Shirley Sherrod, James Clyburn, and the Politics of Race

I've tried to stay out of the Shirley Sherrod story. I see it as one of those things so ridiculous that the overwhelming majority of people would understand why Sherrod's statements were not racist and why the Obama administration was wrong for firing her. But groups like the Tea Party and the NAACP (the latter of which initially called Sherrod racist themselves) felt that the most productive thing to do was to call each other racists, and now elected officials are putting their two cents in when the piggy bank of inanity is already overflowing.

The Stephanie Grace Email: Are You Kidding Me?

Working at a large law firm and having gone through the tortuous process of taking the LSAT and applying to law school, I have a tendency to roam teh internetz to see what those in the law community are discussing.  This week the major law-related story was about a very misguided Harvard Law 3L who thought it was a good idea to not only argue at a dinner with other HLS students that blacks are genetically inferior when it comes to intelligence, but then to memorialize said argument in an email.  There are so many things wrong with this picture, so let's break it down.

1) Stephanie Grace's premise is just wrong
To think that intelligence is genetic is ridiculous.  Do some people just "get it?"  Sure, but to say that an entire race is dumber because of their skin color is ludicrous.  I'm a nurture over nature guy to begin with and I find statements disparaging an entire race just factually unsound.  Someone is intelligent because they apply themselves and were given the tools to succeed intellectually during their development.  It has nothing to do with skin color.

Long Island Teen Guilty of Manslaughter in Hate Killing

Jeffrey Conroy, the white Long Island teenager accused of killing an Ecuadorean immigrant during a night of "beaner hopping," was convicted of first-degree manslaughter as a hate crime yesterday in State Supreme Court. The prosecution had been hoping for a guilty verdict for the most serious charge, second-degree murder as a hate crime, which would give the judge the option of sentencing Conroy to life in prison.  With a guilty first-degree manslaughter conviction Conroy now faces a minimum of eight years to a maximum of 25 years of time with the Aryan Brotherhood behind bars.  In addition to the manslaughter charge, Conroy was convicted of attempted assault against three other area Latinos, one of them Lucero's friend who had been with him that night.

Another Hate Crime Against a Latino in Patchogue, NY

Matthew Mont (L) and Curt Hatton (Newsday)

Last year Patchogue, New York was host to the vicious stabbing death of Marcelo Lucero, a 37 year-old immigrant from Ecuador, at the hands of 7 teenagers from the area. Today two more teens from Patchogue were arraigned on charges of assault in a separate incident that has reminded many of last year's hate crime. Curt Hatton, 19, and Matthew Mont, 16, are charged along with 20 year old Ramon Rodriguez stemming from an incident on August 14 in which the three are accused of beating an Ecuadorian man and robbing him while hurling racial epithets.

When Lucero was killed last year, it sparked a lot of controversy in the community and shone a light on the shady business of "beaner hopping," in which Patchogue youth would apparently go out looking for men of Latino descent to harass and assault for fun. When a meeting was held at the school where the teens attended (Medford-Patchogue High), things got heated when parents started to complain about the media and a Newsday reporter was forcibly removed from the auditorium. The focus should have been on how something like that could have happened in their community, not that the media was paying attention to the despicable act.

Ramon Rodriguez, the first person arrested and charged
(Newsday)

Now less than a year later we have a very similar incident, with teenagers from Medford-Patchogue High School arrested for assaulting an Ecuadorian in the same neighborhood where Marcelo Lucero was killed. In the previously cited Newsday article, some parents are quoted as saying, "This is not a racist town," or "Now my daughter's embarrassed to go to this school because people are going to incorrectly label it racist." I'm not saying that the town or school is racist, but we're less than a year after Lucero's murder, national media attention, and the beginning of a DOJ investigation and this is still happening? A similar incident happened right after Lucero's murder last year, in which 8 youths yelled racial slurs at two Latinos leaving a restaurant and pushed one of them (yes, this happened less than two weeks after Lucero's murder). After the incident last November, Patchogue Mayor Paul Pontieri stated, "It is very alarming that after the incident of two weeks ago [Lucero's murder] there are still people who have not gotten the message." It seems some of them still may not have gotten it.

Paterson and Goldman Sachs Blame Negative Public Opinion on Prejudice

Today Governor Paterson has all but guaranteed that he will not be the Democrat on the governor's ticket next year. In an interview with Daily News columnist Errol Louis, Paterson stated that the increasing calls for him to not participate in the next gubernatorial election are not because he's been an ineffective governor, not because his party was host to one of the most ridiculous legislative stunts in recent memory and he was powerless to stop it, not because shortly after taking office he admitted that he cheated on his wife and smoked pot and did blow. No no; it's because he's black.

The ludicrous comments come as the writing on the wall is becoming clearer to Paterson, who will likely face a very difficult primary next year against current New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (should he decide to run). First of all, Paterson was not elected by the people of New York as governor. His jump into governor's duties wasn't seamless, but it was not horrendous, either. Then Hillary Clinton got tapped to be Secretary of State under Obama and Paterson had to replace her. The debacle that ensured was nothing less than embarrassing, entangling (and eventually infuriating) the Kennedy clan and leaving the voters of New York scratching their heads. He acted like a spectator during the state senate stalemate. But these are not the reasons that state Democrats don't want him as governor again; according to Paterson, it's because he's black.

Now anyone who knows me or reads this blog knows that I am quick to point out incidents that I believe involve prejudice of any kind, especially racism. I just don't see it here. But Paterson is not the only high-powered, high-profile New Yorker crying foul. Upper-level executives at Goldman Sachs feel that they are being unfairly targeted in the media because their head and many senior execs are Jewish. Not because the taxpayers bailed them out (both directly, and then indirectly through AIG), not because they know they're playing with dirty money a la Jimmy Conway and should not be spending it lest people notice, not because Goldman has seemed anything but gracious to the taxpayer for our help, and not because Goldman is back to their risky ways; no no, it's because high level executives there are Jewish.

Are there people out there who hate Paterson because of his race? Sure. Same thing with executives at Goldman because of their religion? Yup. Is it the reason that the overall public dislikes them? Absolutely not. There are so many reasons to dislike Paterson and those who run Goldman Sachs, that their race and religion, respectively, is one of the last things on most peoples' minds. It just shows the hubris involved: "Oh, I'm so good and never make mistakes, they must not like me because of some immutable characteristic that I can't control." Give me a break. Crying racism and anti-Semitism like this adds doubts to those who are true victims of it, and that's wrong. Anyone paying attention can see through these ill-spewed smokescreens. Peace.

