March 4, 2009

How Could Rihanna Take Back Chris Brown?

while Rihanna and Chris Brown's reconciliation after an alleged abuse incident has shocked family and friends, domestic violence experts say it's all too common for a woman to return – often repeatedly.

In fact, experts say, it's unrealistic to expect women not to go back to their abusers, be they husbands or boyfriends, as the victims grapple with feelings of guilt, fear, isolation – even love.

"It never surprises me," says Violent Partners author Linda Mills, who believes therapists and people close to couples in abusive relationships must accept this seemingly fact. "If you start with 'You shouldn't go back,' you very often lose the person [you are trying to help]. They won't talk to you."

Rihanna, 21, and Brown, 19, reunited last week in Miami about three weeks after he allegedly battered the singer early the morning of Feb. 8 in Los Angeles.

No Charges Yet Filed
Police continue to investigate the case and no formal charges have yet been filed against Brown, who was booked on a felony criminal threat charge. Brown has no known criminal background, and though people close to the pair say they've had a tumultuous relationship at times, there had never been any indication of violence until now.

After the arrest, Brown and Rihanna spent time apart. Brown released a statement at the time, saying, "Words cannot begin to express how sorry and saddened I am over what transpired" and noted that he was "seeking the counseling of my pastor, my mother and other loved ones."

According to experts, there was nothing surprising in the reunion between Brown and Rihanna, who after spending time in Miami both returned to Los Angeles on the same plane Monday morning.

Reconciliation Period
According to psychologist and author Lenore Walker, the average battered woman endures three to five violent incidents, from having her arm grabbed to an all-out beating, before she gives up on the relationship.

The reconciliation usually happens during what experts call the honeymoon phase in the cycle of violence, that cooling-down period after the attack when the abusive partner often expresses remorse and begs for forgiveness.

"The man is saying he's sorry, he didn't mean it, that it'll never happen again," says Walker. "It's the loving behavior that reinforces a woman to stay, because they believe the violent act isn't a true reflection of their man."

If anything, the victim will often blame herself – and the attacker will agree with her. "The abuser also tries very hard to convince the victim that the attack was their fault," says Dr. Elizabeth Miller, a Sacramento, Calif., pediatrician and domestic violence expert. "It's common to say, 'Honey, if you hadn't upset me, this would've never happened.' "

In many cases, financial pressures draw a woman back, particularly if she has children and doesn't work outside the home. But even among those with money, there's still "psychological warfare," says Jeffrey Gardere, a clinical psychologist. "[An abuser says:] I'm going to isolate you. I'm going to put you completely under my thumb, under my power so if you leave me, then you are going to be in big, big trouble because you won't be able to take care of the kids or yourself."

Isolation and Love
But it's love, in all its complexities, that can often be the most powerful force for reconciliation for a battered woman. "They have insight into somebody in a way that none of us do," says Mills, who runs a program in Arizona that brings together couples with family members and a volunteer from the community to talk over what actually happened in a domestic-violence event. The process usually goes on for months.

"The ideal might be that we can separate people who are in a violent relationship, but the problem is that that's not the reality," Mills says. "I address the reality, which is that people go back, and they're looking for avenues for the possibility of working through this issue like any other rupture in a relationship, working through this issue to the point where the violence could stop."

Rihanna's Relatives Not Happy About Reconciliation

Rihanna may have spent the weekend in Miami with Chris Brown, but her family isn't quite ready for the tumultuous couple to reunite.

"Everyone wants them to take a break, to cool off," a relative of Rihanna tells PEOPLE after the pair returned to Los Angeles together early Monday morning. "No one wants them back together."

Family thought that the relationship was over after Brown allegedly battered Rihanna on Feb. 8. The couple went their own ways for awhile – he went home, while she recuperated in Barbados and Mexico – but the separation was short-lived.

The pair reunited in Miami last weekend, spending time at the Star Island mansion of Sean "Diddy" Combs. A source close to the couple told PEOPLE that the couple was "definitely together" and working on a reconciliation.

"I'm concerned," continues the relative. "I don't want her to make a mistake, and I don't want her to ever go through this again."

But the entire trip wasn't devoted to the relationship. While in Miami, Brown did some recording at a studio designed by Lenny Kravitz located in the Setai hotel. "He was here to record," a source told PEOPLE. He also spent some time Jet skiing at the beach.

The couple left Miami early Monday morning on the same plane, arriving in Southern California.

