The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre Out West

"If you have a lot of what people want and can't get, then you can supply the demand and shovel in the dough."
- Lucky Luciano

"Tell me why are we, so blind to see
That the ones we hurt, are you and me?"
- From "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio

Arizona Senate Bill 1070, the country's strictest anti-illegal immigration legislation, has generated a lot of discussion from both sides of the political spectrum. But somehow, nearly everyone avoids talking about the root causes of the crisis that spawned SB 1070.

Arizona is suffering from a meteoric rise in violent crime, including murders, assaults and human trafficking. Most of this crime is caused by Mexican organized crime groups. In just a few short years, Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the western hemisphere. It is totally understandable that many Arizonians would want to take action. The public outcry over the brutal slaying of 58 year old rancher Robert Krentz and his dog made some sort of action inevitable.

SB 1070 , like most legislation produced from a panic, unfortunately has some serious flaws. The bill aims to cut down on illegal immigration. The premise is that without illegal immigrants from Mexico, we would have no Mexican crime cartels. This simplistic approach to the crime would negatively affect law-abiding immigrants without really addressing the real cause of the crime wave.

Why did the Mexican cartels invade Arizona in recent years? After all, the flood of Mexican immigrants has been going on for decades now. This question could be answered by looking south of the border. The cartels have been active in Mexico and South America for decades, demonstrating all the brutality that Arizona is now experiencing. Mexico has fought back by liberalizing its drug policy, eliminating much of the profit of the cartel's activities. The cartels have therefore moved to greener pastures up North, where our continuing war on drugs guarantees them artificially high profits.

But couldn't SB 1070 keep the cartels out of the US? Frankly, I doubt it, but let us assume that Sb 1070 was 100% effective at keeping out the Mexican cartels. Does anyone really believe that some other organized crime group would not pick up the slack? A quick check of INTERPOL will show that the Albanian Rudaj Organization, the Russian Bratva, the Chinese Triads, and even the Japanese Yakuza are active in the U.S. Any one of these groups would love to take over the drug trade. SB 1070, even if it accomplished all of its goals, would do little more than change the identity of the gangs performing the kidnappings and murders.

The cause of the problem is really the war on drugs, and hence the solution is to bring this ill fated war to an end. Consider the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre of February 14, 1929. The public outcry over this brutal mob hit brought Prohibition into question. It soon became clear that the crime and corruption caused by prohibition far outweighed its benefits. So let us view the Robert Krentz execution as the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre of our time: a horrific crime that reveals that the war on drugs extracts a price on us all that is too high to pay.

Elena Kagan, George McGovern, and Experience

"Experience. The wisdom that enables us to recognize in an undesirable old acquaintance the folly that we have already embraced. "
- From "The Devil's Dictionary" by Ambrose Bierce.

Most of the discussion about supreme court nominee Elena Kagen has centered around her experience. Critics have noted that for all her accomplishments, Kagen has not spent much time in the courtroom. In a column published this morning, Boston Herald columnist Margery Eagan had a different take on the experience issue: the problem with Kagen is not her lack of time in court, it is her lack of time spent outside of the company of elites and positions of privilege. As Eagen points out, the current court, even with Kagen, shows diversity in the areas of race and gender, but virtually no diversity of background. All of these justices come from Ivy League schools. Only Thomas and Sotomayor have worked in state or local courts. With Justice Stevens departure, the court will have no veterans.

The problem is not just with the supreme court; the executive branch also lacks background diversity. Less that 10% of the Obama cabinet have work experience in the private sector. President Obama has never had to make payroll. Some of his statement reflect a lack of understanding of how businesses work, such as when he refers to profits as overhead, or proclaiming at a February press conference that "If [small businesses] can get the bank loans to boost their payroll ...".

Why is this lack of experience with life outside of the elites important? Consider former senator and presidential candidate George McGovern. After leaving the Senate, George bought an inn in Connecticut. Four years later, the inn went bankrupt. In his frank assessment of his inn's failure, George McGovern places the blame on policies he enacted as a Senator! Among the inn's woes were excessive regulations that place an especially heavy burden on small businesses. Lawsuit abuse was also an issue: he was forced into expensive litigation over people who fell in - or near - his establishment. Moreover, he noted that medical lawsuit abuse was driving up his medical insurance costs. As a senator, he had heard these concerns from businessmen, but dismissed them as overblown. McGovern admits that this business venture has taught him how wrong he was to dismiss these concerns, and that if he had tried his hand at a business earlier in life, he would have been a better senator and presidential candidate.

