Is the LAPD Guilty of Racial Profiling?

By Nicholas Stix

The Southern California ACLU has just released its report, authored by Ian “I am not a plagiarist” Ayres and Jonathan Borowsky, A Study of Racially Disparate Outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department.

Over at TalkLeft, TChris accepts the “report’s” pre-determined “conclusions” at face value:

Despite the absence of empirical evidence that black or Hispanic drivers are more likely to violate traffic laws than white drivers, the LAPD refuses to acknowledge that the statistics reveal an underlying problem of racial profiling.

I don’t know about the figures for L.A., or about Hispanic drivers in general, but I do know that nationally, black drivers commit speeding at much higher rates than whites, particularly at very high speeds. But limiting the discussion of traffic stops of black and Hispanic drivers to those groups’ rates of traffic violations is specious, to begin with. Many traffic stops are due either to a description of a car whose driver was involved in a crime, or which is coming from the direction of a crime that was just committed, or due to suspicion of drug activity.

Over at National Review Online, policeman “Jack Dunphy” has some thoughts on what is wrong with Ayres’ “study,” as does yours truly over at VDARE.com, in “More Racial Profiling Pseudo-Science.

World Series Alert: Mass Violence in Philly Tonight

By Nicholas Stix

Patti LaBelle singing "Way Up There" at the Space Shuttle Columbia memorial service at Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. on February 6, 2003

In Philadelphia, former singer Patti LaBelle assaulted over 46,000 Phillies fans, when she sang the National Anthem before the beginning of tonight’s World Series Game 4. Screeching her way through the “Star-Spangled Banner,” the diva pounded the eardrums of her captive victims. It is not known at present, how many of LaBelle’s victims will suffer permanent hearing loss from their wounds.

LaBelle escaped Citizens Bank Park, is presently at large, and is considered armed and dangerous. She can be identified by her ear-splitting voice. If you encounter her, do not attempt to apprehend her. Instead, first insert heavy-duty ear plugs, don ear muffs, and then call police. Let them know that it is Patti LaBelle whom you have seen or heard. The authorities have SWAT teams on call 24/7, whose members are fitted with special protective earphones, to permit them to engage LaBelle in close quarters.

Conclusion of First Knoxville Horror Trial Shows Legal System Under Stress

By Nicholas Stix

[Previously by Nicholas Stix: The
Knoxville Horror: Crime, Race, the Media, and “Anti-Racism”]

In the first Knoxville Horror trial in April, Eric Dewayne “E” Boyd was convicted by a federal jury in Knoxville, Tennessee, of being an accessory after the fact to carjacking. Recently, on October 15, U.S. District Judge Tom Varlan sentenced Boyd to 18 years in prison, the maximum possible sentence, which federal prosecutors had sought.

The carjacking was the first in a chain of crimes, including kidnapping, assault, theft, multiple forms of
gang rape, torture, murder and corpse desecration committed in Knoxville on January 7, 2007, variously against Channon Christian, 21, and her boyfriend,
Christopher Newsom, 23, that U.S Attorney James R. Dedrick recently called “one of, if not the most, horrendous crimes ever committed in Knoxville, Tennessee.”

To read the rest, go here.

Kirsten Brydum Pics

How to Talk to a Race Hustler (If You Must)

A Follow-Up to The Kvetcher
By Nicholas Stix

A race hustler going by the handle “B.BarNavi,” who claims to be both a Jew and an Asian, tried to crash the party at The Kvetcher’s discussion of some of my thoughts on race and crime. It was really late at night (or early in the morning, for those who are so disposed), and I was feeling giddy, so I let loose with the sorts of things that most folks would probably like to say to these types.

B.BarNavi { 10.10.08 at 1:34 pm }

As one of them Jew-lib-minority types, I really can’t see this as plain old Fortress-on-the-Hill “they’re out to get us” talk couched in post-racialist rhetoric.

First of all, you can’t make a simple assertion as “hate crime laws favor minorities because colored-on-white crimes don’t count” without citing some damn evidence. Yes, the reverse garners national headlines due to the efforts of clowns like Sharpton, but when something happens in the inner city or the backwater country (where, like you said, the journalists “never enter”), how often are incidents involving parties of different colors (but of the SAME or similar economic status) reported as crime AT ALL, let alone as hate crimes? You try to cite a class angle in this, and while I agree that it’s definitely more of a class issue, where in your post did you qualify it as such, and how?

Then if we’re going to introduce the class issue, we get into the stickier issue of when a poor black/Hispanic gang attacks a wealthier person that only HAPPENS to be white. Or conversely, when a bunch of white fratboys kick around a homeless person of color just for being a damn hobo. To what extent is this a hate crime? Is it based more on class, or is there an element of race in it? What if, then, they were the same color? And in any of these cases, how will law enforcement, courts, and the “durned librul” media handle it?

I should also disclose that I am against the bogus “all crimes are hate crimes” argument. I think it’s significant whether a black man beat up a white man (or another black man, for that matter) because he slept with his wife, or if he was of a particular ethnicity/faith/whatever. Were it the latter, there’s often the increased risk of going on to attack other people in the same category, whereas in the former the risk is only extended to “other people who messed around with my woman.” And what of the person who beat someone “just cause they could”? Don’t they teach you that “motive is everything” in law school?

Fact of the matter is, it’s a damned complex picture we’ve drawn out here, and no amount of ersatz Colbertian color-blindness can change that. Those laws with racial tones are put in for very good reasons.

Also, as an Asian, I find it pretty offensive for self-proclaimed “racial realists” to try to find ideological allies with us. Though we have had economic prosperity potentially hindered by things like affirmative action (admittedly a troublesome policy), the fact of the matter is that we are still a minority in this country, with one foot culturally in our nations of origin, voluntarily or otherwise. This definitively marks us as “the other”, and thus we are subject to many of the same racial dynamics as, say, Hispanics, or black immigrants of African or Caribbean origin.

And PLEASE, everybody, STOP dancing on the grave or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Don’t claim that he was “really a post-racialist” like you, when anyone and everyone who has done their homework on him know that he was a leftist through and through, who HEAVILY criticized the Vietnam War, advocated for the alleviation of poverty in this country, and called to attention the cross-cutting between class and race. (Making him, incidentally, a supporter of affirmative action.) For the sake of the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters (except maybe Sharpton and Jackson, who still Don’t Get It), STOP co-opting him to fit your ideology.