Photos - Governor David Paterson (NY.gov), Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (The Daily Beast)

Barrett's Email Debated: Seriously?

I find it unbelievable that there is even a debate surrounding whether Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett should be fired after his racist email calling Henry Louis Gates, Jr. a jungle monkey. Some people have come out to say that it's a free speech issue and that Barrett should not be fired. Others, including Boston Mayor Menino, want Barrett off the force immediately.

Here's what a lot of people do not understand about freedom of speech: its principles allow you to say whatever you want in this great country, but what it does not do is give you immunity from punishment. Under the guise of free speech, I can walk up to my boss and call him a grade A asshole. Should I not be fired for that because I was practicing my right to free speech, or does the fact that I have shown my inability to remain professional trump that (in the public or private sector)? Take a guess which route my boss would take (and he would be justified).

The fact of the matter is that certain people cannot do certain jobs. It is never justified for a racist to be a police officer (and sending an email in which you call a black person a jungle monkey to a newspaper earns you a racist label). This country's criminal justice system is based on the equality of the law (at least since 1868). It also is based on the rights of the accused. To have a police officer who clearly thinks less of one group of people because of their race and who thinks that suspects have no rights makes no sense; he would not be able to properly do his job. When you cannot properly do your job you do not deserve that job.

Barrett should be fired and have to pay the taxpayers back for his suspension. There is no room for him in any police department or any job that involves him dealing with a diverse clientele. Imagine him back on his beat and having to deal with anyone; Barrett would garner no respect because of his actions. He also has probably lost the respect of his colleagues, who turned him in. Not only was his email racist, it was an extremely stupid thing to do and if it is any indication of his judgment, he does not belong on our streets with a gun, never mind with any authority. Peace.

Photo - Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (NY Daily News)

Justin Barrett Calls Gates a "Jungle Monkey," Then Tries to Say He's Not Racist

Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (CNN)

I thought that with Gates and Crowley meeting Obama today for a beer (which has been covered ad nauseum, down to what kind of beer they're going to drink) this issue would be mostly resolved. Gates overreacted and Crowley unjustly arrested him. End of story.

But then Lucia Whalen, who I thought initially wanted her privacy, held a news conference to say that she picked her words carefully and would call 911 again. But then her lawyer came to the mic and chided Obama and his administration for not inviting her client to the beerfest that Gates and Crowley will have today. She quipped, "Maybe it's a guy thing." So now people can incorrectly say that Obama is sexist and racist when talking about the same incident.

After Whalen's press conference I thought finally Gatesgate would die down. But then when I awoke this morning I was shocked to get a CNN alert about the Boston police. It seems that Officer Justin Barrett sent an email to coworkers and the Boston Globe calling Gates a "jungle monkey." The full text is here, but here are some lowlights: "Your defense of Gates...assumes he has rights when considered a suspect," "for if I was the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC," "You are a hot little bird with minimal experiences in a harsh field. You are a fool. An infidel," "He [Gates] has indeed transcended back to a bumbling jungle monkey," "Your article title should read CONDUCT UNBECOMING A JUNGLE MONKEY-BACK TO ONE'S ROOTS."

Boston Police Officer Justin
Barrett (Daily Kos)

So what is Barrett's defense? The two classic ones: 1) I can't be racist - I have a black friend! 2) My comments were taken out of context. Barrett said, "I have so many friends of every type of culture and race you can name. I am not a racist." Sorry Barrett, but when you call a black person a jungle monkey multiple times and then send it to that "hot little bird" Yvonne Abraham over at the Globe for media consumption, there aren't many more levels of racism you can descend to. As to things being taken out of context, just read the email linked above. There's no way around this one: Justin Barrett is a racist and, as such, does not belong on the Boston Police Department in any capacity. In addition, he thinks that suspects have no rights and calls Abraham and "infidel" - a xenophobic word in and of itself whether used by terrorists in modern-day lingo or by the Christians back in the day.

Mayor Menino thinks so, too, and has called for Barrett's dismissal from the force: "I said, ‘He has no place in this department, and we have to take his badge away.’ That stuff doesn’t belong in our city, and we’re not going to tolerate it." The National Guard has suspended Barrett barring a full investigation into the manner. Barrett has been suspended from the BPD, but he's still being paid.

If I were Sergeant Crowley I would be extremely angry at Barrett. Crowley, who made an unjust arrest and probably just wants everything to simmer down (whether it was motivated by race we don't know and speculating about it is worthless). Now he is thrown back into the spotlight thanks to the actions of a person he's probably never met. Barrett has embarrassed himself, the Boston PD and the National Guard. Not only is he racist, but he sends a racist email to a newspaper. In his email he states, "I am prejudice [sic] towards people who are stupid." Racism and self-hate; now that's a dangerous combination.

Should He Have or Shouldn't He Have? The Obama Press Conference

NOTE: If you have arrived here from Boston.com, the quoted post is one below this.


Watch CBS Videos Online

As the story of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.'s arrest continues to percolate, a new issue is arising regarding President Obama's comments about the Cambridge PD "acting stupidly" when they arrested Gates. The White House has since clarified that Obama's remarks did not mean that Sergeant Crowley was stupid, but that cooler heads should have prevailed. Unions and supporters of Sergeant Crowley have called for Obama to apologize for his remarks.

So should Obama have weighed in on this issue? Let's remember that Obama did not offer up the issue voluntarily, he was asked about it and he gave his opinion of the matter. We can all criticize Obama for not having been there (and thus not knowing 100% of what went down), but none of us were there, either, and yet we continue to debate the issue. Obama, in my mind, had every right to talk about it, but I would have gone about it a bit differently.

Was "stupid" the correct word choice? It would not have been at the top of my list. We have to remember, though, that being black in America is a very different experience than being white; there is no way around that. We can fantasize about post-racial America and all of that, but as Michael Eric Dyson said a few days ago, the only black man living in post-racial America lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The fact is that this arrest has hit closer to home for some folks than for others.

Let's look at the facts. There is an undisputed history of racism and racial profiling in this country (just today it was reported that police down in Texas have been suspended for circulating racist emails about Obama). We all remember the whole bussing embarrassment in Boston, and who could forget Charles Stuart's unbelievable actions? All you have to do in this country to find racial undertones is scratch the surface. So when Gates was asked by a police officer why he was in his own home, is it that unreasonable for him to assume that his race may have had something to do with it?