How IBB robbed Nigeria of nationhood –Soyinka

Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka has painted a vivid scenario of how the former President Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida robbed Nigeria the golden opportunity to attain nationhood through the annulment of the presidential election of June 12, 1993 won by the late M. K. O. Abiola.

Soyinka, who was delivering a lecture, entitled, “Between Nationhood and Nation Space,” as part of the late Obafemi Awolowo Centenary activities at the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, Kofo Abayomi, Lagos on Tuesday regretted that one of the ways a country could attain the much-needed nationhood was allowed to slip away.
His words: “Sometimes there are events, even of a fortuitous nature,

such as a concerted resistance to external aggression and domination, that can forge such organic bonds of common identity, survival and internal consolidation, that the nation space becomes, virtually overnight, a nation.
“An election, in very special circumstance, can prove such a catalyzing agent. On June 12, 1993, this nation space did have a chance to claim the beginnings of nation-being. Would we have emerged effectively as a nation? I am no prophet and have no interest in hindsight. I insist, however, that the nation claim did stand a chance of embarking on the route to affirmation.

“A democratic election, let me repeat again and again, is only one of the several means – as witnessed in the very special case of post-apartheid South Africa. Most nations we know of on this continent cannot even boast of one defining moment, a moment when the possibility of nation actualization was handed to them. Our chance came to us on June 12 1993, and we blew it,” Soyinka lamented.
While exonerating other Nigerians from the sad episode that has caused the country undeserved setback, the concerned Nobel Laureate put the blame squarely on the door steps of Babangida and some of his co-travellers, saying he did not believe in undeserved guilt.

Hear him: “No. I do not believe in undeserved guilt. The insincerity, indeed hypocritical, double-talk and matching conduct of a handful of individuals, their abuse of the trust of the people, scattered the hopes of that moment of nation-becoming!”
Going down the memory lane, Soyinka recalled how a winner emerged after an election that was universally adjudged the freest in the annal of Nigeria and how somebody annulled it under a flimsy and unacceptable excuse.

“A candidate – may I please remind you? – won a mandate across the national landscape, unambiguously defeating his opponent. That contest was universally adjudged to be impeccably fair.
“The aspirant to the mantle of state subdued his opponent even in that opponent’s most intimate constituency – his local ward. Now let anyone tell me that this did not resound like the starting-pistol of a nation race, a marathon of course, not a sprint, but a leap forward from the starting-block after so many false starts, several of them deliberately planned and cynically executed.

“The overseer of that debacle, General Ibrahim Babangida, then embodiment of the state, has finally opened up and conceded the undeniable – that election was true, and a victor emerged. History has taken note of his confessions and History sits in judgment, no matter what excuses are invoked by him. (But) None is acceptable, least of all the totally incongruous plea that, as the then Head of State, he feared that, that nation enterprise would be aborted by a military coup. I find that plea an afterthought, and unconscionable.

His loss of nerve - if that is what it was indeed – constituted a gross act of governance dereliction at a crucial moment. There were consequences. There were casualties. Homes and businesses were destroyed. (And) Nigerians perished.”
To Soyinka, other leaders, who came after Babangida also did not help matters just as he also blamed religion for making attainment of nationhood a mirage.

He spoke further: “Given recent events, I cannot end without mentioning, albeit briefly, the increasing reactionary role of the religious factor. Religion is one enemy of anyone who aspires to dictatorship in secular matters, we can call ourselves a nation. A theocratic order is anathema to nation-being, since it implicates exclusion, not inclusion.

“Only the secular order embraces all. To Religion all its deserving – spaces of privacy, protection, and cultural identity. Any religious following can evoke parallel but opposing sets of protocols, citing the authority of some unseen and unknowable god in realms that have no perceptible contact with the actual.

“Religion must therefore submit to community, to nation, otherwise co-existence becomes impossible and the human entity reverts to a state of brutishness.”
The Nobel Laureate, therefore concluded thus: “And thus, finally, the question: is Nigeria a nation today? My answer is - Not yet. Is Nigeria aspiring to be a nation? The answer - Unsure. Can it? Possibly. Should it? My answer to that is absolutely non-sentimental, purely technical and subjective.
“I prefer not to have to apply for yet another visa when I need to travel to Enugu or Borno.

