Custom Search

Monday, June 18, 2018

DC & MARYLAND'S YOUNG BLACK MEN REMAIN UNEMPLOYED & ARRESTED (EARLY VOTING 2018)









))

DC & MARYLAND'S YOUNG BLACK MEN REMAIN UNEMPLOYED & ARRESTED (EARLY VOTING 2018):

IT APPEAR AS IF DC & MARYLAND'S BLACK POLITICIANS HAVE FORGOTTEN YOUNG UNEMPLOYED BLACK MEN.

JOB NUMBERS AMONG BLACK MEN IN DC & MARYLAND STILL LAG.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS IN DC & MARYLAND FOR YOUNG BLACK MEN?

YOUNG BLACK MEN IN DC & MARYLAND BELONG ON JOBS NOT IN JAIL.

BUT HOW DO YOU EXPECT YOUNG BLACK MEN TO STAY OUT OF JAIL WITHOUT JOBS WHICH THEY NEED TO SURVIVE??


Post Sources: EPI, Baltimore Sun, WTOP, Youtube


****** In 14 states and DC, the African American unemployment rate is at least twice the white unemployment rate.


The highest African American unemployment rate is in the District of Columbia at 12.9 percent, while the highest white unemployment rate is in West Virginia at 5.2 percent.

In the first quarter of 2018, African American workers had the highest unemployment rate nationally, at 7.2 percent, followed by Hispanic (5.1 percent), white (3.3 percent), and Asian workers (3.0 percent).1

This report provides a state-by-state breakdown of unemployment rates by race and ethnicity and racial/ethnic unemployment rate gaps for the first quarter of 2018. It shows that while there have been state-by-state improvements in prospects for black and Hispanic workers, their unemployment rates remain high relative to those of white workers. Following are some key highlights of the report:

While the African American unemployment rate is at or below its pre-recession level in 17 states (of the 22 states and the District of Columbia for which these data are available), in 14 states and the District of Columbia, African American unemployment rates exceed white unemployment rates by a ratio of 2-to-1 or higher.

The District of Columbia has the highest black–white unemployment rate ratio overall, at 8.5-to-1, while South Carolina and Maryland have the highest ratios among states (3.2-to-1 and 2.8-to-1, respectively).

The highest African American unemployment rate is in the District of Columbia (12.9 percent), followed by Illinois (9.1 percent) and New Jersey (9.0 percent). The highest Hispanic state unemployment rate is in Connecticut (10.0 percent). In contrast, the highest white state unemployment rate is 5.2 percent, in West Virginia.

While the Hispanic unemployment rate is at or below its pre-recession level in 13 states (of the 16 states for which these data are available), there is no state where the Hispanic unemployment rate is lower than the white rate.

In five states and the District of Columbia, Hispanic unemployment rates exceed white unemployment rates by a ratio of 2-to-1 or higher (Connecticut, 3.4-to-1; Massachusetts, 2.1-to-1; Washington, 2.1-to-1; Colorado, 2.0-to-1; District of Columbia, 2.0-to-1, and Idaho, 2.0-to-1).

Background

In March 2018, the national unemployment rate was 4.1 percent, unchanged from at the end of the fourth quarter of 2017.2 State unemployment rates in March ranged from a low of 2.1 percent in Hawaii to 7.3 percent in Alaska.3 According to a previous EPI analysis of unemployment by state, from December to March 2018, 25 states and the District of Columbia saw their unemployment rates decline, 7 states saw unemployment rates rise, and 18 states saw no change.

State unemployment rates, by race and ethnicity

EPI analyzes state unemployment rates by race and ethnicity, and by racial/ethnic unemployment rate gaps, on a quarterly basis to generate a sample size large enough to create reliable estimates of unemployment rates by race and ethnicity at the state level. We only report estimates for states for which the sample size of these subgroups is large enough to create an accurate estimate. For this reason, the number of states included in our map and data tables varies based on the analysis performed (unemployment rate, change in unemployment rate since the fourth quarter of 2007, and ratio of African American or Hispanic unemployment rate to white unemployment rate).

Trends among white workers

In the first quarter of 2018, the white unemployment rate was lowest in the District of Columbia (1.5 percent) and highest in West Virginia (5.2 percent), as shown in the interactive map and underlying data, which present state unemployment rates by race and ethnicity. Among states, North Dakota had the lowest unemployment rate for white workers (1.9 percent).

Trends among African American workers

African American unemployment rate estimates are available for 23 states and the District of Columbia.

During the first quarter of 2018, among states, the African American unemployment rate was lowest in Indiana (4.8 percent) and highest in Illinois (9.1 percent); in the District of Columbia, it was 12.9 percent. The District of Columbia also had the highest black unemployment rate during the previous six quarters.

In the first quarter of 2018, of the 23 states with African American unemployment rate estimates, all had black unemployment rates below 10 percent; in 14 of these states, the rate was at or below the first quarter national average for African American workers (7.2 percent).

The black unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2018 was at or below its pre-recession level in 17 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

(Data on the change in black unemployment over this period are available for 22 states and the District of Columbia).

However, all states except for Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas have black labor force participation rates that were lower in the first quarter of 2018 than at the end of 2007, indicating that the return to pre-recession levels of unemployment in these states was not a full recovery for African American workers because not all discouraged job seekers have returned to the market.5

Trends among Hispanic workers

Hispanic unemployment rate estimates are available for 23 states and the District of Columbia, and data on changes in Hispanic unemployment rates since the fourth quarter of 2007 are available for 16 states. In the first quarter of 2018, among states, the Hispanic unemployment rate was highest in Connecticut (10.0 percent) and lowest in Arkansas and Virginia (both at 3.3 percent).

The Hispanic unemployment rate was 3.1 percent in the District of Columbia. Connecticut and Washington were the only states with Hispanic unemployment rates above 8.0 percent in the first quarter.

The Hispanic unemployment rate is at or below its pre-recession level in 13 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. The Hispanic unemployment rate was most elevated above its pre-recession level in Washington (by 2.3 percentage points).

In no state was the Hispanic unemployment rate lower than the white unemployment rate. In Arkansas, the Hispanic unemployment rate and white unemployment rate were exactly the same (3.3 percent). The ratio of Hispanic unemployment to white unemployment was highest in Connecticut (3.4-to-1), Massachusetts (2.1-to-1), and Washington (2.1-to-1).

Trends among Asian workers

Asian unemployment rate estimates are available for 10 states, and data on the change in Asian unemployment rates since the fourth quarter of 2007 are available for seven states. For the third consecutive quarter, the Asian unemployment rate was lowest in Hawaii (1.6 percent). The highest Asian unemployment rate was in Massachusetts (6.2 percent).

The Asian unemployment rate was at or below its pre-recession level in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Texas, and Washington. In only one state—New Jersey—was the Asian unemployment rate was more than 2 percentage points above its pre-recession level (at 2.6 percentage points higher).
Methodology

The unemployment rate estimates in this report are based on the Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The overall state unemployment rate is taken directly from the LAUS. CPS six-month ratios are applied to LAUS data to calculate the rates by race and ethnicity.

For each state subgroup, we calculate the unemployment rate using the past six months of CPS data. We then find the ratio of this subgroup rate to the state unemployment rate using the same period of CPS data. This gives us an estimate of how the subgroup compares with the state overall.

While this methodology allows us to calculate unemployment-rate estimates at the state level by race and ethnicity by quarter, it is less precise at the national level than simply using the CPS. Thus, the national-level estimates may differ from direct CPS estimates.

In many states, the sample sizes of particular subgroups are not large enough to create accurate estimates of their unemployment rates. We report data only for groups that had, on average, a sample size of at least 700 in the labor force for each six-month period.

Sunday, June 17, 2018

SHEIKHA LATIFA AL MAKTOUM OF DUBAI: IS SHE DEAD OR ALIVE? (HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN)











PRINCESS SHEIKHA LATIFA AL MAKTOUM OF DUBAI:

IS LATIFA DEAD OR HAS SHE BEEN IMPRISONED AGAIN?

DID INDIA HELP TO SEAL LATIFA'S FATE?

PLEASE PRAY FOR LATIFA.

DUBAI IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO VISIT BUT WHAT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS?

HOW MUCH FREEDOM ARE UAE WOMEN IN 21st CENTURY ALLOWED?


Post Sources: BBC News, Forbes, Independent.co.uk, NDTV, Youtube


*******Dubai princess: UN asked to intervene over ruler's daughter 'detained against her will' after failed escape from UAE


Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammad al-Maktoum tried to flee in February 2018.

The lawyers representing an Emirati princess believed to be detained in the UAE have asked the UN to urgently intervene to help secure her release.

Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammad al-Maktoum – the daughter of Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum – tried to escape the UAE in February before the boat she was on was allegedly intercepted off the coast of India and she was forcibly returned home.

“The whereabouts of Sheikha Latifa is currently unknown. However, given the circumstances and reports in the media, it is believed that she is in the custody of the UAE authorities, detained against her will,” Toby Cadman, of law firm Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers, told The Independent.

As such, he added: “She is subject to ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’ – and further, if it is confirmed that she is in the custody of the UAE authorities, she is being ‘arbitrarily detained’.”

Tiina Jauhiainen, a Finnish friend of Ms Maktoum’s, told Human Rights Watch she was also involved in the escape attempt, and that the two of them left the UAE in late February, boarding a boat belonging to French-American dual citizen, Herve Jaubert.

Guernica 37 is also representing Mr Jaubert and Ms Jauhiainen.

On 4 March the boat was intercepted by armed men, said Ms Jauhiainen, off the coast of India and they were forcibly returned to the UAE.

Upon Ms Maktoum’s disappearance, a video was released in which she said: “I’m making this video because it could be the last video I make.”

Guernica 37 has now lodged an appeal with the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

“We alleged that both [the UAE and India] are responsible for the enforced disappearance of Sheikha Latifa,” said Toby Cadman.

The UN working groups now have to decide whether to pass on the communication to those two countries, Mr Cadman said.

“Once communicated to the concerned states they will be invited to respond as a matter of urgency. They can refuse or decline to respond or they can respond to the substance of the allegations.

“We would encourage both states to respond and to clearly set out where she is being detained, why, and to release her forthwith. We will then urge the UN to take greater action in securing her immediate release.”

An Indian English-language newspaper reported that the Indian Coast Guard intercepted the boat, at the behest of Emirati authorities – something denied by both India and the UAE.

A source close to the Dubai government said in April that the princess was “brought back” to the Gulf country.

But while Ms Jauhiainen was later released, after being forced to sign a confession in Arabic, Ms Maktoum has not been let go, according to the source.

“UAE authorities should immediately reveal the whereabouts of Sheikha Latifa, confirm her status, and allow her contact with the outside world,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch’s Middle East director.

“If she is detained she needs to be given the rights all detainees should have, including being taken before an independent judge.”

Radha Stirling, the founder of Detained in Dubai, an international authority on UEA law, told The Independent that she last spoke to Ms Maktoum as the yacht was allegedly being raided off the coast of India, and she has not been heard from since.

“All their communications were then severed, and we believe there was electronic warfare aircraft” above the boat, blocking contact with the outside world.

And while Ms Jauhiainen and the crew members were held in the UAE for three weeks, and threatened not to speak out about the case, they are now doing so as they believe it is the only way to help Ms Maktoum be freed.

“At first they were very nervous, of course,” said Ms Stirling. “But they thought it was the only way for Latifa to have a chance at freedom.”

Ms Maktoum had previously tried to escape in 2002, she said in the video released in March, but UAE authorities stopped her at the border, returned her to Dubai and held her in a detention facility, where she was tortured, for three years.

At this weekend’s Kentucky Derby, friends in the US skydiving community flew a banner saying: “DUBAI, WHERE IS PRINCESS LATIFA?”

Ms Stirling is quietly optimistic the renewed focus on her case will mean she might soon be released.

“We are hopeful. It becomes very difficult for them when you have the UN involved and Human Rights Watch, and the whole world talking about it – it looks extremely bad for them to keep her locked up.

“She has faced torture and abuse and detention, and forced medication for years. An assurance from the government of the UAE isn’t enough – people aren’t going to stop campaigning for her absolute freedom.”

The Emirati authorities have not responded to a request for comment.


Wednesday, May 30, 2018

ROSEANNE'S RACIST TWEET REVEALS SHE FORGOT WHAT ERA WE ARE NOW LIVING IN






ROSEANNE'S RACIST TWEET REVEALS SHE FORGOT WE ARE NOW LIVING IN A NEW ANTI-RACISM ERA:

JIM CROW RACISM IS NO LONGER TOLERATED OR COMICAL.......NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT & ABUSE AGAINST WOMEN IS NO LONGER TOLERATED OR COMICAL........NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

EVERY MEDIA NETWORK NEEDS TO ADAPT STARBUCKS' ANTI-RACISM TRAINING MODEL FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING CELEBRITIES.

ABC WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT TO CANCEL ROSEANNE'S NEW SHOW.

TWEETING SUCH RACIST RHETORIC WAS DUMB & IRRESPONSIBLE.

THE BLACK VOTE IS STILL EXTREMELY VALUABLE.


Post Sources: CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NY Times, Youtube


****** Roseanne Barr Crosses a Line, and ABC Draws One


There is, it turns out, a line. Early Tuesday morning, Roseanne Barr crossed it. And within half a day, ABC, though Ms. Barr had given the network its biggest hit of the past season, enforced it.

First, the comedian and star of the revived “Roseanne” leveled a dehumanizing insult at Valerie Jarrett, calling the African-American former adviser to Barack Obama the offspring of “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes.” Then she tried to pass off the slur, by way of halfhearted apology, as a “joke” — as if, somehow, a racist joke were any better than a racist statement.

Here’s the sad thing. Ms. Barr’s tweet, while shocking, was not unbelievable. What was truly surprising was that a commercial TV network took action against a valuable star, quickly and definitively, and in plain words.

“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” the ABC entertainment president, Channing Dungey, said in a statement.

You could criticize ABC for working with Ms. Barr, who has a long history of offenses, especially since she joined Twitter. You could argue that the network was just trying to stave off bad publicity or boycotts. You could wonder if behind-the-scenes troubles or declining ratings (common to many TV revivals) played a role.

But credit where due: ABC canceled its highest-rated show, a linchpin of its fall schedule, as a stand against its star’s racism. That decision will probably cut into the network’s advertising profits. There may be no perfect moral actors in this world, but that’s still a moral action.

As we’ve seen with #MeToo, which has taken figures like Louis C. K. and Matt Lauer off TV, this is the sort of decision that corporations in our society often make more quickly and punitively than voters. But it is not a step you can take for granted.

Take Donald Trump. Forget his statements as president or on the “Access Hollywood” bus. He began peddling the birther slur — that Mr. Obama, the first black president, was not born in the United States — while the fourth “Celebrity Apprentice” was on NBC. The network kept him as host for three more seasons, and aired one more on which he was executive producer.

In 2013, the “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson gave an interview likening “homosexual behavior” to bestiality and suggesting that black people in the South were more content before the civil rights movement. The A&E network suspended him for nine days before reversing its decision, less a slap than a tap on the wrist.

The “Roseanne” decision, on the other hand, will come at a price for ABC — and like any such step, will have collateral costs. In a Twitter post, Sara Gilbert, Ms. Barr’s co-star and an executive producer of the revival, deplored Ms. Barr’s comments as “abhorrent.” She added that the series was “separate and apart from the opinions of one cast member.”

There’s some truth to that last comment. “Roseanne,” the revival, was imperfect but complicated, trying to engage with important if volatile issues. At times, it had ugly racial overtones, including a snide swipe at ABC’s sitcoms about “black and Asian families” and references to “illegals.” At other times the show pushed back against her character, or even ridiculed her.

But finally, none of that matters. “Roseanne” is a story. The issue here was the real act of a real person, saying the sort of thing that leads to real corrosion in the real world when it becomes normalized.

Make no mistake: The “Roseanne” decision would also have been expensive if ABC hadn’t canceled the show. It’s just that the costs would have been borne, as they generally are, by vulnerable people whose tormentors would be emboldened by seeing someone famous and powerful get away with it.

For that matter, it would insult people in small towns like the Lanford, Ill., of “Roseanne” — towns like the one I grew up in — for a TV network to imply that the only way to represent them is by indulging racism.

The character Roseanne said something like that a quarter-century ago, when her son was reluctant to kiss a black girl in a school play. “I didn’t raise you to be some little bigot!” she told him. “Black people are just like us. They’re every bit as good as us, and any people who don’t think so is just a bunch of banjo-pickin’, cousin-datin’, barefoot embarrassments to respectable white trash like us!”

Corporations involved in controversies like this usually simply want them to disappear. This one, because “Roseanne” has long since been drafted into the culture war, probably won’t.

Even if the president, who praised “Roseanne” to his supporters as being “about us,” doesn’t weigh in, even if Ms. Barr herself stays off Twitter, recent history tells us people will seize on the opportunity to say that the p.c. thought police are repressing us, because a rich woman lost her job for calling a black woman an ape. ABC will have picked a side regardless.

