not a joke, not parody, not satire. The creator should be investigated and if there's a legal penalty, face it.

I'm glad GottaLaff, who first posted on the poll under "This is NOT okay," took action.

The hate speech, the threats have gotten completely out of hand. And those who have incited viewers and listeners-- and you know who you are Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc.-- are responsible for a good part of this horrific activity.

No, it is not "grassroots", not even close. It is a sick, terrifying, dangerous movement toward violence and the worst kind of civil unrest. (GottaLaff)

I'm also happy GottaLaff and other Facebook surfers notified the Secret Service and that Raw Story and HuffPo reported the poll to the larger public so quickly. In addition, I agree with GottaLaff that some of the hateful rhetoric spread lately contributes to the kind of climate where this kind of threat of violence, if not violence itself, may flourish. We live in a social climate where this kind of threat may be taken lightly or even secretly approved by those oppose President Barack Obama, and, as she said, it's not a grassroots movement.

What we are witnessing may be the result of irresponsible use of the airwaves and the Net where some conservative political pundits indulge their baser instincts and stir rage. Some of the pundits GottaLaff mentioned, for instance, have stoked the fires of unrest with crazy conspiracy theories and out and out lies on everything from health care reform, to socialist takeovers, to race baiting kookiness. I mention conservative pundits because they have of late been the most prominent offenders, dressing actual hate speech in the cloak of protest speech. However, divisive strategies employing fear-inspiring propaganda at the expense of public peace may be used by any political group at any time. And so, before I go further in this discussion, I say in bold for those who skim, for all we know the person who created the poll belongs to no political group.

He or she may just be someone seeking attention in the dumbest way possible. The person could even turn out to be someone who is a progressive, who supposedly supported Obama, and is trying to make a point poorly. Remember the Daily Kos blogger last year who tried to show how Michelle Obama is objectified by using a horrible image of her as a KKK victim that he created himself. Some people don't think clearly or are clearly clueless.

Such possibilities notwithstanding, last year reports emerged that Obama, as the president elect, had more threats against him than any other president elect in American history. Since then, the Secret Service has said threats against this president are up "400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush."

While some choose to debate whether the big increase in threats is race-related, it's hard to ignore the fact that Obama's primary difference from presidents before him is his African heritage and skin color. This is not to say that other presidents' lives have not been in danger simply because all presidents get threats but that Obama's life seems to be threatened more.

At The Moderate Voice earlier this month, Kathy Kattenberg, addressing cuts in Secret Service funding, said given the number of threats against Obama both Republicans and Democrats should be concerned. She told her readers about a petition at Credo with the following text.

“As racist attacks increase and protestors continue to bring guns to presidential events, it is strikingly clear that President Obama is vulnerable to harm. Threats against the president have grown 400 percent, while funding for the agents that must confront and investigate threats against him has significantly decreased. I urge you to do everything in your power to ensure that the FBI and Secret Service expand and fully fund efforts to protect the President of the United States.” (CREDO)

However, I know some conservatives don't consider incidents such as one Arizona protester brining a gun to a rally where Obama will be speaking is anything that should concern Americans. The concern, they say, is that the man's right to carry the weapon may be violated and one said that a protester who carried a weapon to a rally showed responsible gun ownership by not shooting at people. I mention conservatives on this particular point because I haven't personally heard any moderates, progressives, or liberals saying it's cool to bring a gun to a rally where the president is speaking.

Why would anyone believe carrying guns to rallies, alluding to threats, and sharing so-called "humor" about the assassination of a president, any president, should be taken lightly? I don't have an answer to that question, but I do know that despite President Ronald Reagan actually surviving an assassination attempt, while President Bill Clinton was obviously despised, and even as former President George W. Bush's approval rating plummeted and people on the left called him horrible names, none of those presidents had the number of death threats President Barack Obama gets, threats that started before he even took office.

There are some people courageous enough to examine why threats against this president may be higher and are willing to study the matter even if the examination makes them face our country's problems regarding race and the tendency to excuse political pundits and leaders who use misinformation, coded language that otherizes opponents of color, and racially-tinged fear tactics to score points. It would be better for us all if more of us were willing to look honestly at what's motivating the intense hatred of President Obama to the point where people take weapons to rallies, gleefully listen to pundits who make claims such as "Obama's budget is reparations to black people," who promote a book like The 5,000 Year Leap, easily believe conspiracy theories that involve "death panels" and health care reform, or encourage sending money to a legislator for disrespecting the office of the president.

Few prominent conservative pundits seem willing to address the importance of using wisdom in the methods employed to criticize this particular president or the tactics used to get him out of office. However, they must ask themselves are they making statements that inspire the kind of hate for the president and the Federal government under Obama's administration that creates the climate for a "Should Obama be Killed" poll or insane acts of violence like the murder of a census worker on whom the word "fed" was scrawled. Do they dare look in the mirror, into their own eyes?

Free speech is not as free as some of us seem to believe. Free speech that is also irresponsible speech can ruin lives, can exact the price of blood from those who are the target of hate-inspiring words.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough recently stepped forward to take at least one irresponsible pundit to task for flooding the airwaves with irresponsible speech. He called for conservatives to step away from Glen Beck.

Scarborough went on to say that he was starting an "honor roll" of conservatives willing to come out against Beck. He made multiple references to Beck's "race-baiting," and "wallow[ing] in conspiracy theories." Scarborough concluded: "Not only is Glenn Beck responsible, but conservatives who don't call him out are responsible." (HuffPo)

I'm not sure into what political camp Scarborough falls these days and it's possible his declaration is only about his ratings, but his sentiment that conservatives should start addressing head on irresponsible speech coming from those who claim they are conservatives was discussed in the comments section of a recent BlogHer post that argued progressives or liberals should get off the "racism train" and stop leveling charges of racism against conservatives. The writer, American Princess, seems to believe continued charges of racism will make conservatives leave the table on health care reform negotiation.

We can all agree that it's not a good idea for anyone to leave the table on a critical piece of legislation, but I suspect the charge that conservative political pundits are using rhetoric that increases threats against Obama and conservative citizens are not tuning that out will also be viewed as making conservatives leave the table.

Yet how do we know that conservatives are tuning this kind of rhetoric out if more of them don't say so or as long as people like Limbaugh and Beck have growing audiences? Somebody's listening to these men, and it seems any criticism asking certain types who support the Becks and Limbaughs of the airwaves to examine carefully what may be perceived as hate speech, especially hate speech directed at people of color in general and Obama as a man of color in particular, makes such conservatives clam up, collect their marbles, and threaten to go home.

Until I see clear signs that more conservatives reject the kind of rhetoric and conspiracy theories these men produce, I must conclude a large part of the conservative base agrees with them. Furthermore, as long as people who call themselves conservative make it sound as though the charge of racism is worse than practicing racism itself, I'm unconvinced that I should give conservatives benefit of the doubt when they claim they were joking, ignorant, or just entertaining us.

However, racism is not a problem with conservatives alone. Politicians of all types appear willing to waltz strategically down the color line when it suits them. Neither is mean rhetoric the province of the right alone.

Furthermore, race is not the only factor influencing a high level of threats against Obama. Add fear of the unknown in general, one that rises in some people on hearing the word "change," fear of loss--loss of money, health care, privilege, or power--and we've got ourselves a certain percentage of people losing their minds.

Again I say, within the context of the Facebook poll that spurred this post, for all we know the creator of that poll is a progressive or possibly even non-political. For all we know an ignorant gamer created the poll. We may never know why the person posted such a disturbing survey unless he or she is caught and questioned, but that one poll is a drop in the bucket for allusions to threats or actual threats against the sitting POTUS.

In updates on the Facebook poll story, Public Record reported that Facebook has responded.

“The application that enabled a user to create the offensive poll was brought to our attention this morning and was disabled,” Barry Schnitt, director of policy communications for Facebook, told Raw Story. “We’re following up [with] the developer to ensure the offending content has been removed and that they have better procedures in place going forward to monitor their user-generated content.”

So, Facebook's done what it could and has put the ball in the application developer's court.

PlumLine at Who Runs Gov has confirmed that the Secret Service is investigating and has a statement from agency spokesperson Ed Donovan. CNN and ABC also confirm the Secret Service involvement. I wonder what the poll's creator is doing right now.

