Value Over Replacement Prosecutor

Bill James has read hundreds of crime books and he synthesizes a comprehensive volume's worth of stories in his book, "Popular Crime." It's a familiar formula for him, digesting a bunch of old information and offering a new perspective. James has obviously proven he's a smart guy that deserves to be listened to. Here he offers a new perspective on the media, the criminal justice system, and some of the centuries most famous crimes. The Jon Benet Ramsey saga is a case in point, and James' chapter on this was one of the most interesting in the book. I always considered the parents to have been culpable without paying the story too much attention. I felt that if I ignored our silly media, then they'd stop bothering with this nonsense. But James convinced me I was mistaken to ignore this story. And after his arguments and review of the facts, it appears that there is no conceivable way the parents killed their daughter.

The Ramsey saga deals with levels of human nature that I find truly fascinating. The police's certainty of the parents' involvement in the face of so little supporting evidence (and a great deal of contradicting evidence. By the way, did the Ramsey's not have an alarm system? That was never properly addressed by James and I'm surprised rich people like that wouldn't have their basement windows wired.) is a characteristic that has always intrigued me. The police arrived at their belief and then spend the rest of the investigation searching for facts that support it. It's what has infuriated me about people throughout my life. It's political or religious dogma by another name. James' quote (in another chapter dealing with the failure of cops to understand serial killers until the 1980s) that, "The capacity of mankind to misunderstand the world is without limit. The external world is billions of times more complicated than the human mind. We are desperate to understand the world; we struggle from the moment of birth to understand the world - but it beyond our capacity. We thus sign on to simplifications of the world that give us the illusion of understanding," is exactly what I tried to get at with my last post. We're arriving at beliefs and then going forth in this uncertain world. We do what we can to justify those beliefs, contradictory evidence be damned.

James also spends a good part of the book arguing for a more rational justice system. One of his attempts to create such a system is to standardize what it takes to cross the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt." He assigns numerical values to evidence and requires that evidence go beyond a specific total number, so that we can prevent wrongful convictions. An admirable call to reason, but one that will probably go unheeded because of the difficulty in arriving at such values. Perhaps books like this, though, will create some rough guidelines or make us more thoughtful on some minimums before we should take away life or liberty. Or perhaps it'll just inspire prosecutors like me to convict less innocent people. (Here's hoping.) And while I'm taking everything he wrote to be factually correct (probably a mistake) he does speak of convictions that are based on evidence that should've been considered legally insufficient, but judges allowed juries to make unsupported decisions anyways, such as Rabbi Neulander, and Randall Dale Adams.

James also hits many more interesting topics that and I'll just hit a few briefly. He raises the issue (in passing) of America's long history of a higher crime rate than Europe, a phenomenon that I've been contemplating ever since I got to the ridiculously safe and unmean streets of Germany. (And again, how can the Ramsey's have not had an alarm system? If there was a take home point from this book it was get a guard dog, a semi-automatic weapon, booby-trap your yard with land mines, and never leave your house under any circumstances.) Based on the ballistic and witness evidence, James also suggests that the fatal shot that killed John F. Kennedy was an accidental discharge from one of his secret service agents. It's a scandalous theory that I've never heard discussed before, and one I'd like to see him debate on television with a well-informed person of an opposing view. In fact, in a perfect world this book would be made into a movie where well-informed people could debate him and most of his contentions (in a more perfect world, I'd get executive producer credit). Anyways, it was a really sweet book. And man are there a lot of psychopaths out there.

Seeking Certainty in an Uncertain World

That Scientific American subscription is proving a huge inspiration for this blog. There was an article last month on the biases that lead people to skew the truth. One of my favorite topics on this blog, one my brother told me to stop writing about because it's a truism not worth exploring, is the tribalism of American politics. Anyone who's been paying attention to the events of the last few weeks/decades/centuries knows that factionalism has been around almost as long as our republic. And as I like to point out from time to time, I knew this president's attempt to move past political factionalism would not succeed because tribalism is ingrained in human nature.

"The Believing Brain" sheds some light on the phenomenom. The article explains how people come to understand reality. Humans form their beliefs first and see reality second. One of the many biases that lead to these beliefs is the in-group bias of tribalism, where opponents are demonized and dismissed while friends are listened to and empathized with. (Which can explain how a political party can ignore their own significant contribution to the problems they blame another party for.)