If it is any consolation – let us simply remember – we are not alone in this predicament. So, for now, we may continue to sleep, dream, open our eyes at dawn on the recurring vision of nationhood on the horizon, hopefully not receding, indeed, almost close to touch, requiring only the complete surrender of hegemonic dreams, the ethos of inclusivity, the recognition of religious privacy, community primacy, and the manifested will of the authentic landowners of – a designated nation space.”

exchange of blows in ogun state house of assembly

It was a riotous session on Tuesday in the Ogun State House of Assembly as members disagreed on the suspension of two of its members leading to exchange of blows. The suspension came even as the Clerk of the House, Barrister Demola Badejo said that a State High Court had given an injunction that no member of the House should be suspended.

The 26-House members resumed plenary session after a one-month recess.Trouble started when the Deputy Speaker, Hon. Remi Hassan from the Odogbolu State Constituency moved the motion that Hon. Omosanya Solaja from the Ikenne Constituency should be suspended.

Solaja was alleged to have granted an interview in a television programme during which he allegedly cast aspersion on the leadership of the House, thereby running foul of certain Orders of the Legislative House.

Another member, Hon. Titi Oseni who was said to have instituted a legal action against the leadership of the House was also booked for suspension under the General Order 38 of the House.
This motion which was allowed by the Speaker, Hon. Egbetokun to be debated by members of the House did not particularly go down well with the G.11 members who saw the moves by the G.15 as victimization of its members.

For about 45 minutes, the House was literally a “Fuji House of Commotion,” with members of the G.11 led by the former Speaker, Hon. Titi Oseni and Hon. Oluseyi Moses shouting on top of their voices at the Speaker. Other membersand security agents which included the police and the operatives of the SSS watched helplessly as the verbal assault raged.
The charged atmosphere soon degenerated into members throwing missiles at one another. Some members of the G.11 and their counterparts in G.15 were seen pursuing themselves within the supposed hallowed chambers ostensibly to exchange blows.

At about 11.53 a.m. the official symbol of the House, the Mace which was about to be snatched by members of the G.11 was hurriedly removed from its original position (in front of the Clerk of the House) and put under the table of the Speaker. Still perceiving that the Mace was not secured enough under his table, the Speaker gave it to one of his aides who held on to the Mace firmly for about 45 minutes.
Attempts by the Speaker to bring the House to order failed with members of the G.11 rebuffing his pleas to return to their respective seats after holding the House to ransom with uncomplimentary remarks about the persons of the Speaker and his leadership.

At about 12.25 p.m. after several unsuccessful attempts by the Speaker to cool the frayed nerves of members of the G.11, the Mace was hurriedly placed in front of the Speaker who invoked Order 38 asking members who supported the suspension of the two members to say ‘yes’.

Although members of the G.15 supported the motion, the dissenting shouts of “No. No. No. from the G.11 rent the hallowed chambers. They described the suspension as illegal because the subject matter had not been thoroughly discussed on the floor of the House. They shouted at the Speaker asking him to suspend all of them (G.11)
Former Speaker, Hon. Titi Oseni while addressing the press confirmed that it was a rowdy session in the House. “It was a rowdy session today at the House. It is quite unfortunate. We have never witnessed this kind of thing in this House.”

Another member of the G.11, Hon. Ayo Odugbesan said the suspension could not hold because the House did not discuss the suspension. Citing various sections of the Orders of the House, he described the action as wrong and unconstitutional for the Speaker to announce the suspension when actually he did not follow the rules and orders of the House.

But Speaker Egbetokun while addressing the press at the Committee Room said the rules and regulations of the House were followed in the indefinite suspension of the two erring members.
His words: “The rules and regulations were not breached. The G.11 wanted to hold us to ransom, but we succeeded in placing the Mace and we succeeded in suspending two of our members indefinitely.”
Egbetokun who noted that the House had not known peace since his predecessor, Hon. Oseni was suspended last May 15 said “the crisis in the House is about oversight function and nothing more.”
Security within and around the House was tight with the State Commissioner of Police, Mr. Dipo Ayeni personally leading his men to ensure there was no breakdown of law and order while the operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) were also effectively in charge.

The Speaker and his deputy were not spared in the search by the security officials who wore stern looks.
Journalists, were thoroughly frisked down to their pants before SSS officials allowed them into the hallowed chamber.

One of the suspended members, Hon. Solaja before his suspension condemned the manner the search was done which he likened to what happened at the defunct Western Region House between 1965 and 1965.
Armoured Tank, with number plate NPF 2360 AC and several other security vehicles were stationed around the Assembly complex with a detachment of both the regular and anti-riot policemen taking strategic positions.