The good that I see in this story is how the Secret Service responded to GottaLaff and the realization that the Internet has the potential for greater good. While we don't want to become speech police online, it's reasonable that we should be on the look out for irresponsible expressions of protest that imply a call for violence. Can we at least agree that this type of speech is not really free, that it may cost us more than we should ever be asked to pay?

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com CE. You may keep up with her writing adventures via Her411 or visit her personal blog.

Updated/cross-posted at WSATA

]]> Caster Semenya's on Suicide Watch: What If She Were Your Child? http://www.blogher.com/caster-semenyas-suicide-watch-what-if-she-were-your-child 2009-09-19T14:18:07-05:00 2009-09-20T14:23:20-05:00 Nordette What if this were your child, champion South African runner Caster Semenya?

]]> What if this were your child, champion South African runner Caster Semenya? News reports say she's been put on suicide watch since her gender has been debated in the public, her blood's been drawn and studied in a lab, her genitalia have been examined and photographed in private as part of gender testing, and some people have labeled her with the offensive word "hermaphrodite." Earlier this month she withdrew from a race because of the speculation about her gender. Should we lay blame in how horribly her case was handled? If so, where?

Caster Semenya, the South African runner at the centre of a gender dispute, has been placed on suicide watch, according to a report in the Star newspaper in South Africa.

The report, published last week, said Semenya is being cared for "round the clock" by psychologists after unconfirmed reports that the 18-year-old is a hermaphrodite.

"She is like a raped person. She is afraid of herself and does not want anyone near her," Butana Komphela, chairman of South Africa's sports committee, told the paper.

"If she commits suicide, it will be on all our heads. The best we can do is protect her and look out for her during this trying time."

South African athletics officials said Semenya is receiving trauma counselling at the University of Pretoria. (CBC sports, Canada)

When I first heard about the Caster Semenya story in August, folks questioning her gender and charges that it was racism, I went in search for video of the South African track star. This is what I found on YouTube.

I know my sisters at BlogHer have been debating this, whether it's homophobia, sexism, or racism and also use of the insulting word "hermaphrodite" with questioning gender, and I'm sure these discussions are valuable and valid, but for me, a black woman who considers herself a womanist/feminist, when I took a look at Caster, I thought, "Is this a male or a female?" There's nothing sexist, racist, or homophobic about that question. Humans are classified by gender. Whether we should be is another debate completely.

I concluded privately, without confirming test results, that this is a child who was probably born with testicles on the inside. I figured that she was more like a boy but was raised as a girl because on the outside her genitalia look female. It happens sometimes, and as an ordinary human, I frequently make judgments based on what my eyes alone tell me. If I didn't, I couldn't get through life. Hmm, looks looks like a red light, but is it? Not too wise to stop and question everything you see along the way.

But if I were an official involved with rules of track and field competition based on gender, I'd have to do more than believe my eyes only when it comes to evaluating a runner whose appearance, demeanor, and voice seemed more like a male than a female. I'd require a test. I hope, however, that if I were a sports competition official, that I'd show the athlete involved and her family more compassion than South African sports officials have shown Caster Semenya. News sources say these people hid information from Semenya regarding questions about her gender and their decision to test her, that rather than have the guts to sit down and talk with her and her parents face to face, they let the challenges blow up in the press. (Photo from Daily Mail story)

Scientists say Senenya's condition is the result of a birth defect. You can look this up online. I'm sure there are people with the condition who could reasonably argue that perhaps it's not a birth defect, that it's just one more state of human existence, and in this politically correct world, I'm sure they'd gain support. How can we argue with states of being human?

On matters of race it must be said that Semenya's condition is not something that only happens to Africans or people recently of African descent. In fact, the more well-known cases that have been publicized have involved people of European descent. Is it more common in one group than another? I don't know. That's what scientific researchers are for, telling us what's common and uncommon in certain groups.

Racism, homophobia, and sexism chatter aside, sometimes I think we get out of hand with asking people to disbelieve their own eyes. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, your eyes tell you it's a duck. If you put the duck in a competition with geese and insist what looks like a duck is in fact a goose, I think to be fair to the geese and the ducks, somebody needs to test the competitor that looks like the duck. That's just me with my momentarily simple, overtaxed mind.

Now all the other stuff that's gone on in the Semenya case, the leaked story calling Semenya a "hermaphrodite" (correct word is intersexed), the lying South African official regarding test agreements, and pushing Semeya to pretty up for a magazine shoot were nasty stupid human tricks. But looking at and listening to Caster Semenya and wondering is she male or female? That's reasonably human speculation, not racist.

What I mean is, I'm pretty sure some of the people who wondered about her gender are racist people who insult black women in general, perhaps Michelle Obama in particular, but that doesn't mean Caster Semenya's appearance--shape of her face, lack of a waistline, narrow hips, non-effeminate mannerisms, and deep voice--when taken as a whole, don't beg this question: girl or boy?

Her condition is something her parents may not have noticed until she reached puberty, if they noticed at all. Once you've accepted that your child is one gender, it's hard to convince yourself that you and the doctors may have been wrong--that she many be more male than female or, in the case of the intersex child raised as a boy, vice versa. You, as an ordinary parent, may have never considered that perhaps some people have to choose gender or may choose to present themselves as genderless. Being a parent more likely renders you incapable of absolute objectivity about your own child when it comes to addressing preconceived notions.

Parents dream of having a specific bundle of joy and some can't handle the child who doesn't fit the fantasy image. Think about the parents out there right this moment berating a daughter for being fat. They wanted Halle Berry or Taylor Swift and nobody in their family, they say, has ever been fat. Furthermore, as in the case of obesity sometimes, I imagine in certain kinds of cultures, having a child that does not fit into a neat little box holding societal expectations may knock parents down notches on the social ladder.

When it comes to the intersexed, this isn't necessarily a statement about African cultures. There are towns in America, I'm sure, where having an intersex child would make your life difficult and the child's life a living hell. Remember the two children earlier this year who killed themselves after being bullied with the word "gay" based on appearance and personality. That happened right here in the U.S.A. They seemed different to their peers and their peers persecuted them for it.

I don't know much about Semenya's parents. Early in the story last month, I think her father was quoted insisting that Caster is a girl, his cherished daughter. I hope she remains cherished, that they are the kind of parents who will love her no matter what, and while this public examination of their child must be a difficult period for them, I hope they have the spiritual strength to love Caster more fiercely because of it.

But what about the rest of us? "An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes," per Wikipedia. An intersex human in the news causes us to rethink views of gender, reevaluate what does it mean to be male or female. What if it were your child being scrutinized?

I'll leave the deep analysis of what is homophobic, sexist, or racist on this topic to passionate advocates who especially address gender and GLBT community issues, and while the story may have elements of racist ideology worthy of examination, I'll pass this time. Who has the energy to examine every neuron of the racist mind?

My only real comment is that I feel sorry for Caster Semenya, not because she appears to be an intersexed human but because her physical nature--whether she is male or female--was discussed worldwide in the press before she had a chance to explore her own feelings and determine who she is for herself, because she is a young one who's been thrust into an arena of wolves while the ignorant mob gawks in the stands.

I fault South African sports administrators for Semenya being shoved into the burning glare of the public spotlight. They made all the wrong moves at Semenya's expense.

Extras:

See related AP story, "Wrong turns worsened Semenya's ordeal," that examines how officials of the International Association of Athletics Federations and others handled the Semenya case.

What? A more correct term than intersex="disorders of sexual development."

Chicago Now: Support for Caster Semenya

What about that stupid Jamie Lee Curtis rumor?

1992 Time magazine article, "Genetic Tests (for gender) Under Fire"

Book recommendation: Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides. "The narrator and protagonist, Calliope Stephanides (later called "Cal"), an intersexed person of Greek descent, has 5-alpha-reductase deficiency."

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com CE. This post is cross-posted at her blog WSATA. You may keep up with her writing adventures via Her411.

]]> Pfizer Slammed at $2.3 Billion: Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement Ever http://www.blogher.com/pfizer-slammed-2-3-billion-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-ever 2009-09-03T01:32:16-05:00 2009-09-03T02:20:09-05:00 Nordette The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday, September 2, the "largest health care fraud settlement in its history." Pfizer Inc. with subsidiaries Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. must pay $2.3 billion "to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products," according to the DOJ's news release.

