First Thoughts

We listened to the remarkable (and very popular) podcast, Serial, last week. It is a milestone in the use of our new media in that the producers took the classic radio documentary style and applied it completely to the series available only through the podcast online. They did not skimp on its style or depth. It was the kind of radio documentary that I would have loved to have been a part of back in the day. Hopefully this is the first major breakthrough of a new way of doing news and media in the 21st Century.

For those who may not have heard about it, here's the synopsis of the 12-week series: Serial tells one story- one true story- over the course of the 12-weeks. It was developed by the creative folks at This American Life. From their home page:

On January 13, 1999, a girl named Hae Min Lee, a senior at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County, Maryland, disappeared. A month later, her body turned up in a city park. She'd been strangled. Her 17-year-old ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed, was arrested for the crime, and within a year, he was convicted and sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison. The case against him was largely based on the story of one witness, Adnan’s friend Jay, who testified that he helped Adnan bury Hae's body. But Adnan has always maintained he had nothing to do with Hae’s death. Some people believe he’s telling the truth. Many others don’t.

Sarah Koenig, who hosts Serial, first learned about this case more than a year ago. In the months since, she's been sorting through box after box (after box) of legal documents and investigators' notes, listening to trial testimony and police interrogations, and talking to everyone she can find who remembers what happened between Adnan Syed and Hae Min Lee fifteen years ago. What she realized is that the trial covered up a far more complicated story, which neither the jury nor the public got to hear. The high school scene, the shifting statements to police, the prejudices, the sketchy alibis, the scant forensic evidence - all of it leads back to the most basic questions: How can you know a person’s character? How can you tell what they’re capable of? In Season One of Serial, she looks for answers.

It was intriguing, baffling, enticing and addicting. We binge listened over a couple days last week. I have several different thoughts from the series but the first one kind of sets the stage for me.

I realized as I was listening and as Sarah used information and tapes of actual police interviews how in many ways detectives and substance abuse counselors can come at their jobs with a similar approach. One detective basically said that his approach was to believe no one - and everyone. (At least that's how I heard it.) There is always an active suspicion that they live with.

They also face the danger of looking for information to confirm what you think you already know. This "confirmation bias" takes facts, data, bits of information- and, when it supports the hypothesis- accepts it. When it doesn't support - well, let's just ignore it. Part of what Sarah Koenig did in developing the shows was put these bits of information out on the table- conflicting and confirming- and show how the detectives (and we the listeners) react. Fascinating.

That's where I start with this. I will have a couple more posts in the coming weeks. But if you get the chance, listen to the series. Start from the beginning and listen in order. You will be amazed by the skill of the producers.

The Noble Experiment in Morality, Hypocrisy, and Crime

I have just finished a book that is tragic and funny, filled with all kinds of characters who have more fatal flaws than in most characters in books. It is a book on politics and corruption and preachers and religion and bigotry and progressive ideas.

It reminded me of the opening announcement in the Broadway show, Chicago:

Welcome. Ladies and Gentlemen, you are about to see a story of
murder, greed, corruption, violence, exploitation, adultery,
and treachery - all those things we all hold near and dear to
our hearts. Thank you.

And it's all true. It was the "noble" experiment that made absolutely no sense but changed the world of the USA forever. It brought together the Ku Klux Klan and those supporting voting rights for women. It made gangsterism famous and profitable and brought moonshine to the dinner table.

It was Prohibition.

Prohibition in the United States, also known as The Noble Experiment, was the period from 1920 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption were banned nationally[1] as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Under substantial pressure from the temperance movement, the United States Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 16, 1920. Some state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.

The "Volstead Act", the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, passed through Congress over President Woodrow Wilson's veto on October 28, 1919 and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor.[2] Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, it did little to enforce the law. By 1925, in New York City alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.[3]

While Prohibition was successful in reducing the amount of liquor consumed, it tended to destroy society by other means.[4]

Prohibition became increasingly unpopular during the Great Depression, especially in large cities. On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law an amendment to the Volstead Act known as the Cullen-Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of certain kinds of alcoholic beverages.