18 Nicholas Stix { 10.12.08 at 6:39 am }

And PLEASE, everybody, STOP dancing on the grave or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Don’t claim that he was “really a post-racialist” like you, when anyone and everyone who has done their homework on him know that he was a leftist through and through, who HEAVILY criticized the Vietnam War, advocated for the alleviation of poverty in this country, and called to attention the cross-cutting between class and race. (Making him, incidentally, a supporter of affirmative action.) For the sake of the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters (except maybe Sharpton and Jackson, who still Don’t Get It), STOP co-opting him to fit your ideology.

I quoted your last paragraph, B. Bar Navi, because it was the only passage of your post that didn’t reek. Although, even there, I could give a damn about “the King family, the people who knew him, and his supporters.” Why would I care about a bunch of crooks?
Going back, we find:

First of all, you can’t make a simple assertion as ‘hate crime laws favor minorities because colored-on-white crimes don’t count’ without citing some damn evidence.

Wowie Maui! Of course, you can. If you are seven years old, or just arrived from Mars, evidence may be necessary. But I don’t discuss grown-up stuff with seven-year-olds or argue with Martians.

Then if we’re going to introduce the class issue, we get into the stickier issue of when a poor black/Hispanic gang attacks a wealthier person that only HAPPENS to be white.

Well, I didn’t introduce the class issue in that context at all. (You did read the basis for this discussion before spouting off, right? Right?!) When racist blacks and Hispanics typically attack a white, the victim isn’t “wealthy” at all, or he wouldn’t have found himself in that situation, but in any event, there is no reason to ever assume that the victim “just happened” to be white.

Or conversely, when a bunch of white fratboys kick around a homeless person of color just for being a damn hobo. To what extent is this a hate crime?…

That’s odd. For while I’ve heard of several gang attacks on hobos, none was perpetrated by “a bunch of white fratboys.” The perps were typically black.

“Person of color”? Do you mean “black,” Mestizo, or Asian? Of course, “person of color” was until recently a switcheroo of “colored person,” but you pc opportunists are constantly playing word intimidation games within word intimidation games, and last year a pc professional Asian like you insisted to me that an Asian was a “person of color,” just like a black. That’s funny, considering that 99 percent of blacks would not only deny that, but hate Asians’ guts. Then again, pc professional Asians like you, who seek to make common cause with the very non-Asians minorities who routinely victimize Asians, also despise Asians. So, I suppose there’s a sick sort of symmetry to your world, that is. Unlike you, however, I don’t hate Asians.

Those laws with racial tones are put in for very good reasons.

Hell, yeah, to dispossess and disenfranchise whites!

Also, as an Asian, I find it pretty offensive for self-proclaimed ‘racial realists’ to try to find ideological allies with us.

Are you really offended, or just being a tease? If you’re really, truly, deeply offended, then I say, amen! But I don’t believe you. As a professional, pc Asian, you’re just going through the motions, faking taking offense, like faking an orgasm. “I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m … OFFENDED!!!”

(P.S. Because I was at The Kvetcher’s blog, I was on best behavior, but the first thought that came to mind upon hearing this character say that she/he/it—s/h/it, for short, and in order not to be guilty of sexist usage—was "offended" was Patsy Cline’s favorite line, “You must have confused me with someone who gives a shit.” I think that may just be the most important thing one can say to one of these, er, people.)

…the fact of the matter is that we are still a minority in this country… This definitively marks us as ‘the other’, and thus we are subject to many of the same racial dynamics as, say, Hispanics, or black immigrants of African or Caribbean origin.

And what “racial dynamics” might they be? That was just a rhetorical question; I’m not at all interested in your talking point for that one. The more you talk, the more you lie.

P.S. Do these characters throw in phrases like “the other” just to show that they’ve spent time in college? Nowadays, just about everyone under the age of 50 has spent time in college. Hell, even I did!

David Brooks and Other October Surprises

In “What Sarah knew,” my Oak Park, IL journalist-blogger friend Jim Bowman responds to David Brooks’ (or is it David Brock? Somehow, I keep getting their names confused) effort to sabotage the election for the GOP by trying to destroy Sarah Palin (“Sarah Palin is a cancer on the Republican Party”), who had single-handedly rescued the foundering McCain candidacy. Note that Brooks is supposedly a Republican, and was hired by pistol-packing, anti-Second Amendment, communist New York Times publisher Pinch Sulzberger, because he is supposedly a conservative.

Jim discusses at greater length what the socialist MSM is calling “Troopergate,” the report that an Alaska supporter of Barack Obama/Dunham/Soetoro had commissioned as an October or November Surprise, in order to insinuate that corruption-fighting Gov. Sarah Palin is herself corrupt.

Sarah has done me a big personal favor by smoking out David Brooks et al., “conservative” mainstreamers who can’t stand her. Why a favor? Because it’s given me a whole new reason for dismantling my respect for those hifalutin guys who have been elevated.

She has been the bird dog who flushed the pheasants — my man Krauthammer among them! — so as to relieve us peasants of our misplaced sense of allegiance, though I’m still a K-hammer fan, using the even-Homer-nods system.

1. David Brooks (or is it David Brock?) is a cancer on the Republican Party. He's a Bobo, a "bohemian bourgeois," a phrase he coined to describe others, and which is part of the title of his book, Bobos in Paradise. Like McCain, he has long hated the Republican base, and sought to purge it from the party. Brooks is a latter-day, country club Republican. He supports civil rights and gay marriage (and has even misrepresented the Bible, in defense of the latter), and hates Evangelicals and opposes the Second Amendment (though, presumably, like his boss, Sulzberger) believes in multimillionaires’ privilege to keep and bear arms). This would-be biblical scholar and pseudo-intellectual is a graduate of that OPU (overpriced university) mediocrity mill, the University of Chicago, where he took a class or two with Allan Bloom. With all of that said, given Brooks’ longtime personal loyalty to McCain, you have to wonder why he would turn on him. Did he and McCain have a falling-out? Did Brooks make a separate peace with the Democrats? Did Sulzberger or the Party have something on him, and blackmail him into trashing Palin?;

2. Troopergate: Is this the 2008 election’s October Surprise I, or did I miss a previous one? (Was David Brooks/David Brock October Surprise I?) By the way, I'm sure this was published now because the Democratic operatives at the NYT, WP, etc., felt they had better surprises that they are holding back for later. For instance, they have been holding onto politically incorrect quotes from McCain's (Media-AZ) "straight talk express" since 2000. Since Bush beat McCain in the primaries that year, they didn't need to use the material, but have been sitting on it ever since, waiting for the right opportunity; and

3. The Color Line: Socialists and communists love to bury history under lies, and by reversing the application of historical terms. Witness their 2000 maneuver, in switching the political meaning of the word "red" from socialist/communist to Republican, and now, "troopergate." A reversal of the meaning of "Bimbo eruptions," perhaps targeting Sarah Palin, can't be far off.