So the next time a nominee comes up for confirmation, please urge our senators to avoid unimportant issues such a ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and ask the really important questions:

• Have you ever run a cafe, a dry cleaner, or other such small business?
• If not, what qualifies you to judge the people who do?
  

Cartoon Robot Reveals The Meaning Of Life

"The wicked person flees when there is no one pursuing, but the righteous person is as confident as a lion."
- Proverbs 28:1

"Astro Boy there you go
Will you fight friend or foe?
Cosmic ranger, life of danger,
Everything is GO Astro Boy."
- From the Astro Boy Theme by Tatsuo Takai

One of the most influential forms of popular culture is the Japanese style of animation commonly known as anime. Anime can be seen

• on the various network Saturday morning cartoon blocks;
• as part of adult animation networks such as Adult Swim;
• and in the movie theaters, e.g. the Miyazaki features "Ponyo" and "Howl's Moving Castle".

Along with my fellow baby boomers, I witnessed the beginning of Anime in America, in the humble form of the black and white television cartoon series "Astro Boy" (1963-1966). Created by anime / manga pioneer Osamu Tezuka, "Astro Boy" is a science fiction story that takes place in a future society where robots are commonplace. A leading scientist, distraught with the death of his own son, creates an advanced robot in the likeness of his boy. The robot, named Astro Boy, has human-like emotions as well as incredible strength and the ability to fly. Astro uses his special robot abilities to serve as a superhero, fighting crime and injustice.

The series is an appealing combination of adventure and humor, but the appeal of the show went beyond these elements. The show actually dealt with some serious issues in way that the kids in my neighborhood really respected. For example, Astro Boy frequently had to deal with his society's antiquated attitude towards robots: even though many robots in Astro's world had feelings and intelligence, they were often treated as mere objects by the humans. Growing up in 1960's Detroit, I assumed that this unfair treatment of robots was a parable about racism. Later, I learned that Tezuka's WWII experiences galvanized his disdain of racism, and that his works often include anti-racist themes. Reading Tezuka's anti-Nazi manga "Adolf", I could not help but think of Astro Boy.

The episode that had the greatest impact on us was the final episode of the 1960's, "The Greatest Adventure on Earth" (1966). Towards the end of the show , Astro discovers that a planet-destroying missile is heading towards the Earth. Astro barely has enough time to redirect the missile into the sun, but he cannot do so without being pulled into the sun himself. Our hero saves the Earth and sacrifices himself in the process. I was shocked when I saw our cartoon hero die, but only for a second, for it occurred to me that there was something wonderful about this episode. "Astro Boy" was the only show of that era that trusted the kids of our age to be able to handle the important topic of death. They didn't side step it, they didn't sugar coat it, and they didn't talk down to us. They made it clear that Astro Boy was not coming back from his final mission. I really appreciated the trust and respect that the show's creators had in us kids.

In the 1983 "Sesame Street" episode "Farewell, Mr. Hooper", Big Bird learns that storekeeper and friend Mr. Hooper had died. This episode won accolades for its honest depiction of death in terms that child viewers could understand. Granted, "Farewell, Mr. Hooper" episode handled the topic of death exceptionally well, but it should not be forgotten that "Astro Boy" taught children about mortality over a decade before "Sesame Street" did. Moreover, "Astro Boy" dealt with the even more sensitive topic of the death of a child.

There is something uplifting about the final "Astro Boy" episode: he died to uphold the same principles he held throughout his brief existence. Astro's death was a good death in a way, in that it was the finish to a good and honorable life.

The Rise of the Non-Religious Right

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
- James Madison, in a letter to Edward Livingston

"That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight, I'm
Losing my religion
Trying to keep up with you
And I don't know if I can do it
Oh no, I've said too much
I haven't said enough"
- From "Losing My Religion" by R.E.M.