At least it picked the right one here. The battle against bigotry is not just about bigots. It’s about those who reap the benefits of ignoring bigots, and still think they should be able to call themselves good people. When an institution like ABC takes a stand — in prime time, where people notice it — that matters.

I’ll be cynical again tomorrow. For now I’m glad that a corporation had an opportunity to think only of its bottom line, and chose to draw a line instead.

STARBUCKS CLOSES FOR ANTI-RACISM TRAINING (IT'S A NEW DAY)








STARBUCKS CLOSES FOR ANTI-RACISM TRAINING:

NO HUMAN BEING SHOULD BE ARRESTED FOR STANDING WHILE BLACK.

IT'S A NEW DAY IN AMERICA & THE BLACK VOTE IS STILL EXTREMELY VALUABLE.


Post Sources: ABC News, Business Insider, Fox News, NY Times, Youtube


******** 'Natural hair' and whether other races visit you at home: Here's what Starbucks asked staff on its racial bias training day


Starbucks shut 8,000 US stores on Tuesday for a racial bias training day with its employees.

The coffee chain has published a booklet staff were given, asking questions about their hair and how often friends of different races come to their home.
It also asked staff to say whether they find it easy or hard to talk about race.

Take a look at the full list questions below.

Starbucks shut 8,000 stores in the US for four hours on Tuesday afternoon to give its employees a racial bias training day.

It came after a scandal which saw two black men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks after they asked to use to the bathroom without having purchased drinks.

The training, which was provided to some 175,000 employees, included a "personal notebook" for employees to fill out. It encouraged them to become "color brave."

After the training day, Starbucks published the notebook in full. It included questions for employees about their "natural hair" and how often friends of a different race had been in their home.

There were two rounds of questions.

The first asked employees to recall the first time something happened to them. The booklet said that a possible answer was that these things had never happened:

1.The first time you noticed your racial identity.

2.The first time you noticed how your race affected your beauty standards.

3.The first time you felt your accent impacted people's perception of your intelligence or competence.

4.The first time you altered your communication style (dialed it up or down) to avoid playing into stereotypes.

5.The first time you had a friend of a different race who regularly visited your home.

6.The first time you felt distracted at work because of external events related to race.

7.The first time you had a senior role model in your organization with a similar racial identity as your own.

8.The first time you went to work with your natural hair without comments or questions from others.

9.The first time you felt your race affected your ability to build a rapport with your manager.

The second set of questions asked people to rank whether they would find various racially-charged situations easy or hard to deal with.

They were asked to put their answer on a five-point scale, once for dealing with someone of their own race, and once for somebody of their own race.

1. I can talk about race and not make the other person feel threatened.

2. I can comfortably maintain eye contact throughout the conversation and not fear I'm being aggressive.

3. I can talk about race and not make the other person feel threatened.

4. I can use my normal gestures and body language without feeling uncomfortable.

5. I can expect to be respect without having to prove my worth.

6. I can speak with my natural cadence without feeling judged about my intelligence.

7. I can respond to a difficult request directly and not fear my answer wll be questioned.

8. I can share my accomplishments without someone assuming that I did not earn them myself.

9. I can talk about my childhood and not expect others to assume I grew up in poverty.

10. I can voice my dissatisfaction with a situation and not be told I'm "too angry."

~ For Starbucks, the scope of companywide anti-bias training on Tuesday was easy to measure.

Roughly 175,000 employees at 8,000 locations pored over nearly 23,000 iPads, learning about the processing power of unconscious brains and the roots of unconscious bias.

The training — part social justice crash course and part self-reflection exercise — is at the core of a well-choreographed effort by Starbucks to improve its corporate image after a backlash over the arrests of two African-American men in a Starbucks in Philadelphia last month.

Since then, the company has apologized, most recently in full-page newspaper ads. It has changed its guest policy, allowing people to sit without buying anything. And it enlisted a full complement of social justice activists and policy advocates for guidance.

Starbucks is trying to send a statement with the training. It closed most company-owned stores in the United States, leaving caffeine addicts without Frappuccinos and freelancers without office space.

But the company acknowledges that it is trying to tackle systemic racism going back centuries. And there is only so much that can be crammed into a four-hour session.

Pomp and Circumstance

Starbucks infused its training with some star power.

In one video shown to workers via iPad, the artist Common explains that it is sometimes better to embrace differences than to look for only similarities in one another. In another, the documentary filmmaker Stanley Nelson Jr. provides an overview of the civil rights era and viral videos of racial incidents in the past. Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. reviewed the materials, and Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. gave advice.

The training “is a transformational moment in the history of Starbucks,” said Howard Schultz, the company’s executive chairman.

The company, which spent tens of millions of dollars to bring it all together, needs to put on a show. It is trying to convince customers that it is committed to social justice issues and that it wants to create a sense of community at its stores.

Its image was tarnished after the incident at the Starbucks in Philadelphia, where an employee called the police after two African-American men asked to use the restroom. The men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, who hadn’t made a purchase and were waiting for a business meeting, were arrested on suspicion of trespassing — a charge that prosecutors declined to pursue. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Robinson, both 23, reached a settlement this month with the city and Starbucks.

To design the training program, Starbucks teamed up with Perception Institute, an anti-bias research and advisory group, and solicited input from several social scientists. The questions were based on years of research and on past workshops, the group said, adding that the four-hour time frame was more generous than the one hour typically allotted.

As they developed the materials, Starbucks tested them in select stores in Texas, New York, Indiana and elsewhere, and incorporated feedback from employees. Some said that earlier drafts of the materials were confusing, and that directions needed to be clearer, according to a consultant from SYPartners, a consultancy that also helped come up with Tuesday’s program

A Lesson in Sociology and Science

At the training sessions, employees broke into small groups to guide themselves through 68 pages of materials printed on newspaper print, sure to create ink-stained hands. They watched videos on iPads, some with stands made from a cut-up Starbucks cup.

Many of the exercises had the sort of open-ended approaches that have long been the province of sociology classes and business retreats. In personal notebooks, employees were asked to jot down private responses to vague questions like “What makes me, me? And you, you?” After one of the Common videos, they were asked to pair with a co-worker and list all the ways they were different from each other.

After a brief lesson on brain science, they took the Stroop effect test, quickly reciting the colors that words were written in to show how they form implicit associations. The notebook then took them through what it means to be “color brave” — rather than “colorblind.”

One of the more powerful exercises came toward the end of the training, when the employees listened to recorded audio clips of other colleagues discussing biased decisions they had made. In one instance, an employee said he had hid the tip jar when he saw a group of black men walk in. He became embarrassed, he said, after he gave them their change and they asked if there was a tip jar for them to leave it in.

“The big question was we need to make it much more personal,” said Zarina Masih, a Starbucks employee in Evanston, Ill., alluding to advice she received about how to treat people in the store. “To make sure we’re not making assumptions, that we get to know them.”

Talking About Race

The documentary in the training includes an interview with a bald white man who reflects on how easy he has it when he leaves his house.

“I walk out a free man,” he said. “I just do my thing.”

Going out is much more complicated for a black man with braids, who is also interviewed. He has to be careful of how close he stands to fellow train commuters and how he talks to people in public.

Leaving the house can be so exhausting, the man said, that it sometimes “just keeps you at home.”

The training bluntly shows how white and black people experience the world differently.

To that end, Starbucks is toeing a difficult line. How do you convince white people that they are beneficiaries of the country’s racist history without calling them racists? And if you can convince them, how, then, do you turn that into a more welcoming in-store environment?

This can, expectedly, be a tall task for a company whose work force transcends geographic, socioeconomic, racial and educational lines. Some undoubtedly were familiar with, and had experienced, the concepts in the training. Others found them foreign.

“You’re always talking about a particular percentage that is willing to move off of their narrative,” Ms. Ifill said. “You’re appealing to people who are willing to listen and willing to learn.”

In the training, an exercise of “firsts” could serve to highlight the Rorschach that is race in America.

When was the first time you “altered your communication style (dialed it up or down) to avoid playing into stereotypes?” For African-Americans, that is likely so common that it would be difficult to remember a first.

When was the first time you “went to work with your natural hair without comments or questions from others?” For white people, that’s likely always.

One question in the notebook highlights the efforts of its creators to emphasize that this wasn’t about proving someone to be a racist.

“Upon reflection, do you notice ways in which you treat people differently?” the booklet asked. “The point here is not to judge whether that is a good or bad thing, but merely to notice.”

The booklet also offered definitions of what it called “key terms,” such as bias, confirmation bias, inclusion and stereotype.

The definition given for institutional racism could prove upsetting without further context. “The ways in which institutional policies and practices create different outcomes for different racial groups, creating unbalanced advantages for whites along with oppression and disadvantages for people from groups classified as nonwhite,” it read.