What to Expect of an Obama/Dunham/Soetoro Presidency

By Nicholas Stix

At American Renaissance, there’s an excerpt of a report by CBS News' Dean Reynolds on The One’s horrible treatment of reporters, the very people who have devoted themselves, by hook or by crook, to getting him elected. Media operatives have been treated to scheduling chaos, abuse, gratuitously wasted time, a stench-filled charter airplane, and a candidate who, unlike his Republican opponent, refuses to engage in banter with the press.

Two of what I found to be the most insightful comments so far follow below.

You realize we’re looking at a democratic president, congress, senate, judicial system, and media all acting in unison to bring state sponsored authoritarian modern liberal persecution madness down upon our heads if Obama gets elected right? Everone gets that right?

Posted by Unemployed WASP at 11:16 AM on October 10
________________________________________
The first Jim Jones presidency, racial paranoia, fear and hatred will be its methodology. Even our economy will be declared a victim of “racism”, and Comrade Obama will punish the wreckers.

Posted by Simmons at 11:46 AM on October 10

Tags: Barack Obama, Barry Dunham, Barry Soetoro, John McCain, Michelle Obama, Dean Reynolds, media, The One.

The Kvetcher: Civil Rights, Whites, and Jews

By Nicholas Stix

Blogger David Kelsey, aka The Kvetcher, with whom I have on occasion jousted, has written, “Nicholas Stix on the class difference in perception of racially motivated crime.” I assure you, the essay is much more interesting than the title, although there’s something to say for the title’s academic stodginess. It sure beats, "White Supremacist Posts Response to Community."

Kelsey takes a portion of my article, “Howard Beach II: More White Male Monsters,” on black-on-white crime and the hostility the media and prosecutors show white victims, as his point of departure.

While I don’t contest Stix’s unbalanced murder rates, my own experience is that expressions of racially motivated contempt are not restricted to any one group. In some small towns, there is white contempt for others not like them. But in New York, this is rarely the case. And anyway, contempt is a far, far cry from physical violence. And we are bombarded even with bogus allegations of white racially motivated crimes, and we do seem to strangely insist on denying there is plenty of anti-white crime. Tragically, this was essentially legislated with the Hate Crimes laws. These laws must be rescinded….

As for the contempt MSM reporters feel towards white crime victims (I have to quote Kelsey out of sequence here, as the alternative would be hopelessly clumsy),

Well, part of this is economics and class. The reporters are more monolithically of a higher class today than those of yesteryear. Stix partially targets the rise of the prerequisite of Journalism graduate schools as raising a hurdle which preempts middle class journalistic voices….

One need not become a race realist to become a realist about factors driving race realism. The irony is that the legitimate concerns of some of the more moderate race realists like Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Ian Jobling, and bloggers like Guy White, is that to a large degree, they are civil rights advocates for their constituency. Many often think of civil rights advocacy as a specifically left-wing movement for minorities. But the expansive appeal of civil rights movements, the reason they ultimately succeed, is that many of us believe that civil rights should indeed be universal. That means inclusive of white Christian men.

I personally hope that double standards and preferential treatments are legislatively repealed. However, it will take framing these issues in the civil rights language where they belong. And it means explaining why civil rights needs to be universal….

It is often hard for a group to succeed in its civil rights struggle without sympathizers from an outside community.

Sympathetic Christian whites in this country have proven absolutely outstanding in providing this for others, and obviously, Jews have been beneficiaries of this tendency.

To the extent that a movement is a white nationalist movement, one cannot expect the Jewish community to respond in a favorable or supportive manner. However, to the extent that it is a civil rights movement, I think we ought to respond in a supportive fashion.

As you can imagine, I have quite a bit to say on the subject Kelsey raises, but it would take a few days to write, re-write, and then undo the damage of the re-writes, to restore its original form. As I have angry editors whom I owe work and have thus been avoiding for an inordinate duration (you wouldn’t believe me, if I told you), I am going to have to put off responding to Kelsey, for now. But that shouldn’t stop you from joining the discussion that has already begun at The Kvetcher.

Triangulation at Talking Points Memo

By Nicholas Stix

M.J. Rosenberg, a socialist blogger at Talking Points Memo, has all the intellectual integrity of the characters at Media Matters.* In “First George Will, Now Krauthammer: Obama Is The Better Candidate. Brooks Lies,” Rosenberg suggests that neocon Charles Krauthammer has switched sides to Obama/Dunham/Soetoro:

As my friends know, I can't stand Charles Krauthammer. First, he's a neocon who has about as much regard for American interests as Nick Sarkozy (i.e, he likes America. He just doesn't identify with it). Second, (stop me if I told this before) he bellowed at the rabbi in synagogue on Yom Kippur 2001 for expressing the hope that Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. I mean, he started screaming from his seat in the middle of services. Unforgettable.

But today I give him credit for the best analysis of why Barack Obama should be President: "Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a 'second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament..'" Barack Obama, is better than that. "He's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."

The posters were indistinguishable from their fellow Obamanoids at the Huffington Post and Media Matters.

Now I hold no brief for Charlie Kraut, but … if Kraut’s rabbi was politicking during a Yom Kippur service, he deserved more than to be yelled at. I’m guessing (hoping?), that had Krauthammer not been wheelchair-bound, that he would have punched out the rabbi. (What the hell kind of shul were they in, anyway? Reformed? Reconstructionist? Marxist? And has Krauthammer stopped attending that shul?)

I have better things to do than read Charles Krauthammer on Obama/Dunham/Soetoro, but something stunk to high heaven, so I had to hit the link. Here’s what Krauthammer really said:

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said of Franklin Roosevelt that he had a "second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self-definition -- do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.

It’s bad enough that the socialist MSM are in the bag for O/D/S; it’s even worse that the supposedly Republican Wall Street Journal has at times been even more pc than their socialist rivals. But O/D/S’ totalitarian true believers are so obsessed with the notion that opposition to The One is unthinkable that they are even lying, and saying that His opponents support Him! (Last time I checked the Huffington Post, the Obamanoids posting there were pursuing a different sort of lunacy. They feigned certainty that The One and the white guy will win in a landslide, yet were outraged that McCain and Palin had not yet acknowledged inevitability, and resigned from the election. If the Obamanoids really were sure of a landslide, and truly believed in democratic elections, they’d be looking forward to Election Day.)