Additionally, Obama's words are often taken out of context. He was not calling anyone on the scene stupid, he was saying that the arrest itself was stupid. Again, not the word choice I would have gone with, but don't forget that the charges were dropped at the request of the same department that employs Crowley as a Sergeant. If this were a good and legal arrest, Gates would be facing charges right now, but the fact remains that it was not. Does this make Crowley a bad person? No. He just made a mistake. What is telling is his stubbornness in not apologizing or at least backing down.

Was race a factor in Gates' arrest? I have no doubt. From the phone call from this mystery 40 year old woman who could not even recognize her neighbor (who happens to be somewhat of a celebrity), (EDITOR'S NOTE: As stated in the previous post, the actual caller seems to have just been relaying information given to her by a neighbor, who may or may not have been influenced by the race of Gates and his driver - that we'll probably never know) to the discussion Gates and Crowley had, race was all mixed in like the Oreo McFlurrys I used to make on 128. But we have to look at the facts: Crowley arrested Gates for a questionable crime and all charges were dropped at the insistence of Cambridge PD. Whether you think Crowley's a jerk or Gates is a jerk, the fact is that Crowley was overruled by his superiors; there's no getting around that. Peace.

Was Marcelo Lucero the Tip of the Iceberg?

On Wednesday Suffolk County prosecutors announced even more charges against the seven teens accused of beating and killing Ecuadorian immigrant Marcelo Lucero. The accused, Jeffrey Conroy (17, the principle defendant who is accused of plunging a knife into Lucero's chest as his friends beat the victim), Christopher Overton (16), Jose Pacheco (17), Kevin Shea (17), Nicholas Hausch (17), Jordan Dasch (17), and Anthony Hartford (17) face more charges in connection with incidents in which Latino men were beaten unconscious and robbed, beaten with a pipe while being told he would be killed, and held down while being slashed with a knife. Prosecutors say that the teens went on violent sprees that targeted Latinos for 13 months before the Lucero killing.

Many questions arise from this. One of them is: were these incidents fully investigated? If this was going on for thirteen months did no one know what was going on? Some have stated that the Suffolk Police Department did not do enough when the racially-motivated attacks were reported. This could very well be true, but there is no objective way to prove this and there is no possible way to know if more intense investigations of the previous attacks would have prevented Lucero's death.  To argue one way or another may vent anger or emotions, but very little progress towards justice would be made.

One question worth investigating: who knew about this? If the police did not follow up the way they should have, they know it and have to live with that decision because in the back of their minds, they know they did not do their job. And those who knew of the "beaner hopping" of these misguided teens should feel ashamed, for if they had reported such repugnant behavior maybe Marcelo Lucero would be alive. These people know who they are.

All of this being said, if there are people who a) know that these seven kids did this or b) know that there are other people out there doing this you have a moral responsibility to come forward. If you don't you are implicit in their cowardly actions. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." A good read for those who are on the fence about reporting their peers is "The Hangman" by Maurice Ogden. Don't expect anyone to speak up for you if you remain silent while others are victimized.


The suspects' bails were raised given the new revelations about the previous year's attacks. Hopefully these cases will result in convictions of these bigots and they will spend a lot of time in prison for taking a violent and racist yearlong journey to the cold-blooded murder of Marcelo Lucero. The ultimate irony of a conviction for these teens would be that they would go from a society where they are the majority and felt able to take advantage of a minority into a society where they are the minority (in 2001 whites made up 16% of prisoners while Latinos made up 31% of prisoners and in 2005 80% of New York inmates were black or Latino) and may suffer similar abuses that they inflicted upon their minority counterparts. Peace.

Photos - Nicholas Hausch, Christopher Overton, Jordan Dasch, Anthony Hartford, and Jose Pacheco (l. to r.) (New York Times)

Burris Calls Senate's Bluff, May Get Seated

Let it be known: if you whine enough, you will get what you want. At least that's what I take away from the whole Blagojevich-Burris fiasco. Despite an earlier tough stance on not seating Roland Burris from many party leaders, many Democratics have recently scaled back their defenses and are actually making it look like Burris might sit with the new Senate. Why?

One may be the illegitimate cry of racism coming from Burris supporters. Bobby Rush even said that we should not "lynch" Burris just because Blagojevich appointed him. No one is lynching Burris, just like no one lynched Clarence Thomas, but Rush understands the powerful symbol of the noose in American politics and politicians' inability to defend themselves against it, even if criticisms are legitimate (like being appointed by a corrupt scumbag). This is similar to when Sarah Palin supporters called criticisms of her credentials (or lack thereof) sexist. I've said it before; Burris may very well be qualified for this seat, but the process through which it was (tentatively) obtained is not legitimate. Hell, his papers aren't even in order, as Illinois' Secretary of State Jesse White refuses to co-sign the appointment with Blagojevich. So if you want to get technical (which Burris seems to want to do), his appointment is not yet completed. Additionally, the Senate has the ability to govern itself and can refuse to seat someone, as outlined in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.



Another reason why leaders in Washington have lost their previously displayed backbone against corruption is that they were bluffing and hoping that Burris would not call their bluff. It's like a mother at the supermarket when her kid starts throwing a tantrum for a piece of candy. "Don't make me count to three. One... Two... Two and a half... Two and three quarters..." What's going to happen when she gets to three? Nothing, it's a bluff. In the end, the mother has two choices: continue to take a stand against the immature kid or just give the kid the piece of candy to shut him up. Burris is in the midst of a pretty severe tantrum right now with his actions. Rallying supporters who lashed out at anyone opposing Burris' seating as racist, declaring that his Senate status has been ordained by the Lord, and going to Washington despite repeated warnings that he will not be allowed into chambers are all acts of immaturity and egotism and embody the modern-day political temper tantrum.

One thing that Burris and those who support him need to understand is that this is not a "crusade" against God's chosen Illinois senator. This is people standing up to corruption and sleazy politics. Why Burris would even want to be associated with Blagojevich is beyond me, but to accept his appointment and fight, esentially, on his behalf? This legitimizes Blago, which is the last thing that should be happening right now. The problem is this: by seating Burris you are legitimizing Blagojevich and willing to sidestep the fact that he is involved in a massive corruption scandal over the very same seat Burris so desperately wants. To not seat Burris is not racist; it instead says that we will not allow the corrupt governor (the real target of peoples' animosity and who, by the way, is white) to appoint anyone, not just Burris in particular.

At the end of the day, anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich to the U.S. Senate has no business being there while the investigation continues. Because Roland Burris was appointed by Blagojevich and the investigation into Blagojevich's actions is ongoing, Roland Burris has no business being in the U.S. Senate. His qualifications and accolades (not to mention his race) have nothing to do with this. Unfortunately I see the Senate seating him to shut him up, just like the mother finally relenting and giving her kicking and screaming kid candy in the supermarket. Peace.