One advantage of being a libertarian is that it allows one to view the more dominant political movements (i.e. liberalism and conservatism) without bias, and hence detect trends that mainstream analysts often miss. One such trend is the right's recent acceptance of the non-believers in their ranks. Just a few years ago, the religious right had a dominant role in the conservative movement. They were George W. Bush favorite constituency. It is significant that this president that was (in)famous for his restrained use of the veto pen first used it on an issue pushed almost exclusively by the religious right. But the following events suggest how quickly things have changed in just a few years.

• When Ayn Rand first gained prominence in the 1940's and 50's, the right widely criticized her for her militant atheism. But this year, the revival of interest in Rand's work has gotten quite favorable coverage from the right wing media. Her atheism is noted briefly in passing, if at all.
  
• John Derbyshire, editor of the National Review Online, mentions in his new book "We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism" that, due to his doubts, he has not attended a church in years. The right wing web sites I've seen that have reviewed the book have not made a big fuss about Derbyshire's decision to leave his church; in fact, few sites even mention it.
• A recent poll of young republicans show that the right's next generation has very little interest in the religious right's agenda. It appears that this might be the last generation where same-sex marriage will be a contentious issue.

The religious right has always been controversial, even in conservative circles. Remember Goldwater's famous quote, "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass"? One would expect the religious right to lose some clout in recent years, due to their connection to the pariah George W. Bush. But even so, a change this dramatic is worth noting.

Charles Darwin Meets Adam Smith

"Orgel's Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are."
- Francis Crick

"Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw."
- From "Trees" by Neil Peart

Great ideas in one field of study are often variants of great ideas in another field. Consider the theory of evolution as developed Charles Darwin, the father of modern biology. According to the theory of evolution, each new generation of a species will include genetic variations. The vast majority of these variation will not help the organism to survive, and hence will quickly disappear. The rare variation that helps the organism survive, however, will be passed onto the next generation and will improve the species. The rich, vibrant ecological system we have today is the bi-product of the myriad of these variants that have occurred in Earth's history.

The process of evolution can seem wasteful and cruel: not only do most variants fail, but often once viable species become extinct due to competition from new species. But the destruction of less fit species is a vital part of the process, and the payoff of this process is huge.

The theory of Evolution has a striking resemblance to the free market concept as advocated by Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. In a free market economy, one is permitted to start a new business to provide a good or service. As with most biological variants, most new businesses fail. But the business that finds a better way to satisfy market needs will have a competitive advantage that will allow it to survive. As with evolution, a free market economy can seem cruel and wasteful, as many new businesses and even old established businesses go under. But this destruction is an essential part of the process of improving the economy. The fall of less fit companies is required to allow the next innovations to thrive.

The recently proposed "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" shows how poorly the work of Adam Smith (and evolution) is understood in Washington these days. The idea is being sold as a way for the taxpayers to get back the money they lent to the bankers for the recent bailout. The problem with this fee, however, is banks that have already repaid their loans with interest, and even banks that did not take any federal funds, will be required to pay this fee. In effect, the banks that managed the recent financial tsunami properly will be called on to cover the expenses caused by less well run banks. None of this "survival of the fittest" jazz here; D.C. has decided that all banks should be saved, whether they are fit or not.

To understand what is wrong with this proposal, consider what would have happened if the proponents of this proposal had been in charge of fixing the Earth's environmental crisis of 65 million B.C.E.

"Let me be clear: the major species of this planet, the Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops are too big to fail without causing the ecology to go into major collapse. There are those who say that we need to choose between saving these dinosaurs and allowing the new mammals to flourish. This is a false choice: the Earth can support both, as long as the new mammals follow sensible restrictions. I tell these new mammal species that there is a time for multiplication, but now is not that time. "

I'm glad this approach was not taken in the late Cretaceous period: the dinosaurs would still have gone extinct, and the world would now be poorer for this futile attempt to put off the inevitable. The proposed bank fee was a bad idea 65 million years ago, and it still is a bad idea today.

Learning From A Child Who Could Not Speak

"I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it."
- Mark 10:15

"Them that's got shall get
Them that's not shall lose
So the Bible said and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own"
- from "God Bless The Child" by Billie Holiday and Arthur Herzog Jr.

Back when I had started college, I worked as a bagger at a grocery store in the Detroit area. The store was near a housing project, and it provided a novel economic opportunity for some of the project residents. A handful of young boys from the project hung around the store in order to earn tips by helping customers load their groceries into their cars. This most micro of micro economies was fueled by pocket change, but that was enough to provide these boys with some treats.

