I’m White, I’m Hot . . . I’m Unemployed

Unknown-4Many people followed the bizarre story of Susan Westwood, 51, who confronted two African American women in a parking lot.   While sharply questioning the women on what they were doing in the parking lot, Westwood infamously and curiously proclaimed “I’m white and I’m hot. I’m white and I’m hot.” Notably, Westwood repeatedly brags about her $125,000 salary, stating “I’m white and I make $125,000 a year and I want to make sure that you’re all up in here.”  She is now unemployed after her videotape went viral.

Westwood appears drunk when she confronted sisters Leisa and Mary Garris, who were waiting for AAA outside an apartment complex in Charlotte. Westwood demands to know where the women live and “Is your boyfriend here? Is your baby daddy here? . . . Nobody cares! I’m white and I’m hot. I’m white and I’m hot.”


It appears that her employer Spectrum Enterprises (owned by Charter Communications) did not appreciate the association with the self-proclaimed “white [and] hot” employee.

She is also facing four criminal summons from the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office — two counts of communicating threats and two counts of simple assault.

We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here and here and here and here).  I often come down on the side of free speech, but some cases directly impact the employer and the underlying business or services.

137 thoughts on “I’m White, I’m Hot . . . I’m Unemployed”

  1. “Lost in a Week of Hateful Violence, a White Man Killed Two Black Shoppers at a Kentucky Supermarket”

    1. Anonymous…….if you want to make a point about this heinous crime, why not use your real name, and not hide behind “anonymous”?

      1. Cindy Bragg,
        Ain’t gonna happen. There are more and more posts under the name “Anonymous”.
        The long-term “Anonymous” and the “Natacha Anonymous” have prominent characteristics that help to identify “which Anonymous” they are.
        There are also recently some have inadvertently had “anonymous” labeled on their posts, because of some glitch.
        In any case, those intentionally posting as “anonymous” have something of a double layer of anonymity.
        Posing as “anonymous” in a sea of those posting as “anonymous” is a handy way for some here to courageously stand behind their statements by hiding their identity.

          1. Ya, “Anonymous”, it’s really a hard job to figure out that there are more than one here posting/hiding under the name of anonymous.

            1. Hiding? Oh, brother. You folks need to find some friends and get out more. Too many here seem overly invested in the comments section of a blog.

              1. Yes, you made note of that before, shortly after you yourself were listed in the most frequent comments category.

              2. The “long term anonymous” is barely literate, and evidently can’t count either.

              3. You’re so predictable. Friends…, life… There’s a great big world out there.

        1. “White supremacists’ favorite myths about black crime rates take another hit from BJS study”


          The article:

          Vast majority of most crimes are committed by a person of the same race as the victim, Bureau of Justice Statistics reports.

          The Justice Department’s statistics-crunching arm just blew up a whole stack of white-supremacist myths about the nature of interracial crime and violence committed by minorities.

          In a report released Thursday titled Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012-2015, the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that a majority of most violent crimes are committed by people who are the same race as their victims. Indeed, the rate of white-on-white violent crime, it found, is about four times the rate of black-on-white crime.

          White supremacists frequently like to manipulate crime statistics in order to claim that nonwhite minorities, particularly African-Americans, are far more crime-prone and the source of most violent crime against whites. Indeed, it is a core belief that this is the case, and many white nationalist ideologues — including politician and pundit Patrick Buchanan, Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, and the Council of Conservative Citizens — all have made considerable hay out of proffering “studies” laden with risibly bad statistics and other evidence to make their case.

          The BJS study demonstrates plainly that this is simply not the case. Some 57 percent of crimes involving white victims were committed by white perpetrators, while only 15 percent were committed by blacks, and 11 percent by Hispanics. Black crime victims fell along similar racial lines, with 63 percent of the crimes committed by black perpetrators, while 11 percent were committed by whites, and 6.6 percent by Hispanics.

          Overall, the BJS reported, “the percentage of intraracial [that is, same-race] victimization was higher than the percentage of interracial victimization for all types of violent crime except robbery.”

