Socialism with a human face

Thursday evening, along with my fellow volunteers at The Museum of Russian Art, I was treated to a special advance walkthrough of the new Geli Korchev exhibit that is getting much publicity. You might want to check out articles in Mpls St. Paul magazine or the StarTribune too, but I'll give it to you firsthand, from an inside-the-museum viewpoint.

Korchev is certainly one of the best, and most famous, of a long line of wonderful painters in Russia; part of generations of formal, disciplined teaching by older, well-known artists in state-supported programs. TMORA almost always has one or two Korchev paintings on display at any time, and I've become an admirer of his work over the past several years. So much so that I created my own Korchev web page many months ago, with images gathered from all over the web. Many of the images on that site will be seen live in the new Korchev exhibit "Raising the Banner". Most of the paintings are huge, so images on-screen pale by comparison with seeing the original canvas.



This exhibit is first in a number of ways: the first single-artist exhibit by TMORA, the first Korchev retrospective outside Russia, and probably the first exhibit dedicated just to Korchev anywhere, including the state museums in Russia. It took TMORA and curator Masha Bulanova two years to put this exhibit together, and Bulanova spent many hours speaking with Korchev (now 83) to get very special insights into his art and attitudes... and he is not short on attitudes.

Even though Korchev is, ideologically, a communist, supported by the state, was an official in the Union of Soviet Artists, and was responsible for implementing Communist Party policy to other artists, he continually pushed the limits of what the party wanted art to portray. Much of his work is clearly critical of government and the enormous price the Russian people paid because of it. He portrays the long-suffering individuals of a totalitarian empire, and shows us their strength and dramatic survival skills.

Korchev's art is gritty, often tragic, but his subjects are powerful and determined to survive. They are not always successful, but they strive. He paints individuals, "strong men and women facing critical moments in their lives". One telling section of his art is a series on Don Quixote, a symbolic hero with great moral strength. Another series of provocative paintings are the Tyurlikis (mutants) which reflect his disappointment with the dishonesty of Russian leaders.

The Russian people have a very long tradition of enduring, of striving and often succeeding under the worst of circumstances. Overcoming hardship, ghastly governmental oppression and corruption and pomposity, they have managed to hang on to basic human values. If one needs proof of the old adage "if it doesn't kill you, it will make you stronger", one need look no further than the Russian people. Korchev shows us those qualities in his paintings, and he does so dramatically.

I was, long ago, an university art student, excited about learning the skills to produce my own commentary on life. That excitement was dashed on the shoals of "modern" art, of non-representational images that could be, and have been, produced by "artists" with little talent or thought, except the devious understanding that if they produced works that represented nothing in fact or intent, that other equally untalented people would buy them and pretend to "comprehend the incomprehensible".

Korchev's painting are understandable... their message is clear and moving to all who view them. They are works of art, clear and powerful communications from Korchev to any viewer. His work is an inspiration, a revelation, that should be seen by all those who value communication, skill, and deep emotions. They should be revered by all of us who appreciate the greatness of human strength and achievement.

If, between now and January 5th of next year, you have the slightest opportunity to visit The Museum of Russian Art, I urge you not to miss it. Personally, I thank TMORA for the vision and audacity to pull together such an exhibit. I'm honored to volunteer for such an organization (that incidentally, operates without tax money of any kind).

Taxi operators trapped in a government snare

For many years, the city of Minneapolis had capped the number of cabs allowed to operate within the city limits, not issuing any new licenses. The result of that restrictive policy was greatly to the benefit of those who already had taxi licenses, and the "market value" of existing licenses rose to $25,000. There were many others who wished to enter and compete in that market, but the only way to do so was to deal with companies who already held licenses. The city policy had, in reality, created a cartel with a monopoly.

In October of 2006, the city of Minneapolis removed the artificial cap on the number of licenses, increasing the number of taxis allowed on the streets each year until 2010, and then removing the limit altogether. Doing so will have many benefits. Operating a taxi is an excellent business for small, often minority, entrepreneurs who can compete by providing service to areas not well served by larger companies, or by providing superior service or prices. As in any industry, open competition improves service for customers.

Governments have long been successfully lobbied by existing businesses to pass licensing restrictions that will keep out new competitors. We've watched as Minnesota hair-braiders won the right to perform their services without having to complete expensive cosmetology training, even though the training once required had nothing at all to do with the service they wanted to provide. There are innumerable examples of similar restrictions that serve no purpose except to eliminate competition for existing licensees.