Starbucks and the creators of the training say it is not meant to end bias. Rather, it is about getting employees to start grappling with issues of race. In other contexts, like policing, this might mean thinking twice before pulling a weapon on someone. For Starbucks, it might mean a barista’s thinking twice before accusing someone in the store of nefarious behavior.

If nothing else, Starbucks employees may have to think twice because all the publicity surrounding the training could send a message that messing up on race could cost them their job.

Challenge in History and Logistics

“It always seems to me that they’re doing it to save face. It is, to me, too little too late,” said Doug Brandt, who was sitting at a Starbucks cafe in New York with two other men on Tuesday afternoon, several minutes before the store would close. “But it can’t hurt.”

One of the men, De’Monie Jackson, joined in. “It’s not Starbucks that needs the training,” he said. “It’s the police.”

Not even Starbucks pretends that the training will solve systemic racism and abuse. But the company is trying to start a dialogue.

“We also have to recognize that there will be some customers for some reason or another who are having a bad day, and that’s the moment of truth where we have to perform,” Mr. Schultz said.

“We as a company are systemically dealing with things that are far, far out of the control of Starbucks as a company or the four walls of our stores,” he said.

Putting aside whether a corporation is well equipped to address hundreds of years of racism, Starbucks is also up against a “customer is always right” ethos. And it is putting the burden on employees to rethink their own prejudices to offer better customer service, while doing little to help Starbucks’s nearly half-minority work force address the bias it may face from customers.

Then there are the more logistical concerns. Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia who was consulted on the training, worried that Starbucks was moving ahead too quickly. Productive sessions, he said, require concrete goals, specific behavioral standards and a clear metric for evaluating performance.

“Training to make a caramel macchiato can be quite effective,” he said. “Training to be unbiased toward your fellow human doesn’t achieve any of those criteria.”

Tuesday, May 29, 2018

MORGAN FREEMAN TELLS CNN TO RETRACT, CNN SAYS NO (#MeToo)










MORGAN FREEMAN TELLS CNN TO RETRACT, CNN SAYS NO (#MeToo):

CNN SHOULD NOT BACK DOWN, NOR RETRACT BECAUSE MORGAN FREEMAN ALREADY APOLOGIZED TWICE TO 8 WOMEN HE SEXUALLY HARASSED ON MOVIE SETS.

MORGAN FREEMAN vs CNN - FREEMAN'S ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST 8 WOMEN.

TIME'S UP MORGAN.

WOMEN IN THE FILM INDUSTRY SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO WORK ON A MOVIE SET.

TIME'S UP MORGAN.

YOUR STEPGRANDDAUGHTER DEMANDS JUSTICE FROM THE GRAVE.


Post Sources: CNN, Deadline, NBC News, Youtube


***** CNN Fires Back At Morgan Freeman Demand For Retraction, Stands By Report; His Lawyer Responds – Update


UPDATED, 12:20 PM: The back-and-forth continues between Morgan Freeman and CNN over the news org’s expose about him. Here is the actor’s attorney Robert Schwartz’s response to CNN’s latest statement:

“We presented CNN with objective evidence, including videotapes and on-the-record denials by the claimed “victims,” that the alleged incident that gave rise to the story never happened. We proved to CNN, beyond any doubt, that the whole story was built on fakery. The credibility of the entire CNN attack on Mr. Freeman has now been undermined. And in choosing to ignore all of the evidence that we presented, CNN has confirmed our concerns about its reporters, its lack of oversight, and its gross misconduct in unjustifiably attacking Mr. Freeman.”

PREVIOUSLY, 9:18 AM: CNN has rebutted Morgan Freeman’s demand for a retraction, saying it stands by its report that multiple women accuse him of harassing them or behaving inappropriately on set, while promoting his movies, and at his production company.

“The unfounded accusations made by Mr. Freeman’s lawyer are disappointing and are difficult to reconcile with Mr. Freeman’s own public statements in the aftermath of the story,” the cable news network said in a statement issued Tuesday afternoon.

“CNN stands by its reporting and will respond forcefully to any attempt by Mr. Freeman or his representatives to intimidate us from covering this important public issue,” the network added.

Hours earlier, Robert M. Schwartz of Irell & Manella, has emailed a 10-page letter to CNN chief Jeff Zucker, implying that this might become a lawsuit.

In its report, published last week, the cable news organization said eight women have come forward with allegations of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior. CNN interviewed 16 people for its report, including some who said they witnessed the behavior.

One production assistant said she was subjected to unwanted touching and comments about her figure and clothing on a nearly daily basis, including one incident in which the 80-year-old actor allegedly “kept trying to lift up my skirt” while inquiring if she was wearing underwear.

Freeman, who has lost endorsements and has said he is devastated by the accusations, initially apologized and but then clarified. In his letter to Zucker, Schwartz wrote, “It has been said that ‘A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.’ In just the few days since CNN published the article on Mr. Freeman, it has traveled all the way around the world and back, millions of times. If CNN has any decency, or any allegiance to journalistic integrity, it will immediate retract the article and issue a public apology to Mr. Freeman.”


MORGAN FREEMAN - RICH BLACK ACTOR, ABUSER WHO ALLEGEDLY SLEPT WITH HIS STEPGRANDDAUGHTER & MURDERED HER (#MeToo)












MORGAN FREEMAN - RICH BLACK ACTOR WHO ALLEGEDLY SLEPT WITH HIS STEPGRANDDAUGHTER & MURDERED HER (#MeToo):

MORGAN FREEMAN ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY ABUSED AT LEAST 8 WOMEN WHILE ON SET.

WOMEN WHO WORKED WITH MORGAN DID NOT FEEL SAFE IN HIS PRESENCE.

MORGAN FREEMAN ALLEGEDLY CONSPIRED TO HAVE HIS STEPGRANDDAUGHTER MURDERED OUT OF JEALOUSY & TO COVER UP THE TRUTH ABOUT THEIR RELATIONSHIP.

WHY DID MORGAN FREEMAN PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TWICE TO THOSE 8 WOMEN IF HE IS INNOCENT?

ALLEGEDLY YOU SAY??

I STRONGLY BELIEVE MORGAN FREEMAN IS 100% GUILTY & SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

INNOCENT BLOOD CRIES FROM THE GRAVE FOR JUSTICE & VINDICATION.

MORGAN FREEMAN SHOULD BE TRIED, CONVICTED & SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON.


Post Sources: CNN, CBC News, Daily Mail, MSNBC, Wendy Williams, Youtube


****** Women accuse Morgan Freeman of inappropriate behavior, harassment


A young production assistant thought she had landed the job of her dreams when, in the summer of 2015, she started work on "Going In Style," a bank heist comedy starring Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Alan Arkin.

But the job quickly devolved into several months of harassment, she told CNN. She alleges that Freeman subjected her to unwanted touching and comments about her figure and clothing on a near-daily basis. Freeman would rest his hand on her lower back or rub her lower back, she said.

In one incident, she said, Freeman "kept trying to lift up my skirt and asking if I was wearing underwear." He never successfully lifted her skirt, she said -- he would touch it and try to lift it, she would move away, and then he'd try again.

Eventually, she said, "Alan [Arkin] made a comment telling him to stop. Morgan got freaked out and didn't know what to say."

Freeman's alleged inappropriate behavior was not limited to that one movie set, according to other sources who spoke to CNN. A woman who was a senior member of the production staff of the movie "Now You See Me" in 2012 told CNN that Freeman sexually harassed her and her female assistant on numerous occasions by making comments about their bodies.

"He did comment on our bodies... We knew that if he was coming by ... not to wear any top that would show our breasts, not to wear anything that would show our bottoms, meaning not wearing clothes that [were] fitted," she said.

At 80 years old, Freeman is one of Hollywood's biggest stars, with a movie career that spans nearly five decades. His starring roles in movies like "Driving Miss Daisy" and "Shawshank Redemption" in the late 1980s and early 1990s made him a household name.

He won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for 2004's "Million Dollar Baby," and has earned four other Oscar nominations. His voiceover work has also become iconic, including his narration for the Academy Award-winning documentaries "The Long Way Home" and "March of the Penguins."

In all, 16 people spoke to CNN about Freeman as part of this investigation, eight of whom said they were victims of what some called harassment and others called inappropriate behavior by Freeman. Eight said they witnessed Freeman's alleged conduct.

These 16 people together described a pattern of inappropriate behavior by Freeman on set, while promoting his movies and at his production company Revelations Entertainment.

