When I was in college I took a class called "Philosophy of Law" which spent most of the time examining the differences between positive law and natural law, as well as various interpretations of the US Constitution. First I will define the terms for those who haven't studied legal philosophy.


Positive Law is a man-made law, that is, one that is established by a government or societal authority.


Natural Law is a law that acts independently of any government authority. This is more of a philosophical concept, as Natural Law is the basis of our Positive Law. Natural Law is also the principal that some things are how they are because that is how they are or how they should be. Natural law generally states that anything is against the natural laws of man when it causes harm to another. Another side of the Natural Law philosophy, the Social contract theorists, such as Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau, believed in a natural law and in natural rights, which were transferred from the individual subject to the sovereign state. The state would then protect individuals from each other through the mediation of its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.


I never understand why people support positive law. The most common argument I hear for why Marijuana is bad is "it's against the law", but those people cannot give me a logical reason why is should be against the law. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's immoral or wrong in any way. Just like records and rules, laws are meant to be tested and broken. Certain laws should never be tested, but those are things that are against the natural law too, like rape, murder and child abuse. However, there have been many laws in history that were against the natural law.


The "Jim Crow" laws were put into place by racist Southerners afraid of the new world order after slavery was abolished during the Civil War. The laws prohibited black people from using the same public accommodations as whites, and prohibited whites from hiring black workers in all but menial jobs, a situation that created severe economic hardship for the families of black workers. Jim Crow laws, named after a familiar minstrel character of the day, also required black and white people to use separate water fountains, public schools, public bath houses, restaurants, public libraries, and rail cars in public transport. Now I know there are those who still believe that these laws should exist (live in the south for a few years, and you'll meet hicks like that too...just don't date them like I did), but they are simply wrong and should never have been obeyed. Civil disobedience is a responsibility of those who live with unjust laws, which at last check was everywhere.


Rosa Parks was the first woman laid to rest in the White House, and she became known for breaking a law which helped to escalate the Civil Rights Movement. She was a law-breaker and a hero. Ditto for John Brown, who helped to start the civil war with his martyr after being executed for a number of abolotionist slave raids. Gandhi stood up against opression, as did Nelson Mandela, but both of those men will be remembered as a couple of history's greatest men. Civil disobedience can be quite heroic when backed by the right motivation.


So I launch a protest against the prohibition of personal use of intoxicants, against the criminalization of leaving one's home in search of a better life, against the stifling of the freedom to worship as one chooses (afghanistan just tried to sentence a man to death for converting from Islam to Christianity). Sometimes laws just aren't right, and why should we obey a law which was enacted without any regard for the logic behind it? Laws shouldn't control us, we should control the laws.

So Apple is enduring some legal issues about people having hearing difficulties from listening to their iPods too loudly. Maybe it's just me, but when my MP3 player is too loud, I TURN IT DOWN. I don't sue Samsung for producing a product that delivers exactly what it was designed to do. This is a uniquely American pastime, blaming companies for producing products that work too well or that are too enjoyable. To me, it's just about Darwinism, if someone is dumb enough to engage in a harmful activity repeatedly, they deserve all of the consequences of their actions.


I eat about a pound of sugar/candy every day (that's probably not as much of an exaggeration as I'd hope) and instead of blaming Nestle and Tootsie for producing such addictive treats, I praise them for providing me with the pleasure I receive from their products. But Americans cannot accept responsibility for their own actions, that's just their nature. When kids are getting into trouble, parents blame TV or Rap Music instead of looking in the mirror and realizing that they are just horrible parents. When a woman spilled hot coffee on her lap, she blamed McDonalds instead of her own moronic self for spilling scalding hot coffee on her own lap.