]]> The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday, September 2, the "largest health care fraud settlement in its history." Pfizer Inc. with subsidiaries Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. must pay $2.3 billion "to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products," according to the DOJ's news release. The pharmaceutical giant's story is a tale of seeming unrepentant profiteering, not through scarcity but misrepresentation.

All drug companies aren't bad. Who can discount the good humanity's seen through miracle drugs marketed ethically? But when drug companies are bad, they are very, very bad. Pfizer appears to keep falling into the same pit, having to pay government fines or settle lawsuits because it disregards FDA guidelines and patient health when marketing its wares.

Part of the breakdown on Pfizer's settlement from the DOJ press release:

Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead. Bextra is an anti-inflammatory drug that Pfizer pulled from the market in 2005. Under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, a company must specify the intended uses of a product in its new drug application to FDA. Once approved, the drug may not be marketed or promoted for so-called "off-label" uses – i.e., any use not specified in an application and approved by FDA. Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns. The company will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

In addition, Pfizer has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve allegations under the civil False Claims Act that the company illegally promoted four drugs – Bextra; Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug; Zyvox, an antibiotic; and Lyrica, an anti-epileptic drug – and caused false claims to be submitted to government health care programs for uses that were not medically accepted indications and therefore not covered by those programs. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe these, as well as other, drugs. The federal share of the civil settlement is $668,514,830 and the state Medicaid share of the civil settlement is $331,485,170. This is the largest civil fraud settlement in history against a pharmaceutical company. (DOJ)

Here's video from MSNBC.

As reported by news sources, this is also the fourth time Pfizer has had to settle this type of case since 2002. For instance, in a 2004 San Francisco Chronicle article it is reported that "A division of Pfizer Inc., (Warner-Lambert) agreed to ... plead guilty to two felonies and pay $430 million in penalties to settle charges that it fraudulently promoted the drug Neurontin for a string of unapproved uses."

(It) admitted that it aggressively marketed the epilepsy drug by illicit means for unrelated conditions including bipolar disorder, pain, migraine headaches, and drug and alcohol withdrawal.

... Prosecutors said Warner-Lambert turned Neurontin into a blockbuster drug with tactics like paying doctors to listen to pitches for unapproved uses and treating them to luxury trips to Hawaii, Florida or the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. One doctor received almost $308,000 to tout Neurontin at conferences.

Doctors are free to prescribe drugs for uses not specified on their FDA- approved labels, but the FDA forbids drug companies from promoting them for those off-label uses. Prosecutors said Neurontin's manufacturers decided not to seek an expanded FDA label for the drug, an expensive process requiring solid proof from clinical trials. Instead, the company boosted sales through aggressive promotional strategies, even when scientific studies had demonstrated that it was not effective, the Justice Department said. (SFGATE, 2004)

Full disclosure: I was prescribed Neurontin in 2002 for an off-label use and it flipped me to a much darker place. Instead of lifting my depression, it exacerbated it. That's all I'll say because it's a painful subject. I was aware of the civil suit but elected not to join it.

This next piece of information reveals Pfizers shallow concern for the public and following the law.

"The size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine of $1.3 billion, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer’s crimes," said Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. "Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws. Today’s enormous fine demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated." (DOJ press release)

Back in 2004, Pfizer signed an agreement to stop doing this, a "promise to behave" in the words of the NYT. The whistle blower was a former Warner-Lambert employee, David Franklin, per the San Francisco Chronicle, who may have been rewarded more than $26 million for coming forward.

There's a whistle blower connected to Wednesday's announced settlement as well. John Kopchinski, a former Pfizer salesperson may be rewarded more than $50 million for turning on Pfizer. Per the NYT, Kopchinski said, "The whole culture of Pfizer is driven by sales, and if you didn’t sell drugs illegally, you were not seen as a team player."

Under Wednesday's settlement, Pfizer had to sign another agreement like the one it signed during the Neurontin case, another promise to be good.

Also, according to the NYT, while today's settlement announcement relates to an investigation executed largely under the Bush administration, President Barack Obama's administration is celebrating, perhaps with an eye on its critics.

It’s another step in the administration’s ongoing effort to prosecute any individual or organization that tries to rip off health care consumers and the federal government,” said Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services.

Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill have accused the Obama administration of failing to crack down adequately on health care fraud, arguing that huge savings in government health programs could be found with better enforcement. The settlement had been expected. Pfizer, which is acquiring a rival, Wyeth, reported in January that it had taken a $2.3 billion charge to resolve claims involving Bextra and other drugs. ... (NYT, "Pfizer Pays $2.3 Billion ...")

Wednesday's announcement has been blogged throughout the web on sites such as EmpowerHer.com, the Wall Street Journal, and Discover Magazine where Sheril Kirshenbaum, writes that she's always been suspicious when associates who work for big pharmaceutical companies tell of wining and dining doctors, coaxing them to prescribe specific drugs.

And Pfizer's not the only pharmaceutical in the news today for unethical and illegal marketing practices. The New York Times reports in a different story published Wednesday that the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging recently and "quietly" released a document revealing the questionable marketing practices of Forest Laboratories. The article says the released document details how Forest turned Lexapro, not a breakthrough drug but an "afterthought" medicine, into a "best seller." In addition, Forest promoted off-label use in violation of FDA regulations.

In February, federal prosecutors in Boston announced a civil lawsuit against Forest claiming that the company illegally marketed both Lexapro and a closely related antidepressant, Celexa, for use in children and paid kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe the medicines to children.

It is illegal to pay doctors to prescribe certain medicines to their patients. It is not illegal to pay doctors to educate their colleagues about a medicine. In recent years, federal prosecutors have accused many drug makers of deliberately crossing that line.

Lexapro was the sixth drug in a class of medicines that includes Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox and Celexa. ... (New York Times, "Document Details Plan to Promote Costly Drug")

Forest, according to NYT, pays lots of money to doctors.

Under “Rep Promotional Programs,” the document said the company planned to spend $34.7 million to pay 2,000 psychiatrists and primary care doctors to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures to their peers in one year.

Only Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Merck pay doctors more than Forest, reports NYT.

A key point in the article is that drug companies find ways to brand supposedly new drugs that are no more effective than older, cheaper drugs and pitch them to doctors and the public as an improvement, making a greater profit because they can charge more for "new" drugs. Senator Herb Kohl is quoted in the article saying that legislators wonder if these companies "blur" the line between medical education and marketing. He's concluded that "there is no line." This blogger would ask, "Do you mean marketing or bribery?"

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com CE and also the African-American Books Examiner at Examiner.com. Keep up with her writing adventures via Her411.

]]> Chris Brown Doesn't and Does Recall Beating Rihanna http://www.blogher.com/chris-brown-doesnt-and-does-recall-beating-rihanna 2009-09-01T13:12:54-05:00 2009-09-03T15:10:45-05:00 Nordette First, let me say that while I know that being raised with domestic violence, as it's reported Chris Brown was raised, may result in your becoming a physically abusive partner, my sympathy for the young singer is limited. Nothing excuses a man beating a woman.

]]> First, let me say that while I know that being raised with domestic violence, as it's reported Chris Brown was raised, may result in your becoming a physically abusive partner, my sympathy for the young singer is limited. Nothing excuses a man beating a woman. Brown, seeking to save his recording career, has made multiple public apologies for severely beating another star, Rihanna during what began as a "lovers' quarrel" this winter.

The public weighed in then and continues to weigh in. Unfortunately, we still have people, often named Anonymous, popping up in comment sections, who don't get that the Chris Brown-Rihanna incident or beating the hell out of someone and then asking forgiveness is not about love or romance. Neither is it something to brush off, letting by-gones be by-gones. Yet, we see people, young and old, male and female, blaming Rihanna for Brown beating her with arguments that amount to "she was asking for it."

All that said, when Chris Brown appears to tell CNN's Larry King in a clip from an "exclusive" interview that will air Wednesday night that he doesn't remember beating Rihanna, I think he may be telling the truth. The real truth. There is evidence from the field of psychology that blind rage makes one exactly that, blind. A beating like the one Brown gave Rihanna is an example of primal rage unleashed.

Nevertheless, perhaps doing damage control for public perception that a blurry memory of your beating someone up is akin to not taking responsibility for your actions, Brown's released a statement through his record company, Jive Records, explaining his comment to King. He says that the CNN clip was taken out of context and that he "misspoke" when he answered King's query "Do you remember doing it?" with "No."