Photos - Burris meeting with Senate leaders today (New York Times), Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (Illinois Channel)

Defining Denial: Mr. Burris Goes to Washington

Despite being named to the Senate seat by one of the dirtiest politicians at the moment (if not dirtiest), Roland W. Burris continues to jump over hurdles of logic by departing for Washington this afternoon for what the New York Times is predicting will be a "public showdown on Capitol Hill." I don't think there's any need to go into the details of embattled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's "pay-to-play" scandal but suffice it to say that Blagojevich was essentially selling the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama to the highest bidder. The Department of Justice came in, declared that they had miles of tape with Blagojevich on it saying how "fuckin' valuable" the seat was and that he's not going to give it up for free. Blagojevich went on to nominate Burris, despite the imminent impeachment proceedings and his tainted reputation. Even more stupidly, Burris accepted the nomination as if nothing were wrong and now has the gumption (thanks Brusty) to be surprised when people say he should not be seated.

To begin with, can we just take a moment to realize the absolute absurdity of what is going on here? Shouldn't it be common sense that Blagojevich should not be allowed to seat a senator, at least not until this whole "pay me to seat you as senator" thing works itself out (or he is impeached, whichever comes first). And then, to accept a nomination from Blagojevich - are you serious? If I were Burris, I wouldn't accept a dogcatcher nod from Blago. But to take it to this level of histrionics and drama is just childish and embarrassing. Yet, we know Burris has no shame in the first place because he accepted the nomination from Blagojevich (so maybe we should not be so surprised). What is shocking is that Burris seems to think he is on a mission from God: "We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained." Using a defense that old European monarchs used to rule absolutely (and undemocratically) is not the way I would have gone with that one.

But one thing that caught my eye - and really pissed me off - was those who come out and say, "If you don't back Burris, it smacks of racism." It's not that I don't back Burris (though accepting this nomination certainly calls into question his ethics and judgment); he could well be qualified. It's that Blagojevich nominated him. I don't care if you put a white guy there, or a golden retriever - whoever it is should not be seated. It's funny that those in New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church - who have formed a group that the Times says is more focused on Burris and his race than the corrupt Blagojevich - are more concerned about getting a black man in the Senate than an uncorrupted choice. It is here that I want to pose this question: should former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick be put in the seat over a non-black man, simply because of the color of his skin? Is race so blinding to some people that it clouds good judgement and clean politics? I agree that the nationally elected officials of this country do not accurately reflect the landscape of the American population (especially in the Senate), but I certainly would not want to sacrifice dignity and respect by allowing a scumbag like Blagojevich to nominate someone in order to get a minority senator in the Capitol.


You want racism in politics? How about "Barack the Magic Negro"? The song was on a CD distributed by Chip Saltsman, one of the men vying for the Republican National Committee chairmanship. While the RNC's current chairman, Mike Duncan, condemned the song as highly inappropriate, Saltsman defended the song, along with his former boss Mike Huckabee (Saltsman ran Huckabee's failed campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008). So while folks like Representative Robert Rush (D - 1st District IL) wants to say that the the Senate is "the last bastion of racial plantation politics in America," he seems to have been silent on the issue of blatant racism earlier in the month (that is, no news about him coming out about it or putting out a statement on his website). It seems Rush should pick and choose his battles, and Burris is not one of them.

So to sum up: everyone involved in this matter should shut up and go home. Burris has no place in the Senate as long as Blagojevich put him there, Blagojevich needs to be impeached so he can stop wreaking havoc in the state of Illinois, and those who want to cry racism at logic and anti-corruption need to re-assess the situation. Just like a woman who cries rape who really wasn't raped, those who cry racism when none exists just denigrate the seriousness of the charge. Then when a truly racist incident occurs (something, maybe, like calling the president-elect a "magic negro") no one wants to hear about it because the racism charge was used to allow a corrupt governor to seat a Senator. In the end, everyone involved in this is simply childish. It just shows the selfishness of those involved, for if Burris really wanted to serve the state of Illinois and his country, he would have avoided all of this by saying no to a governor who is recorded on tape trying to sell the Senate seat. Peace.

Photos - Roland Burris at Midway Airport before heading to Washington (New York Times)

Medford-Patchogue Continues to Cope with Racially Motivated Murder

More charges - and details - have emerged in the murder of Marcelo Lucero at the hands of 7 teens from Eastern Long Island. According to prosecutors, they are looking into whether some of the teens charged in the beating of Lucero had been involved in another beating of another immigrant. The seven teens apparently made a habit of going out and hunting down defenseless Latino residents to harass and beat on, referring to it as "beaner hopping." One of the defendants, Jose Pacheco, 17, admits to going out with two of the other defendants, Anthony Hartford and Kevin Shea, and knocking out a Latino man cold (the victim has yet to step forward). Pacheco perplexingly told authorities that it was a rarity for him to go out and do something like this: "I don't go out and do this very often, maybe once a week."

What is funny is that a lot of people are coming out and saying, "Oh, some of these kids can't be racist - they have Latino backgrounds," or "Look, they hang out with people of other races." Your background has nothing to do with whether you're a racist or not - your mindset does. If you do not like a person because of the color of their skin or their ethnicity or whatever, you're bigoted; it doesn't matter if you happen to share that skin color or ethnicity. And even if you hang out with people of other races, you can still be racist. If you go "beaner hopping" and attack innocent Latinos because of their ethnic background it does not matter who you hang out with. Let's put it this way: think about Southern slave owners. Some were very close personally to their slaves, some of them even had affairs with them (*cough* Thomas Jefferson *cough*). Would you argue that these Southern slave owners were not racist? Yet they hung out with people from other races and even fathered children with them.

One would think that this would be a time of reflection and deep introspection for the residents of the Patchogue-Medford area. But if the meeting held at the high school to discuss the incident is any indication, the human tendency to blame others when the shit hits the fan is alive and well. According to Newsday, many parents in the crowd at the meeting blamed the media attention that the ruthless attack has brought upon the community. A Newsday reporter, who was invited by principal Manuel Sanzone, began to be screamed at by the crowd and was physically removed by security despite making it clear that she had been invited by the principal who was holding the meeting. Meanwhile, the principal stood silent as the reporter was removed. If you can't even stand up to the forcible removal of a reporter you invited to the meeting, how are you going to stand up to prejudice and intolerance that led to the murder of an innocent man?