Even the cigarrette companies face undue scrutiny nowadays. Since we are all aware of the dangers of smoking, and have been for decades, why are people still suing tobacco companies for the harm caused to them by smoking? Even if something is addicting like nicotine, amphetamines, sugar, caffiene, cocaine or sex, it's that person's choice to engage in those kinds of activities. Why can't people just blame themselves for their shortcomings? Instead of ruining the iPod for those who like to damage their ears (Cam, you should know a little something about choosing to damage your ears), why not just TURN THE VOLUME DOWN? Seriously, they put this story on CNN, CNBC, MSN, Yahoo! and NPR about how listening to the iPod too loud can damage your ears...no shit, really? I never realized that loud sounds broadcasted directly in one's ear could damage it...oh yeah, I learned that in kindergarten!

Life is a never ending search for justice. Whether that is economic justice (equal distribution of wealth) or social justice, we never stop trying to create a more fair and just society. Our nation was founded on this idea, hence the "Bill of Rights" and our system of trial by jury, however justice is never fully realized. The very nature of the jury trial system leads to an inbalance between those who are rich and those who are poor, those who are white and those who are Arab, and those who are ugly and those who are gorgeous. The other major problem with the trial system are the lawyers and their natural competitiveness and egos.


We all remember the OJ Simpson trial and how it made celebrities of Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran (JC) and even Judge Ito. What we also remember is how OJ was found not guilty despite the fact that he was declared to be responsible for Nicole Brown's death in a civil court. JC used his famous "Wookiee Defense" in the South Park episode "Chef Aid" back in 1998. Confusing the jury with questions about Chewbacca, JC somehow gets them to rule against Chef and even fine him for harrassment of a record company because they could afford JC and the best Lawyer Chef could afford was Kyle's dad. This satirization of our legal system was hilarious but also very true. Juries are generally not made up of the best and brightest and the lawyers manipulate their lack of legal expertise in order to get the result they are seeking in the trial. Therefore, whoever can afford the best lawyer will win the case.


The way our system works you can be completely innocent of rape, but if you have a public defender facing off against a hardline prosecutor who had been sexually assaulted earlier in her life, you are facing a severly uphill battle for your freedom. I bring this up because of a recent story I heard from a prosecutor who had taken that career path because she was raped and wanted to help put away other rapists. The problem with this is that once a man is arrested for rape, it doesn't matter to the prosecutor if he's innocent or not. The motivation of the prosecutor is to win the case no matter what. If they win, they are satisfied that justice has been done, even if the exact opposite happens. Anyone who thinks that our jury trial system is flawless is just plain stupid. The innocence project has had people who were incarcerated for 20+ years released because DNA evidence later found them to be innocent of the crime which ruined their life. In essence, prosecutors are just as bad as the criminals when someone is wrongfully convicted because they are stealing years and money away from the defendant.


Our system of justice is also flawed because it is based on the idea that revenge makes up for loss. The death penalty may rid the planet of a murderer, but it also causes those close to the executed to experience loss. The case of Tookie Williams proved this perfectly. While he was a thug and the founder of the most violent street gang in the US, he was also a hero to many kids who came from similar situations to his. He wrote books that gave some people a reason to stay away from gangs, and his execution (as evidenced by the many vigils) brought sadness to many. You can't give back a life no matter what you do, so instead of killing these people, why not just commit them to become slaves for the victim's family?


My grandfather was murdered before I was born, so his killers robbed me of having a full family growing up. My father is a supporter of the death penalty because of what he went through after his father was beaten into a coma which lasted more than 6 months before he passed away. My personal feeling is that if someone is useless to society, they shouldn't be wasting our resources, but who are we to determine someone's value? Life in prison can sometimes be a fate worse than death, and there is always that spectre of innocence within every convict. There are many behind bars who committed a crime who are better people than free men who have never broken the law or been caught. Who's to say that a man selling crack to help support his child is more of a criminal than a factory owner who exploits the labor of his workers to accrue a net worth 100x of what they could ever dream of?


As long as there is inequality in society, there will never be justice.