There have been reports on the internet that I didn’t remember what happened that night with Rihanna. I want to try and set things straight.

That 30 seconds of the interview they used of me was taken from a one hour interview during which that same question was asked something like 4 or 5 times -- and when you look at the entire interview you will see it is not representative of what I said.

The first four times – or how ever many times it was - I gave the same answer -- which was that I didn’t think it was appropriate for me to talk about what happened that night. I said it was not right for me and it really wasn’t fair to Rihanna. The fifth time – or whatever it was – I just misspoke. I was asked, “Do you remember doing it?” and I said, “No.”

Of course I remember what happened. Several times during the interview, my mother said that I came to her right afterwards and told her everything. But it was and still is a blur. And yes, I still can’t believe it happened because it is not me or who I am or is what happened like anything I have ever done before.

As I have said several times previously, I am ashamed of and sorry for what happened that night and I wish I could relive that moment and change things, but I can’t. I take full responsibility for my actions. What I have to do now is to prove to the world that this was an isolated incident and that is not who I am and I intend to do so by my behavior now and in the future. -Chris Brown (Global Grind, "Chris Brown says he didn't black out.")

Hat tip to MrsGrapevine for that link.

Others have posted his statement as well, breaking into different camps--sympathetic vs. no sale. The latter see the singer's statement as a well-crafted bit of PR speak.

Having trained people to talk to the media before, I'll tell you what I think. I think that major parts of the beating are indeed "a blur" to this young man, that there are parts of what happened that Chris hasn't processed and that he really doesn't remember some of his actions that evening. Neither can he explain what turned him into a raging maniac. King kept asking him the same question over and over again because he recognized that Brown was giving him the talking points that his image consultant or media trainer or lawyer told him to give, and King wanted an answer from Chris's heart not the gospel according to image spin.

I've watched the early clips of Brown's interview with Larry King, which include Brown's mother and his attorney, and have decided to post two videos: 1.) The part of interview in which Brown says he doesn't remember beating Rihanna and 2.) CNN talking heads discussing the interview, how Brown must rebuild his image and appear contrite, but also how they are disappointed that he isn't more articulate about what he did and how he feels.

In June, Brown pleaded guilty to felony assault against Rihanna and was sentenced to five years probation and six months community service, which means for six months he'll be cleaning up public areas, "removing graffiti," for instance. He says he doesn't mind doing it. Some observers feel the sentence was far too light while others say the solution is not hard prison time but close monitoring and psychotherapy.

From CNN:

Pop star Chris Brown has admitted guilt and apologized for assaulting his then-girlfriend Rihanna in February, but he does not remember hitting the singer, he told CNN's Larry King.

Looking at police reports about the incident makes him feel like he's reading about a stranger, Brown said in his first television interview since the arrest.

"I'm in shock, because, first of all, that's not who I am as a person, and that's not who I promise I want to be," he said in an exclusive interview that airs Wednesday night.

"I just don't know what to think. I'm just like, wow," Brown said. "It's crazy to me."

Brown, 20, said he still loves singer Rihanna, whose full name is Robyn Rihanna Fenty.

But, he added, it is tough for him to look at the photo showing Rihanna's battered face, the one image that might haunt and define him forever.

"When I look at it now, it's just like, wow, like, I can't believe that that actually happened," Brown said.

...Why did it happen? How did it happen?

Those are questions Brown and his mother, Joyce Hawkins, have been asking.

"Chris has never, ever been a violent person, ever," Hawkins said.

However, CNN obtained a probation report for Brown last week that said he and Rihanna were involved in at least two other domestic violence incidents before the February attack for which Brown was sentenced.

"The first incident occurred in Europe about three months before the present offense," the report said.

"The victim [Rihanna] and the defendant [Brown] were involved in a verbal dispute and the victim [Rihanna] slapped the defendant [Brown]. He responded by shoving her into a wall."

Another incident happened in January, three weeks before the Hollywood incident, when Brown and Rihanna were visiting her home country of Barbados, the report said. (CNN)

In the second video, the CNN journalists discuss that celebrities undergo hours and hours of media training to prepare for such an interview. They are correct. However, a good interviewer must break through the talking points and get the subject to be real. The interviewer seeks authenticity. Sometimes the authentic answer, however, will get the subject in hot water.

In Chris Brown's case, the average person won't believe he doesnt' remember. "I don't remember" sounds like a cop out.

The latter part of the second video is on the death of DJ AM.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com Contributing Editor and also the African-American Books Examiner for Examiner.com. This Chris-Brown Rihanna post is cross-posted at her personal blog, WSATA. Photo of King with Brown is from CNN

]]> Fourth Anniversary of Katrina: We're Still Here http://www.blogher.com/fourth-anniversary-katrina-and-well-still-here 2009-08-29T19:49:15-05:00 2009-08-30T13:53:25-05:00 Nordette New Orleans is my city and I love it. I am not alone in this affection. Yet, I drag my feet to write about how it stumbles down the road to recovery. Shouldn't a writer in New Orleans, seeing her city's value, beauty, promise, its failures, blight, and grotesque inequalities revisit its saga often?

]]> New Orleans is my city and I love it. I am not alone in this affection. Yet, I drag my feet to write about how it stumbles down the road to recovery. Shouldn't a writer in New Orleans, seeing her city's value, beauty, promise, its failures, blight, and grotesque inequalities revisit its saga often? Today is the 4th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina changing how America sees America, how the world sees the incompetence and frailty of humans in one of the greatest nations on earth but also how we view the resilience, bravery and compassion of ordinary people facing devastation.

I don't write about my city enough because I sit overwhelmed beneath its staggering complexity. As you may read at Black Voice News Online as well as Electronic Village, New Orleans has progressed toward genuine revival since Katrina kicked down its faulty levees, but as you may read in my comment on one of those posts, there's woe and frustration to fathom daily.

In the following video, President Barack Obama promises to visit New Orleans and talks about what his administration has done so far for recovery. Remember that rebuilding New Orleans was one of his campaign promises, and like his other promises, he's facing heat about New Orleans as well.


While I grew up here, I was not here for the great flood of 2005, but I returned in 2007 and observe the people, sometimes looking at them as though I am not of them but alien. The survivors have a bond that I, despite my roots in the Crescent City, will never have. At other times I'm all New Orleans and every drop of gumbo in my blood boils. In my car I may launch into a mini-rant asking how can anyone not know that this city must be saved.

Today, I'm watching Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke again and shuddering a little, but I don't shudder and groan the way nearly the entire audience groaned in the movie theater when I went to see the Curious Case of Benjamin Button. When movie goers realized that the big storm in the movie's present day setting was Katrina, they let out a communal "ohhhhh" from a collective gut.

I am watching Spike Lee's movie and realizing that there's someone in that documentary who I know that I did not know when I first saw it years ago. Her name is Sarah Dean, a web designer who unlike me did not grow up in the city. Sarah came to New Orleans later in life and was here during Katrina.

She loves New Orleans but left the city last year to become an architect. A young mother with baby and husband, she told me what a privilege it was to be accepted into the program, that the school program was unique, combining new media with traditional courses. Whatever it offered, she could not get it here and that has nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina, but seeing her in the video reminded me of what we see daily living here, memories of the people who are gone, what we've lost and what we hope to recover. Perhaps one day she and her small family will return.

Seeing her face I begin to reflect on my return and ask myself, "Have I learned anything new?" I know I have, but like ebb and flow, rise and fall of life here that I have yet to chronicle, I can't put it into words yet. Please keep track of me. Perhaps by the fifth anniversary I'll be able to frame my lessons well. I suspect they will have something to do with how to greet the unexpected with grace, as did this young teacher who arrived for a job in New Orleans three months before Katrina only to find the school system couldn't pay him. And undoubtedly I'll have learned more about living in the moment or how to live for six months each year knowing you may have to abandon your home and accept the possibility it will be washed away.

Until then, here's a list of reports and articles from people who measure our speed toward recovery and try to educate the nation and world about why New Orleans should not be forgotten.