And today the New York Times came out with an article about the person who physically stabbed Lucero - Jeffrey Conroy - filled with quotes from family members and family friends saying the usual, "Oh my, I cannot believe it was him; he was such a good boy." Unfortunately for a lot of people, the way they act in public with their families and the way they act in private with their friends can be night and day (this case seems emblematic of that). Conroy could have been a great family member and all of that, but it does not change the fact that he plunged a knife into the chest of a man who had the audacity of being Latino. This is a kid who, according to police reports, has a swastika tattooed on his leg and was the ringleader of the "Caucasian Crew." Additionally, the Times article states that youths who additionally came forward and defended Conroy have backed off of these statements and have said that they were not, in fact, friends with him. One could see that coming, considering the Post had a picture of the accused group's "friends" running out of court, shielding their faces because they were ashamed to be friends with people who could do such things (because why would they shield their face if they believed that the men were innocent and being unfairly targeted by prosecutors?).

So while the charges have been upgraded for those involved - namely Conroy, who now faces second-degree murder as a hate crime - the six who were beating Lucero while Conroy stabbed him are still not being charged with murder, or at least manslaughter, and I ask, "Why not?" Their reckless actions led to the death of Marcelo Lucero and at the very least they are guilty of manslaughter. It's clear that not one of these individuals value human life (one of them was already involved in the death of somebody else). Hopefully as the anger dies down - and people stop blaming the media - the Patchogue-Medford community will be able to heal and move on from this hateful murder. Peace.

Photos - Jose Lucero, Marcelo's brother (New York Times), Jeffrey Conroy (center, in red) with his football team (New York Times), Marcel Lucero (Newsday), "Friends" of the 7 accused teens leaving the Patchogue courthouse (New York Post)

Seven Long Island Teens Kill Ecuadorean Immigrant in Hate Crime

Seven eastern Long Island teenagers face serious charges after they set out to "beat up some Mexicans" and ended up killing 37 year-old Ecuadorean immigrant Marcello Lucero. Lucero worked at a dry cleaners in Riverhead and was near the Patchogue train station when he was approached by the seven teens - a junior and six seniors from Patchogue-Medford High School - and was beat up. The assault culminated in a knife being pushed through Lucero's chest, allegedly by 17 year-old Jeffrey Conroy. The teens were arrested shortly after the assault nearby.

Suffolk County officials have charged the teens with hate crimes, and the prosecutor seems to be quoting the young men when he talks about their desire to do harm to someone of Mexican descent, leading me to believe that some type of confession or something similar has been offered up. A profile of the young men have come out. The alleged stabber - Conroy - is a three sport athlete at Patchogue-Medford and does not have a record. At least two of the teens have a Latino background - one being half-Puerto Rican and another having a half-Puerto Rican grandmother. The mother of one of the suspects claimed, "How can it be a hate crime? My son is half-Hispanic?" When it comes to the law, however, it does not matter what ethnicity you are; if you target someone based solely on certain immutable characteristics (ethnicity being one of them) you are guilty of a hate crime. It also does not matter if you are incorrect (as in this case, when the teens went to target a Mexican and killed an Ecuadorean) as long as your intent was based on the aforementioned set of immutable characteristics.

What is perplexing about this case - beyond the fact that people like this still exist in society - is that one of the teens is already involved in a fatal home burglary, in which the victim was 38 year-old Carlton Shaw and was found outside his home with his three year-old son asleep at his side. Overton eventually pled down to burglary in that case. My question is why is someone who is involved in a fatal burglary not in jail awaiting sentencing? Given that he was out of jail, why would his parents allow him out of the house? Are there no repercussions for his behavior? Did he not have a court-ordered curfew or some kind of sanctions because of his admittance of guilt in a case that led to a man's death?

Another perplexing thing is that while all seven teens are charged with gang assault as a hate crime, only one (Conroy) is charged with manslaughter as a hate crime. Why aren't all seven charged with manslaughter? In another case happening in New York, three men are charged with the death of NYPD officer Russel Timoshenko, despite the fact that only one of the three shot at the deceased officer. The definition of manslaughter in the second degree is "when he recklessly causes the death of another person." It was certainly reckless to go and "beat up some Mexicans" and it resulted in the death of a human being. It seems that the teens acted in concert (in that they surrounded Lucero and all beat on him before he was stabbed) and were all arrested together after the incident.

If these teens do not spend the majority of their adult lives behind bars, something is seriously amiss with this system. When you have such little regard for human life that you go out and beat on a man due to his ethnicity - resulting in his death - what use do you serve society other than as an example of what is wrong? What is sad is that it seems that Conroy could have had a future (the others could have, too, but the Newsday article seemed to focus on him), but he threw it all away on something stupid like this. And while the government certainly has a responsibility when it comes to dangerous individuals being out on the streets (in this case, the example of Overton), parents do not get off scot free. Schools don't raise kids, government programs don't raise kids, video games and television don't raise kids; parents do. I feel for some parents, because they try everything they can and still their kid screws up; other times the parents don't get involved as much as they should with their kids' lives and the kid screws up (I've personally seen both examples). I'm not going to judge the parents of these teens because I do not know them and that would be unfair. At the end of the day, a mother is without a son, a brother without his brother, because of the incredibly selfish acts of a group of teenagers with no regard for others. Hopefully these teens are locked up for a long time and cannot terrorize others again. Peace.

Photos - The seven teens being led out of a police station for their arraignment in Islip on Monday (Newsday), Victim Marcello Lucero (ABC News), A memorial set up to commemorate Lucero at the stabbing scene (1010WINS)

McCain Appears to Reverse Course of Campaign; Is it Too Late?

It appears that the McCain campaign - after a week of personal attacks and smears against Obama - wants to play nice again as his poll numbers begin a sharper decline than we have seen in the past few months. The most current poll puts Obama well above McCain (50%-43%) with just over three weeks to go in the election. A month ago today, McCain was leading Obama 47%-45%. Many pundits and political insiders have pointed to the McCain campaign's tactics of the past week (namely to use personal and character attacks on Obama rather than discuss the issues in an era that, while precedented, nonetheless has people very worried), as one of the reasons for this fall in the polls.

It now appears that the negative campaigning that the McCain campaign has employed - whether through Palin and her "palling around" with terrorist accusations against Barack Obama or surrogates like McCain campaign co-chair Frank Keating (no relation to the Keating Five) bringing up Obama's experimental drug use while in college - did not have the effects that McCain and company had been hoping for. This led McCain to quickly try to calm down his hostile crowds by saying that Obama was a "decent" man when people attacked him and spread rumors that he was an Arab. While not distinctly refuting the Arab mischaracterization, he has tried to, as the Globe says, "restore civility" to his campaign.