          Moreover, it explained, “the rate of white-on-white violent crime (12.0 per 1,000) was about four times higher than black-on-white violent crime (3.1 per 1,000). The rate of black-on-black crime (16.5 per 1,000) was more than five times higher than white-on-black violent crime (2.8 per 1,000). The rate of Hispanic-on-Hispanic crime (8.3 per 1,000) was about double the rate of white-on-Hispanic (4.1 per 1,000) and black-on-Hispanic (4.2 per 1,000) violent crime.”

          This is consistent with previously collected data, including a National Crime Victim Survey in 2000 that showed that 73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80 percent of black victims were targeted by blacks. This pattern is even clearer in the category of murder.

          That hasn’t chastened the people promulgating the distorted statistics. Buchanan, citing Taylor’s fake statistics in 2007, wrote: “The real repository of racism in America — manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder — is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community.”

          Nor have the smears faded at all: In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump retweeted a graphic that originated on a neo-Nazi website trotting out statistics mainly lifted from Taylor and the CofCC.

          The false beliefs that arise from these smears have consequences, too: Dylann Roof, the domestic terrorist who killed nine members of a Charleston church’s black congregation in June 2015, shouted during the rampage at his victims his belief that they were “killing us.” In his manifesto, he specifically cited the CofCC’s website and Taylor’s smear pamphlet as the source of his information. -end of article

  2. Sell Facebook. It really sucks now. Going down like myspace. Very nerdy and stale now. Lost all cachet whatever little it ever had.

  3. Oh honestly! I don’t know how some black people are going to survive in this country with having such thin skin and wearing their feelings on their sleeves.
    If you REALLY want to have your feelings hurt, try being an old white woman in this culture!

    1. P.S. In my opinion, using the term African American is misleading, so I never use it. Africa is a continent, not a country. So does the term imply Egyptian Americans, Moroccan Americans, Kenyan Americans?
      I was taught about the black culture at the feet of an old black man who insisted that Black, as in Black is beautiful, is the more powerful and correct term.

  4. oftentimes, I have noticed, that the folks who are obnoxiously proud of being white, are the least impressive specimens of our race. however, one suspects that the same dynamic may arise in other cultures as well.

    Nietzsche said: [we] “do not feel tempted to participate in the mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking and that is doubly false and obscene among the people of the “historical sense”.”

    1. Of course, it is good and commendable to be proud of being (fill in the blank) any other race or belonging to any other category than a white, straight, heterosexual male. Everyone knows whites (particularly males )are the ultimate evil.

      “See something, say something…unless what you see involves a black person.”

      The next frontier in “hate speech”.


      1. Antonio – I was thinking about that woman in NY whose condo board directed people to not admit people to the apt building without identification. So she challenged a black guy trying to enter the building that she didn’t recognize, and she’s been trashed all over the internet as a “racist” and lost her job. My employer has the same requirement, that you don’t admit someone to the building without a badge, and you are expected to challenge someone you see in the hall who isn’t wearing a badge. But I saw a black man in the hall yesterday; I had no idea who he was and he wasn’t dressed in work attire nor displaying an employee badge. But for the first time, I didn’t say anything. It’s just not worth getting bullied and harassed over.

  5. despicable women threatening each other to call 911. sad and frequent abuse. Lock them all up for doing that. false informing.

    1. The black women had a valid reason for calling:

      “She is also facing four criminal summons from the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office — two counts of communicating threats and two counts of simple assault.”

  6. Excerpt from the following linked article:

    Westwood now has criminal summons issued for her on two counts of communicating threats and two counts of simple assault.

    The Garris sisters hired attorney Michael Phillips to represent them on civil matters.

    “These Garris sisters didn’t feel safe. So we worked toward making them feel safe,” said Phillips.

    The sisters feared for their safety particularly after Westwood’s mention of concealed weapons in the video they recorded.

    Phillips brought this up to the legal team for Camden Fairview Apartments, where the incident took place, and they agreed to initiate the eviction process.


    1. nothing threatening in the offensive and drunk lady’s conduct other than the usual stupidity from women. well within the range of bad behavior now routinely tolerated. and just as stupid to call 911 on her as it was stupid the things she said. and the drunk lady threatened to call 911 too just for good measure. lock them all up for false informing and wasting police time

    2. The Garris sisters hired attorney Michael Phillips to represent them on civil matters.

      Gold diggers.




    The office of Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller has notified the FBI about an alleged scheme to discredit Mueller that apparently backfired on Tuesday, a spokesman confirmed.