A few years back I heard someone say that the only way for Africa (and the rest of the 3rd world) to truly become modern societies was for an internal renaissance. I believe that this renaissance is finally starting to occur in some parts of the Dark Continent. This year there was a film from South Africa that won the Academy Award for best foreign film (Tsotsi) and we're finding more and more music and other popular culture coming from the land of Apartheid as well as Nigeria, Senegal and Liberia among others.


Europe lived in darkness for centuries, constantly fighting wars, disease and (roman, Catholic, Moorish, Turkish, Hunish...) imperialism. Suddenly in the late 13th century a new era started to emerge with the sudden abundance of brilliance. This era was the European Renaissance, and that helped to vault Europe to global control and world domination. The new emphasis on individual achievement and creativity helped to brighten the dark ages and bring the world to a modern era. I believe that the Magna Carta (1215) may have been a major factor which lead the the European Renaissance.


Africa's history is tragic. Great societies vanished and the people exploited by those of whiter skin and northern territories. Many potentially great artists and leaders sold into slavery by rivals and imperialistic powers made the continent suffer for centuries. The problems in Africa are most prevalent at the Horn (drought/famine), in the Sudan (Genocide) and in the Congo river valley (genocide, disease) but there are some places that are starting to emerge as truly "developing" economies and governments. Corruption is still rampant, but democracy is starting to take hold in many places. The recent Liberian elections were an eye-opener to other nations in Europe.


Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf was exiled because of her pro-freedom/democracy views, she even had a few bounties on her head. Her main opponent in the election was not a general with the backing of the military (like in the "elections" in Kenya), but the greatest soccer star (George Weah) Liberians have ever known. But she was elected fairly and is now the first ever female elected to be an African head of state. The previous leader of Liberia is a fugitive from a War Crimes trial, escaping indictment recently after hiding in Kenya. This shift to liberal democracy is a great sign that the worst is over. But Africa needs our help. We've stolen so much from them over the years that we should be obligated to give control of resources back to the rightful owners. Why should people in Antwerp grow rich from the exploitation of Botswana's resources?


So Africa is emerging now, we're seeing their popular culture crossing the Pacific, and soon we may see significant business development on the vast continent. Just keep your eyes and ears tuned to art coming directly from Africa, as that will be their ticket out of the depths of exploitation and into prosperity.

Don't Fence Me In


As I was driving to work this morning, I saw a large Mexican flag being waved by a group of high school students on Grand Avenue. Then I saw the protests on CNN in Detroit, Washington DC, LA and other major cities and I decided to write a little more on the topic of illegal immigration and the border fence.


Now I am someone who believes one of the main sources of conflict is the very concept of borders and nationality. We live in a world where people are forced to identify themselves as "American" , "Mexican", "Persian" or "Chinese", despite the fact that one might have little else in common with fellow countrymen other than the address. I couldn't be more different than Cletus Smith from Bumfuck, Kansas (this is what my friend Roberta calls her hometown :-) ), but he and I are both considered "American".


When I was in Europe, anytime anyone would ask me where I was from or what nationality I was, my answer would always be "Californian", not "American". But then again, I feel that large conglomerations are always less effecient and more explotative than individual entities. Whether that's the United States (a highly ineffecient way to govern a continent, when people in Kansas are voting for something that only affects people in Coastal states) or at JP Morgan Chase Bank One.


The sad thing to me is that the Americans forget how important immigration is to our success as a nation. Whether you count the original immigrants who pushed the natives off the land, the slaves who helped to build our economy, the Chinese who built our railroads and provided cheap labor, the Eastern Europeans who came over during the early part of the 20th, or the Jewish scientists who came over during WWII to help defeat the Axis powers, this country would be long gone without our accepting of immigrants.


I don't know about you, but making criminals out of people searching for a better life seems almost EVIL to me. Americans consume more than twice the resources of any other nation (including the EU), yet we complain when the prices of these goods go up due to scarcity. The demand for goods in the US is higher than anywhere else, which means we need to manufacture these goods. We complain about outsourcing, about sweat-shops in the third world and about illegal immigrants "stealing" the unwanted jobs that only the most down-and-out Americans are willing to take. Immigrants are willing to work harder, longer and cheaper than anyone who was born with the American Silver Spoon in their mouth.