But Alfred Rosenberg could care less about Krauthammer; the former is just using the latter to beat up on David Brooks.

David Brooks has spent his career trying to be leftists’ “favorite conservative,” and get invitations to their cocktail parties. And the invitations came. And the book deals, which for folks like Brooks, are the whole point of getting invited to the cocktail parties. (Why else endure smug, boring, privileged idiots like Pinch Sulzberger?) But over the past year or so, Brooks’ journalistic machinations have led to his becoming instead the Left’s favorite GOP pseudo-intellectual whipping boy. And it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bloke!

Rosenberg’s ire is based on Brooks’ having said nice things about Sarah Palin. He demands that Brooks insult his own political allies, as a show of good faith towards Rosenberg & Co., who would never respond in kind, and which would not only end Brooks’ career, but result in the Rosenbergs of the world celebrating his misfortune. This is not too far afield from demanding that McCain and Palin concede the election to The One and the white guy.

I give Kraut credit for honesty. The contrast with his New York Times counterpart, David Brooks, is striking.
Krauthammer faces what is, for him, a painful truth. Obama is preferable to McCain. [Oops! Rosenberg lied.]

Brooks simply lies. His column today is a syrupy valentine to Sarah Palin. She "passed the test." She was "surprisingly forceful" on Iraq. She "established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative."

Not for a minute do I believe that Brooks believes any of it. I submit that if any of Brooks [sic] children discussed public policy with as much ignorance -- not to mention silly grammar and incomprehensible circumlocutions -- as Palin, the very Ivy David Brooks would be appalled. [Brooks attended the University of Chicago. It’s an OPU—Overpriced Private University—but it’s not Ivy League.] Of course, that couldn't happen. Brooks has smart kids who speak good English.

But Brooks does not hold a candidate for Vice President to the standards to which he holds his teenage children.

I hold my eight-year-old to higher standards than I would any politician, but what’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? John McCain nominated Sarah Palin, in order to entice conservative Republicans, above all the Party’s Evangelical base, to vote for a man who holds them in contempt. Brooks has supported McCain for president since at least 2000, and a Chablis-sipping, country club vision of the Republican Party since the 1990s.

Rosenberg’s routine reminds me of the time in early 2002, shortly after Mike Bloomberg’s inauguration as New York City mayor, when New York Times operative Bob Herbert criticized him, and for contrast, praised just departed Rudy Giuliani for reducing crime.

Herbert had just spent eight years race-baiting Giuliani, attacking everything he did, above all, his crime policies. Circa 1999, Herbert had gone so far, in support of the racial profiling hoax, and against Giuliani’s NYPD, as to try and incite black race riots.

I once came across a socialist blogger who said that Herbert was such a Democratic talking points bot that he was an embarrassment even to lefties. I’m not familiar with Alfred Rosenberg, so I don’t know if any of his comrades are embarrassed by him. And though I’ve been aware of Talking Points Memo for a few years, I’m not sure whether the title is meant literally or ironically. The irony-deficient Rosenberg suggests the former.

Rosenberg also claims that George Will has jumped on the O/D/S bandwagon. Does this mean I have to read Will, too?! Oh, but Rosenberg didn’t even supply a link to Will, much less a fudged quote, so as far as I’m concerned, that lets me—but not Rosenberg—off the hook. After all, I’m not the one making extraordinary claims.

*Media Matters for America is a socialist, Democratic Party propaganda site, which enjoys 501(c)(3) non-profit tax status, in spite of it being illegal for partisan political organizations to 501(c)(3)s. “MMFA” was founded by admitted journalism fraud David Brock, who is the walking embodiment of what I call the perjurer’s paradox, a variation on the liar’s paradox. The perjurer says, “I used to be a liar, but I’m honest now, so you must believe what I am now saying.” Since switching his loyalties from the GOP to the Democratic Party, Brock has insisted that when he was a Republican investigative journalist, he lied, but has walked the straight and narrow since switching to the Democratic Party. The problem is that the truth appears to be the opposite of what Brock says. Thus, he was an honest journalist for the GOP, who became a paid liar for the Democrats, who then began lying about having been a liar and having converted to honesty. Are you feeling dizzy yet?

Goldman Sachs: It’s Their World; We Just Live in It

Does Goldman Sachs rule the world? Are economic principles passé, to be replaced with pure power? Currently, a great many people, and not merely the usual suspects, believe both notions, In my new VDARE blog, I examine both beliefs:

“Anti-Goldman-Sachsism, the Führer Principle, and Other Delusions of Crowds.”

Howard Beach II: More White Male Monsters?

By Nicholas Stix
July 07, 2005. Last updated 4:40 a.m., July 10, 2005.

It looks as though those evil white males committed yet another racial outrage in Howard Beach, Queens, on June 29.

Since the New York reporters and politicians I’ve seen and heard have not even used the qualifier “alleged,” I don’t know why we should even bother with the formality of a trial. Let’s have us a necktie party!

In the incident that allegedly occurred at 3:30 a.m., three black men stopped in the lily white area with the express intent—as Glen Moore, Richard Pope, and Richard Wood, have all freely admitted—of stealing a car, specifically a Chrysler 300 (i.e., loitering with intent to commit a crime). One of the white men, Nicholas Minucci, allegedly fractured Glen Moore’s skull with a baseball bat. Another white man, Anthony Ench, allegedly kicked Glen Moore, called him the “n”-word, and stole his sneakers and jewelry. A third white man who participated in whatever it was that transpired, Frank Agostini, was initially named by authorities as a “person of interest” (read: suspect). Agostini, an NYPD detective’s son, has since “flipped” on Minucci and Ench. Agostini has admitted to having punched Moore once before Minucci allegedly worked Moore over with the baseball bat, a story the “victims” have reportedly corroborated. (The alleged victims and alleged attackers apparently range in age from 19 to 25 years of age, with the alleged attackers being described as at the younger end, but media accounts of everyone’s ages are contradictory, even from one page to the next of the same newspaper.)

Unlike many murder suspects, Minucci and Ench are in jail without bail, each facing a multitude of charges, including hate crimes, and a possible 25-year prison sentence, which is more than most of New York’s killers are sentenced to. Agostini has not been charged.
In the July 2 Daily News, “reporter” Tracy Connor’s shameless lead was, “NICHOLAS MINUCCI might be a tough guy when he’s swinging a baseball bat, but he’s apparently a big wimp when it comes to the needle.”

Connor was referring to a tattoo needle, from Minucci’s appearance on the A&E show, Growing Up Gotti. Minucci is friends with the family of late Gambino crime family boss and mass murderer, John Gotti. The caps are from the paper edition.