    At least two conservative media personalities appeared linked to an apparent hoax that may have been designed to ensnare Washington reporters, if not also cause political damage to Mueller.

    The story begins in mid-October, when an unsolicited email from a Gmail address popped into the inboxes of journalists around the capital city, including one used by NPR.
    In the message, a person identifying herself as a woman from Florida describes having been contacted out of the blue by someone with detailed knowledge about her work history and her personal finances.

    That person, according to the account, asks her to establish contact over an encrypted messaging application and then, in exchange for tens of thousands of dollars, to make false but potentially politically damaging misconduct claims against Mueller.

    Then on Tuesday, a conservative website posted what it said was an “intelligence report” that included the account of another woman who, in its construction, had a sexual misconduct claim against Mueller.

    That “report” and the “intelligence agency” that generated it appear to be hoaxes. An Internet registry record associated with the “agency” listed the email of Jacob Wohl, a writer for the conservative website Gateway Pundit; a phone number listed in connection with it belongs to Wohl’s mother, NBC News reported.

    Conservative media personality and lobbyist Jack Burkman, who was referenced in the unsolicited email from the alleged Florida woman, said on Twitter that he planned to convene a news conference to announce sexual misconduct allegations against Mueller.
    Burkman later posted an update that said the allegations about payment to a woman were false.

    Wohl also wrote on Twitter that the payment allegations were false. It isn’t clear whether the intention was to embarrass Mueller or to try to embarrass reporters who reported on the purported allegations against the special counsel.

    Burkman has moved on the periphery of the Russia imbroglio for months. He reportedly bankrolled an investigation into the death of a Democratic National Committee aide who was the subject of a conspiracy theory related to one thread in the Russia investigation — a theory since debunked and retracted by some of its supporters.

    Burkman also reportedly was attacked by a man he hired to conduct that investigation, as The Washington Post reported. And before that he offered monetary rewards for information about earlier phases of the story and helped raise money for Donald Trump’s former campaign vice chairman, Rick Gates.

    Gates has since pleaded guilty to federal charges and has cooperated with investigators, including in last summer’s trial of Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
    Burkman has a show on NewsMax TV, which is run by Christopher Ruddy, a friend and supporter of Trump’s.

    Edited from: “An Apparent Scheme To Discredit Robert Mueller May Have Backfired”

    NPR, 10/30/18

    1. give it to FBI and let them sort it out. false informing is a crime. false accusations of sexual assault are particularly heinous forms of this crime.

    2. Peter, Mueller is long since self-discredited with any person of integrity paying attention. .


        Mueller has long been discredited in the eyes of red-state Americans inhabiting the right-wing media bubble.

        1. No, he’s discredited in the eyes of anyone who review what he has done and hasn’t done, Peter.

          1. Indictments on process crimes (one of which was egregious).

          2. Indictments of Russian internet trolls (he never thought he had to try)

          3. Indictments of Russian security officials (he never thought he had to try).

          4. Prosecution of Manafort / Gates on leftover tax charges, a matter which could have been handled by the Criminal Division or the Tax Division

          5. Hiring a mess of Democratic Party donors.

          The whole investigation is a fraudulent pantomime. Everyone gets that but you.

          1. Yeah, Tabby, ‘Everyone in the right-wing media bubble’.

            Outside your bubble we follow mainstream media. And there Robert Mueller looks more principled than Trump. No wonder Trump calls MSM ‘Fake News’. Trump’s daily tweets alone make him look unhinged. Mueller, by contrast, keeps the lowest profile.

        2. Translation is from America’s Heartland…
          Hollywood…and our sanctimonious man on the ground, Peter Hill.
          Frequent NEWS FLASHES brought to you by partisan hack PETER HILL, sole proprietor at HILL HEADLINE NEWS NETWORK. ( HHNN)
          Gotta be a big burden taking on the “holier than thou” job all by himself.

    3. It is actually possible that there was an attempt to set up a high-profile official like Mueller via a phony charge of sexual misconduct?
      We need to be extra vigilant about these kinds of despicable phony charges.
      Who knows, that kind of game could even be played with a nominee to the Supreme Court someday.


        This is a predictable response for the Trump era. “Now we got a right to pull this trick on you. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah”.