This, of course, does not mean that he is going to denounce other disrespectful attacks on Obama from within the Republican party or at his own rallies. This video, which has been circulated around the internet for a few days now, shows a McCain/Palin supporter with a Curious George doll with an Obama bumper sticker wrapped around the doll's head. When he realizes that he is being captured on videotape, he tries to surreptitiously stash the Obama sticker away and give the doll away to a confused child in the audience:


Of course you can't take one racist that looks like a pedophile from a Sarah Palin rally and apply it as the model to all those who attend McCain/Palin rallies. You also cannot take the folks who yell out "terrorist" or "kill him" when Barack Obama's name is brought up at these rallies as representative of the entire group. But notice that when McCain attempts to take the moral high ground and repudiate these comments, he uses generalities and vagueness. Maybe he doesn't want to admit that the same people making these comments are wholeheartedly supporting him and he desperately needs their votes; alienating them would alienate a Republican base that he has worked so hard to win over following initial doubts to his loyalty to the party line. But as McCain and his aides realize, when you pander to the extreme right wing of the Republican party, you lose moderates and independents who may very well lean toward the other candidate (as we have seen with Obama's surging numbers and McCain's stagnant and slightly falling numbers).

Sometimes, however, McCain does not even turn to the vague repudiation of ridiculous attacks on Barack Obama. That was the case with Virginia GOP leader Jeffrey Frederick when he compared Obama to Osama bin Laden, saying that both had friends who bombed the Pentagon (he was referring to Bill Ayers, who Obama met later in life as they both served on a Chicago board for education but in a previous life had organized a domestic terror group that bombed a toilet in the Pentagon, which injured no one). When pushed on the comparison, Frederick stuck to it. When asked about what he thought of Jeffrey Frederick's remarks, McCain not only did not say that they were inappropriate, saying that we needed to know the full context (I wonder what context would make that appropriate), but took the moment to repeat his attack on Obama for being on the same board as Ayers:

It seems that while McCain doesn't want to find himself in Lady Macbeth's shoes, trying to wash the blood from his hands when it is already too late, he has little problem with others doing some dirty work at arms length. That way, McCain can make it look like he is above the fray, while others make the attacks on Obama that tend to alienate moderates and independents in this country. McCain is in desperate territory; some advisers and previous supporters are beginning to distance themselves from the campaign so as not to be sucked into the collapse should McCain lose November 4. Will McCain's "honorable" turn-around be enough to help him overcome a large deficit in less than a month? I'm leaning towards no, but as I've said before, the Democrats cannot get too cocky, because the sole fact that this race is even within the ten point margin with one of the candidates backing an immoral and incredibly unpopular war, among other unpopular stances, is telling. Peace.

Photo - Two supporters at a McCain rally in Virginia Beach (blog.indecision2008.com)

McCain Campaign Pulls the Sexism Card

In an interesting turn of events, the McCain campaign yesterday cried foul against the media and the Democrats for attacking Palin based not on her lack of credentials or any of that, but because she is a woman. And while I will be the first to admit that there have been some sexist attacks on Palin (she should not be asked if she can raise a family and have a career at the same time when men are not asked the same question), she should not be able to hide behind a cloak of gender against all legitimate questions of her credentials.

What makes the McCain camp's cries of sexism a bit hypocritical is the fact that last month they were deriding Obama for, in their words, "playing the race card." Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said, "Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck." All of this because Obama said that one tactic of his opponents will be to paint him as "different from the presidents on dollar bills," implying that his skin color (or age) differentiates him from some of the Founding Fathers and Washington elite. In terms of saying, "Hey, they're going to attack me because I'm black," it never happened, but to many that is an inconsequential point.

So a little over a month after Obama allegedly cried racism, senior McCain advisor Carly Fiorina said that Obama attempting to "belittle" Palin's experience amounted to sexist treatment of the candidate. This is where my issue is: when there are legitimate issues of sexism going on (Biden calling Palin good looking in a self-deprecating joke can be seen as sexist), why attack those who are talking about Palin's experience - a gender-neutral issue? Obama got his in terms of being attacked for lacking experience and did not pull the race card because of questions of his experience, why are the standards different for Governor Palin?

In a society where sexism still exists - women make about 80 cents to every man's dollar - to use it as a shield to block legitimate questions of experience and other gender-neutral, political characteristics is wrong. As Maureen Dowd points out in her Times column this week, instead of fighting sexism, "When you use sexism as an across-the-board shield for any legitimate question, you only hurt women."
Now let's get into some reasons as to why Palin's experience is being called into question. One: Obama went through this early on in the campaign, so it's only fair that a candidate who has never served in Washington gets the same media scrutiny. Her main argument is that she has executive experience, which Obama does not. Her executive experience is being mayor of a town of, for argument's sake, about 8,000 people. The entire population of Alaska, of which Palin is governor, is 670,053. There are only three states that are smaller than Alaska (in order from highest to lowest population: North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). Under this logic, any mayor of a town of more than 670,053 is experienced enough to be president. There are 19 cities in America with populations higher than the entire state of Alaska. They are, in descending order, New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Detroit, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, San Fran, Columbus, Austin, Fort Worth, Memphis, and Charlotte.

So with this line of thinking, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick has enough experience to be President of the United States. I'm not saying that Palin is as fucked up as Kilpatrick, I am merely pointing out that they both hold the experience credentials to be President of the United States. To make another comparison, the borough president of every New York City borough except Staten Island has the experience, again using the McCain campaign's definition, to be president. Can you even name any of them? (They are, by the way, Scott Stringer for Manhattan, Marty Markowitz for BK, Adolfo Carrion, Jr. for the Boogie Down, Helen Marshall for Queens, and James Molinaro for Staten Island). Can you imagine Marty Markowitz having the experience to lead this nation?

So while Palin and the Republicans tout her executive experience and hide behind the accusation of sexism from those who question her credentials, the reality of the situation gets lost somewhere in, as a former professor of mine calls, the media echo chamber. As passions flare up over true sexism and fake sexism and political rhetoric is passed around like the gravy at a Thanksgiving dinner, the truth is ignored like your aunt's shitty cranberry jam that nobody touches year after year but that she continues to insist on making and bringing. To question Palin's experience and credentials as a politician (and not as a mom or a woman) is not sexist. Just the opposite, for if we were to go easy on her because she is a woman that would be as sexist as hell. Peace.