One of these boys working for tips stood out for several reasons, most noticeably because this boy was unable to communicate by speech. I'm not sure why, but his attempts at speaking was unintelligible grunts that conveyed emotions, but nobody could make out the words. He used to communicate with his own set of hand gestures, sort of like a pidgin sign language, that the people who knew him quickly learned.

But what I found most remarkable was that he was by far the most cheerful person I have ever met. He was always very upbeat when working his ersatz job. He was always smiling, and he always greeted me (using his "hello" gesture) with a big grin. I found his positive attitude admirable, and as strange as it might sound, I sort of envied him. At college, I met people from good (sometimes privileged) backgrounds with lots of potential who were miserable. And yet this kid, raised in poverty and with a serious disability, was a constant ray of sunshine. What was the secret of his upbeat view of life?

The cynical explanation would be that his optimism is rooted in naivete; he simply does not understand how bad his situation is. But look at things from his point of view. He really enjoyed helping people, he took pride in doing what he loved, and on top of it, he earned spending money. He sees a lot of positives in his life that most of us would overlook.

In fact, a lot of humanity suffer from unwarranted pessimism. In Bryan Caplan's excellent book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies", Professor Caplan notes that pessimism is one of the more common biases of voters. The public tends to overestimate the severity of contemporary problems, while idealizing conditions in the past and in other countries. Gilbert and Sullivan parodied this bias in "The Mikado", where Lord High Executioner Ko-Ko includes in his little list of potential victims

"The idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own"

Let's face it, most people don't appreciate the positives in their lives until those positives become part of their past. But not this kid earning tips at the grocery store; he fully appreciated life as it was happening. He had a disability that prevented him from speaking, but lacked the common disability of pessimism. I feel like I learned something valuable from him, and he taught it to me without saying a word.

A Theological Objection to Creationism

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
- Genesis 1-31

"They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?"
- From "Jocko Homo", lyrics by Mark Mothersbaugh

Devotees of Charles Darwin have had a lot to celebrate this year. February 12th was the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, and November 24 was the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, "On the Origin of Species".

Inevitably, the Darwin Day celebrations have led to yet another round of the old creation-evolution debate. Many of the world's leading scientists have weighed in on the side of evolution, pointing out the scientific flaws in creationism.

I would like to present a side of this debate that gets considerably less coverage: the theological case against creationism. In their attempt to force fit the parables of Genesis into a scientific theory, creationists undermine the book's true meaning.

Genesis actually has two separate creation stories. Chapter 1 and the first three verses of chapter 2 of Genesis present the "seven days" creation story, where God creates the world in six days, then rests on the seventh day. The "Adam and Eve" creation story is presented in the rest of chapter 2 and chapter 3.

In a mere 34 verses, the "seven days" creation story eloquently expresses a deep appreciation of the beauty of our universe. Almost like a musical refrain, this creation story has each day of creation ending with God observing His work and deeming it good. This heartfelt expression of the awe and wonder of nature resonates with many who reject a scientific interpretation of the story.

If you wish to view Genesis as science instead of parable, however, there is a serious problem with the "seven days" story: it contradicts the "Adam and Eve" story. In the "seven days" parable, humans are created on the six day, after all other creatures were created. In the "Adam and Eve" story, man is created before any other creature. This is not a problem if you view both stories as parable, but it clearly is a problem if you want to view these stories as history. Major creationists have a novel way to resolve this contradiction: they posit that God was displeased with his "seven days" creation, and so God destroyed it all and started again with Adam and Eve. In their view, I guess Genesis left out this epilogue to "seven days" story:

On the eight day, God saw His creation and said "Sheesh! What was I thinking last week?" He then buried His previous week's creation in a big hole, and hoped that no one would notice His blunder. He then started afresh to create the universe, hoping that this time, He would get it right.

In their attempt to attempt to defend the literal accuracy of Genesis, these creationists threw out one of it's major themes -- the very message that Genesis 1 is trying to impart to us! This does considerably more damage to Genesis that the position of many Catholics, mainstream protestants and religious liberals that Genesis should be viewed a parable.

In short, creationism is not just bad science. It is also terrible theology.