        No mention of Merrick Garland and the shabby treatment he received. That was perfectly fair! Obama only deserved ‘2’ picks for the court. “But being mean to Kavanaugh makes it a war. So it’s perfectly fair to smear Robert Mueller”.

        1. Garland did not receive any shabby treatment. His nomination was ignored (which the Senate has the prerogative to do) and he was otherwise left in peace. You can’t stop lying: to yourself and others.

          1. Tabby, every comment you write drips with passive aggression. Like being ‘ignored’ isn’t shabby. Like Obama shouldn’t mind having his nominations ignored. Blacks like Obama should just know their place. That’s how it sounds, Tabby.

        2. To PH –

          About Merrick Garland:

          “Liberals Are Still Angry, but Merrick Garland Has Reached Acceptance”



          One of the frustrations of writing about Judge Garland is that no one, not even a Republican, seems to be able to find a bad thing to say about him. And that is what makes what happened to him even harder, his admirers believe.

          “He did everything right — he never said a cross word, he never made a joke about it, he never politicized it,” said Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a former Garland clerk.

          “The character he showed through the whole process proves how qualified he was for the job,” she added, “and it adds to the tragedy that he didn’t get it.”

          What a shame. Merrick Garland is the better man, IMO.

        3. That is not what I said.
          That is the HHNN media outlet trumpeting its usual bullsh!t line.
          Gratulations to Peter Hill for lying through his teeth; THE ALL CAP TOUCH HE USES ON HIS “NEWS FLASHES” add even more to his “credibilty”.

          1. Tom, what am I lying about???

            With Merrick Garland, Obama nominated a judge who, more than likely, would have been a swing vote on the court. Garland was no slam-dunk for liberals. And he isn’t that young. Obama was trying to nominate the most uncontroversial choice. Yet Republicans acted as though Obama had already used up his picks. Like Black presidents get just ‘2’ at the most.

            McConnell denied Garland a hearing for very good reason. A hearing would have showcased Garland as perfectly moderate. That was precisely what McConnell didn’t want. He didn’t want pollsters showing the public liked Garland! The only way to prevent that was to deny any hearing.

            1. PH,…
              A trumped-up charge of sexual misconduct can be an effective political tool.
              Especially an 11th hour accusation with more holes in it than
              swiss cheese.
              The attempted discrediting of Mueller, using this tactic, never got off the ground, and those behind it are justifiably in the crosshairs.
              To falsely accuse me of saying that this was payback for Kavanaugh is a lie on your part.
              My comment pointed out that these stunts, whether directed at Kavanaugh or at Mueller, are becoming part of the political landscape.
              I didn’t comment on Merrick Garland, and that is in a different category that I was not addressing.
              I.E., he was blocked because of the refusal to accept his nomination, not smeared late in the game after confirmation hearings were concluded, and his confirmation was virtually assured at that point.

              1. Tom, Garland was denied the chance (Kavenaugh got) to introduce himself to the public. McConnell wouldn’t allow it. Had Garland come across as the mainstream moderate he is, Republicans would have looked irrational denying him a seat. That was the ‘nightmare’ McConnell sought to avoid.

              2. Tom Nash – there is the rather infamous example of the Southern politician who went around accusing his opponent of being a raging heterosexual. Now, that is hard to fight. 😉 However, the voters were not educated and thought that it meant homosexual and the poor guy was soundly defeated.

            2. Peter Hill – if Hillary had won, do you think she would have nominated Garland? or Lynch?

  8. our community recently went to Spectrum for cable and since then I have noted 3 things, the amount of leftist new cable stations offered, the left slanting cable news they provide on their own cable news show and most expressly, their choice of ellen degeneris as their voice over spokesperson for their own ads. I think we know what we have here.

    1. Our cable company, Spectrum, recently removed RT as a option from any of their lineups.
      I liked RT, they were a good alternate news source that did great reporting of the news, giving analysis and perspectives that few other cable news channels did — as long as the reporting wasn’t about Russia.
      But if the topic related to Russia, you could still get good information — all you had to do was believe the opposite of what was being reported.

