Be disheartened no more. We're calling it a murder at least in part because it is made very clear later in the episode that, according to the doctors, Christopher had a chance of surviving his injuries had help arrived in time (I think it's Carmella who reports this information). I'm sure that information was inserted into the episode precisely to make it clear to us who was responsible for Christopher's death.

And look at Tony's face when he's doing the deed. That's no mercy killing, and it certainly ain't God. Puh-lease.

It's a matter of social and historical context. Oprah is talking about the remarkable fact that very recently in this country it was inconceivable for many people to imagine that there were options for black people /other/ than working for white people, but that - at least for her - things have changed and now she has different options. So deep did this feeling go that Oprah's own grandmother expected her to have very little say about her own work enviornment and hoped she would be fortunate to find someone "nice" to be subservient to. White people in this country have never been constrained into social roles that require them to be subservient to people of another race, or dependent upon their whims, so her comment is simply not remotely comparable to a scenario in which a white person talks about having black employees. The white employer has a range of options that even today many people of color may not share, and certainly did not share mere decades in our past. And talking about it as if were even on the same spectrum as "nappy headed hos" just comes off as remarkable cluelessness. It's not just a matter of degree! What we say means different things depending on who we are and what our history is. That's true for everything, but it's doubly true in this country when it comes to issues of race.

Really, why do white people get offended by people of color talking about the very real history of racism in this country? Are they not allowed to comment on their changing roles in relation to white people? I mean, if there was an epidemic of poor white people in this country forced into demeaning and dehumanizing social roles at the hands of people of color, I could maybe understand folks getting all hot and bothered about this, but since last I checked our history goes unilaterally in the other direction, offence here just makes no sense to me at all.

First, pointing the finger at someone and saying "but he's worse" is an infantile attempt to displace responsibility. Yes, Bush is terrible and the fact that he still has his job is a tragedy, but that doesn't mean that Imus shouldn't be held responsible for the things he has done, however comparatively minor. Should we stop convicting criminals of shoplifting or handing out speeding tickets because our president is a bigger criminal and far more reckless? Of course not. Should we stop ourselves from calling out Imus for being an asshole when Bush is a bigger asshole? No.

Second, it's true that self-righteous indignation over Imus' comments can be extremely off-putting. The fact is that many of us have said awful things, or tolerated assholes in bars for saying such things, and by sounding off at Imus some of us may be trying to dodge our own responsibility for our less than stellar actions or inactions (see point the first). However, we can both admit that we are not "holier than thou" and also point out that Imus was being an asshole and want him taken off the air for persistently being an asshole.

Third, it's not his radio show. It's his network's radio show. When Imus' sponsors voted with their dollars, he was out because he was costing his network money due to his assholery.

Forth, perhaps instead of getting defensive and telling us what should and should not be worthy of censure, Keillor should wonder why it's okay with him that you can hear such things said at any old bar. It's the height of clueless white male privilege to declare that your opinion and the opinion of those like you about the relative importance of the "nappy headed hos" comment is the only really important one. All the African Americans and all of the women who are implicated by those words? Just overreacting, I guess! It is also the height of clueless male privilege to think that, just because you're okay with Joe Schmoe's "severe" opinions about women, the rest of us ought to be as well.

Good point.

Fortunately, I'm guessing Oprah doesn't give a pink rat's ass what any one of us thinks of what she said.

The rate of completed suicides skews male in this country because they are much more likely to use firearms in their attempt than are females. However, the rate of attempted suicides is a different story.

From NIMH:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/suicideprevention/suicidefaq.cfm

"More than four times as many men as women die by suicide; but women attempt suicide more often during their lives than do men, and women report higher rates of depression. Men and women use different suicide methods. Women in all countries are more likely to ingest poisons than men. In countries where the poisons are highly lethal and/or where treatment resources scarce, rescue is rare and hence female suicides outnumber males."

How interesting that even in such an extreme behavior we find gender differences.

You can find the firearms stats here:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/harmsway.cfm