Photos - McCain and Palin (Rocky Mountain News), The McCain and Palin families (Washington Post), Palin and her catch (LA Times)

Harlem Cops Caught Playing with Dolls

In a very odd series of events, NYPD officers in Harlem are being accused of racially insensitive behavior after two white officers were seen driving an unmarked car with the head of a black doll attached to the rear antenna. When a Harlem resident went to take a picture of the doll head in order to report it, the two white officers came out of the restaurant they were in and removed the doll head, placing it into the trunk of the car, while allegedly laughing about the incident.

As the New York Times article today points out, the fact that the doll head was on the car is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how it got there. The NYPD is saying that someone else put it there, while many Harlem residents, probably seeing through a weak excuse like that, ponder whether the cops driving the car put it there as a joke.

I do not know how the head got there, but the NYPD's version of events do not hold water for many reasons. To begin with, I personally do not believe that a Harlem resident would take the time to put a doll head on a cop's car. In an environment where the police and the residents do not get along too well (stop and frisk incidents in the neighborhood run rampant), the wrath of a cop whose car is being messed with is nowhere near worth the risk. I suppose under the realm of "anything's possible," a resident could have put it up there, but it makes little sense.

Looking beyond this, however, is the fact that the cops' report of the incident indicates that the two officers did not notice the head on the back of their car. If this is the case, then these cops probably need to get their eyes checked or need to be more vigilant. If you cannot even keep track of what is on your patrol car, I would have little faith in any report written that mentions the surrounding environment and the placement of objects (something that many police reports require). Additionally, when you drive a vehicle, you are responsible for everything associated with that vehicle. If someone else puts a brick of coke in your car and you get pulled over and say, "That's not mine, officer, someone else must have put it there," do you think that's going to work? Is the officer going to give you the benefit of the doubt? No, it's in your car, which you are operating and thus have custody of, which means you are responsible for everything in it (including attached items on the outside of it). So why is this rule different for cops?

Essentially what we have here is two possible scenarios: the cops did not put it on the car but are morons and are unable to take in their immediate surroundings, calling in to question their ability to police a neighborhood or, the cops put the doll head up themselves and are lying (which would not be unprecedented within the ranks of the NYPD).

In addition to all of this, I have seen people saying that they do not see the big deal of putting the head of a black doll on a police car driven by white cops. While the symbolism should be quite obvious, it is lost on some. The way I see it, the black doll head brings up many negative connotations for people of any color, but especially for blacks. To begin with, it brings up images of lynchings under the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups throughout the United States throughout the 19th and early 20th century. The image of these cops cutting a black doll's head off to place on their antenna conjures up past images of lynchings following which participants would cut off various parts of the victim's body for souvenires. Additionally, the scene of a black head with a slender base as a body also parallels a lynch victim's posture following the disgusting act.

Beyond all of this is the one thing that many people who are not minorities can not understand. To be in a largely black neighborhood like Harlem and to be policed by a mostly-white police force, especially given the history of the NYPD and their treatment of minorities, is automatically a bit antagonizing. Plus, in many situations blacks often find themselves the lone member of their racial group in day-to-day life. Next time you're in a room, look around. Chances are if you're white, you're part of the majority of the group and chances are, if you're black, you are the only black person or one of a significantly small number. As someone who has been in the reverse situation many times - in that I was the only white person or among the only white people in a group of non-whites - I can say it is noticeable and you certainly feel as if you are out of place and your actions are scrutinized. Because I am white, however, I do not feel this on a daily basis and am not policed by a group of police officers who are not my race. If I were in the minority and was policed by the majority who bought a doll that was my race, decapitated it and placed it upon their rear antenna as a joke given the history of the treatment of blacks in this country, and then lied about it blatantly when called out on it, I would be pretty upset. Peace.

Photos - Unmarked NYPD vehicles (Dryblood's flickr), A black doll (www.historyandnostalgia.com), One of thousands of black American lynching victims (en.wikipedia.org)

An Open Letter to Spike Lee: Did Mookie Do the Right Thing?

ED. NOTE: If you have not seen Do the Right Thing and you plan to, do not read this post because it contains spoilers.

DVD cover of Do The Right Thing
(Wikipedia)

Dear Mr. Spike Lee:

I know that by simply asking the question did Mookie do the right thing you will know that I am white. After watching your film Do the Right Thing I thought a lot about what happened in the last half hour, with the death of Radio Raheem, Mookie’s hurling the trash can through the plate glass window of Sal’s Pizzeria, and the subsequent riot that ensued, with New York’s finest showing up, billy clubs in hand, and New York’s bravest with fire hoses at the ready, a la Bull Connor in Birmingham.

I went to sleep pondering Mookie’s actions. The next morning I woke up and decided to watch the film with the commentary. What I heard in the commentary really opened up my mind. Here I was pondering Mookie’s actions against Sal’s pizzeria – owned by a guy who, despite trying his best, has an almost lackadaisical disdain for his black customers, and operated by his two sons, one of whom is a decent guy and the other who is, for lack of better terms, a racist prick – when the thought of the murder of Radio Raheem did not fully register with me.

Despite your assertion that white folk – the only people who ask you about whether you think that Mookie did the right thing or not – seem to be more concerned with the property of a white man than the life of a black man when they question Mookie’s actions, I feel that this is not the case, at least with me. Your words at the end of the film commentary ring true; a pizzeria can be rebuilt yet a stolen life cannot be restored. However, my thought process has brought me to the following conclusions.

One of the main reasons that some may question Mookie’s actions is because, despite the fact that they were illegal, they may have been justified whereas no matter how one looks at the death of Radio Raheem, there is no doubt that the NYPD was at fault. Raheem’s death is clearly wrong; there is no question about it. Anybody with half a brain can tell that the cops were way over the line when they put him in that chokehold like they did to Michael Stewart in 1983, which is where the idea is reported to have come from for Raheem’s death, and which the NYPD would repeat in 1994 with Anthony Baez.

There is no doubt that Mookie’s actions were illegal. That is not to say that they were wrong, because there have been plenty laws, even late into the 20th century (laws prohibiting miscegenation, for one) that have been wrong and that continue to be wrong (laws of omission that essentially prohibit gay marriage). But I think that this is where the most interesting part of the movie, at least for me, lies. Clearly Mookie thought that he did the right thing, because he did it. But the way that you end the movie, with both a Martin Luther King, Jr. quote declaring violence as an invalid mean to a just end, and Malcolm X’s stating that violence, when committed in self-defense, can be a thing of intelligence, suggests that you want the viewer to decide who was doing what and if it was right.

