I was looking through the photos of Anthony Sowell's victims, and my heart dropped.  More than half of them were described as women with histories of drug and/or alcohol abuse. Nancy Cobbs, Tonia Carmichael, Janice Webb, all dead, all with histories of drug addiction.  I knew this, of course, but to revisit the information through a CBS photo slide show was unsettling.  Most of the victims' families didn't suspect any unusual behavior with the victims until two, three and 12 months later.  Man, I tell you.  It breaks my heart how we often throw away members of our community who suffer from drug abuse.  Don't get it wrong.  I understand the need to wipe the hands clean of the emotional strain that accompanies drug-addicted loved ones. You either kill yourself helping them or not.

One of my cousins, a very intelligent, charismatic man, started to use cocaine at suburban parties and then ultimately became addicted to crack-cocaine and heroine in the inner-city.  The family did everything in its power to help him.  They provided money, food, lodging, prayer, bail, clothes, tough love, rehab, more money, more prayer.  But when the pattern of drug use and its nasty friend, the con, became intolerable, most family members closed their doors and decided to let him meet his fate, in the streets.  No one, of course, would imagine he would be brutally murdered.

The issue with my cousin is certainly different than the victims of Cleveland.  He's a male, alive and rehabilitated.  The victims were unrehabilitated women lured to their deaths by a serial killer.  My point is one's life can't be structured around the drug-addicted.  I understand why families and friends break ties with them and leave them to the stress.  I guess it simply breaks my heart to know the drug-addicted can often become society's expendable citizen and there's nothing anyone can do.

John Allen Muhammad is dead.  It's been seven years since he and his 17-year-old accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, drove through Maryland, Virginia and D.C. shooting (and killing) innocent people.  Last night at 9:11 p.m. Muhammed, who still claimed his "innocence," was pronounced dead after lethal injection.  And honestly, I don't know what to feel.   I believe there are some people born with chemical and psychological imbalances and are, in a way, innocent in their lunacy.  I believe there are people who are a human manifestation of a society where the violent pursuit of oil, land, religious or politcal dominance, coal, and/or diamonds trumps human life 24/7.  In fact, one can't exist without the other.

I believe the John Allen Muhammads and Timothy McVeighs of the world are horrid extensions of a capitalist society some of us thrive in and others, not so much.  But with that said, I still don't know what to feel.  I never lost a family member or friend to such a violent and random attack.   A part of me believes I would have stood among the dozens of surviving relatives anxious to see Muhammad grasp for his last breath.  Another part of me believes I would mourn the loss of my loved one in solitude, but wonder if lethal injections are simply Band-Aids on a much bigger problem.  A society unable to address and correct its violent streak.

From where I sit here in Brooklyn, people are still trigger-happy.  Gun laws are becoming looser and looser.  Our youth thrive on blood-letting video games where the thrill is to kill "the innocent."  People beat each other in the heads with two by fours while others record the chaos on cellphones.

John Allen Muhammad was killed through lethal injection for his crimes (and, in a way, to provide momentary relief for family), but what about this trigger-happy, blood-hungry nation we live in?  What are we going to do about that?

Major Nidal Malik Hasaan, a Palestinian-American and Muslim, allegedly screamed "Allahu Akbar" before his shooting rampage.  So it's no surprise that American Muslims and those who support them are concerned about a national backlash.  It's also no surprise that some folk don't like that other folk are ignoring the so-called Muslim-violence pattern taking place on American soil. Jeffrey Goldberg over at the Atlantic writes:

"It seems, though, that when an American military officer who is a practicing Muslim allegedly shoots forty of his fellow soldiers who are about to deploy to the two wars the United States is currently fighting in Muslim countries, some broader meaning might, over time, be discerned, especially if the officer did, in fact, yell "Allahu Akbar" while murdering his fellow soldiers, as some soldiers say he did.  This is the second time this year American soldiers on American soil have been gunned down by a Muslim who was reportedly unhappy with America's wars in the Middle East (the first took place in Arkansas, to modest levels of notice). And, of course, this would not be the first instance of an American Muslim soldier killing fellow soldiers over his disagreements with American foreign policy; in 2003, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar killed two officers and wounded fourteen others when he rolled a grenade into a tent in a homicidal protest against American policy.

I am not arguing, of course, that American Muslims, as a whole, are violently unhappy with America (I've argued the opposite, in fact). But I do think that elite makers of opinion in this country try very hard to ignore the larger meaning of violent acts when they happen to be perpetrated by Muslims. Here's a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions."

I'm not sure I agree that the elite makers of opinion dismiss the opportunity to demonize Muslims and their so-called potential for violence against Americans.  Just run over to Fox News or tune into the Rush Limbaugh hour.  Heck, sit it on some of those Sunday church services in the heartland where the minister insists that if one isn't quoting the Bible then Islamic sin is surely tap-dancing in the soul.  I also don't agree that Christians are vilified in the same manner as Muslim when it comes to acts of violence against abortion clinics or pedestrians at the local mall.  Thoughts?

One year ago today Barack Hussein Obama stepped in the presidential spotlight and extinguished racism forever, amen.  One year ago the memory of American slavery was erased, field hollers and spirituals were considered obscene, and white people stepped into the role of the new black—urban, hip and the only authentic interpreter of that old throwback called Pre-Barack Black. Oh, baby, I'm about to have some fun!  Today the New York Times published a hilarious essay by novelist Colson Whitehead about his imagined role as Secretary of Postracial Affairs. Here's a chunk of Colson's riff that had me choking:

"Some changes will be minor. In television, “Diff’rent Strokes” and “What’s Happening!!” will now be known as “Different Strokes” and “What Is Happening?” Other changes will be more drastic. “Sanford and Son” trafficked in demeaning stereotypes. In these more enlightened times, everyone knows that one person’s “junk” is another’s compulsive eBay purchase. A more postracially robust version features Sanford père as the genius behind a community-based auction site, with his son, Lamont, the reluctant Webmaster. Think of the opportunities for fleet-footed banter and sophisticated, pun-based aperçus. Like “Frasier,” but postracial."

If he'd let me, I'd work tirelessly as Colson's advisor to his Secretary of Postracial Affairs.  I would insist all black TV shows prior to Barack's Postracial America be recast and reshot with white actors.  Or, at least, have all the black actors voices dubbed with friendly white ones.  Yeah, that's better.  We can continue to see black (because black is often pleasing to the primal palette), but we don't have to hear black or any of its African-slavery-infused rhythms and cadences.  Come on, now you know that's a damn good idea.  I'd also insist, absolutely demand, that Colson reimagine Aunt Esther, from Sanford and Son, as a Buddhist-chanting, yoga-practicing, culinary chef who specializes in foods that lower cholesterol levels.  Someone please share this with Colson:  I'd be the best advisor a Secretary of Postracial Affairs ever imagined.