      1. Gary Trieste – I get all my news from YouTube. I subscribe to the channels I want to listen to.

        1. PC Schulte,…
          If you are a true conservative, you only watch Fox News.
          And your political views are shaped primarily by Fox News.
          That must be true, since virtually all of the mention of, and obsession with, Fox News, comes from the same people trumpeting the same line on these threads.
          So our more “enlightened” crew here, constantly mentioning Fox News, are not the conservatives who are said to be “programmed by Fox.
          (They don’t want to be found out).
          The posts containing mention of Fox News are overwhelmingly produced by the readers of Huffington Post, Vox, ShareBlue, etc., who heroically and objectively 😒😂point out the dangers of biased news reporting.

      2. I remember in the 80s listening to Radio Moscow over short wave. Some of the propaganda was so thick it was entertaining. But at least even taking this into account it was useful in receiving an idea as to what the Soviets wanted somewhat indirectly.

        RT does as you mention provide this other perspective. When they are being pro-Russian they tend to be a bit softer in the distortion than what was attempted years ago with Radio Moscow. It’s often better to nudge someone to your side consistently over time than to attempt a Baghdad Bob sort of falsehood.

        One of the most refreshing aspects about RT is the absence of all the asinine commercials we have to suffer on American TV these days.

        About all I watch lately are reruns of the Star Trek franchise on the H & I network, or if I hear that Jonathan is giving an interview. Nearly everything else isn’t worth much.

        1. shortwave huh maybe you are older than I thought. that was what we had before the internet

          i like rt quite a bit and I have for years. they have the scoop on a lot of things that shake out to be true. let’s face it the american media tells things from an american perspective, the russian one offers a different viewpoint. i am often told “diversity” is wonderful I guess unless it’s the diversity of opinions offered by Russians or Americans who work for them which are now considered per se false.

          1. the american media tells things from an american perspective,

            No, their reporting is America-centric. The perspective is not an American one, but more an occidental chatterati one with an American accent.

        2. I have an old shortwave, though I haven’t used it at all since 2004 and haven’t attempted shortwave since 1995. You could get the BBC, Radio Moscow, Radio Deutsche Welle, Radio Australia, Radio Sofia, Radio Cuba Libre, Spanish Foreign Radio, &c. The oddest was some station in Ecuador run by American expats that I’d guess were stoners.

          1. it’s good to take a little sw radio if you are going overseas, even today, it’s fun to pick different stations up all over

            1. RT news ladies are also very hot. Hotter than fox if you like a variety of looks. It’s the spice of life.

          2. The Soviet influence wasn’t just limited to the frequency Radio Moscow used, especially with regard to that cursed Russian Woodpecker. Even WWVH wasn’t off-limits.

  9. 1. Her LinkedIn profile has been deleted or closed to public view. She bills herself as a ‘strategic data and reporting analyst’

    2. Over the years, she’s lived in the Boston suburbs, in exurbs of Providence, in NoVA; in Savannah, Ga; around Myrtle Beach, and in Charlotte. She once lived in this bldg


    3. It appears “Susan J Westwood” is her maiden name. Noting how very unlike an ordinary woman of 51 she is, I guess this is what happens to girls once young and pretty who don’t have children.

        1. DSS – since I have switched to my digital smart watch, I am a big fan of it.

  10. MoonofNeptune, Megan Kelley wore out her welcome and management was just looking for a convenient reason to terminate her. She was also being paid too much money and nobody was watching her. If viewers were watching her she would still be there.

  11. My first impression is that Ms. Westwood wasn’t in full command of her faculties when she was captured on video. It’s difficult to imagine someone who really was the level of professional standing she claimed behaving in that way.

    Her behavior was boorish and bigoted to an extreme. Her employer, part of the Charter Communications complex of businesses, may have wanted to distance themselves as far away from her idiotic remarks as possible.

    If Ms. Westwood chosen to claim she was ill in a way which caused her to behave in that manner, she probably could have avoided criminal prosecution. I sure wouldn’t dispute that explanation.

    In any case, I didn’t see (in that video) anything a reasonable person could have construed as a threat of violence or an assault on either side of the conversation, merely an idiotic woman accosting two other women for Waiting for AAA in a Parking Lot While Black. It was horrible and inexcusable behavior, but was it actually illegal?

    Is being a thoroughly unpleasant boor with an unjustified view of one’s own attractiveness actually a crime in North Carolina? Or did she threaten and assault those women when the camera wasn’t on?