But that was nothing compared to the July 6 Daily News story by alleged reporter Warren Woodberry Jr., who led with, “The baseball-bat beating of a black man by white thugs in Howard Beach caused tempers to flare yesterday on the steps of Queens Criminal Court.”

Woodberry also referred to Glen Moore as “victim,” which is presumptuous, as well.

Editorialists are supposed to honor the presumption of innocence; reporters are supposed to meet an even higher standard. It was unwittingly comical when Woodberry then referred to defendant Anthony Ench as a “suspect.” Doesn’t Woodberry know what he’s saying? What he did was no better than if I had referred to him first as “an incompetent moron,” and then as “reporter Warren Woodberry Jr.” But my professional code forbids my stooping so low.

Had a white reporter written as Woodberry did about a black crime suspect, he would have been cashiered.


From the Rev. Charles Norris Files

Alleged reporter Warren Woodberry Jr. apparently missed some other things, as well.

He quoted rally organizer, the Rev. Charles Norris, as shouting at attorney Vincent Siccardi, when the latter spoke out on behalf of his client, suspect Anthony Ench, "This is our press conference. You have no business here." Woodberry neglected to mention that since the unofficial (i.e., without permit) rally took place on public property, on the steps of Queens Criminal Court, Siccardi not only had as much right to be present as the Rev. Norris, but also had the same First Amendment right as Norris to speak out.

Woodberry neglected to report that the Rev. Charles Norris is a black supremacist, who during the mid-1990s fronted for black supremacist murderer-kidnapper-extortionist Sonny Carson (1935?-2002), when Carson sought to get a veteran Jewish teacher, Rita Altman, fired from predominantly black P.S. 80 in Jamaica, Queens, via a race hoax. In 1996, the Rev. Norris told Newsday reporter Merle English that it didn’t even matter to him whether the charges were true.

We’re not going to sit still and have this teacher just get away with what allegedly has been said. Whether it’s true or not, her effectiveness as a teacher has been damaged. How is she going to teach effectively in any school where students will be whispering, ‘That’s the teacher that used the N-word’?”

Rev. Norris vowed that if Altman were transferred to another school, his group would hunt her down and prevent her from teaching, the same threat Carson and his allies had made against the Jewish teachers whom they sought to have fired during the 1967-68 Ocean Hill-Brownsville “community control” (read: black power) debacle.

A couple of other matters also escaped “reporter” Woodberry. The good reverend is so consumed with hatred for whites and Jews, that in 2000 he made a point of celebrating MLK Day by publicly disparaging Jews to a large crowd he was warming up at the Rev. Al Sharpton’s Harlem headquarters, just before senatorial candidate Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak, and last year, he fought (apparently with success, since no center bears Byrne’s name) having a Police Athletic League center in South Jamaica, Queens named after police Officer Edward Byrne, who died defending the black community, for the sole and stated reason that Officer Byrne was white.

Charles Norris and Sonny Carson figure just as much in this story as do Nicholas Minucci, Anthony Ench, and Frank Agostini. Even in death, Carson’s malevolent spirit hangs over New York.


The Readers Beg to Differ

Meanwhile, reader letters published by the local dailies were less one-sided than reporters in their sympathies.

Of four letters the July 3 Daily News published on the case, for instance, two opposed casting the failed car thieves as victims.

Herb Stark of Massapequa, in neighboring Nassau County wrote, “I'm not condoning the attack on three black men by white men in Howard Beach. But the fact that the black men told investigators they were out to steal a car should warrant their arrest for criminal intent. To describe them as victims is not quite right.”

And Mark Morgan of Kew Gardens, Queens opined, “A would-be car thief gets beaten with a bat while casing a neighborhood, and we're supposed to care. Get real!”

On June 30, when I was considering writing only a brief blog on this case, I received the following letter from a reader:

I was wondering if you have written anything about this attack that recently occured in Queens in which a white guy is getting charged with a hate crime for beating up a black who was planning on stealing a car. I think it is outrageous, the guy should be commended for doing what the cops will not do.

Two More White Males

Mayor Mike Bloomberg immediately condemned the attack, as if there were no question as to its racial character (in other words, as if the defendants had already been convicted). Meanwhile, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly told New Yorkers that the “victims’” ongoing grand theft auto project, had nothing at all to do with the attack on them, and that New Yorkers should discount the claim that the failed car thieves had sought to rob one of the three white men. Speaking anonymously, Kelly’s minions have insisted to the local media that the white men had no idea what the black men were up to. (Leftwing journalists and academics have for years claimed—either out of dishonesty or utter ignorance—that white police officers and security guards are unable to distinguish between suspicious and innocent behavior by black males, painting them with the same broad brush that police are now using on the white Howard Beach men.)

Last week (June 30, I think it was), reporter Tim Minton of WNBC 4 said that the (alleged) bias attack bore some “eerie similarities” to another one in Howard Beach 19 years earlier.

Let’s see, according to the official story, in the December 20, 1986 attack, three black men (Michael Griffith, 23, Cedric Sandiford, 36, and Timothy Grimes, 20), were driving through the lily-white neighborhood when their car broke down. When they went looking for help, they were set upon by a racist mob, which caused the death of Michael Griffith, when he ran into traffic to escape the mob. Three members of the mob, Jon Lester, Scott Kern, and Jason Ladone, were convicted for the attack.

Incidents involving innocent black men trying to get their broken-down car fixed, so they can continue on their way (Howard Beach I), and black men who have stopped for the sole purpose of committing a felony (Howard Beach II) are “eerily similar”? Only if you deny the difference between a criminal black man and a law-abiding black man. Calling stories that have little in common “eerily similar” is a hoary reporter’s cliché.

But then, not even Howard Beach I was the “Howard Beach” that the official media and politicians’ story would have you believe.


Remembering Howard Beach I

You can’t really “remember” Howard Beach unless you were there, even if you lived in New York at the time, as I did. That is because the case was misrepresented by most of the media, who reported on it according to socialist/civil rights boilerplate, and who as the years went on, piled fiction upon fiction. According to the official story, Michael Griffith, Cedric Sandiford, and Timothy Grimes were beaten and Griffith sent to his death because they were saintly blacks who found themselves in racist, demonic Howard Beach. The reality, however, was less black and white.