On December 5, 1933, the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.
--Wikipedia

It is incredible to read the long history of the idea of prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. It is scary to watch the political maneuverings of a small minority who kept the country hostage and made even the bravest of politicians tremble. It is funny- even for a non-drinker/alcohol counselor- to see how people managed to circumvent the law and, in essence, keep right on drinking.

The book is Last Call by reporter Daniel Okrent. It is a cautionary tale almost 100 years later about how legislating morality can have more negative consequences than one would care to admit. This is especially true when the morality being legislated is a minority opinion and gone about with vengeance. It is a morality tale about hypocrisy run riot when there were "Drys" who were truly dry- non-drinkers. Then there were the "Drys" who supported Prohibition because they had to in order to keep their jobs but were in reality "Wets." And then there were the "Wets who made no bones about it.

It is also the story of racism, nationalism, anti-immigration, anti-taxation, and more things that could be ripped from the headlines. (Although the anti-immigration was aimed at Irish and Italian and Germans and Jews and Catholics.) It is a remarkable story but one I don't think we have truly understood. I know I never did and it wasn't that much before my time. (Well, it ended 15 years before I was born - but I was raised on the TV versions with Elliot Ness and the Untouchables.)

In any case, I found myself laughing at the stupidity of many and the ingenuity of others. I cried at the results of forced morality and got angry at the misuse of the freedom of speech to be mean and hateful. In the end I was afraid that what is in the book can happen again in different ways on either side of the political spectrum.

If you don't believe it just watch some of the shows on Fox or MSNBC. (Yes, I have an equal-opportunity dislike of extremes who don't allow for true dialogue, regardless of political persuasion.) But read the book. It will be enlightening.

Why They Get Caught

Every week James Lileks, one of my favorite columnists and bloggers in the Twin Cities posts his Miscreant Roundup: Police Blotter Highlights. This past week he brought to our attention one of the annual crime sprees in the frozen north. Here was one that I liked:

"Theft. A man reported that a female attempted to steal his car that was parked on the 600 block of 106th Lane NW. He said he left the vehicle unlocked, with the keys in the ignition and the car running. He did not see her in his car, but saw her running away from it. When he got to the vehicle, it had been moved and the keys were gone. He said the parking brake was on and that probably prevented the suspect from driving away."

As Lileks pointed out, the owner isn't stupid. He left the parking brake on.

No Conscience - No Morals

I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter called Internet Scambusters. I am no longer shocked at the depths of amorality and immorality that people use to bilk others out of money illegally. But one of the stories this past week hit me and led to some strong anger and indignation. Here is part of what the story said:

In a particularly insidious scam, telephone callers pretending
to be Red Cross representatives are contacting military
families with relatives overseas, claiming that a family
member has been hurt, and that personal and financial
information must be supplied before treatment can begin.

Therefore, scammers have found that this is an effective way
to get military spouses to give personal and financial
information that they would not usually consider giving out.
After all, they want to make sure their spouse is treated as
quickly as possible.

I am sure that even otherwise world-wise and Internet savvy individuals could get sucked into this one. The information wrongly presented in these calls never gets to the "thinking" part of the brain and instead connects powerfully with the emotional, instinctual-response part. Who wouldn't immediately give the information!

That someone can look at a situation like people serving in the military and jump to ways of stealing information and money from their families is beyond me. It angers me. It fills me with sadness and fear for our human race.

But then again, I remember a statement from my Old Testament professor years ago. He was no conservative/fundamentalist by any measure of those words. But early in the introductory course, somewhere around Adam and Eve, he would make this deeply profound statement that would make us all sit up:

The longer you are in the ministry, the more you will discover that the only provable Biblical doctrine is original sin.Sadly, I haven't been able to disagree.

------------------------------------------

NOTE: The Red Cross has issued a press release about this practice. You can access it at their Web Site. It says in part:

"The American Red Cross representatives typically do not contact military members/dependents directly and almost always go through a commander or first sergeant channels. Military family members are urged not to give out any personal information over the phone if contacted by unknown/unverified individuals, to include confirmation that your spouse is deployed."