New Orleanians on the Anniversary and Recovery

On Twitter I've seen echoes of anger from people on the rest of the Gulf Coast who remind anyone mentioning New Orleans that other parts of the Gulf Coast had equal damage. I appreciate their pain; however, the emphasis on New Orleans is about more than quantifiable damage. With neither guilt nor guile, I direct those who don't understand why New Orleans is important to this country, why the city's recovery must remain a priority, and why we won't stop talking about its recovery to this book Why New Orleans Matters by Tom Piazza.

"New Orleans is...a small model of all the best of America. You have a truly multicultural city, in which all social and ethnic and economic levels of society have somehow managed to fashion a distinct and beautiful culture out of the tensions among their differences...In a larger sense that is the story of the United States culture also, but in New Orleans the expressions of that culture have included jazz, rhythm and blues, a distinctive cuisine and so much more. And an attitude towards life that includes a spiritual resilience which has spoken to people around the world-for a couple of hundred years." (Piazza in n interview with the Washington Post, 2006)

He emphasizes the value of its history, culture and people, but for anyone who doesn't think history, cultural contribution, and people are important, then there's always this other thing: money.

Like that program the young mother, Sarah, with her family made sacrifices to enter, New Orleans is unique and worth the effort. Its success ties the nation to a more viable future.

As I mediate on its unique nature, I wonder at the people who thought the answer to its devastation was not fix the levees properly but move the city to another location. I remain forever grateful to those who don't live in New Orleans but understand its significance to this nation and agree abandoning NOLA or moving it from the land that made it what it is today is not the way to go.

So, it's the 4th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and we're still here in my city remembering good reasons to fight for this enchanted land.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer Contributing Editor. Keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com.

]]> Michael Jackson's Death Ruled a Homicide http://www.blogher.com/michael-jacksons-death-ruled-homicide 2009-08-24T18:13:29-05:00 2009-08-24T18:13:29-05:00 Nordette Michael Jackson's death was not simply a drug overdose but a homicide, says the Los Angeles coroner's office. News broke this afternoon that the LAPD issued a warrant for Jackson's personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, today. Legal experts and journalists say official charges are the next step.

]]> Michael Jackson's death was not simply a drug overdose but a homicide, says the Los Angeles coroner's office. News broke this afternoon that the LAPD issued a warrant for Jackson's personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, today. Legal experts and journalists say official charges are the next step.

Per CNN's story:

The Los Angeles coroner has concluded preliminarily that singer Michael Jackson died of an overdose of propofol, a drug he was given to help him sleep, according to court documents released Monday.

Los Angeles' coroner Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran reached that preliminary conclusion after reviewing toxicology results carried out on Jackson's blood, according to a search warrant and affidavit unsealed in Houston, Texas.

The 32-page warrant said Dr. Conrad Murray, Jackson's personal physician, told a detective that he had been treating Jackson for insomnia for six weeks. Murray said each night he gave Jackson 50 mg of propofol, also known as Diprivan, diluted with the anesthetic lidocaine via an intravenous drip. (CNN)

In the MSNBC video, one anchor says homicide means Jackson would not have died without the doctor's involvement.


Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News

, World News, and News about the Economy

The CNN story continues saying that Murray grew concerned that Jackson had become addicted to the drugs Murray had been giving him and attempted to "wean" him off the potent cocktail. The star suffered from insomnia and needed his sleep as he prepared for his final concert tour. The article gives a time line and dosage details.

Murray stayed by Jackson's bedside in the wee hours of the morning on June 25, closely monitoring him, according to Murray's statement to police. The report says he told detectives he left Jackson's side for no more than two minutes to go to the bathroom, and when he returned the King of Pop was not breathing.

Anesthesiologists usually administer propofol intravenously in hospitals to patients undergoing surgery. The patient must be monitored because the drug puts the brain to sleep; however, once the drip is stopped, the patient usually awakens quickly, say medical professionals.

Fans and the curious have been awaiting two important pieces of news on the pop icon since his untimely death in June, today's news and his burial date, September 3rd.

For many, Murray's arrest has been expected because after appearing to be cleared of suspicion initially, he was called in for questioning again, and police raided his offices at different locations. The L.A. Times reports results from police searching Michael Jackson's home.

Although Murray acknowledged to police that he administered propofol, authorities said they could find no evidence that he had purchased, ordered or obtained the medication under his medical license or Drug Enforcement Administration tracking number. However, police detectives saw about eight bottles of propofol in the house along with other vials and pills that had been prescribed to Jackson by Dr. Murray, Dr. Arnold Klein and Dr. Allan Metzger.

Other drugs that were confiscated in the search included valium, tamsulosin, lorazepam, temazepam, clonazepam, trazodone and tizanidine. They also found propofol in Murray’s medical bag. Murray told detectives that he was not the first doctor to administer the powerful anesthetic to Jackson.

At least two unidentified doctors gave Jackson propofol in Germany. Between March and April 2009, Murray said he called Las Vegas doctor David Adams at Jackson’s request to arrange for Adams to administer propofol. ... (LAT)

The Times also reports Murray told the police that he "repeatedly" asked Jackson about other drugs other doctors had given him, but Michael would not tell him.

In addition to Murray, authorities subpoenaed medical records from Dr. Arnold Klein, Dr. Allan Metzger and Dr. David Adams, the affidavit states. They also asked for medical records from Dr. David Slavitt, who conducted the independent medical examination of Jackson for Anschuntz Entertainment Group, Dr. Randy Rosen and nurse practitioner Cherilyn Lee. They also subpoenaed records from Dr. Mark Tadrissi, who stored medical records with Adams. (L.A. Times story)

The blog Wendyista and Tennessee Guerilla Women are reporting on the homicide ruling as well as Bossip, where Baby Bossip reminds readers that Jackson's sister LaToya was the first to say publicly that she beleived her brother was murdered.

Jane at Celebrity Gossip thinks Murray will likely be charged in Jackson's death. MSNBC experts say charges are inevitable. The video above has an intersting tidbit, that Michael Jackson called Dipravan his "milk," and a multiple news sources report the star hid needle marks in his hands and feet.

As has been said by others since Jackson's death, this tragedy echoes the death of Elvis Presley in 1977. Despite public outrage once it was revealed that his doctor regularly supplied Presley with addictive drugs, the death was never ruled a homicide. Perhaps Presley's tragic death, the cover-up, and its other unresolved issues contributed to how officials have investigated Michael Jackson's death. Also, Jackson's friend Deepak Chopra decried how easy it is for doctors to enable stars in their addictions shortly after Jackson died.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer Contributing Editor. You may keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com.

]]> Marriott Says It Told Insurance Company to Stop 'Blame the Rape Victim' Special Defense http://www.blogher.com/marriott-says-it-told-insurance-company-stop-blame-rape-victim-special-defense 2009-08-19T02:36:08-05:00 2009-08-19T02:56:46-05:00 Nordette According to an update at The Advocate on the Marriott rape case, the Stamford Marriott in Connecticut has withdrawn its offensive defense in the lawsuit filed against it by a mother raped in its parking garage in 2006. In fact, Marriott International, Inc. says it's not the company behind the defense, that its insurance company's attorneys filed the legal motion.

]]> According to an update at The Advocate on the Marriott rape case, the Stamford Marriott in Connecticut has withdrawn its offensive defense in the lawsuit filed against it by a mother raped in its parking garage in 2006. In fact, Marriott International, Inc. says it's not the company behind the defense, that its insurance company's attorneys filed the legal motion.

Across the web an outcry arose as news spread of a "blame the victim" defense submitted to the court that bore Marriott's name. I wrote about the case at BlogHer.com, "Raped at the Marriott in front of Your Todders? Too Bad, Slacker." Most of the comments on the post indicated a desire to boycott the hotel.

A spokesperson for Marriott International said that lawyers for the hotel's insurance company and companies associated with securing the parking garage filed the "special defense" that said the victim who was raped in front of her 5-year-old and 3-year-old had "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities." The spokesperson claims that when Marriott heard of the defense weeks ago, before the public protest, it asked the insurance company to withdraw it. In addition, the hotel has expressed "distress" at how The Advocate covered the story last Friday.

However, Marriott's later statement to The Advocate on Friday said nothing of an insurance company being behind the court papers. Furthermore, a hotel manager gave "no comment" while the hotel's attorney could not be reached. This was the perfect PR storm for a company with a family image.