Let’s go to a source more reliable than the New York media, written by an author living hundreds of miles away. In Jared Taylor’s classic, 1992 work, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America, Taylor recounted,

One evening in 1986, some white teenagers were driving a girl home when three blacks walked in front of their car and were nearly hit. A shouting match then ensued, a black shouted ‘F--- you, honky,’ another flashed a knife, and one reportedly stuck his head through a window and spat in the face of one of the whites. The whites drove away furious, and after dropping off the girl, returned with baseball bats. They brutally attacked one of the blacks and gave him an injury requiring five stitches. Another black was hit and killed by a car as he tried to escape.

Taylor added that a TV docudrama on Howard Beach I took one black man’s five stitch wound, and turned it into a 67-stitch wound, invented racial epithets on the part of the whites that the blacks did not even claim to have heard, and censored any depiction of the blacks’ aggression that started the ball rolling.

As Taylor’s book and the Web site of the magazine he edits, American Renaissance show, racially motivated murders of whites by blacks have long been routine in America, while racial murders of blacks by whites have long been a rarity. And yet the media have for at least the past 20 years presented a parallel universe of bloodthirsty whites and heroic black victims. The rare white-on-black attack is always put on Page One and given saturation coverage by the TV news, while the daily black-on-white attacks are “disappeared”: Either not reported on at all, reported only by local newspapers, but “whited out” of local TV and national newspaper coverage, or reported without informing viewers of the respective races of the attackers and victim.

As an NYPD detective admitted to me in January, 1991, after I’d been singled out for attack on the subway by a spontaneously forming black and Hispanic gang, racial attacks on whites are a daily occurrence in New York, “but there are some things you can’t say” for political reasons.

I quoted WNBC’s Tim Minton above as saying that the June 29 incident was “eerily similar” to one that occurred in Howard Beach in 1986. You will never hear Minton or any of his colleagues speak of a contemporary black-on-white racial attack as being “eerily similar” to one in the past, because that would require two conditions: 1. That Minton & Co. report on at least one contemporary black-on-white racial attack, and 2. That they reported on such attacks in the past. And unlike most of his colleagues, who only play reporters on TV, Tim Minton is a real reporter!

It was not always so. In Vincent J. Cannato’s exhaustively researched political biography/history of a mayor and his city, The Ungovernable City: John Lindsay and His Struggle to Save New York, Cannato chronicles how for approximately ten years beginning in the mid-1960s, the city’s newspapers not only reported on the savage attacks of the city’s crime explosion, the majority of which were black-on-white and whose racial character fooled no one, but the newspapers—including the liberal New York Times—ran crime stories on the front page, day after day after day.

But those reporters and editors are all gone, replaced by a new generation of white journalists who are hostile to white crime victims and who are simultaneously fearful of, fascinated by, and patronizing towards New York’s overwhelmingly black and Hispanic violent criminals; and black and Hispanic journalists who feel a loyalty to minority criminals, and who have successfully pressured their editors to downplay or “disappear” most such crime.

When today’s journalists travel at night after work, it is not in the subway, but by taxicab or their own car. When they travel to cover stories, it is with news crews that double as bodyguards. The liberal journalists (J-school weeded out any conservatives) live either in luxury apartment buildings with 24-hour security, in neighborhoods where the police are acutely concerned for their safety, or in wealthy suburbs. And when they or their family or friends are crime victims, they go to the district attorney’s office accompanied by their famous attorneys, perhaps paying lip-service to the welfare of criminal as well as victim, and they get a measure of justice. But they feel contempt for the whites who cannot afford the taxicabs, the security guards, the wealthy suburbs, the fancy lawyers or the fancy justice, whites who feel no compassion whatsoever for the devils who attacked them, and who see no reason to feign such compassion. Rank has its privileges and its burdens.

In the early 1990s, black journalists formulated the logically circular and historically backwards theory, that black crime was “caused” by the media reporting on black crime. I kid you not. Famous black journalist Ellis Cose promoted just such a theory in his 1993 book, The Rage of a Privileged Class. The theory is a companion piece to the equally circular and historically backwards one favored by leftist academics, that black academic failure is “caused” by white stereotyping of blacks as academic failures (“stereotype threat”).


Was the Central Park Jogger Prosecution Racist?

One violent crime that was reported on exhaustively was the 1989 Central Park Jogger attack. But the socialist New York media later decided that the reporting on that crime had been an political mistake, just as socialist Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau decided that the prosecution of the teenagers who had confessed, mutually implicated each other, and known things that only the attackers could have known about the assault and rape of investment banker Trisha Meili had been a political mistake. (The assault left Meili in a coma for weeks, after losing over 70 percent of her blood. When some of the boys were initially picked up in Central Park by police for a string of attacks they had committed on other parkgoers, they thought it was for Meili’s murder. They assumed she had died. Since police would not find Meili’s limp body for several hours, the officers had no idea what the boys were talking about.) And so, with DA Morgenthau leading the way, in a journalistic version of reparations, the entire episode was re-written. The five confessed attackers were “exonerated,” and recast as “victims of racism.” (See “Race Hustlers Re-Run Central Park Jogger Case,” “Justice Vacated in
Central Park Jogger Case,” and “The War on the Police.”)


Dropping “N”s

Back in Howard Beach II, Anthony Ench allegedly called the would-be car thieves the n-word.

Meanwhile, Frank Agostini’s story is that he encountered two of the failed car thieves on the street, and that one apparently mistook the dark-skinned young man for a black, and said to an accomplice, "Look at the little n----- with the chain."

If Agostini was telling the truth, he correctly inferred that the two were about to rob him, and he ran off and got his friends. The failed car thieves admit to having encountered the lone Agostini, but deny having said what he attributed to them.

The July 2 Daily News reported that Queens assistant DA Brian Kohm maintained that Ench told the failed car thieves, “This is what happens when you rob white boys.”


The NYPD Can’t Get Its Lies Straight

Interestingly, the July 2 Daily News reported that police sources thought Agostini’s story was credible, in spite of his account depicting Ench as not having said the "n"-word. That could be (as Ench’s attorney, Vincent Siccardi, claims) because Agostini’s father is a well-placed NYPD detective or because Agostini is telling the truth. If Agostini is telling the truth (i.e., if the News’ police official sources are right), the three whites were reacting to a failed robbery by two of the failed car thieves, and none of the whites said the “n”-word. That would mean that even by New York City prosecutors’ twisted, hypocritical, unconstitutional standards and practices, the whites could not be prosecuted under the hate crimes statute. It would also mean that rather than this being a racial attack, it was a response to an attempted robbery, whose prospective assailants misidentified their prospective victim.

