Smashing the Liquor Machine: A Global History of Prohibition

Smashing the Liquor Machine: A Global History of Prohibition by Mark Lawrence Schrad

The history of prohibition has been significantly rewritten from the modern point of view. Today it is often seen as a moral crusade by the religious right to inflict middle class values on the working class. However, during the time, it was primarily the oppressed fighting against those in power. An analogy today would be the attacks on big pharma for their role in the opioid epidemic. 

Taxes on alcohol sales were often a primary driver of revenue for governments. In addition, licenses to sell alcohol would be hard to come by. Regulation was often a means of controls. Laws prohibiting alcohol sales on Sundays would only be enforced on those establishments that failed to pay appropriate bribes. The lower classes tended to suffer the greatest damage. Saloon owners would encourage them to stay and drink more and more. It would cost the poor money as well as cause difficulty in the community. The damages were also inflicted on other countries occupied by Americans (such as the Philippines and Cuba)

Prohibition and temperance sought to resolve problems. The primary attack was on the liquor traffic, not the individual consumer. Abolition, universal suffrage and prohibition were closely entwined as part of the progressive platform. Blacks and Native Americans were especially drawn towards abolition as it caused great harm in their communities.  Even today, dry areas can be often found in areas with large Native American populations, such as Indian Reservations and Alaskan villages.

The book provides a very thorough history of prohibition worldwide. There were differences from place to place. However, a common theme is money and corruption. Those in power see alcohol as a great way to subjugate and extract money from those without. The author spends significant time flipping the modern narrative on its head. 

Donkeys Can't Sleep in Bathtubs and Other Crazy Laws

Donkeys Can't Sleep in Bathtubs and Other Crazy Laws by Susan Dach and Patrick M. Reynolds

The book lists a number of crazy laws. Many of these are things that can't be done on Sunday or details of interactions with horses. These were probably more relevant when there were blue laws or horses were primary means of transport. Others are "made funny" by pointing out what is left out. (One mentions many animals that can't be had in apartments, but notes that elephants were not excluded.) It is a short book that can be picked up and read in any section.

The Nonsense Factory: The Making and Breaking of the American Legal System

The Nonsense Factory: The Making and Breaking of the American Legal System by Bruce Cannon Gibney

The legal system is a mess. It is also quite incestuous. It is mostly lawyers that set the rules. They are also the ones that adjudicate the rules in the legal system. Judges are appointed for life and are often out of touch with the people they are serving. The legal, judicial and government systems care a lot about precedent, whether or not the precedents make sense. Rights, like trial by jury are gradually eroded in favor of expediency (like plea bargains and arbitration.) Regulation has become extremely complex. Even the parts of government that enforces regulation has no ideas how many rules there are to enforce.

The author is upset at the mess that is the legal system today. He has some general ideas for improvements, but it seems to just touch the surface. The legal system has become a big mess.

Fuzz: When Nature Breaks the Law

Are law system is based on humans. Alas,  animals are not always law-abiding citizens. There have been attempts to sue various critters for violation of statutes. Large animals have killed humans. Forensics experts come to the seen to identify the culprit, analyzing the bite marks and sampling DNA. The animals often receive the death penalty if caught. However, animals have been wrongly accused of human actions (and vice versa).

Managing wildlife can be challenging. Bear safe containers work great if everybody uses them. However, a few unlocked containers can lead to a bear feasting ground. Aspen, Colorado was given as an example of a location that didn't enforce it's ordinance, leading to bears in town. Then the humans will complain of bear presence, leading to their suffering.

While killing the animal in town can eliminate the immediate threat, non-lethal actions are more challenging. An animal may just return after being relocated. Or it could cause trouble in another area. Trying to scare an animal off may work for a short term, but they eventually learn that the "scarecrow" is not lethal. For populations, even death will not help much. The remaining members will often pick up the slack and reproduce more.

Controlling reproduction is one means attempted to control problem animals. However, it is not easy. A huge percentage of the population must be "fixed" to help have an impact. There have been attempts to do genetic manipulation to prevent reproduction, but this has a plethora of potential negative impacts.

Many animal problems were actually human problems. Rats travelled with humans on ships. An introduced animal such as rabbits may breed out of control. Another animal is introduced to cull that population, only to have it reproduce and attack other populations. People may move into animal habitats or not take proper precautions. Animals are doing what they want to do, not what we expect them to do.

Land: How the Hunger for Ownership Shaped the Modern World

Land is an interesting concept. Most land already exists. Yet, people have laid claim to it and have exchange money to "purchase" the land from others. Often the initial claim involved taking land from those that previously were using the land. In some instances, land was gradually separated into different holdings. In other cases, people came in to "take it".