  12. Off topic, but sand flies prefer C. sativa even though the little pests have no THC receptors.

    Take your weed to the beach!

  13. Bottom line: Professors can make completely outrageous, totally offensive statements, and it will not impact their employment as it is considered free speech, even if the comment is entirely unrelated to their teaching or scholarship. But if you work for a private company, and you say or post something that might cost your employer a dime’s worth of bad publicity, you will be fired in a heartbeat. Because you’re completely expendable and anyone who doesn’t realize that is a fool.

    1. TIN — That isn’t the way that academic freedom works. Professors cannot cry “Fire!” in crowded theaters nor berate the hired help. AAUP will condone neither.

      1. They make scenes routinely in front of the hired help.

        Tenure and faculty governance have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with status considerations among wretchedly supercilious, other-directed people.

    2. North Carolina’s probably an “at will” jurisdiction. Ms. Westwood’s remarks were abusive of two women who hadn’t done anything to offend her. Westwood’s only recourse against her employer would be either to claim she was incapable of behaving better than that at the time (the issue of “why?” comes up, not necessarily to her advantage), or to claim she was the victim of sex-based discrimination when she was fired – but it’s unlikely a man would have kept his job after behaving in that way, after a recording of the behavior had gone viral on social media.

    3. Tin, I would amend your statement that academics can make offensive comments about Caucasians, conservatives, men, or any of the other targets of Liberal identity politics.

      1. Although your statement is off-topic, overbroad, generalized to the point of irrelevancy–and false; assuming arguendo it’s true, so what? You do understand that no one who has a real life ever gives two sh*ts what an “academic” says, thinks, or believes. It. Just. Doesn’t. Matter. Pro tip: get a hobby.

        this is to “my opinion is valid, too (pouty face here)” karen

  14. So, Jonathan Turley, free speech is not absolute. I am pleased that you are beginning to recognize that.

    1. @david b benson

      That’s right! Let’s hear it for European/Canadian style hate speech laws. OWN IT, David, OWN IT!


    1. Hahaha. I was thinking the same thing. Yes, she’s white, but she’s not hot. However, she was quite drunk, which tends to inflate one’s self perception.

      1. “Beer goggles in the mirror”? Possibly. Or possibly intoxication with something else. I got that impression, too, that she was either mentally ill or under the influence of something that obtunded the Hell out of her.

      2. TIN – that was my feeling. She clearly had her beer goggle on. She was not all that and a bag of chips. I still want to know what the women were filming in the parking lot.

    2. at her age she has accomplished what few Americans can do today: remain beautiful. The two black sisters…not so much

      she was drunk. Visit your local “government supported public housing” complex and see what you find there. Despicable behaviors enabled by “government” funding yet no one is moving to defund them


      1. 1. She isn’t beautiful.

        2. Her hair is colored.

        Visit your local “government supported public housing”

        It’s unlikely Miss Westwood was living in public housing or in a complex with Section 8 vouchers welcome. About 10% of all black Americans receive federal housing subsidies, so it’s a reasonable wager these two sistas aren’t, especially if they’re Miss Westwood’s neighbors.

        1. She COLORS HER HAIR??? Why that hussy! Between you and me, Miss Tabby, I am just shocked! 🙀

          1. It’s a judgment on aesthetics and taste. Sorry it went over your head.

          2. Natacha goes behind shocked, and into a blind fury when suspecting dyed hair.
            Suspected “Bottle Blondes have been especially subjected to Natacha’s wrath. 😂

  15. To Bentsen and Schulte: It creates a public relations problem for the employer. If she had merely been drunk in public, the video would not have gone viral and created bad PR for the company. But employees who behave in racist and insulting ways in public (and ultimately on the internet) make customers (and I am a Spectrum customer) not want to be associated with the business. Maybe you don’t find racist behavior to be a problem, but I do, and apparently Spectrum does as well. She knew she was being videoed and was still willing to continue her racist rant. Given the ubiquity of social media, she was foolish to continue her behavior once she knew she was being videoed.

    1. “In vino veritas”, strictly accurate or not, would come into play here. If you’re a closet racist, nothing would make you come out faster than one too many drinks or hits from a bong.