A McDonalds worker makes about $11,000 a year, which is pathetic and impossible to live on in cities like SD, SF, NYC, DC and LA. But these people are coming from countries like Mexico (10,000 gdp/capita), Vietnam (2,500), India (3,000), El Salvador (4,300), and China (5,600) where working for $5.50 an hour and only having to work 40 hours a week isn't even something that most people in those countries even believe is possible. We waste so much energy fighting illegal immigrants while we eat at our local taco shop, buy lettuce, tomatoes and avocados from Vons and get our car handwashed for $10. Where do you think those things come from?


3% of this country immigrated illegally, and that 3% is like the mortar that keeps the bricks together. They may not be the foundation, nor the walls or ceiling, but without them the structure would collapse with a stiff breeze. If we build a fence, it might not be long before we find ourselves on the wrong side of the walls wanting to climb over. Because without the Mexicans, this country will wither away and die.

My bracket got busted last night. I picked Gonzaga, Duke and West Virginia to win those games and watched as all three went down in flames. Well, I didn't actually get to "watch" the WVU game since CBS dropped the ball once again with their coverage and showed the entire Gonzaga-UCLA game, despite the fact that there was a 2-point game going on with only 1 minute to go while the other game would be on for an additional 5 minutes. Two buzzer beaters and a shocker.


LSU played an amazing game, playing the best defense I've seen against Duke all year. Reddick was about as frustrated as a player gets, chucking up shots any time he had the ball without a man glued to him. 3-18 shooting, and no fouls drawn until the final minutes of the game. Very un-Reddick like. Give most of the credit to the LSU defense, but a little to the refs who let Reddick get abused all game. When JJ hits the NBA next year, he'll be a great role player, hitting 3s from the corner and up top with ease.


WVU was my semi-Cinderella pick. I thought they had it in them to make the Elite 8, and they almost did. They fought back from a double-digit lead to tie the game with 5.6 seconds left. But in the end, those 5.6 seconds they left on the clock were the death of Pittsnogle and Gansey's college careers.


Now to the big one, Gonzaga-UCLA. This game looked wrapped up in the first 5 minutes while the Bulldogs dominated the Bruins. But UCLA didn't give up, they kept fighting and clawed their way back to within 5. Adam Morrison was 10-18 and had 24 points, but that was below his season average of 28 (if he'd had those extra 4 points, Zags would've won). He is something special, just knows how to get the ball in the basket. Unfortunately for him, JP Batista looked like he was betting on UCLA to win. The turn-over on their own end was even worse because Batista didn't pass the ball to Ravio (the PG) right under the basket, and when it was stripped from his unsure hands he didn't seem to make an effort to stop the Bruins from scoring. To top it off, he was given a very good chance at making the last shot from inside the 3-point line and he missed by about a yard. I had visions of Christian Laettner when he took that shot, but my Laettner quickly morphed into Eric Dampier chucking the ball without any finesse and missing the basket by feet. Morrison was so shocked and distraught by Batista's pathetic showing in the end that he couldn't hold back the tears.


Most people forget that Morrison is still basically a kid. He may be on ESPN all the time and on the cover of SI and TSN, but he's nothing more than a college junior who lives and dies on the basketball court. This might have been his last game as an amateur and losing it that way is devastating, no matter who you are. This is a kid who cares more for wins and losses than personal glory and I hope that the NCAA tournament brings us moments like the end of that Gonzaga-UCLA game for years.

If anyone watched last nights premiere of the 10th season of South Park, they saw the death of one of the greatest cartoon characters ever. Chef made us all laugh with his habit of breaking into song any time the kids asked his advice. Some of his more classic musical lines in my mind:



"A prostitute is someone who'll love you, no matter who you are or what you look like, yes it's true"



"Hey everybody have you seen my balls, they're big and salty and brown. If you ever need a quick pick-me-up, just stick my balls in your mouth...ooh suck on my chocolate salty balls (put 'em in your mouth)...put 'em in your mouth and suck 'em"



And of course there's the all-time classic Love Gravy: "I'm gonna make love to you woman, gonna lay you down by the fire. And caress your womanly body, make you moan and perspire. Gonna get those juices flowin', we making love gravy, love gravy, love love love love GRAVY!"