Of those 16, seven people described an environment at Revelations Entertainment that included allegations of harassment or inappropriate behavior by Freeman there, with one incident allegedly witnessed by Lori McCreary, Freeman's co-founder in the enterprise, and another in which she was the target of demeaning comments by Freeman in a public setting.

One of those seven people alleged that McCreary made a discriminatory remark regarding a female candidate for a job at the Producers Guild of America, where McCreary is co-president.

Four people who worked in production capacities on movie sets with Freeman over the last ten years described him as repeatedly behaving in ways that made women feel uncomfortable at work. Two, including the production assistant on "Going in Style" whose skirt he allegedly attempted to lift, said Freeman subjected them to unwanted touching.

Three said he made public comments about women's clothing or bodies. But each of them said they didn't report Freeman's behavior, with most saying it was because they feared for their jobs. Instead, some of the women -- both on movie sets and at Revelations -- said, they came up with ways to combat the alleged harassment on their own, such as by changing the way they dressed when they knew he would be around.

CNN reached out to dozens more people who worked for or with Freeman. Some praised Freeman, saying they never witnessed any questionable behavior or that he was a consummate professional on set and in the office.

Several other times during this investigation, when a CNN reporter contacted a person who had worked with Freeman to try to ask them if they had seen or been subjected to inappropriate behavior by an actor they had worked with -- not initially even naming the actor they were asking about -- the person would immediately tell them they knew exactly who the reporter had in mind: Morgan Freeman.

Some of those people were sources for this investigation while others declined to comment further or did not want what they said used in this story.

The pattern of behavior described by those who spoke with CNN shows another example of the systematic problems that exist in the entertainment industry. The allegations against Freeman are not about things that happened in private; they are about things that allegedly happened in public, in front of witnesses -- even in front of cameras.

Before #MeToo, many men in the industry could behave without fear of consequences, because many times when a powerful man did so, it was the victim who suffered repercussions.

CNN reached out to Freeman's spokesperson for comment and then, at his request, emailed him a detailed list of the accusations against Freeman. The spokesperson did not respond to multiple follow-ups by email seeking comment on the accusations.

After this article was published, Freeman released a statement in which he said, "Anyone who knows me or has worked with me knows I am not someone who would intentionally offend or knowingly make anyone feel uneasy. I apologize to anyone who felt uncomfortable or disrespected — that was never my intent."

CNN also reached out to a spokesperson for McCreary, and then provided her with a detailed list of accusations regarding Freeman's alleged behavior at Revelations and details of the accusation against her as well as a number of questions for her regarding Freeman's alleged behavior at Revelations and the environment there.

The spokesperson did not respond to multiple follow-ups by email seeking comment.

The allegations of inappropriate behavior by Freeman are not limited to the confines of his company or to movie sets. Three entertainment reporters who spoke to CNN said Freeman made inappropriate remarks to them during press junkets, which are publicity events for journalists who cover new films, typically attended by the movie's biggest stars.

One of the three, CNN entertainment reporter Chloe Melas, the co-author of this article, says she was subjected to inappropriate behavior by Freeman more than a year ago, when she interviewed him at a press junket for "Going in Style."

According to Melas, who was six months pregnant at the time, Freeman, in a room full of people, including his co-stars Arkin and Caine, shook Melas' hand, not letting go while repeatedly looking her up and down and saying more than once a variation of, "I wish I was there." She says he also said to her, "You are ripe." Cameras were on and recording during one of Freeman's remarks to Melas -- "Boy, do I wish I was there" -- but not for the rest. As is common practice with such junkets, Melas was the only CNN employee there at the time.

Afterward, Melas reported what had happened to her supervisor, who instructed her to inform CNN human resources. According to Melas, she was told that CNN HR contacted their counterparts at human resources for Warner Bros., which produced and distributed the movie, and which like CNN is owned by Time Warner. Melas said she was also told that Warner Bros.

HR could not corroborate the account because only one of Freeman's remarks was on video and the Warner Bros. employees present did not notice anything.

Melas and her supervisor agreed that she would not cover the movie.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for Warner Bros. confirmed that what Melas was told was accurate, but declined to comment further. A representative for Caine declined to comment. A representative for Arkin said he was not available for comment.

After the encounter with Freeman, Melas started making calls to see if other women had experienced anything similar, or whether this was an isolated incident. She soon learned that other women had similar stories -- and so she, and later her co-author, began this months-long reporting process.

Freeman and Lori McCreary founded Revelations Entertainment in 1996. Variety reported last year that Freeman started the company with McCreary because he was frustrated by the lack of choice roles for black actors and because he wanted to reveal the truth about serious issues -- a mission that inspired the name "Revelations."

The company's credits include a list of ambitious films about religion, apartheid, astronomy and stem cell research. Revelations also produced the film "Along Came a Spider" and the hit CBS show "Madam Secretary," both of which feature strong female leads.

But former staffers who spoke with CNN say that behind the façade of a progressive and artistic agenda the company's two founders created what one called a "toxic" work environment.

Six former staffers said they witnessed Freeman's questionable behavior around women, which they said included sexual comments and one said included an incident of unsolicited touching. One female former staffer said she was the target of sexual comments by Freeman.

The female former employee at Revelations told CNN that Freeman was flanked by a group of men on the set of "Through the Wormhole" when she met the actor for the first time. He "looked me up and down," she said, and then asked her, "How do you feel about sexual harassment?"

"I was stunned," she told CNN. "This is the person that I worked for, this is his company, I didn't expect it at all ... I said timidly, 'I love it' in a sarcastic way hoping to make light of the situation because I was so confused and then he turned to the guys on the crew ... and said, 'See guys, this is how you do it.'"

One woman who was a manager at Revelations told CNN that sometimes Freeman would "come over to my desk to say hi and he'd just stand there and stare at me. He would stare at my breasts."

"If I ever passed him he would stare at me in an awkward way, would look me up and down sometimes stopping and just staring," she said. "One time he stopped, looked me up and down as I walked into a room of people, and everyone burst out laughing. And I literally froze feeling very uncomfortable and one of the people in the office said, 'Don't worry, that's just Morgan.'"

"That sort of interaction was when I stopped wearing a skirt around the office when he was there," said the former manager. "I can't say it was an accident that I'd be wearing a potato sack and a ponytail on certain days when he was there and do my best to avoid him when he was in the office."

Freeman was not in the office on a daily basis, the former employees said.

But when he did show up, he behaved like a "creepy uncle," in the words of a male former employee. "One time I witnessed Morgan walk up to an intern and start massaging her" shoulder, he said. "The intern got visibly red and wiggled out of his grasp, it was awkward." The incident stood out to him because Freeman was using only one hand to touch the intern, as his other was injured in a 2008 car accident that was widely covered by the press.

Another former employee told CNN she was present when the male former employee told several people about this incident shortly after it occurred.

CNN spoke to two male witnesses who each saw a separate occasion in which Freeman asked women to twirl. One instance occurred at the office, while another happened at an off-site company event.

Another incident stood out to people who spoke with CNN who witnessed it. Two former staffers who were there, and a writer for the show "Madam Secretary" who also attended, each described the scene to CNN.

For his 79th birthday, Revelations threw Freeman a party in the office. According to the sources, roughly 30 people attended the party, some of whom were new to the company and had never met the actor. McCreary was among those in attendance, the sources said.

People at the party had to stand in a circle, a former executive at the company who attended the party told CNN, and tell Freeman who they were and what they did.

Then, the former executive said, Freeman went up to women in the circle and would "stand maybe within an inch of their face and just look them up and down and not say anything, and then would move on to the next woman and he'd stand like within an inch of their face and look them up and down and not say anything, and it was really, really strange." The former executive added, "It was really weird and he did it to every woman but of course he didn't do it to any of the men. He didn't speak to any of the men."

The writer for "Madam Secretary" who was at the party said, "We saw Morgan go around to the girls in the circle and get really close to their faces, he didn't do it to the men. I don't know what he said but we all thought it was strange and couldn't wait to get the hell out of there. Absolutely there were sexual undertones to it."

After the #MeToo movement began, the same writer said, writers on the show joked -- with that incident in mind -- "that Morgan would be the next person to be called out."

McCreary herself has also been the subject of demeaning comments by Freeman. In front of what was reportedly an audience of 400 people at 2016's Produced By conference, Freeman described what she was wearing during their first meeting, saying, "She had on a dress cut to here."

"She wants to be thought of as serious," said Freeman of McCreary, who was on the same panel. "But you can't get away from the short dresses."

Freeman stood by his comments when he appeared a few days later on the "Today" show and host Savannah Guthrie said some people were "surprised" by the remarks he made on the panel.

"It was just something I said in jest about when I first met her, it was more than 20 years ago," he said to Guthrie. "How is that news?"