      After that, even if she and her employer weren’t domiciled in an “at will” state, that’s the sort of behavior that would damage business relationships very easily.

  16. Sadly, I have to agree with David Benson, I do not see how this impacts the employer, And they have not explained their presence,

    1. Paul – There presence was explained by their car breaking down in the apartment complex where they lived. The filming probably started when they were approached by someone acting a fool.

      1. enigma – I did not hear that part. Still, if that had said that early on the whole thing would have ended.

        1. Paul – If a drunk woman approached you making demands while you are at your car in your parking lot. How compelled are you to reply in any manner? Not to say they initially didn’t.

          1. enigma – first of all, I know all of my neighbors, so I know if anyone is “sticking out.” I used to be captain of the Block Watch. And if I had seen two young ladies broken down in our neighborhood, I would have made sure they got a tow. I’m White, I’m Polite and a good neighbor. 🙂

            1. As I recall living in an apartment complex, you don’t know most of your neighbors. Same question, what do you owe a drunk woman approaching you making demands when you know you’ve done nothing wrong and she’s totally out of line?
              I’m sure you’re a good neighbor.

              1. enigma – they may have assigned parking spots so she was used to who was parked around her? She clearly thought the women were out of place. Is it a white only apt complex, then that is terrible and illegal. BTW, I charge my renters more a month than she is paying. 😉

              2. I’m with you on this one enigma. Those apparently nice ladies waiting for AAA only owed her a call to 9-1-1 and a mention of the words “drunk in public.”

          2. Enigma: A rational person would simply say, “I live here and I’m waiting for AAA.” Hopefully that would be the end of it. And, no, the person is not required or compelled to try to de escalate the situation, but that’s what mature adults do. If, however, you’re a member of the perpetually aggrieved, professional victim class, you say nothing and start recording, so that you can post the video and say, “Look at me, look at me, everybody! I’m a victim! Some drunk said something stupid and now I get to be a victim! I’m so proud!”

          3. i retreat immediately because nothing will get a decent man locked up faster than a lying, cheating, arrogant, belligerent, drunk, amazonian white woman. and white men suffer from that especially. but i am sure anyone does if they are around them. treat them like rabid dogs devoid of reason. immediately retreat to a “safe space”

            im going to say why white women are especially prone to drunken stupidity. BECAUSE THEY HABITUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT. Other peoples are less tolerant of bad behavior. I have previously discussed this with various of my friends who have origins in Asia. They contend, that drunken, belligerent, offensive female behavior, such as this will lead to a quick smack in their countries of origin with zero legal repurcussions for the one who hands out the summary discipline.

            At the risk of being called many different names, I share this culturally diverse viewpoint.

            1. I am reminded of the doubly embarrassing and pathetic “girls gone bad” video sensation that swept the country a couple decades ago.

              there is something wrong when bad behavior usually leads to fame instead of infamy, and thence to wealth instead of penury. bad behavior should be punished not celebrated. America is collectively mentally ill, and the social media is like cocaine to a society already suffering from bipolar disorder mania. It ever increases the speed at which it accelerates to its own destruction.

              another form of collective insanity is the ongoing illegality of sex work done between consenting adults in private. while every form of public obscenity is tolerated, private sexual conduct is criminalized. all you need, moreover, to render an act of unlawful prostitution lawful, is a camera filming the thing in anticipation of it being sold as porn.


            2. Florida is a “Stand Your Ground” state so why retreat, especially when waiting for AAA whom they needed to get their car issue resolved. It appears that videotaping these actions is the only thing getting results these days.

              1. you retreat because they are trouble, they are spoiled, and they are very unpredictable. they could care less about what the law is, crazies like that. they’re a bottle of chardonnay away from one sort of outrage or another.

          4. Well, Enigma, it all depends on the circumstances and the individual.
            Personally, I found it best to reply to, and meet the demands of, my ex-wife when she was in that state.😂

      2. Enigma – no one has to explain their presence to anyone except the police, and even then they can ask for a lawyer. If she thought they were loitering, or that it was weird for two people to be standing there in the parking lot for a while, then she could have A) ignored them B) asked if they need help C) if she suspected anyone of illegal activity, called the police.