So enough of my tribute to a creat character created by Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Isaac Hayes...I'll get to my point now.



What angers me about this, is basically the same thing that angered Parker & Stone: Hayes never complained about the anti-christian, anti-semitic, chauvinistic or racist themes in the show, but he quit (supposedly) over the conflict in views over Scientology. Now most of you know how much disdain I hold for religion in general, so even though some people consider Scientology to be a cult and less of a real religion than Christianity, I see them as the same. Just as Hayes got offended by the anti-scientologist episode, the ultra-catholics got offended by the episode about the Virgin Mary. Both of these reactions are just flat wrong.



People need to have a sense of humor about their ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation...whatever. My favorite comedians tend to be the ones who talk about what they know...themselves, their peers, their own experiences. Margaret Cho is an Asian who always tells Asian jokes, Chris Rock got wildly popular with his "Niggas vs Black People" sketch, Dave Chappelle tells all kinds of racist jokes (including the best comedy sketch in years: black head of the KKK). And who can forget the Jews? Woody Allen, Jon Stewart, Jerry Seinfeld...all of those comedians poke fun at the foibles that make up their group.



So why is it so different to TAKE a joke that someone else tells about your specific group? I'm not offended when someone tells me a joke about Russians, Jews, White People or intellectuals, so why was Chef so offended by a HILARIOUS episode that made fun of a very quirky religion? You'd think after 9 years of making highly offensive shows he'd develop a sense of humor about himself. He obviously isn't offended by the racism in the show, so why would he be offended by someone making of a religion that he wasn't even born into? Maybe they really do brainwash in Scientology...



I'm gonna miss Chef in South Park, but I also think that South Park should probably call it quits after this season to avoid the lame down-turn that has killed the Simpsons since the late-nineties.

I take issue with the statement "All men are created equal", since this is obviously not true. This is one of the political correctness agendas I despise the most. Once kids are in 1st grade, it's very clear that some of them are slow and dumb and some of them are fast learners; some have great hand-eye coordination, and some can't even clap their hands. If all men were created equal, we wouldn't have such diverse abilities and physical characteristics. In fact, I think that if you believe that, you are selling many people short, since there are those who stand out above the rest.



History remembers those who stand out, not those who blend in. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the equal of Jackie Robinson...one had oratory skills and the other had athletic skills, but both served as ambassadors in the Civil Rights Movement. But those two both had something else within: Greatness. This is a quality that only a few possess, it is something that is instilled within them from birth.



Compare Muhammad Ali to Mike Tyson. Both were phenomenal talents who beat opponents with such domination and skill, but only Ali will go down in history as a great man. While Ali was jailed for being anti-war and standing up for his beliefs, Tyson was a rapist. While Ali brought people together as fans, Tyson almost singlehandedly destroyed the sport of boxing. These are two men who were born with an incredible talent that only happens once a generation, but they were polar opposites. Even those who achieve greatness (no matter whether or not they lost that greatness) in the same sport are truly unique from each other. Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens and Greg Maddux will go down as the best of their generation, but the three couldn't be any more different from each other.



I for one was born without the ability to concentrate on one thing (unless that "thing" is a hot blonde), but with the ability to calculate pretty complex math problems in my head. I can't dunk (or even touch rim), but I can outrun most of the guys I play ball with. Basically, I am an individual, a one-of-a-kind person, but so is EVERYONE else. Even twins have something to distinguish themselves from each other. So instead of complaining how we don't all get treated equally, discover your own strengths and use those to your advantage. Because everyone has something that makes them stand out, something that makes them special; With evolution comes specialization, and each one of us on this planet was built for a specific task. I think the point of life is to discover this special skill and to use it in order to improve the global society.