Ownership of land arouses strong feelings. Many wars have been fought over "control" of sections of land. People have strong animosity to others that control the desired land. But what does control of the land mean? Historically, it was primarily as a means of agriculture. People were investing significant effort in cultivating crops. They wanted to maintain control over this. Today, "exclusion" continues to play a role in land ownership. Ultra-wealthy may gather vast swaths of remote land to establish their compound. This may be used for only a short amount of time in a year. However, it ends up being cut off from others that desire to use it.

Land also evolves through many uses. Many peoples have been moved off their lands because others sought a better use for it. Sometimes this use involves more intensive cultivation or city development. Other times, it may be setting it apart as a national park. This can lead to some curious history. Yosemite was once inhabited by Native Americans. It is now set apart as an "undeveloped" national park. However, in doing so, there has been a much more intensive development of roads, trails and lodgings and a huge increase in the number of people passing through. 

The use and ownership of land has changed a great deal through history. It will continue to change. There will continue to be conflicts over ownership as well as attempts to resolve these conflicts. Even with the near "virtual" society, land remains important. 

The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet

Aaron Swartz was a social outcast who thought information should be freely available. He was especially concerned with government and scholarly information. Why should companies get rich off data that the public had helped fund. He attempted to download scholarly articles from the MIT network. This resulted in the crashing of Jstor servers. The police came in and threw the book at him for "stealing" the data. He committed suicide rather than face the charges. 

Swartz grew up in a well to do family in the suburbs of Chicago. He preferred interacting with people through computers. He did not like the structure of school, and left high school to learn on his own. He later enrolled at Stanford, but was disillusioned there also. He was credited as a cofounder of Reddit and cashed out well there. He also started early free encyclopedias and participated in other "free information" projects. Swartz seemed to benefit greatly from the openness the well-to-do status of his parents in early life. Without the freedom to explore on his own, he would have not had the opportunities to pursue his passions. 

The book spends a great deal of time covering the history of copyright. The United States was late in the copyright game. However, it has been willing to play catch up. Alas, the corporations that benefit from long copyrights are able to mobilize much better than the public that benefits from having more things in the public domain. Thus, laws like the Sonny Bono copyright extension act have passed extended copyrights well beyond the life of the author. (The justification that this ultra-long-term encourages creativity is very far fetched.) Do we have hope of rationalizing copyright? Or will it keep going in the extension direction?

Just Mercy

Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson

Bryan Stevenson worked to help defend poor prisoners in the the south. He had to ration his time and often focus on those with the most imminent needs - often prisoners on death row. His experience has made him strongly against the death penalty for anybody. He stresses the need for mercy and help for prisoners. The poor, minorities and mentally ill are significantly over-represented in the prison population. In the south, prisons and the death penalty were often used to help keep the black population down. (The death penalty could be seen as a legitimization of "lynchings".) The actual execution of inmates is not an easy process and it negatively impacts those that have to carry it out. (He finds it ironic that people are willing to provide plenty of help and service for inmates right before they are killed. What if this service was provided earlier in their lives instead?)

The author focuses on some of his most sympathetic clients. The primary story is about a black man (Walter McMillan) that was wrongfully convicted of murder in the hometown of To Kill A Mockingbird. A young woman was murdered in the town and the sheriff was desperately trying to find the culprit. A good-for-nothing made up testimony implicating McMillan. He was convicted despite holes in the testimony and a powerful alibi. (Dozens of people were with him far away from the murder scene at the time of the crime.) The judge overrode the jury to sentence him to death. It took numerous appeals and another investigation before he was finally free. It seems the only reason he was even a suspect was because he had a relationship with a younger white woman.

There is also the story of the woman who was sentenced for giving birth to a stillborn child. She had not sought medical care, and had buried the baby on their property. Nosy neighbors were suspicious and had the baby dug up and some (since discredited) doctors declared the baby had been alive.

Other clients mentioned had admitted to committing a crime, yet received a punishment that far outweighed the crime. Many of these were barely teenagers, yet were tried as adults and received death or life without parole sentences. Others were mentally ill. Many grew up in broken homes. Most were poor and black. In one story he mentions the case of a very "mean", white guard. He gave Stevenson a tough time when he visited. One day he escorted one of his clients to a court hearing. There they described the rough childhood and experience the client had in abusive foster care. The next time Stevenson saw him, he was totally different and very kind. (He had even stopped by to get the client a chocolate milkshake.) It turns out, he too had suffered in the foster care system. He could empathize with the inmate and what he had gone through.

Empathy is the theme of the book. Most of the people described had done something wrong. They deserved to have some punishment. However, they also deserve empathy. Often their biggest crime is being poor. Had they had money, they could have had better representation and would likely have received lessor sentences. Society is willing to spend billions of dollars incarcerating these people, rather than spend time and money helping them be productive members of society.