(Marc) Kurzman (a Marriott rep.) said the Stamford Marriott staff are "surprised and distressed" by The Advocate's coverage of the lawsuit filed by the victim. He said there is a "mistaken belief that the Marriott's ownership and management was somehow responsible for the 'blame the victim' defense asserted in the legal papers."

Marriott International, Inc., issued a statement last week saying it could not comment on the defenses, and that "Marriott is profoundly sorry that such a terrible thing happened to the victim of this violent crime. And unfortunately this situation has created a mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect and concern for Ms. Doe or other victims of violent crime." The woman is identified only as Jane Doe in court papers.

The statement said the hotel regretted the 2006 crime.

"This incident, no matter how tragic and unfortunate, should not in any way affect the reputation and credibility of our hotel." (The Advocate)

Across the Web this Marriott story was viewed as an "epic fail," a public relations disaster.

Taking the company at its word, that the defense came from an insurance company and not Marriott's actual staff, I responded to Josh Kirshner on the first Marriott BlogHer post and said it was good news that Marriott withdrew the defense; however, I wondered why the hotel chain didn't mention an insurance company's involvement in its initial statement. Josh posted the link to The Advocate's updated story.

In addition, I recalled another company that blamed an insurance company for its receiving bad press about a claim. When compared to Dollar Tree, the Marriott looks like the winner for sincerity if it's true that it told the insurance company weeks before the public outcry to withdraw the defense.

Reading my email, I've become aware of an ugly trend. Companies are hiding behind insurance companies that seem to have no problem making victims or the ill suffer more for the sake of saving money. They are willing to accuse hard-working people of fraud, aiming the full force of legal departments at them. Or as in the case of Marriott's insurance company and a different case at a Canadian University, they are willing to blame the victim of sexual assault for her assault to avoid paying damages. What a soulless way to make a profit.

Here are some of the cases I've either recalled or that were pointed out to me recently in which causing more pain for the sake of saving money was the name of the game.

1.) The Dollar Tree stores case year.

Responding to Kirshner's revelation that Marriott said the insurance company was at fault, I said, "This case reminds me of the Dollar Tree case last year in which a racist unaffiliated with the store stabbed to death a black, female Dollar Tree employee. He'd decided to kill the first black person he saw and that person happened to be stocking shelves at the store.

"The story became a greater tragedy when the store's insurance company denied paying the life insurace claim to the dead employee's 11-year old son, reasoning that because the worker was black and the crime was racially motivated, then the victim had a personal connection and not a work connection that caused her death.

People boycotted Dollar Tree, bloggers wrote their outrage, and most people saw it as a case of a worker being murdered on the job by a deranged stranger but the company trying to wiggle out of paying with the most odious reason, that "her skin color was the reason she was killed," as though she would have come across this man who killed her whether she was working at the Dollar Tree or not.

Dollar Tree said it was only doing what the insurance company said it should do, apologized, and compensated the son. The reversal was attributed to Internet social media and other public pressure. (Nordette in comments on first Marriott post.)

2.) The case of Debbie Shank vs. Walmart

Shank was a Wal-Mart employee who suffered brain damage after a car accident involving a truck. Wal-Mart's health plan paid for her health care; however, after the trucking company paid damages to the Shanks that would help with Debbie's long-term care, Wal-Mart stepped in and demanded she and her family reimburse the company for health benefits already paid.

According to CNN:The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they (Wal-Mart) need it (about $400K) that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said. (CNN)

After public pressure, Wal-Mart decided to let the Shank family keep the money. From CNN's follow-up: "Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation."

3.) Robin Beaton vs. Blue Cross, Blue Shield

As reported by Time, "When Health Insurance Isn't Health Insurance," In May, 2008, Robin Beaton, a retired registered nurse from Waxahachie, Texas, went to her dermatologist to be treated for acne. He mistakenly wrote down something on her chart that made it appear that she might have a pre-cancerous skin condition.

Not a big deal, right? It shouldn't have been, except that soon after that, she was diagnosed with something far more serious--invasive and agressive breast cancer.

Using the doctor's note, Blue Cross went back in her records five years to find a way not to pay the claim.

From Time's story:What Robin went through after that was a nightmare, one she tearfully described Tuesday morning in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight and investigations subcommittee. "The sad thing is, Blue Cross gladly took my high premiums, and the first time I filed a claim and was suspected of having cancer, they searched high and low for a reason to cancel me," said Robin, whose hair is just beginning to grow back in from chemotherapy.

4.) Jane Doe vs. Carleton University, Canada

This case is similar to the Marriott case. From CU: We're Asking For It, a blog started to protest the university's defense language, Carleton University is being sued by the woman who was brutally sexually assaulted in 2007. In response, the university states that the victim's injuries were "caused or contributed to by the Plaintiff through her own negligence... she was not keeping a proper lookout for her own safety."

Regarding private, for-profit health insurance, I've said before that I think it's more of a scam than a service. According to a Paul Krugman opinion piece at The New York Times, about 30 percent of health insurance premiums go to underwriting where people sit around figuring out how to deny customers' claim.

Health insurance companies aside, as I consider the Dollar Tree case--if you had not been black you would have not been stabbed and so we don't have to pay--the Carleton University case and the Marriott case--if you'd watch where you were going and behaved differently you wouldn't be raped--I wonder what's up with these "blame the victim" defenses?  Blaming the victim is self-protection 101 in our society, but why can't lawyers, with all their education, rise above this primal instinct?

While Marriott says it asked for the defense to be withdrawn weeks ago before the public outrage surfaced, which included a petition from MomsRising that quickly accumulated signatures this weekend, I'm sure the anger and threats to boycott the hotel chain expedited the corporation's public disapproval of such a shameful defense. We will have made real progress when insurance companies and major corporations stop using "blame the victim" completely.

Nordette Adams is a BlogHer.com CE and is the African-American Books Examiner at Examiner.com. Keep up with all her writing adventures through Her411.com.

]]> Raped at a Marriott in Front of Your Toddlers? Too Bad, Slacker. http://www.blogher.com/raped-marriott-front-your-toddlers-too-bad-slacker 2009-08-14T20:43:49-05:00 2009-08-20T17:32:03-05:00 Nordette Editor's Update: Marriott says, "It was a mistake to suggest that the victim of this tragic incident was responsible for the vicious crime against her." This story was updated on BlogHer with Marriott's response early Wednesday morning and with additional updates in the comment section August 20. You may read the update at BlogHer here.

]]> Editor's Update: Marriott says, "It was a mistake to suggest that the victim of this tragic incident was responsible for the vicious crime against her." This story was updated on BlogHer with Marriott's response early Wednesday morning and with additional updates in the comment section August 20. You may read the update at BlogHer here.

You are also invited to read Marriott's official statement in the update's comments section and information about the court detail. Marriott International withdrew its "special defense on August 17 and on August 18 issued its statement of regret.

--Beginning of original post--

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just spent time addressing violence against women in the Congo, Africa, expressing disdain for a misogynistic culture. Perhaps next, in her spare time, she should have a talk with attorneys in America who represent Marriott International. The lawyers are defending that corporation against a female guest's lawsuit by blaming her for her rape.

Marriott never struck me as the kind of company that would blame a mother who was raped on its property in front of her children for her own assault, that would accuse her of being careless and placing her children in danger because a rapist attacked her. Indeed, on Marriott's Social Responsibility & Community Engagement page the slogan is "Spirit to Serve Our Communities."

And here is the quote at the top of its Business and Ethics page:

"We need to stand together to ensure that the travel and tourism industry is always a positive force for good in the world. -- J.W. Marriott, Jr., Chairman and CEO

I first learned about this story in email. It seems that the woman was in the parking garage of The Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa in Connecticut, when she was raped. Here's how this story's being reported by The Advocate of Stamford:

STAMFORD -- A downtown hotel being sued by a woman raped at gunpoint in its parking garage is claiming she was careless, negligent and "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities," according to court documents.

... On Oct. 10, 2006, (Danbury, Conn., Gary) Fricker stuck a handgun in the back of the then 40-year-old woman and forced her and her children, then 3 and 5, into their minivan as they left the hotel, according to court documents.

She let him go through her wallet and told him he could take it, but Fricker demanded she take off her clothes. Fricker sexually assaulted the woman for several minutes, pointing the gun at her and her children and threatening to sexually assault one of her children.

When another car pulled up, the woman screamed, and Fricker fled. Police arrested Fricker near White Plains, N.Y., three days later, and he immediately confessed, police have said.