Finally, imagine how boring this world would be if everyone was exactly the same. Now try to think of one good reason for why we should all be the same, because I can't.

I've spent a lot of time in Europe, and one of the first things I noticed out there was the price of gas and the tightly urbanized cities. These two things go hand-in-hand, as the higher the price of petrol, the more centralized and efficient the urban centers become. The most expensive gas in this country is barely over $3.00 a gallon, while Swedes and Germans expect to pay more than twice that for the same amount of gasoline. The Europeans take these high prices and turn them into opportunities to modernize their urban lifestyle; whether with centralized populations, highly efficient cars like the Smart Car, Vespa and Mini Cooper, and as incentives to abandon cars altogether in favor of walking and public transport.

Here in Southern California, we spend the majority of our car time sitting in traffic. Nothing gets me more frustrated than sitting in a traffic jam that has no reason other than for people being unable to merge and driving too slowly in the fast lanes. The glut of cars is only one part of this problem, it's also the type of cars on the road. When there are 100 cars on the road here in San Diego, 30 of them are SUVs, 30 are Pick-Ups, 10 are massive sedans and the last 30 or so are regular American mid-size and compacts. Motorcycles are not that common here, and scooters are basically non-existant. For all of those 30 SUVs on the highway, I'd say 2 of them have ever been off road, and only 5 of them have more than a single person in it. The pickups are being driven solo 90% of the time. When there are that many huge vehicles on the road, they crowd the roads, which is not to mention the fact that most of the people who drive those things have no clue how to handle such a large vehicle.

SUVs and pickups have a purpose: Ice hockey players who have road trips and have to carry their equipment, skiiers who take frequent trips to the mountains with friends and/or family, gardeners and contractors who haul materials, Mormons families with a glut of kids...other than that, there's not too many reasons to have an SUV other than coolness. When I see a 21 year old sorority girl in PB parking her Tahoe crooked over two spots I cringe, since she could have just as easily asked Daddy for a Beemer 328. I used to drive SUVs when I was a teenager, and the 15 miles per gallon I got was definitely a good sign that an SUV wasn't exactly practical for me. I don't exactly drive a hybrid (Mercedes C280), but my car gets almost twice what I got when I had a Grand Cherokee or Ford Explorer.

What I wish our energy department would do is: Impose a large tax on premium gasoline (tripling the price would be good), as anyone who can afford to have a car that requires super unleaded should be able to withstand an extra $20-40 a week in gas. If not, they shouldn't be wasting their money on a performance vehicle. Use the new gas taxes to fund research into alternative energy and to subsidize the energy needs of people in the lower-income brackets. Subsidize the reasearch on and purchase of alternative and renewable energy sources.
If the government did this, it would cause some short-term pain. But as my father says (he was head of energy policy for the Federal Energy Administration in the 70s during a previous energy crisis) "Sometimes you need short-term pain in order to have a long-term gain". People always think that lower taxes will help them, but lower taxes generally only help the rich, this gas tax would be the same thing. At first the poorer Americans would feel a little pressure from the high prices, but we'd adjust and be much better off for it.

This is how I see the results of my gas tax plan:
People find that living 20 miles away from where they work to be too costly and inefficient, so they move into a more convenient and centralized location. People will also find that SUVs and other gas guzzlers are not worth the cost so they trade them in for more urban-friendly vehicles like the Smart Car or Vespa. The high price of gas also causes the total volume of gas consumed to drop to the point where the reliance on OPEC and Middle Eastern, Nigerian and Venezuelan oil will no longer control our foreign policy.
Unfortunately for us, the American voter would flip if the gas prices in this country approached European standards. People complain even when our gas costs 1/2 of what everyone else pays, and 90% of Americans will never vote to raise taxes on something that they use. But this country needs something to shake things up and eliminate the problems of the sprawling American metropolis.