        Asking anyone anything or declaring anything while drunk is generally a bad idea. I didn’t use my bandwidth to watch the video, but if she made racist comments then that was wrong. All I can think of is Nigel from Fawlty Towers telling his staff over and over again not to mention The War to their German guests. The show was in the 70’s. Then Nigel hit his head, went bananas, and ended up Goose-stepping in front of them because his injured mind kept repeating, Don’t Mention The War, and it was like trying not to think of pink elephants. That made me wonder if she went into the conversation thinking, Don’t Mention Race.

        1. Your description of Nigel reminds me of a scene from both Abbott and Costello and The Lucy Show which I only saw in reruns because I’m not that old. “Slowly I turn, step by step…”

          1. Lucy was one of the greats. I’d never seen this skit. Really enjoyed it. They really had physical comedy down. I think it’s because vaudeville was stil an influencer.

            1. Lucy actually studied slapstick from one of vaudeville and early movie masters. He taught her the tricks of the trade, including, especially including, timing. Can’t remember right now which one.

    2. Her overt racism could create a hostile work environment. There might even be complaints in-house about her behavior. Going public and having a viral video removes any doubt.

  17. This is certainly a lot more offensive than what Megan Kelley said. This woman is a jerk.

    1. Megan Kelly has the kind of job where she can be fired for any reason at all. Job security of any kind is one of the things she gives up in return for her gigantic salary.

      1. moonofneptunex – I finally saw the Megyn Kelley video and she said nothing wrong. What she did wrong was apologize.

        1. I agree.

          What the Left is doing is fighting to ensure that black actors don’t get paid the same royalties as white actors, because black costumes can only be worn by black kids, while white costumes can be worn by everyone.

          They are also teaching little Caucasian kids that they will get into trouble if they like Diana Ross, Black Panther, or any other non Caucasian famous person.

        2. She revealed her ignorance of the historical context of blackface. No one ever said she was a genius. The producers probably wanted to get rid of her before it happened.

          1. Anonymous – I know more about the historical context of blackface than any person who was on that panel and probably you. She did not say anything wrong or show ignorance. Her mistake was apologizing.

    1. DB Benson,…
      The mention of Charter Communication in the column jogged my memory about Paul Allen’s brief attendance at WSU.
      I’m off topic here, but I was wondering if your paths ever crossed when Mr.Allan was there in the early 1970s.

      1. Tom Nash, not that I recall. I taught upper division computer science classes. Paul Allan was only here for 2 years.

        1. DB Benson,..
          Yeah, I think maybe 1971-1973.
          He was in a small frat. A run-down frat😊…. He paid for a new building for the frat in the 1990s.
          I had a friend who was in the same frat with him; he spoke very highly of Paul Allan.
          Allan had his share, and then some, of life-threatening medical issues.
          Beginning when he was in his 20s.
          Sorry to see he didn’t survive this last round of overwhelming health problems.

    2. As soon as people trace whom this person worked for, they go after the employer. I didn’t see the video, but if she made racist comments, and is outed as an employee of the company, it reflects poorly on the company. A large company can lose accounts because of it.

      There are cases where an employer can argue that an employee does not speak for the company, but in egregious cases, where it impacts the company’s reputation or profits, the employee may get fired.

      On the one hand, there can be a trend of people getting other people fired if they don’t like their political speech. There was the GOOGLE engineer who pointed out differences between men and women that got him fired. There is a misconception among Democrats that all gender specific behavior is cultural performative, and that all pay gaps are from misogyny. That’s not the scientific conclusion at all. Given equal opportunity, equal percentages of women will not go into science and equal percentages of men will not want to go into teaching elementary school. However, just because statistically women show more interest in other fields does not in any way preclude individual women from showing high aptitude and interest in math and science. That is why we need to evaluate individuals. There needs to be equal opportunity, but individuals need to be free to choose their own path. There should be no pressure on girls to play with Erector Sets and for boys to play with dolls. That’s force, not freedom.

      Getting people fired for their beliefs can become weaponized.

      On the other hand, an employee does not have the right to scuttle his employer’s business. If I found out one of our employees was a Neo-Nazi or white supremacist, I would not want him associated with our company. That wouldn’t be fair to us, our customers, or our other employees. Such people have the right to say whatever they want, and I should have the right to employ or fire anyone I want.

Comments are closed.