In the same issue of SA there's an article on how unknowable reality just may be. In the "Bad Boy of Physics", Leonard Susskind explains that reality may be too complex for us ever to understand fully. He even says we should stop using the word reality, but rather focus on what is "reproducible,": knowable discreet events. He then goes on to say things that I cannot comprehend: that physics currently predicts this universe is 1000 times bigger in volume than the portion we can ever see? That there are most likely multiverses, meaning this large forever-completely-unobservable universe of ours might not be the only one?

And it all reminds me of why we use these biases to shape reality. Without them we'd have to admit our inability to understand ourselves and our places in this uni-or multiverse. It's a big, confusing, unknowable existence. We're just a small speck in a small corner of a place infinitely larger than we can ever comprehend. And for many politically active people in the US, certainty and meaning come from battling it out with the opposite members of a political party. It's a lot more empowering to see yourself in a battle of good v. evil then to come to terms with your own ignorance and insignificance. The world becomes us v. them because without that simplified division of reality, we would not know what to make of this thing we're doing.

My Honeymoon with Kaka

So at this public place where I pour my heart and soul into issues of social significance, I've attached pics of Kaka, hoping to draw the increased traffic of celebrity chasers who are also interested in examining human nature and improving public policy. (One of my many untapped demographics.)

Me and the Mrs. were in Taormina, Sicily for our honeymoon. At first I just thought Kaka was just your average rich guy with a neck brace, seeing through his worker's comp scam in case the Italian authorities saw him living it up on the beach. It wasn't until he played soccer with his son in the square that I realized who he was. I didn't want to bother him by getting too close, but I noticed in my other pics (ones came out much crappier than the one above) that people were standing and kneeling 3 feet from him to take their mementos. So I effed that one up. This other one is from the beach. He seems like a pretty cool guy, even if he looks like he's letting himself go. He was really enjoying the days with his family, playing with his children and what not. Makes sense he has the reputation for being so nice.

I also want to take this opportunity to expound on the importance of a guide book you can trust. Rick Steves is my guy, but he doesn't have a Siciliy Book. So I had to take the Lonely Planet people at their word. And anyone who would describe Palermo as having a "magnificent disorganization" and Cefalu as a "postcard pretty town" is not someone I want planning my trips. These places are dilapidated towns on an incredibly beautiful coast. Most people don't want to travel half way around the world to see Tijuana, Mexico. I wish there was a disclaimer on the cover that said "for pretentious travelers whose enjoyment comes from going off the beaten path just for the sake of doing so." Although it's food recommendations were right on. Anyways, I'm not sure what to do when I next travel to a country Rick Steves doesn't cover. Let me know if you have any recommendations. And I've also attached a pic of my beautiful bride here just to brag.

Freedom Doesn't Mean You Have to Be a Dick: Driving

There's a side character in Jonathan Franzen's Freedom who won't let anyone pass on the highway. It's a revealing anecdote of America's hyper-competitive culture, and reflective of many similar driving experiences I've had. Contrast this to my experiences driving in Germany, where cars move on the autobahn like it's a well-orchestrated ballet. The left lane is left open unless you're passing, and slower cars almost always move immediately to the right. It's a social norm that's rigidly followed for the greater good. And while there are dicks who drive in Germany, there aren't as many who take a passing car as a personal challenge to their manhood.

Part of this American reluctance to let people pass may be explained by the unnecessarily low (and often ignored speed limits). People are probably keeping the faster drivers going accorded to the posted speed limits, or at what they regard as the appropriate speed. But there are better mechanisms for enforcing the law, like cameras. And again, Germany should serve as a good example. In the more congested ares and on the smaller highways and city streets, Germany has a speed limit that's strictly enforced. After being caught by a camera, I got a 25 euro ticket for going 2 km too fast. I was annoyed, but 25 euros isn't too bad. It's an efficient system. They let you drive as fast as you want in certain areas. But where there's a speed limit, it's there for a reason and you better follow it or else a camera will catch you and give you a reasonable fine.