But we don’t need to rely on the News’ NYPD sources. All of the failed car thieves—Glen Moore, Richard Pope, and Richard Wood—have corroborated Frank Agostini’s report of what Anthony Ench said, except for claiming that Ench also said the “n” word.

So, what is it? Do police believe Agostini or not? They can't say they believe Agostini's story when doing so helps Agostini, but disbelieve the same story when doing so helps Minucci and Ench. (In the present lynch-mob environment, however, they could certainly get away with such a violation of logic.) Regarding the fork-tonguedness of police officials, I am reminded of the line of TV detective “Andy Sipowicz” (Dennis Franz) in NYPD Blue to suspects whose accomplices were already in custody, "You and your partner need to get your lies straight."

Rather than ask such questions, the media have gladly followed the lead of Commissioner Kelly & Co. After all, the New York media like nothing more than demonizing white Catholic men, especially Italians, as racist thugs. After Joey Fama’s 1989 murder of Yusuf Hawkins in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, the media demonized the entire area for years, and I, who lived about two miles from the crime scene, was too embarrassed to tell anyone that I lived in Bensonhurst. (I started telling people I was from “Bath Beach,” which as my Italian landlady pointed out, was true. We were in the Bath Beach section of Bensonhurst, a huge swath of Brooklyn which had over 100,000 residents.) By contrast, though most of New York’s black neighborhoods are among the most racist in the nation, the New York media have never demonized a black neighborhood as racist.

In Paved with Good Intentions, Jared Taylor recounts a 1989 incident that occurred in the Bronx one month after the Yusuf Hawkins killing. A white man got out of his car on predominantly black East Tremont Avenue to use a telephone. A black man approached him, said, “What are you white guys doing on Tremont? You don’t belong here,” and gut-shot the white. The story was suppressed by the media, ignored by politicians, and discounted by black activists. (At the time, I had a foster-care client on East Tremont Avenue, which looked like a war had just ended, but I didn’t hear about the black-on-white shooting. The woman, a crackhead, lived atop a hilly street. When I went for a home visit and she wasn’t there, I literally ran downhill to a pay phone a block away, to call her neighbor. Meanwhile, the media had already started telling the fairy tale about the “renaissance” the South Bronx, which included East Tremont, was enjoying.)


Breaking Through the Media Wall of Silence

Note that when a mob of some thirty black junior high school students savagely beat six white girls while shouting racial epithets (“black power!” "honky b-----s!" “white crackers!” “Martin Luther King!” – go figure), in Marine Park, Brooklyn, on March 30, of this year, Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly ignored the case, the media refused to report on it, and the NYPD covered up the attack’s racial character. Hate crime charges against the black alleged attackers were only brought weeks after the attack, after the victims’ parents fought the city, engaged high-profile attorneys on their children’s behalf, and the attack was publicized via the Internet. (The attack would have been racial in character without the use of the racial slurs, but New York authorities have long claimed and the media implied that the use of such slurs proves that an attack was racial.) Likewise, the New York media only covered the story weeks after the fact, after they were shamed into doing so by a little Brooklyn weekly newspaper, which reached only a few thousand New Yorkers, but hundreds of thousands of people across the country and around the world via the Internet. And many of the reporters from major dailies who then grudgingly covered the story were angrier at the little paper and its reporter for breaking through the media wall of silence, than they were at the attackers.


Cross-Examining the Prosecution

We can forget about the “n” word in Howard Beach II. It’s irrelevant. I realize that the New York media, police, and prosecutors are obsessed with whites using this term in dealing with blacks, but it’s a red herring. First of all, because as I wrote in the context of Atlanta’s Brian Nichols case, racist blacks lie all the time about whites using the “n” word. More importantly, it is not necessarily relevant to establishing an attacker’s motive. Third, the obsession with the “n” word is part of both the legislative intent and application of hate crime statutes in New York that are unconstitutional, because they target whites for punishment. Fourth, hate crime laws are unconstitutional, since they criminalize one’s thoughts, rather than one’s acts. Fifth, the authorities' exploitation of the "n"-word has been contradictory in this case. And last, because the failed car thieves’ own words show that the intent of the whites’ attack was not racist.

• Since about the 1980s, racist black criminals have been permitted in New York to use false claims that their white victims called them the “n”-word as a “get-out-of-jail-free” card.

• I have been racially attacked dozens of times by blacks who simply walked over to me and, without uttering a word, shoved, kicked, or punched me. I’ve also had New York blacks cuss me out before spitting on me or throwing lit cigarettes at me, but without calling me a racial epithet. Meanwhile, a white may be a racist but still have good reason for going after a black (in self-defense, to protect others, or to protect property), and may even call the black a racial epithet, in the course of fighting him, without being guilty of a racial attack. The opposite does not apply, because whites almost never commit crimes against blacks. (And authorities almost always discount white reports of black attackers using racial epithets.) The upshot of elites’ obsession with whites saying the “n”-word is that only whites with certain refined manners would ever be permitted, even in theory or in self-defense, to strike blacks for any reason. That standard violates whites’ 14th Amendment right to equality under the law.

• Hate crime statutes were enacted in New York, as elsewhere, to privilege certain groups (blacks, Hispanics, gays), and correspondingly to disenfranchise white, heterosexual males. Crimes are labeled hate crimes based not on the act but on who commits it. When blacks or Hispanics target whites or Asians, they are almost never charged with hate crimes (and then only after great political pressure is exerted on criminal justice officials), whereas whites are routinely treated as racist criminals and locked up for interracial crimes in which blacks or Hispanics are the victims (and increasingly for crimes in which the whites were the victims). The intent and application of hate crimes legislation both violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

• The state may not criminalize one’s thoughts, as opposed to one’s actions.

• If Minucci is not alleged to have used the "n"-word during the attack, why is he being charged with a hate crime? And if Ench did not use a weapon on anyone (he allegedly kicked Moore), why is he facing the same possible 25-year sentence as Minucci, who fractured Moore's skull? Legally, the only way to paper over such inconsistencies would be to invoke the legal principle of "acting in concert." But then, Agostini would have to be up for the same 25 years as the others. (If anything, consistency would require that Agostini bear the greatest responsibility, because he has himself said that he called on Minucci and Ench to go after Moore, Pope, and Wood, in the first place. According to the hate crime scenario, by which prosecutors treated Keith Mondello as the ringleader in the Yusuf Hawkins case, despite the fact that Mondello did not kill Hawkins or order Joey Fama to kill him, Agostini was the ringleader in Howard Beach II.) Note, however, that violent blacks and Hispanics who have engaged in mob attacks in New York, have not been charged with acting in concert in recent memory.