Spike Lee (Street Knowledge Wordpress)

Let’s look at the facts of the riot scene. The only people affected were Sal and his two sons and nobody was hurt. There is no doubt that Pino was a jerk and did not deserve the job at his father’s place. Vito could go either way, because despite his friendship with Mookie, if push came to shove, he would go with his family. And Sal is probably the most enigmatic of the group. Despite, at times, not-so-subtle racist overtones he seems to, at the very least, have a guarded respect for his clientele, if only because they pay the bills. His attitude toward Mookie is complicated by the fact that he clearly is attracted to his sister Jade. But his clear ignorance, if not outright racism, is cemented by his comment regarding the death of Radio Raheem, when he states, “You do what you gotta do.”

So let’s say that Sal’s pizzeria deserved some kind of harm. Were there any other options? In the spirit of Malcolm, who is falsely stereotyped as being an advocate of wonton black violence, let’s say that Buggin’ Out’s original idea of an economic boycott of Sal’s pizzeria was heralded as the solution to the problem and Sal’s now-clear disrespect for the plight of his customers. It would have taken months to get rid of the place, and by then Pino could have snapped, as he came close to it numerous times before the riot was even in the foreseeable future. Then there could have been another black victim at the hands of a white perpetrator, and Sal would have to move out. When looked at through this lens, what Mookie did was simply speed up the result of what an economic boycott of the pizza joint would have done anyway.

What other alternatives were there? The people of the neighborhood could not simply continue going to Sal’s knowing that he agreed with the police who acted in a brutal manner with one of their own, resulting in his death (never mind the beatings that Buggin’ Out received from his arresting officers as they fled the scene.) It makes no sense to financially support someone who clearly does not care about you as a human being, never mind a customer. They could have killed Sal and his family, but that would be wrong. Sal did not kill Raheem, and nor did either of his sons. As you said in the commentary, a pizzeria can be rebuilt, a life taken cannot be restored.

Given that there were no other alternatives, and Buggin’ Out’s economic boycott would have simply continued the pot boiling and could have led to more disastrous results, Mookie’s actions cannot be viewed as necessarily “wrong.” When the police officers who have sworn to serve and to protect are acting in reckless and lawless fashion, what can be expected of the citizenry who is supposed to be bound by obedience to their authority? While Mookie’s actions were illegal, as stated before, they were not reckless. Nobody was hurt and, as Mookie tells Sal in the final dialogue between the two, he’ll get his insurance money.

So, back to the original question: did Mookie do the right thing? I think it is clear that this is the question posed by the film because Da Mayor makes a point to tell Mookie early on in the film to “always do the right thing.” In the eyes of the law, Mookie did not do the right thing, but this is the same law that acquitted Michael Stewart’s killers, Anthony Baez’s killers, Amadou Diallo’s killers, Sean Bell’s killers (the list goes on). However, the only person who can say whether or not Mookie did the right thing, at least in my mind, is Mookie himself. There are cases in life that are, for the most part, cut and dry. You murder someone, you did something wrong. You rob, you cheat, you steal, you did something wrong. But to lash out against a symbol of racism and disdain, at an establishment that treated you like dirt and effectively approved a savage murder of your friend at the hands of police, is that truly wrong? If a Jew were to throw a brick through a window of a business that maliciously displayed a swastika, or a black South African were to sabotage the very police force that beat him and kept him a second-class citizen, or a Nicaraguan were to ruin CIA operations undermining democracy in that country, would he be wrong? In my opinion, that is what the real question of Mookie’s rightness or wrongness boils down to.

Christopher McCowen Denied New Trial

Bringing this blog back to the Cape, Christopher McCowen, the trash collector convicted of killing fashion writer Christa Worthington, has been denied a new trial by Judge Gary Nickerson following serious allegations of racial bias within the jury that convicted him. I have already written up a lengthy post about the crime and the trial itself, which I will not go over again in detail here, so please read the link above if you want to reacquaint yourself with the issue.

The judge presiding over the case, the aforementioned Judge Gary Nickerson, stated that McCowen did not deserve a new trial because the charges of racial bias tainting the jury were unfounded. He did not go into much detail beyond that (at least as the media is reporting it and I currently cannot find a full transcript of Nickerson's decision). It is disappointing because it seemed like the the charges of racial bias, if not completely true, had some truth in them and Nickerson's denial of a new trial is, if you believe that race played a role in this, condoning this type of behavior. I would also like to know how Nickerson came to the conclusion that the charges were unfounded.

But what is even more confounding is what Cape and Islands District Attorney Micheal O'Keefe said following the ruling: "Though it's not perfect, O'Keefe said, 'The system works.'" It is confounding that someone who works within the system everyday feels that this system works. This system is broken in so many ways - from the initial contact with the system through the police all the way up to the "correctional" system and incarceration. This is the same legal system that legally segregated blacks and white for almost 50 years, the same system that allowed laws against sodomy - which is defined legally as any sex beyond vaginal penetration - until 2003, the system that let OJ Simpson walk, the system that is not even respected by our presidents, a system that has incorrectly incarcerated over 200 people (that has been proven so far), kept Genarlow Wilson in jail for years, a system that has executed an innocent man (who knows how many others). The system is far from perfect, Mr. O'Keefe, nor is it exactly "working."

Of course, Michael O'Keefe himself does not believe in the system. Let's not forget that he asked all men in Truro to give up a sample of their DNA to match up to the DNA found on Worthington (who O'Keefe has called a "slut" in the past). Of course, anyone who has glanced over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (specifically the 4th Amendment) knows that it is an American's right to be protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures." It's not very reasonable (or cost- or time- effective) to test every male's DNA in Truro. O'Keefe should probably get off his high horse with this case, which has been marred from the beginning (from the three year delay in a suspect, to the fact that the Worthington's family wanted him off the case, to a juror getting kicked off the jury during final deliberations).

While I originally thought that Nickerson would grant McCowen a new trial, it appears that this will not happen. Is McCowen innocent? I have no idea. Does he deserve a new trial because of what has been alleged? I believe so. He may be guilty, and if he is I think it would be better to have him convicted by a jury that is not tainted by allegations of racial bias. As far as O'Keefe goes, hopefully he handles future investigations a little better than the Worthington one and won't call victims sluts or try to get people to forgo their constitutional rights. Peace.

Photos - Christopher McCowen (www.boston.com), Christa Worthington (nymag.com), Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe (www.capecodtoday.com)