I can think of many Americans who would lose their shit over getting a ticket in the same circumstances: a camera catching me for going about 1 mph over the limit. There was even a ballot proposal in my hometown that preemptively banned the use of red light cameras at intersections despite the increased safety they offer. That second link is a good indicator of the craziness we're dealing with as a nation. People are somehow claiming red light cameras increase red light running. That's like claiming more firefighters lead to more fires. We all know fewer people would run red lights if they got a ticket every time they did. People make up facts to win arguments, but it's insane how easily accepted these crazy facts are in our country and how they can lead to unwise public policy. I now obey the German speed limit a lot better than I used to because I know there's a good chance I'll get a fine if I don't.

So move over when someone wants to go faster than you. Put red light and speed cameras up to increase traffic safety. And make speed limits more rational, because most people go over 55 or 65 mph and enforcing the law when someone is going with the flow of traffic seems arbitrary. Simple steps to a better society really. Maybe then we could use the revenue to fix potholes, put in better mass transit options, or just have safer roads. Or maybe we can pretend red light and speed cameras increase accidents, lead to socialism, and take us away from the laissez-faire paradise where optimal traffic safety is achieved through drivers acting in their perceived self-interest.

Extreme Weather in a Hotter World

In last month's edition of Scientific American, they had an article that says Americans trust scientists above all other professions, save the military. But when it comes to specific findings, people often choose to reject scientific consensus. A few pages later, they reminded us of one of those examples, as climate models have predicted more instances of extreme weather in a hotter world. The article explains that you can never point to one storm and say "that's global warming" but that there's been a dramatic rise in the total number of extreme weather events just as the climate models said there would be. Then it gives a few famous examples: abnormal floods in Pakistan, and Nashville, blizzards in the US, the epic heat wave and fires in Moscow, drought in China (and the article didn't even mention the record year of tornados in the US or flooding on the Mississippi).

So it's here, climate change. The scientists have been warning us of these consequences for a while now. And while we trust men of science to land men on the moon, diagnose and treat our diseases, and process the crime scenes on our TV shows, we selectively don't trust them when they tell us we're killing the planet and endangering ourselves. Makes sense. So considering the collective action needed to save us from our world's fate, and considering that these deniers are not letting us listen to the experts attempt to warn us from our calamity, I propose a way to let climate deniers suffer their own downfall. Every denier of climate change should not be allowed to listen their doctor's medical advice. From now on, they must only get their diagnosis and treatments from organizations secretly funded by the oil industry, the Bible or Fox News.

Celebrating the Accomplishments of Other Men

I've been a huge Lebron James fan for years. I like the way he plays the game. A superstar who can score with a pass-first mentality. Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Magic Johnson: these are players I've always loved because they get everyone on the team involved. I always liked the Get Along Gang growing up. I'm just wired for admiring this type of behavior, and I like the basketball players who don't have to selfishly dominate.

Lebron was unfairly maligned in Cleveland, playing with scrubs and making them better than anyone in the world could. (Remember how well Kobe did with those Laker teams who didn't have Shaq or Pau/Bynum/Odum in the front court?) I got riled up that people weren't putting Lebron in the right perspective. People were debating whether Kobe was better because he had so many rings (just as many as Steve Kerr) even though every advanced metric puts Lebron way ahead of Kobe. (They were also putting Kobe in the same league with Jordan, even though Jordan never needed a dominating center or front court to win championships.) So when the consensus flipped out because Lebron took less money and sacrificed his ego to play with better teammates, it made me that much more determined to root for him.

But a funny thing happened with a few minutes left in Game 6. I realized I didn't care that the Mavs were going to win. At the end of the day, this is another man who's personal accomplishments have no bearing on my self-worth.

So why do we do it? What draws us into the drama of professional sports, to celebrate the accomplishments of other men? Why was there so much hatred for Lebron, with almost the whole nation rooting for the Heat's downfall?

For the geographical sports fan, the one who loves the team from the location he happened to be born, there's validation when the team wins. "I'm a winner because me and my hometown are winners." There's also a sense of community that comes from victory. As humans we're wired to look for connections, to be a part of something larger than ourselves. And being winners together makes us feel that much more important. But there's also the entertainment aspect. Sports can distract from what ails us. We root for the good guys against the enemy. And sometimes we have to dig deep to explain why someone is the enemy. So we manufacture a narrative to help direct our hate against them. It beats thinking about why our life turned out so much more disappointing then it should have.

