CULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnH A T E CRIMES—w h a t are they? InrnNewport, Rhode Island, a mixed-racerncouple complained that threats fromrntheir white neighbors had driven themrnfrom their home. Generous contributionsrnfrom strangers helped the family tornfind a new place and to pay the rent. Localrnpolice, however, were suspicious fromrnthe first and eventually charged TisharnAnderson with plotting her own haterncrime. On February 7, Miss Andersonrnpleaded no contest to charges of filingrnfalse police reports. Even if the threatsrnhad been genuine, they would have beenrnonly words, but if the hate-speech perpetratorsrnhad been found, there would havernbeen a public inquisition on the level ofrnthe Salem Witch Trials.rnAt virtually the same time the Newportrnfarce was drawing to a close, a grimmerrndrama was being played out in Addison,rnIllinois, where a pregnant DebrarnEvans was brutally murdered along withrnher ten-year-old daughter, Samantha.rnThe killers slashed open Miss Evans’ bellyrnand removed the baby alive. The nextrnday, her seven-year-old son Joshua wasrnkilled, but they spared the life of anotherrnchild in the house. Charged in the slayingrnwere neighbor Jacqueline AnnetternWilliams, her boyfriend Fedell Caffey,rnand her cousin Laverne Ward.rnAccording to police, Jacqueline Williamsrnwas unable to have children andrnplotted the murder with her boyfriend.rnShe apparently had been feigning pregnancyrnfor some time in order to make thernarrival of a newborn more plausible. Inrnthe most bizarre twist of the case. LavernernWard claims to be the father ofrnEvans’ surviving children and is claimingrncustody. The fact that is hardly mentionedrnin any of the reports is the race ofrnthe victims and the “alleged perpetrators”:rnDebra Evans and her two murderedrnchildren were white; JacquelinernWilliams and her friends are black; therntwo surviving children are mulatto. Sornthere it is in black and white.rnOne of the worst aspects of this casernhas been the media coverage. Unlessrnyou were listening to talk radio, yournwould have needed the skills of a SherlockrnHolmes to figure out the race of thernvictims and killers. But the press routinelyrnrefuses to identify the race of criminals,rnalthough in some parts of therncountry, it is an easy trick to figure it out:rnoutside the South, any criminal with anrnAnglo surname is probably black. Americanrncitizens have a right to know thernfacts of a criminal case, if only becausernthey, ultimately, have a voice in decidingrncriminal justice policies. Unfortunately,rnthe American media are more interestedrnin condemning white racism than in reportingrnthe facts.rnIn Boston, a black couple in anrnautomobile grew impatient with thernslow progress of pedestrians leaving arnpublic New Year’s Eve celebration. Thernboyfriend, driving without benefit of arnlicense, simply gunned the engine andrnplowed through the crowd, injuring 21rnpeople. The couple is claiming they actedrnin self-defense in reaction to threatsrnfrom white pedestrians, but the policemanrnon the scene commented: “Hernsaid he was going to drive over thosernpeople, and that’s exactly what herndid.” Nonetheless, newspapers dutifullyrnreported the “threats,” as if an insultrnjustified attempted homicide. Last year,rnwhen Michael Westerman was murderedrnby a group of black toughs who objectedrnto the Confederate Flag on hisrntruck, the immediate press response wasrnto condemn the atmosphere of whiternbigotry that had inspired the crime, andrnthe FBI was called in to investigate notrnthe murder but alleged incidents ofrncross-burning.rnAt the beginning of the Bosnian conflict,rnI asked a Serb fighter what it wasrnlike, and he replied: this is warfare at thernbiological level. What he meant wasrnsociobiological warfare, as when a malerncat kills a mother cat’s litter and almostrnimmediately impregnates her with hisrnown genetic inheritance.rnUnfortunately, in teaching blackrnAmericans to demonize whites, blackrnnationalists—and their friends in thernpress—are working to bring about anotherrnBosnia. Even bitter enemies sometimesrnrecognize the humanity of theirrnopponents, but the poisonous race hatredrnthat is being taught to blacks is beginningrnto blind some of them to the humanityrnof their “white oppressors.” Theyrnlook at a child and see only the white skinrnthat gives them a license to kill.rn—Thomas FlemingrnT H E PARTIAL BIRTH abortion ofrnlate-term fetuses is the most odious formrnof abortion, known as “dilatation and extraction”rn(D & X). The procedure, fullyrnand gruesomely described in the majorrnmedia and on the floor of Congressrnearlier this year, when President Clintonrnvetoed the bill that would have bannedrnD & X, involves partially removing a laternfetus from the womb, feet first, thenrnpausing to insert a eanula into the skullrnin order to suck out the brain, permittingrnthe skull to collapse and the now-deadrnbaby to be extracted with minimal damagernto the woman’s cervix. This procedure,rnso gruesome that European observersrnrefuse to believe that it is actuallyrnperformed, might seem to be one thatrnabortion promoters as well as opponentsrnmight agree to eliminate.rnBut to our surprise, the National Organizationrnfor Women, CongresswomanrnPatricia Schroeder, and even PresidentrnClinton himself, among many others,rnhave rallied to defend this procedure,rnwhich is never performed except late inrnpregnancy. A woman who had such anrnabortion in the ninth month of pregnancy,rnVikki Stella, appeared with NOW inrnWashington to argue that the procedurernmust be permitted. Mrs. Stella knewrnthat she was expecting a boy and hadrnnamed him Anthony, but when her doctorrntold her that he would have a cleftrnpalate and be a dwarf, she decided thatrnshe could not cope and resorted to the Drn& X procedure. She had the baby—shernfrequently used the term—cremated,rnand keeps the ashes in her home. If herrntwo daughters ask, “What is that?” sherncan reply, “That was your brother Anthony.rnHe was going to be misshapen, so arnnice doctor killed him for me.” PresidentrnClinton threatened to veto the measurernas “unconstitutional”—surely one of thernmost flexible words in the political vocabulary.rnThe Senate now has passed arnslightly amended bill. The procedure, asrnits advocates repeatedly tell us, is rare—rnbut not so rare, on an annual basis, as thernnumber of people killed by terroristrnbombs each year.rnColumnist Ellen Coodman, in whoserneyes abortion of every kind appears to berna sacred rite essential for a woman to bernfully human, objects that the banning ofrnsuch abortions is only the first step towardrnbanning abortion altogether. Althoughrnthat is a desirable goal in the eyesrnof many of us, to assert that one dare notrnban D & X abortions because it will leadrnto the prohibition of all abortions makesrn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn