Effective politics
I agree almost entirely with Paul Winters' letter to the editor about the 2000 election and its nightmare results ("Rewarding conscience with nightmare," TW 3/2001). The "almost" refers to his key statement about "such a poorly designed electoral system that rewards people who vote their conscience with their worst nightmare." But it is not the electoral system which is at fault (although it could be improved) but rather the "conscience." Voting your conscience apparently means voting for the candidate whose views on the issues most closely reflect your own. This, I believe, is a seriously misinformed conscience, since it omits a critical factor, namely, whether or not the candidate has a real chance of being elected. It is the lack of this factor which always produces the nightmare. It may be good Puritan moralism in the sense that it gives one a sense of moral purity, but it is not effective politics, which is always incremental, never ideal.

Finally, Ralph Nader is not stupid. He knew what the consequences of his campaign would be (97,000 votes in Florida). And he has recently admitted that there were five major differences between Bush and Gore. If he keeps at it rather than running in the Democratic primaries where he belongs -- and if the moralists follow him again -- then he will give us the real nightmare of eight years of Bush.
Owen C. Thomas
Berkeley, CA

Gifts of the spirit
I must write to tell you how much we appreciate your magazine, which was given to us by Sara Owen from Atlanta, one of your faithful readers. You certainly take the lead in the gifts of the spirit -- how to appreciate them and use them. You're also on the cutting edge of many concerns, even guiding us into a new and better future.
Marilyn and Lamar Clements
Clearwater, FL

A word of caution
The article, "Rehabilitation? Fighting to free 'the poster boy for punishment'" by Robert Lowenstein in your March issue was fascinating, persuasive and even inspiring. However, I have to raise a question about one point. Mr. Lowenstein baldly asserts that Falco, Trantino's partner in the murder of the policemen in Lodi, New Jersey, was "executed" by New York policemen. It may well be that he was; the circumstances certainly suggested it.

But I am writing to caution your readers against accepting Mr. Lowenstein's assertion that Frankie Falco was "executed" on Mr. Lowenstein's word alone.

About ten years before the murder in Lodi,while I was on the staff of what was then St. Augustine's Chapel on Henry Street in Manhattan, I knew Frankie Falco. Our work at St. Augustine's was mostly with African-American and Hispanic-American young people, but a group of white boys known as the Mae Rose gang used to hang out on a corner opposite our church and we came to know them. Frankie Falco was a Mae Rose, like his older brother Eddie.

Eddie Falco was scary enough, but Frankie was the most terrifyingly violent human being I have ever encountered. Common talk in the neighborhood was that Frankie Falco put somebody in the hospital about every six weeks.

Nothing I ever knew about Frankie Falco permits me to believe that he would, if suddenly wakened by policemen with drawn weapons, have submitted peacefully to arrest, unarmed or not.

Perhaps subsequent investigations unknown to me have shown that Frankie Falco's death was indeed a case of premeditated police murder. However, I do not pretend to prove Mr. Lowenstein wrong -- merely to remind your readers that things are not always as clear-cut as they may seem, even when the apparent villains are police.
Merrill Orne Young
Surry, VA