• The failed car thieves agree with Agostini that Ench said, “This is what happens when you rob white boys.” Why would Ench use those very words? Unlike in cases of black-on-white attacks, no one claims he said, “This is what happens when you come into our neighborhood.” He said what he did, because the car thieves had sought to rob Agostini. Even the police have agreed with this story out of one side of their mouths.

In any event, after their confessions, Glen Moore, Richard Pope, and Richard Wood not only weren’t arrested, but Moore (who is still in critical condition) is being treated like a victim-hero. What’s wrong with this picture?

It is a recent development whereby a black man can commit a crime, but if he finds a racial angle, the authorities don’t even charge him, and he then hits the jackpot in civil court. Glen Moore’s stepfather immediately began speaking with anticipation about Moore's coming lawsuit.

Even 20 years ago, no New York criminal would have dared to admit that he was in the act of committing a crime when he was attacked, because it was understood that if you were caught committing a crime and got the hell beat out of you, that the beating was inseparable from your own criminal behavior.

Somewhere along the line in the 1980s or early 1990s, New York officials started treating black criminals as victims, if the criminals and their media supporters could come up with a good race story.

According to the local media and to Ray Kelly’s NYPD, when blacks single out whites for assault, robbery, rape or murder, race never has anything to do with it. But anytime a white hits a black, or even is accused of hitting a black (even if the white didn’t hit the black at all, or only hit back in self-defense after having been assaulted), it’s a white-on-black “bias attack.”

Meanwhile, the media are playing along with Kelly, in portraying Nicholas Minucci as a mobbed-up, racist thug. Which, given Minucci’s history of a racial attack on a Sikh man and his friendship with the Gottis, is pretty easy to do.

The hysterical reaction to Howard Beach II by the media, politicians, and police brass is a case of what Ian Jobling has called “competitive altruism,” whereby some whites harm other whites, in relation to minorities, in order to demonstrate their moral superiority. The whites in charge are desperate to show the world that they are morally superior to the Nicholas Minuccis and Anthony Enches, and all who would defend them, but not superior to its Glen Moores, Richard Popes, and Richard Woodses.

Nicholas Minucci and Anthony Ench and yes, Frank Agostini, are not nice guys. In fact, they’re dirtbags. (A case could be made that Agostini, who has played both mob wannabes and the NYPD for fools, is the biggest dirtbag of all.) But the reaction to them by the media and politicians, which includes Commissioner Kelly, has little to do with the alleged severity of what they allegedly did. For let’s assume that the charges against Minucci and Ench are 100 percent true. If the reaction were to the supposed outrage of singling out someone and assaulting him based solely on his race or ethnicity, the Bloombergs and Kellys and the media would be speaking out in outrage the same way on a daily basis, and several hundred thousand New York blacks and Hispanics would each presently be serving a 25-year prison term.

Mike Bloomberg and Ray Kelly are a couple of truly dangerous white males.

Pedro Martinez Will Not Pitch for the Mets in ‘09

By Nicholas Stix



The Post’s Bart Hubbuch writes,

Pedro Martinez is leaning toward pitching again next season, though it's highly doubtful he will do so with the Mets. Martinez's four-year, $53 million contract with the Mets expired this season, and the club appears unlikely to invest much in a pitcher one year removed from shoulder surgery who turns 37 next month. Martinez's teammates certainly sensed the end of his Mets career yesterday. At least a dozen of them stopped by his locker after the season-ending 4-2 loss to the Marlins, with a distraught Carlos Beltran even collapsing in tears on Martinez's shoulder for several minutes.

To which FanNation poster KGun91 quips,

Wasn't Pedro the one that said, “There's no crying in baseball.” Did he punch Beltra [sic] in the face?

The Secret to being a Successful Armed Robber

By Nicholas Stix

One of the perks of being a reader of NSU is picking up practical tips for navigating the world we live in now. And so, I now provide you with an NSU exclusive, based on a breaking crime story.

Just after 9:30 this morning, the branch at 397 First Avenue of M&T Bank, in the peaceful, wealthy, Kips Bay area on Manhattan’s East Side, was the site of a $330,000 armored car heist. Typically, such a caper requires weeks of planning, and several experienced men armed with guns. And yet, the lone robber does not appear to have put much planning into the caper, and though an afternoon TV flash said the robber had brandished a knife, the offender was apparently unarmed. Was the robber a criminal genius? Lucky? No and no.

The misleadingly titled Associated Press story, “Cops hunt gunman in Manhattan armored car heist,” tells us that the robber approached the Dunbar Armored (“The most trusted name in security”) guard, who was armed with a pistol, from behind, got the guard in a headlock, and robbed the guard’s gun and the sack containing the $330,000, which the guard was delivering to the bank.

Headlock? Robbed the guard’s gun and money sack? Surely, I jest, you say. Again, no.

The robber’s diabolically ingenious plan was this: He was a man—armed with a penis!—and the armed “guard” was not. It was a he-on-she crime.

It was as easy as that.

The AP did not report on whether the act qualified as a bias crime.

The Associated Press reporter, who wrote on condition of anonymity, gave the following description of the assailant: No race, no age, no height, no skin tone, no weight, but a penis and a non-descript gray, hooded sweatshirt.

No wonder the robber was able to disappear into the East Side’s crowds, which at that time of day were peopled with thousands of raceless penises in non-descript, gray “hoodies.”

According to ABC-TV News, New York City police added, helpfully, that the robber was “large.”

Thus, the secret to being a successful robber—in Manhattan, at any rate—is to be armed with the ultimate weapon, a penis, and target those who lack this weapon. It is also a good idea, if one should wish to elude capture, to be raceless.

For updates on this story, please check the Web site of the Associated Press Society for the Protection of Raceless Robbers Armed with Penises.

Dunbar Armored’s previous claim to fame occurred on September 13, 1997, when Allen Pace III, a raceless security guard from Compton who had been fired the previous night, and five friends who worked elsewhere as security guards robbed its Los Angeles depot of $18.9 million. According to the FBI, that was the biggest “armed takeover robbery in American history.”

Pace & Co. were surprised by the amount of money they took, which according to Los Angeles Times reporter Josh Meyer, filled a U-Haul truck’s 14-foot cabin up to their thighs.

It took authorities almost four years to solve that crime and prosecute and imprison its perpetrators, all of whom robbed Dunbar wearing masks and armed with guns, even though at the time they were all also in possession of penises. The guns were apparently necessitated by the fact that the guards at Dunbar were also armed with penises, a sexist practice that, as today’s robbery shows, Dunbar has made great strides towards reforming.