The Hollywood Reporter reported at the time that McCreary "did not visibly react to the comment." One of the former Revelations executives told CNN that McCreary was visibly upset when she returned to the office.

"I tried to console her and she was clearly upset and I think she was surprised and found it hurtful and embarrassing," said the former executive. "She was devastated."

Five sources told CNN that there was no formal human resources department at Revelations at the time. There was a rotation of executives who served as the point of contact for HR issues, but former staffers said they did not feel comfortable talking to senior personnel about their workplace grievances.

This prompted some staffers to form a "survivors club" where they gathered to vent about their experiences at Revelations, according to five sources who have been to the gatherings, which take place outside of the office.

Publicly, McCreary champions the #MeToo and Time's Up movements.

Two days before January's Screen Actors Guild awards, at which Freeman accepted a Lifetime Achievement Award, McCreary released a statement on behalf of the Producers Guild of America (PGA), to say that its board ratified new anti-sexual harassment guidelines for its members.

"The PGA is indebted to Time's Up as a resource in creating our protocols," she said in a press release issued with her co-president Gary Lucchesi, referring to the initiative aimed at fighting harassment and discrimination against women.

Yet the former Revelations employee who said Freeman asked her how she felt about sexual harassment also alleged that on a phone call with a member of PGA, McCreary said of a candidate vying for a position at PGA East, "she'll never be able to do a good job, she has a family."

Two former senior level Revelations employees said McCreary would openly mock women who had to leave work early for family commitments and school functions. McCreary also allegedly said that some employees couldn't handle big workloads because they had to "run home" to their families and therefore couldn't stay late at work, according to one of the sources. She openly advocated for work-life balance, that source said, but she would make "snide" remarks to those who left work early.

A spokesperson for the PGA said in a statement, "The Producers Guild of America is an Equal Opportunity Employer that does not question or consider marital or parental status in its hiring practices. As soon as CNN notified us about the allegation, we investigated the matter and have found that it has no merit. Lori McCreary is an outstanding PGA President. In all of her work with the Guild, she has been a consistent, vocal, and proactive advocate for women and all who are underrepresented in our community."

A spokesperson for McCreary did not respond to repeated follow-up requests for comment regarding the allegations against McCreary.

One of the former male Revelations employees recounted to CNN what he called the "shocking" remarks that Freeman made while he was on set for a number of Freeman's movies.

What he says he witnessed follows the pattern described by the women who said they were harassed by Freeman.

"[He'd say] things like 'I'd like to have an hour with her' or make vulgar and sexual comments about women," the former employee said. "He would be verbally inappropriate and it was just shocking.

You're more shocked than anything because it's hard to have the wherewithal to say to him 'That's inappropriate.' You're just like 'whoa.' It's hard because on any set he is the most powerful person on it. It's weird because you just don't expect it from Morgan Freeman, someone who you respect."

The female production assistant (PA) mentioned at the beginning of this story who worked on "Going In Style" said she was in her early 20s when Freeman, then 78 years old, harassed her. She said the experience led to her decision to leave the movie industry.

"It was constant comments about the way I looked," she said, adding that Freeman often made the comments within earshot of others on the production staff. She said she frequently came home from work in tears.

The woman recalled a time when she went to the set wearing a dress with a t-shirt over it to cover her exposed back, but "Morgan said to me that I shouldn't be wearing the shirt over my dress."

Another female production assistant who witnessed this particular alleged incident told CNN that Freeman's behavior towards the younger female production staff was an unchecked and persistent issue during filming.

Both women said the t-shirt incident took place in front of a group of people and that they heard at least one other woman publicly chastise Freeman for that particular comment. The behavior was discussed among the women he targeted, the female production assistant said.

A third woman who worked on a recent movie of Freeman's recalled an incident at the film's wrap party. "He was looking at my breasts, and I told him, 'My eyes are up here.' Then we went to take a group photo and he pressed himself up against me. It was inappropriate."

CNN spoke to one of the woman's colleagues on the film, who said that as soon as the photo was taken, the woman walked over and told a group of people what Freeman had done to her.

Another production assistant, who worked with Freeman on "The Dark Knight," told CNN that although she was never personally targeted by Freeman, she witnessed some inappropriate comments Freeman made to female members of the crew. She also said that female members of the crew would at times discuss how Freeman had made them feel uncomfortable.

"Morgan did things in a way that an older more established person can get away with because they have that power," she told CNN. "They can't be replaced, but you can be replaced very easily, that's just kind of the dynamic on set. PA's can be replaced, grips can be replaced, electricians can be replaced, but the actors -- once they're in, they're in.

Had it been somebody else on the crew... I would feel comfortable reporting them because I wouldn't feel like my job would be in danger by reporting them, but if you report somebody like Morgan Freeman that the movie would lose a lot of money by replacing them or getting them in trouble, then you're the trouble maker and you'll get fired because you're just a PA."

Freeman's alleged fixation on how women dressed was apparent when he hit the road to promote his films, as was his alleged pattern of looking women up and down while making sexually suggestive comments to them.

As the entertainment producer at Chicago's WGN-TV, Tyra Martin spent hours interviewing Freeman at various press junkets. Over the course of a decade, she said, she sat down with him at least nine times and grew accustomed to his comments about her appearance. But Martin made it clear in an interview with CNN that she was always "in on the joke." WGN produced videos featuring some of Freeman's remarks to Martin, describing it as him flirting with her. But Martin felt that one incident crossed a line.

"When I stood up, I pulled my skirt part of my dress down and he did say, 'Oh, don't pull it down now.'" Martin said. "That gave me pause but I never felt uncomfortable."

It is unclear whether video of that incident exists.

An entertainment reporter who is a member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association said Freeman made comments about her skirt and her legs during two different junkets. Much like many of the women in this report and those who declined to go on the record, the reporter said Freeman's fame and power kept her from speaking out.

"I was just trying to do my job and I brushed it off," said the reporter, who did not want to be identified for this story because she's fearful of losing out on interviews with other celebrities.

"You don't want to put him on the spot because one, he's famous and two, it's on camera and three, you just want to do your job."

PAIGE PATTERSON USED GOD'S WORD TO PROTECT MEN WHO BEAT & CHEAT ON THEIR WIVES (#MeToo)








PAIGE PATTERSON USED GOD'S WORD TO PROTECT MEN WHO BEAT & CHEAT ON THEIR WIVES (#MeToo):

PATTERSON IS NOW BEING ASKED TO STEP DOWN BUT HOW MANY WOMEN & CHILDREN'S LIVES DID HE RUIN?

CHURCHES ARE NOTORIOUS FOR PROTECTING ABUSIVE HUSBANDS BECAUSE MEN BRING IN MONEY.

GOD DOES NOT ENDORSE THE PRACTICE OF MEN BEATING & CHEATING ON THEIR WIVES OR ABUSING CHILDREN.

SO WHY DOES THE CHURCH?

I BELIEVE IN PRAYER BUT MEN WHO BEAT OR KILL THEIR WIVES SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

THIS INCLUDES MEN WHO ARE CHURCH LEADERS AND MURDERED THEIR WIVES BUT CLAIMED THOSE WOMEN "DIED OF A STROKE".

MEN WHO HABITUALLY CHEAT ON THEIR WIVES SHOULD NOT BE CHURCH LEADERS.

I BELIEVE IN PRAYER BUT MEN WHO SLEEP WITH THEIR DAUGHTERS, GRANDDAUGHTERS OR NIECES SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

LET THE WRATH OF GOD FALL UPON EVERY CHURCH THAT LEFT VULNERABLE WOMEN & CHILDREN IN DANGER JUST TO KEEP MONEY COMING IN.


Post Sources: Fox News, Get Religion, Youtube


******* Southern Baptist leader Paige Patterson removed over complaints of 'dangerous' advice to abuse victims


Paige Patterson, a prominent Southern Baptist leader, has been removed from his position as president of a Texas seminary following allegations that he made abusive and demeaning comments to women.

Patterson, 75, has been heavily criticized over his past comments about women. According to The Washington Post, he encouraged abused women to stay with their husbands, implored female seminarians to look more attractive and commented on an “attractive” teenage girl’s appearance.

Patterson, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, also allegedly told a rape victim to forgive her assailant and not report the assault to police, a woman told The Washington Post earlier this week.

Patterson was removed from his position as president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) in Fort Worth, Texas, by its board of trustees, according to an online statement.

The SWBTS board of trustees said it has appointed Patterson to the position of president emeritus, which includes compensation, after a 14-hour meeting. He and his wife will still be allowed to live on campus at the Baptist Heritage Center as “theologians-in-residence,” the statement added.

The move comes after more than 3,200 Southern Baptist women signed a public letter to the SWBTS, saying they were “grieved by the dangerous and unwise counsel given by Dr. Patterson to women in abusive situations.”

“This pattern of discourse is unbefitting the sober, wise and sound character required of an elder, pastor and leader,” the letter read. “It fails in the call to protect the helpless, the call of Christ to love our neighbor as ourselves and the biblical standard of sexual purity.”

“We cannot defend or support Dr. Patterson’s past remarks. No one should,” the women continued. “The fact that he has not fully repudiated his earlier counsel or apologized for his inappropriate words indicates that he continues to maintain positions that are at odds with Southern Baptists and, more importantly, the Bible’s elevated view of womanhood.”

Others, too, called for Patterson’s removal.

“I don’t have an axe to grind or an agenda to push,” tweeted Clint Pressley, pastor of Hickory Grove Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Regrettably I don’t think there is any other way to start healing, outside of Paige Patterson’s departure. It’s a dark day for us.”

Earlier this month, Patterson issued an apology to “every woman who has been wounded by anything I have said that was inappropriate or that lacked clarity.” He added that he denounces “any form of abuse,” from physical violence to sexual misconduct to threats.

“Please forgive the failure to be as thoughtful and careful in my extemporaneous expression as I should have been,” Patterson said.

Another online petition, which defends Patterson against the “malicious attacks,” has nearly 600 signatures.

Patterson rose to prominence in the 1970s while leading a conservative takeover of the Baptist Convention. He helped pass resolutions banning women as pastors and taught that women should be submissive to their husbands.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN'S ARREST MEANS NOTHING IF NOT CONVICTED AS BILL COSBY WAS (#MeToo)










HARVEY WEINSTEIN'S ARREST MEANS NOTHING IF NOT CONVICTED AS BILL COSBY WAS (#MeToo):

RICH WHITE MEN vs RICH BLACK MEN WHO SEXUALLY & EMOTIONALLY ABUSE WOMEN.

IS WEINSTEIN'S ARREST JUST FOR SHOW OR FOR TRUE JUSTICE?

WOMEN ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE WATCHING.

STAY TUNED.


Post Sources: NY Times, BBC News, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube


******** Arrested on Rape Charges, Weinstein Posts $1 Million Bail


In a mirror image of his days presiding over Hollywood red carpets, the disgraced movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was led in handcuffs past a gantlet of photographers on Friday as he appeared in court to face charges that he had raped one woman and forced another to perform oral sex.

Mr. Weinstein’s appearance in Manhattan Criminal Court lasted barely 10 minutes, but stood not only as a breakthrough in the investigation into sex-crime claims against him but as a watershed in the larger #MeToo movement. After decades of harnessing his wealth and power to silence women — and after weathering an earlier criminal inquiry into groping allegations — his reign as a film-industry titan suffered a decisive blow in, of all places, the shopworn arraignment courtroom, where he was among the morning cattle call of defendants.

It was 9:25 a.m. when Mr. Weinstein — in a dark blazer, a light-blue sweater and an untucked button-down shirt — was escorted into courtroom AR-1 by Sgt. Keri Thompson and Detective Nicholas DiGaudio, two investigators from the New York Police Department’s Special Victims Division. The unit had been pushing hard for months on Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the Manhattan district attorney, to pursue a case against Mr. Weinstein, particularly after Mr. Vance declined to prosecute the groping case of an Italian model, Amber Battilana, three years ago because of what he called a lack of evidence.

As the hearing opened, Mr. Weinstein, still in handcuffs and looking vaguely shellshocked, was led with his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, into the well of the court where he stood in front of Judge Kevin McGrath. The lead prosecutor in the case, Joan Illuzzi, announced the charges against him: first-degree rape and third-degree rape in one case; and first-degree criminal sex act in another.

The criminal sex act count stemmed from an encounter with Lucia Evans, who first told The New Yorker, and then investigators from Mr. Vance’s office, that Mr. Weinstein forced her to perform oral sex on him during what she expected would be a casting meeting at the Miramax office in TriBeCa in 2004. The victim in the rape case has not been publicly identified, but prosecutors said that that attack occurred on March 18, 2013, at 569 Lexington Avenue, the address for the DoubleTree Metropolitan Hotel.

After noting that the charges had emerged after “months of investigation,” Ms. Illuzzi added that the inquiry had shown “that this defendant used his money, power and position to lure young women into situations where he was able to violate them sexually.”

Ms. Illuzzi also said that the investigation would continue and she asked Judge McGrath to issue an order of protection against Mr. Weinstein on behalf of one of the women, who was not identified. A grand jury remains empaneled in the case and is still looking into whether Mr. Weinstein abused more women and used his vast financial resources to keep them quiet.

Mr. Weinstein said nothing during the hearing, standing with his back to a roomful of reporters. He was not required to enter a plea because he was arrested on a criminal complaint, rather than an indictment. But after the hearing, Mr. Brafman said his client intended to plead not guilty. By Wednesday, Mr. Weinstein will also have to decide whether he plans to testify in front of the grand jury.

As the hearing neared an end, Mr. Brafman, one of New York City’s top defense lawyers, handed Mr. Weinstein’s passport to Ms. Illuzzi and paid his bail with a $1 million cashier’s check. As part of his bail package, he has agreed to wear a monitoring device and restrict his travel to New York and Connecticut. When the proceeding was over, Mr. Weinstein was allowed to slip out of an employee door at the back of the courthouse, where he climbed into a waiting Toyota.

All told, his passage through the courts took about an hour, a far shorter and much less grueling ordeal than most defendants endure.

Outside the courthouse, Mr. Brafman told a scrum of reporters that he would “move quickly” to dismiss the charges, calling them “constitutionally flawed and factually unsubstantiated.”

“I anticipate that the women who have made these allegations, when subjected to cross-examination — in the event we get that far — will not be believed by 12 people,” Mr. Brafman said. He continued: “Assuming we get 12 fair people who are not consumed by the movement that seems to have overtaken this case.”

Hinting at a potential line of defense, Mr. Brafman also drew a distinction between bad behavior and criminal conduct. “Mr. Weinstein did not invent the casting couch in Hollywood,” he said. “Bad behavior is not on trial in this case.”

As is the case in many sex crimes prosecutions, whether the charges brought on Friday ultimately stick is likely to hinge on the issue of the complainants’ credibility. It remains unclear how much physical evidence investigators have found to corroborate their stories, and Mr. Brafman in his comment promised “a vigorous cross-examination.”

The day had started early for Mr. Weinstein. Around 7:30 a.m., he walked into the First Precinct station house in Lower Manhattan, flanked by several sex crimes detectives and hounded by another gaggle of reporters and photographers. Toting three large books under his arm, he looked up without saying a word as shutters clicked and onlookers called out, “Harvey!”

He was fingerprinted and formally booked and waited in a holding cell for detectives to finish paperwork. Then, about an hour later, he was led from the station house in TriBeCa and taken to the court at 100 Centre Street, his arms pinned behind him in three sets of handcuffs to accommodate his girth, a law enforcement official said. The books he had been carrying — among them “Elia Kazan: A Biography,” by Richard Schickel, and “Something Wonderful: Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Broadway Revolution,” by Todd S. Purdum — were gone.

The charges against Mr. Weinstein followed a wave of accusations that led women around the world — some of them famous, but many of them not — to come forward with accounts of being sexually harassed and assaulted by powerful men. Those stories spawned the global #MeToo movement, and since then, the ground has shifted beneath men who for years had benefited from a code of silence around their predatory behavior.

Mr. Weinstein himself had reigned for decades as one of Hollywood’s top producers, known as much for his bullying and aggression as for his cinematic triumphs. Over the years, journalists and investigators, chasing leads from a whisper-network of women and a handful of complainants, sought to expose the accusations and hold him accountable, but largely came up empty. Mr. Weinstein’s power was after all enormous; his (and his lawyers’) connections were extensive; and he was often able to buy or coerce the silence of any accusers, at times employing an Israeli security firm called Black Cube, many of whose employees were former intelligence operatives.

But everything shifted in October when The New York Times and The New Yorker published articles containing the accounts of several A-list movie stars and employees of the Weinstein Company, his former namesake production firm. The matching articles shattered Mr. Weinstein’s reputation and eventually spurred criminal inquiries in New York, Los Angeles and London.

Mr. Vance’s prosecutors, for example, conducted dozens of interviews in New York and elsewhere and issued hundreds of subpoenas. A similar but separate federal investigation is also being conducted into Mr. Weinstein’s finances and into the question of whether he violated stalking laws in his dealings with women who say he abused them.