Fricker, a transient carpenter, had been arrested 20 times before and was wanted in Florida on an arson case, police have said.(The Advocate)

According to the story, Fricker, 56, after pleading guilty, received 20 years. Six months later in May 2008, the victim sued Marriott corporation. And now, this company that's built an image of family values for more than 80 years has attorneys who argue an archaic view of rape, telling women, "It's your fault you were assaulted unless you can prove you locked all your doors and watched where you were going."

How is this any different from the old, misognynistic accusation "If you didn't wear that short, red dress, Ms. Slut, you wouldn't have been raped"?

The Advocate's article is detailed, explaining why the company's attorneys would make such a play, something about "a list of special defenses" that allows "defendants in civil suits to argue they are not responsible for damages even if the plaintiff's story is true." You can read about special defenses if you like, but I'm done. I don't care what the Marriott's "defense" is for its indefensible covering of its ass on this one.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the woman's lawsuit because I haven't processed that part of the story yet. What I'm saying is that the Marriott has slapped all women in the face with its reprehensible rhetoric in hopes of saving itself from paying damages. Did its attorneys think this story would not reach us? Do they not know the spending power of women who, in my opinion, should cross the Marriott off their lists for family hotels, stop using the Marriott for business trips, and influence their spouses and significant others to do the same?

Sounds harsh, right? However, Marriott's language is harsher about the victim, that she "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."  In other words, the woman can't control her environment and work her own body well enough to protect her children and outwit a rapist.

I'm not the only woman whose gut reaction is to never set foot in another Marriott hotel, which includes Residence Inn, Courtyard by Marriott, and Fairfield Inns plus others. And I tell you, I've always enjoyed my stays with Marriott, but I've also enjoyed my stays at Embassy Suites and Sheraton. Therefore, I don't need to stay at a Marriott, and clearly the Marriott doesn't need my business. No, it doesn't deserve my business.

Here are some of the bloggers outraged over the Marriott's defense.

It is unclear when during this attack that the woman and her children, who were age 3 and 5 at the time, should have tried to "mitigate their damages." (Perhaps the 3-year-old should have grabbed for the gun while the 5-year-old subdued the attacker.) It is also unclear what the woman's tennis partners, Pilates instructor or the children's baby sitter have to offer on the topic, but the hotel subpoenaed them all the same, thus effectively outing the woman who had otherwise been identified as Jane Doe to help preserve her privacy. ... Whether or not the hotel bears any responsibility for the attack may be up for debate, but it should be obvious that the woman herself does not. Sadly, the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa does not seem to agree.

The blogger then gives contact information for the Marriott, including its headquarters address and phone number and its Twitter page URL. A number of commenters say they will no longer use Marriott, and at least one, who claims to be an attorney, says Marriott's using a boilerplate defense that she understands legally, but the company's still lost her business. Others say they will flood Facebook with the story and call or write Marriott.

  • The Nutmeg Grater says she's never staying at a Marriott again. Never.
  • At Feministing, the story's filed under "the meme that keeps on giving" and the comment section smokes with disgust.
  • Not Ratched's Prosterous has posted only a picture that says it all.

    • This list is far smaller than the number of women outraged or blogs at female-oriented sites where WTF is the acronym of the moment for this case. In addition, men are sounding off. The male blogger at Unrequited Expectations, while not sure Marriott is at fault for the rape, nevertheless concludes that he's less likely book a Marriott hotel room again.

    Chris Walters at The Consumerist writes, "If you want to live dangerously, why not try an unrelaxing visit to the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa?" He has a few more words on the subject and posts the same picture seen at Not Ratched Posterous which says, "Don't get raped, Lazy."

    If the woman decided to not sue regarding being raped on Marriott property, she definitely should sue if the following is is true. Per The Advocate, "The victim's attorneys also argue the hotel has inadvertently identified her to acquaintances by asking them to testify."

    It sounds as though the corporation's attorneys have contacted her friends and family, but the lawyers claim they have not told anyone contacted about the assault.

    According to court papers as reported by The Advocate, the woman says that Fricker had been hanging around the hotel and its garage for days, that the hotel did not make him leave, and security did not see or stop the attack. My question is Cameras? Where were the cameras and if they have them why was nobody monitoring them?

    At her blog, Monica Potts, the reporter who wrote the story in The Advocate, has posted a statement from Marriott International, Inc., issued today.

    We wish to convey our respect and sympathy for Ms. Doe and her family, who were the victims of a horrendous crime in 2006.

    Marriott is profoundly sorry that such a terrible thing happened to the victim of this violent crime. And unfortunately this situation has created a mistaken impression that Marriott lacks respect and concern for Ms. Doe or other victims of violent crime.

    However, out of respect for the privacy of the victim and the expectations of the Court in the pending litigation, we are not at liberty to comment on the claims or defenses in this case. (Monica Potts at Stamford 411)

    MomsRising, a nonprofit that seeks social justice for mothers, has taken action. It's started a petition with the following protest text.

    As one of more than a million members of MomsRising, I am very concerned about recent news reports that Marriott Hotels is blaming the victim in the Stamford, CT rape case. Claiming a mom raped at gunpoint with two toddlers in her minivan failed to "make proper use of her senses and facilities" is disgusting and wrong. The woman in this case, and the moms of this county who now have deep concern about staying in a Marriott, deserve more.

    You may sign it at momsrising.democracyinaction.org

    Finally, I still have the same question that I had when I first learned of this story through email. I asked, "I wonder if Bill Marriott knows about this case?" Bill is the J.W., the CEO, quoted near the top of this post. At his blog last year on the corporate website, he addressed public outcry regarding Proposition 8, which he says the company did not support, and he declares Marriott is a public company and no one individual makes decisions. His blog is called "Marriott on the Move."

    I have a few words for Mr. Marriott: "Hey, Bill. You're going the wrong way!"

    Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE and also the African-American Books Examiner at Examiner.com. Keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com

    ]]>         How Many Tissues Does it Take To Send Your Teen to College? http://www.blogher.com/how-many-tissues-does-it-take-send-your-teen-college 2009-08-12T02:19:25-05:00 2009-08-12T12:06:08-05:00 Nordette This past weekend, I had it all planned. I would take my son out to buy his clothes for college, having already warned him that I was on a budget and anything beyond that budget would be up to him because he has a job. You'd think I'd be excited because my son, my baby boy, is taking one great step in my mommyhood, but I'm low key for the moment.

    Maybe it hasn't hit me yet. Maybe it hasn't hit him either because he said he didn't feel like shopping this weekend.

    ]]>     This past weekend, I had it all planned. I would take my son out to buy his clothes for college, having already warned him that I was on a budget and anything beyond that budget would be up to him because he has a job. You'd think I'd be excited because my son, my baby boy, is taking one great step in my mommyhood, but I'm low key for the moment.

    Maybe it hasn't hit me yet. Maybe it hasn't hit him either because he said he didn't feel like shopping this weekend.

    Maybe I'm less frazzled because he's going to the University of New Orleans, which means he's staying local, living at home. Also, in my family going to college is a given, the expected next step after high school. Sending my daughter off to college back in 1999, however, was another story completely. Frazzled is too weak a word for what I was back then.

    I was still married, and the family had just moved from Georgia to Missouri. Her father and I rented a van to drive her and too many of her worldly goods from Kansas City to Princeton, NJ. Our son went also. They are ten years apart in age. And I cried. And cried. It was a huge production. We bought not only wardrobe, but linens, dorm room decorations, late night snacks, and a mini fridge.

    You might think my son would feel cheated. No one's doing flips about his going to college, but he's more nonchalant than I am, and the more I think about it, the more I think it's due to all I put him through to get him emotionally prepared for the college experience, the freedom to fail mixed strangely with the terror that failing is not an option. Then came the hemming and hawing over finances, followed by relief when his money from the TOPS scholarship rolled into his UNO account. Whew! UNO is a good school and what we could afford. The only thing I'll be paying for is books, clothes, gas, the same stuff I've been paying for since he was born. Plus, unlike his sister, he'll be home at night.

    He's not even excited about being able to sit in a classroom in street clothes again. For the last two years he, with the rest of public school students here, has been wearing a uniform.