The Decision plus party in Miami gave an excuse to hate, a chance to focus a collective anger. The Heat were the bad guys, no matter how unprincipled this stand was. I mean, how often does everyone say they want athletes to take less money and sacrifice their egos to win as a team? Does a pre-season party and TV break-up with an old team really make for basketball villains? Remember when Kobe raped that girl and Jason Kidd slapped his wife? (Or does that just show us we have a propensity to forgive and forget? Or does it show that we forgive and forget winners?)

Anyway, at the end of the day, who cares. People have already moved on (hopefully) and have stopped taking pleasure in Lebron's failures and the Mavs accomplishments. As much as people pissed on Lebron for saying it, he has a point. Once this ended the haters still have to go back to their lives. That is, until they find the next athlete to root for in this perpetual made up struggle of good v. evil that we use to distract ourselves. I'm still waiting for Kevin Durant to have America turn against him in a few years when he does only God knows what.

I've Never Been So Happy to See Another Human Being Dead

That was some incredible news the other day. And those scenes of spontaneous celebration, in NYC, in front of the White House and at the Phillies game...I felt connected to my countrymen in a way I can't remember. Maybe 9/11, or when I was 8 watching the Olympics when the USSR was still in the mix. But the feeling didn't last long. Nor did I expect it to. It only took a few hours for the bickering to start, whether Obama is sharing enough credit with Bush, or if dead Osama pics should be released, or whatever other nonsense is out there.

And it's not that these questions are being asked that bothers me, but the nature of the debate. People are starting with their conclusions and working their way back to the facts that support them. The Salon did a good run down on the hater's guide to keep on hating. But most of us are aware of the ridiculous political conversations we see on our televison and read on the internet, the tribal partisanship that subdivides this nation. What can we do? Tribalism is just who we are as people, whether that's America or anywhere else.

No, the surprise wasn't the rehashing of the political arguments I've seen since my childhood. It was my joy in another human being's death. And it seems like I'm not alone. Even the Dalai Lama sanctions the hit. Although I was annoyed to see that Human Rights Watch thinks it was morally wrong to kill Osama. I was also bummed that Kurt Vonnegut is no longer alive to share his thoughts. He had such mixed emotions about human nature, it's hard to know where he would've ended up on this.

I just reread Cat's Cradle. Vonnegut had such a sweet perspective. That lost narrator working towards the book's resolution and finding his fate, clearly seeing what was wrong with other people, especially himself. He was at a loss to do anything about our collective fate except write. And my fleeting nationalism, that feeling of connectedness with my fellow countrymen, that was just a granfalloon. The nation is an arbitrary boundary which connects human beings on a superficial level. For the deep connections, I'll have to search further than the nation. Hopefully the new wife will be my duprass. Things are looking good so far, but only time will tell.

But what struck me most about all of this is how much one man directed world events in the last decade. Osama ordered 19 men to fly 4 airplanes (3 successfully) into U.S. buildings, killing nearly 3000 people. In turn, the US responded by invading two countries at a cost of 345 billion for Al Qaeda's protectors and 3 trillion for Al Qaeda's avowed enemy. The low end of total deaths as a result of these two wars is around 120,000, while it is possible the real number is much higher.

And yet Osama spent the last 6 years inside a mansion compound, his last days video taping himself watching himself on a 20' television, while we burned through that 3.5 trillion dollars and 120,000 plus people. And in the end it was a ridiculous amount of intelligence gathering, surveillance, patience, and a ballsy commando raid that took him out. All of it a reminder there was another way we could have conducted the war on terror, and how pointless that Iraq invasion was.

Anyways, I'm not sure how to end this post. Just a collection of thoughts on this guy and the last 10 years in this country. We overreacted at a terrible expense to our Treasury, our Armed Forces, and the civilian population of one Muslim country while not focusing early enough on the other. It felt great that he's dead, and it still feels good when I see unvarnished announcements of the death replayed. But it's a joy that doesn't last when I see d-bags talking about it. It's a reminder that nationalism is a false connection for those looking for real human contact, and that Kurt Vonnegut books are amazing. That guy really had a good sense of the complex beauty, humor and effed up aspects of human nature.