The First Police Precinct station house, where Mr. Weinstein was arrested, was not unfamiliar to him or his accusers. Three years ago, Ms. Battilana, the model, accused Mr. Weinstein of groping her during a meeting in his office, and spoke to detectives at the same station house, on Varick Street.

The next day, with detectives watching and recording, Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Battilana met at the TriBeCa Grand, where Mr. Weinstein acknowledged he had touched her breasts and promised not to do so again. But he was not asked about putting his hand up Ms. Battilana’s skirt as she had alleged. Detectives took Mr. Weinstein to the First Police Precinct for questioning, but as soon as the groping allegation came up, he halted the interview and asked for a lawyer, the police said.

Unlike in the case announced on Friday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office decided that time not to charge him.

Monday, May 28, 2018

NO VETS = NO MEMORIAL DAY = NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS = NO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (THANK YOU)





NO VETS = NO MEMORIAL DAY = NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS = NO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (THANK YOU):

WE OWE OUR U.S. MILITARY TROOPS & VETS EVERYTHING GOOD.

CIVIL SERVANTS WORKING IN FEDERAL JOBS WHO DON'T PROPERLY HONOR OUR NATION'S VETS SHOULD BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SACRIFICE & SERVICE.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.


Post Sources: NY Post, NY Times, Youtube


***** On This Memorial Day Consider What We Owe America's Vets


The numbers are sobering: More than 1 million men and women have given their lives serving in our military during wartime, with thousands more dying in other conflicts.

Many died long ago in some of our nation’s — and world’s — most-well-known conflicts. Some died during operations few will ever hear about in history class. And, unfortunately and inevitably, more will die serving our country honorably battling terrorism, tyranny and threats to the American way of life.

None will be forgotten.

Officially recognized as first having been celebrated upstate in Waterloo in 1866, Memorial Day — then known as Decoration Day — was a community remembrance.

When the first official Decoration Day ceremonies were held at Arlington National Cemetery in 1868, James A. Garfield, a future president and a Civil War combat veteran, told the thousands gathered, “For love of country they accepted death, and thus resolved all doubts, and made immortal their patriotism and their virtue.”

Today, we still remember their patriotism and virtue, and that of the scores who have selflessly sacrificed since to make this the greatest country in the world.
It is a blessing to count myself among those who served our nation and came home to enjoy all that America has to offer. While many have been so lucky to return, there are countless others who have struggled with the lasting effects of conflict, both physical and emotional.

In the same way we must not forget the sacrifice of those who have given their lives to protect our freedoms, we proud Americans and New Yorkers must not turn our backs on our veterans and military members in need.

We owe it to our veterans grappling with post-traumatic stress to continue researching new treatment options. According to the US Department of Veterans Affairs, between 11 and 20 percent of our Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom veterans deal with PTS. It is estimated that about 30 percent of our Vietnam veterans have had PTS at some point, according to the VA.

We owe it to our veterans who have fallen into homelessness or are on the verge of homelessness to ensure that they do not continue to slip through the cracks. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated in 2017 that more than 40,000 veterans were homeless on any given night, with more than 1,200 veterans experiencing homelessness in New York.

As a state and a nation, we must get our arms around this crisis and implement the proper policies to make sure vets have what they need long before they reach the point of homelessness or penury. We can’t wait until people are in crisis before we help them.

We owe it to all veterans and their families to ensure they receive the benefits they’re entitled to. No veteran should have to worry that red tape will keep them from accessing health care, education, insurance and the many other benefits we offer those who served.

Just as I am a proud New Yorker, American and veteran, I am a proud member of the American Legion, an organization that for nearly 100 years has advocated for veterans and active-duty military members to ensure that all sacrifices are remembered. As we near our centennial celebration in 2019, I encourage all New Yorkers — not just those who are eligible to join us — to learn more about our advocacy, programs and benefits-assistance efforts.

And I encourage our current and former service members to reach out to our state headquarters or their local posts to learn more about how we can serve them.
The American Legion Department of New York is proud to honor all who have served — regardless of branch, age, gender and background — and extend a hand to those who need it the most. We urge all New Yorkers to proudly do the same.

US Navy veteran Rena Nessler is the commander of the American Legion Department of New York.

Saturday, May 26, 2018

BREAKING IN - GABRIELLE UNION - GREAT MOVIE




BREAKING IN” - GABRIELLE UNION - GREAT MOVIE:

IT’S TIME FOR WOMEN TO BE RESPECTED.


***** CAST:


GABRIELLE UNION

BILLY BURKE

RICHARD CABRAL

AJIONA ALEXUS

LEVI MEADEN

SETH CARR

MARK FURZE

JASON GEORGE

CRISTA MILLER

DAMIEN LEAK


Post Sources: Universal Pictures, LA Times, Youtube

Thursday, May 24, 2018

WASHINGTON DC’s LAME 2018 MEMORIAL DAY PICNIC (VA)




WASHINGTON DC’s LAME 2018 MEMORIAL DAY PICNIC (VA):

VA CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES DON’T REALLY GIVE A DARN ABOUT OUR NATION’S U.S. MILITARY VETS.

MANY CIVILIAN VA EMPLOYEES SECRETLY BELIEVE OUR NATION’S VETS DON’T DESERVE TO BE HONORED FOR THEIR SACRIFICE & SERVICE.


Post Sources: VA, Youtube


Thursday, May 24, 2018 the VA Vet Center in Washington DC hosted a Memorial Day picnic for our nation’s Vets.

What a shame it was held in a Parking lot without any Tents in the HOT Sun.

In addition the event ran out of Food early causing many Vets some of whom were in wheelchairs, to wait for extended periods of time in the HOT Sun for Food and Water.

I’m sure this VA Center most likely received $5,000 or more from the Veterans Affairs Administration for this event but in reality only about $500 was spent on this event, if that much.

So where is the remaining money?

It will be used on an Awesome Memorial Day picnic for the Civilian employees.

I wonder just how much Federal money Vet Centers across the country annually receive from the Veterans Affairs Administration that is NOT actually being properly allocated to help our deserving Vets??

This needs to be investigated and every Vet Center needs to be Audited.

What a shame because our nation’s Vets deserve so much more for their Sacrifice & Service.

Tuesday, May 22, 2018

STACEY ABRAMS - ANOTHER BLACK WOMAN IS POISED TO MAKE HISTORY (GEORGIA)









STACEY ABRAMS - ANOTHER BLACK WOMAN IS POISED TO MAKE HISTORY (GEORGIA):

THE WORLD OF POLITICS FINALLY RECOGNIZES BLACK WOMEN ARE POLITICAL GOLD JUST LIKE OBAMA.

BLACK MEN SHOULD NOT BE JEALOUS..........JUST SUPPORT BLACK WOMEN SO ALL OF AMERICA CAN BECOME STRONGER.

IT'S NOT ABOUT LIGHT SKIN vs DARK SKIN.

IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMS vs GOP.........IT'S ABOUT EQUALITY vs POVERTY.

IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMS vs GOP......... IT'S ABOUT PRIVILEGE vs OPPORTUNITY.

I PREDICT ABRAMS WILL BECOME GEORGIA'S FIRST BLACK WOMAN GOVERNOR.

GET OUT THE VOTE AND CONGRATS TO STACEY.


Post Sources: CNN, 11Alive, Youtube


******** Stacey Abrams wins Democratic primary in Georgia. She could become the nation's first black woman governor.


Stacey Abrams will win the Democratic primary in Georgia's gubernatorial race Tuesday, CNN projects, becoming the first black woman in the nation to hold a major party's nomination for governor.

If she wins in November, she will become the country's first Black female governor.

The former state House minority leader defeated former state Rep. Stacey Evans, who ran a campaign that tried to appeal to moderates and independent voters.

Abrams, who grew up in Gulfport, Mississippi, as one of six children, told CNN's Kyung Lah in an interview before the election she was aware that "as an African-American woman, I will be doing something no one else has done."

In the interview, Abrams also recounted a story about being rejected as a high school student at the gates of the Georgia Governor's Mansion at an event honoring the state's top students.

"In front of the most powerful place in Georgia, telling me I don't belong there, that's resonated for me for the last 20 years. The reality is having a right to be places does not always mean that you'll gain admission," she said.

Abrams' status as an African-American with strong progressive support, as well as Georgia's status as an early primary and marquee general election state, made her campaign a major draw for national Democratic figures.

Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed Abrams, and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris went to Georgia to campaign for her.

The Republican race, meanwhile, could be headed to a runoff, with none of the six candidates -- including Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and secretary of state Brian Kemp -- currently holding a majority of the vote.

If no candidate tops 50%, the top two will advance to a one-on-one runoff on July 24 to decide who will take on Abrams.