    Anyway, college is a piece of cake for me this time. I see it as college vs. running the streets of New Orleans. College or running the streets aimlessly with dead end job. College. ... Or running the streets. O.K. I'm good. The family and I have fooled him into thinking he must go to college. I've brainwashed him carefully over the last 18 years. Yes. I'm very good, but the next four years will be my report card and I'm a little scared. Shhhh. Don't tell him.

    Now, what's going on at the House on a Hill blog is a big deal, one I can relate to because it reminds me of what a blubbering mommy I was sending my daughter off.

    She was the sweetest baby a mother could ask for. She talked before she walked but she never went through the “baby talk” stage. A part of me wishes that she can always be my baby but that would be selfish. Sam is 16, she’s going to college and, in less than two weeks, I’ll be seeing her only during the weekends. I’m trying to be brave about the whole thing, you know, but I end up getting soppy sometimes. She’s my firstborn, after all, and she’s never been away from home longer than three days. (House on a Hill)

    Connie's stronger than I am. Her 16-year-old baby is going away to study photography. ... 16.

    CalicoDaisy's wailing up a storm:

    Can I tell you how much I miss my son right now? I didn't sleep well last night, and I woke up crying this morning. This is the first time in 14 years I didn't get him ready for the first day of school. I couldn't sleep last night because I thought he could be anywhere. Is he in his dorm room bed? Is he visiting with friends? Did he get a wild idea to run to Wal-Mart at midnight? I don't know. Will he get up in time for college classes? Will he make nice friends? Will he remember to be kind when he is frustrated? Will he remember that he and his sister are my #1 reasons in life right now? I don't know. Will he stand on the firm foundation we laid for him to make good decisions and to know that he has a purpose in life? Will He Remember To Call His Mother ???? !!!! (Read full post)

    If her son is like my son, she'll only hear from him if he gets terribly bored. When my son's gone away for school trips or summer adventures, I've heard nada. Nada. Nada. She's thinking about exactly the kinds of topics I'd think about too, but I've taken a vow not to worry, to let my son grow up. God knows I've slacked off on letting him grow up more than I should have. At least that's what my dad, the drill sergeant used to imply. He's let up on me lately with the "let him grow up" line, however. Maybe that means I've improved, that I'm becoming less protective.

    Almost Got It is sending off a son as well. I like her post because it makes me feel less like a slacker. She writes that they've "managed to teach him how to make a bank deposit." My son finally got a bank account in December. Before that I spent time kicking myself that I didn't get him one sooner. I know he's sick of my lectures about how to handle his money. He may not be going away to school, but he is going away to roam a campus with no hall monitors and the French Quarter just a bus ride away.

    We attended UNO's orientation in July. He met his advisor and registered for classes. I confess I was excited that day. In some ways, I guess, he's already started college in my mind. He stayed overnight and had fun. I expect next year he'll pester me to live on campus. Ugh. I can't afford that. One of the reasons I moved back to Louisiana was the lower tuition at its public universities. I knew that if he went to UNO, I could swing that with probably few objections from his father who should pay half.

    So far, my only concern, other than anticipating that I'll be pestered about his living on campus next year and Gov. Bobby Jindal possibly cutting the TOPS program through which my son has a free ride, is that the child has chosen a major for which he's exhibited limited interest over the years. I'm with DrunkenData on this. I don't like pigeonholing. My daughter did the same thing. She insisted she knew what she wanted to do and started out as an Engineering major despite a letter to students from the university's president saying college is in the beginning an exploration and my admonitions that she was rushing herself.

    Three years later she switched to English. I couldn't help it. I said, "I told you so." Perhaps it's my experiences with my daughter that have me chilling as my son enters school. The first child taught me that sometimes children have to bump their heads, as one of my friends likes to say. The second child taught me I still don't know what I think I know about life and being a parent. And as he sets foot into his first college course later this month, I suppose I officially end my time as the mother of a boy. He's a man under construction.

    I'll always be a mom, and my son and daughter always be my babies, but just as I did when they learned to walk and later took off running, I must sit back, pray, and say, "WOW! Look at 'em go!"

    Two others blogging sending students off to college: Moonbeams in Cyberspace, a lovely post about her daughter who had some growing to do, and Elegantly Random, who is not sending off a son or daughter but giving great advice to her younger brother, words of wisdom for any college student. One of those suggestions is "check your email."

    Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE. She is also the African-American Books Examiner. Keep up with her writing adventures at Her411.com.

    ]]>         Sonia Sotomayor Confirmed to SCOTUS, Makes History http://www.blogher.com/sonia-sotomayor-confirmed-scotus-makes-history 2009-08-06T19:01:42-05:00 2009-08-06T19:08:26-05:00 Nordette From now on call her Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The U.S. Senate confirmed her to the Supreme Court of the United States today with a 68-31 vote. Sotomayor, 55, is the first person of Hispanic heritage, the third woman to join the high court, and the 111th justice.

    ]]>     From now on call her Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The U.S. Senate confirmed her to the Supreme Court of the United States today with a 68-31 vote. Sotomayor, 55, is the first person of Hispanic heritage, the third woman to join the high court, and the 111th justice.

    She will be sworn in at the Supreme Court by Chief Justice John Roberts on Saturday.

    President Obama, who selected Sotomayor on May 26, said he was "deeply gratified" by the Senate vote.

    "This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family, but I also think it's a wonderful day for America," Obama said at the White House. (CNN)

    Her journey to the honor has been a bumpy ride with challenges from anti-abortion groups questioning her commitment to "life" to other opponents calling her a racist, an accusation also lobbed against Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to be confirmed to the SCOTUS.

    BlogHer CE Kim Pearson described Sotomayor's confirmation hearings as "political theater at its finest," while The Latino Politics Blog asked earlier this month, "Will Latinos remember how Judge Sotomayor was treated?" The blogger speaks specifically of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who did not back the judge:

    I was able to catch this clip on NPR with two experts discussing the impact that opposing Sotomayor could have in the Latino political sphere in the future. My take is that Republican Senators who have chosen to oppose Sotomayor are making a bold calculation that could backlash. Given the current political climate, President Obama has taken a more centrist approach to governing than many expected, and Sotomayor’s judicial record has not indicated that her rulings fall outside of the mainstream. Throughout the hearings, Judge displayed an even temperament, defying the notion that she is an “angry Latina.” She has acquired the support of rank and file law enforcement, district attorneys, and even Republican Senators Mel Martinez, Richard Lugar, and Olympia Snowe (the voice of reason wing of the GOP). Considering that there are other bones to pick with the Obama administration and more progressive Democrats about health care, gun control, taxes, and possibly immigration, the GOP Senators’ choice to put up a fight regarding Judge Sotomayor is silly and rather shortsighted. (Latino Politics Blog) 

    That writer is not the only one wondering about what the battle for Sotomayor's seating means for the future. A Wall Street Journal writer has questions as well but from a different perspective:

    So what does the vote mean? On the one hand, that she was confirmed was hardly surprising; given all the pregaming, we practically knew not only that she’d be confirmed but that she’d get around 68 votes.

    On the other, the 31 Republicans who voted against her seem pretty pleased with themselves, according to this story, by the Dow Jones Newswires’s Kristina Peterson.

    Why? Here’s why, according to Peterson:

    [T]he show of party unity will discourage Mr. Obama from choosing a more liberal candidate in future picks and that the arguments they developed against Judge Sotomayor set a precedent for rejecting what they see as “activist” judges.

    Said one Republican aide: "I think from the beginning a lot of people have seen this as setting up the stage for the next one."(Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal)

    At other blogs, a dissection of the hearings and vote may be saved for later. The blogosphere rings with well wishes to the new justice. Maegan La Mamita Mala at Vivir Latino gives unqualified congratulations: "Felicidades to fellow Nuyorican mujer Sonia Sotomayor who was confirmed today by the U.S. Senate as the 111th justice of the Supreme Court."

    Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor spotted in New York

    Jill in Gender at Feministe writes that Sotomayor would not have been her first choice, but concedes her rise to the SCOTUS is welcomed. Jean Nedeau reporting for Women's Rights at Change.org offers congratulations and shares the breakdown of votes from the New York Times. Echoing the accurate characterization of today's confirmation, journalist Taylor Marsh writes, "History made."

    Nordette Adams is a BlogHer CE whose personal blog is WSATA. She is also the African-American Books Examiner and wears a few other hats

    ]]>