The City of Minneapolis took an overdue but admirable position when it removed taxi licensing limits. Doing so corrected an unjust and anti-competitive policy. There are, however, those who will lose.

Current taxi license holders know that, as limits are removed, the value of their licenses will drop dramatically. Those who bought licenses at prices inflated by the old and wrongful closed market will indeed lose value. What was worth $25,000 in a closed market will be worth no more than a new license issued under the new rules. Current license holders have formed a coalition to fight the rule changes and have filed suit seeking to force a return to the closed market.

Legally, the issue has some complexity. The coalition of current license holders is claiming that the rules change constitutes a "taking" by the city; in effect destroying the value of current licenses. "Takings" are unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions.

On Friday (Aug.31st), I listened as my friends at the Institute for Justice presented oral arguments before Judge Franklin Noel, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, seeking a dismissal of the suit brought by the taxi-owners coalition. IJ's case was presented by Scott Bullock, who represented the Kelo homeowners before the U.S. Supreme Court. (more background).The coalition was represented by counsel as well. Judge Noel challenged both attorneys about similar cases that might serve as guiding precedent.

I'm certainly not an attorney, and I am just as certainly in favor of open markets, but the case is not simple. I feel for the taxi license holders, many of whom are recent immigrants, who could only get into the taxi business by purchasing licenses made artificially valuable by the government's closed market. If the licensing rules had been reasonable to begin with, this quandary simply wouldn't exist. The city government created the problem and will now cause harm to individuals by correcting it's old bad policies.

There is no question that the city of Minneapolis, by opening up taxi licensing limits, corrected a wrong that had been in place for a long time. That wrongful limitation had been pushed by existing taxi license-holders in order to line their own pockets through unfair advantage. That, after all, should be the deciding factor for Judge Noel... that the current licenses had high value only because of wrongful restrictions they pushed for. The value lost by them should never have existed in the first place. It was an artificial value. The real value of a taxi license is the freedom to compete for business, and the existing license holders have not lost that real value.

We might find some parallel in the tax preparation industry (larger than the auto industry). Tax preparation businesses exist only because filing taxes is complex. If income taxes were eliminated, or replaced by a simple system, tax preparers would suffer an even greater loss than the local taxi operators.

As I've written before, governments, in literally thousands of cases, through regulation, subsidies, and licensing, give advantage to larger corporations and handicap competition from smaller entrepreneurs. In many cases, governments actually stop competition and create lucrative monopolies.

The taxi coalition would wish to have the city return to a bad system that benefited existing operators at the expense of the public and others who wish to compete for their business. Hopefully, Judge Noel will view the case in the same way, and dismiss the coalition's suit.

Who did Larry Craig harm?

U.S. Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is being forced to resign by his GOP peers. He became a major embarrassment as a result of his arrest, and guilty plea, for attempting to initiate sexual contact in a public restroom. That scandal has been major news all over the nation.

I probably hold elected officials in lower esteem than most citizens do, and I certainly disrespect those officials who try to push their particular morality onto the rest of us. Craig had taken anti-gay positions, so it's especially easy to say that his attempt to initiate same-sex contact labels him as a terrible hypocrite, and he, more than most, would deserve to be punished by his own stated moralistic standards..

But hold on just a minute... there is a lot more to this than most writers have focused on.

Who did Craig harm? In the first place, sexual contact was not made. Evidently, the attempt was made, although in a pretty non-invasive way. By now we all know the routine Craig used... foot tapping as a signal that he wants to make contact. If the other man wants contact too, he will tap his foot in response, or move his foot closer. The routine is obviously designed to produce sexual contact between consenting individuals.

Let's point out here that if the "other" man had not responded to Craig's actions, that would have presumably been an end to the incident. Contact initiated and not returned. Is that so different from a man making a non-agressive overture toward a woman, then waiting to see her response? In that situation, the overture is not criminal, repeating it in the obvious absence of encouragement from the woman is what makes it criminal.

In this case, Craig's action was returned by the other man, indicating that the other man wanted sexual contact too. If the act is illegal at this point, there are two equally-guilty parties. Of course, the "other" man was a mall cop, playing a sting operation to entrap men doing what Craig did, and Craig soon found that out.

We have the fascinating setup situation involving a mall cop, sitting on the toilet, pants down, and doing nothing but sitting there, waiting to entrap someone. It's safe to assume all that because Craig surely would have known something was amiss if the other man hadn't had dropped drawers. The cop wouldn't have been there for normal toilet activities or he would have been in no position to quickly apprehend a violator. I can't help but wonder how long the cop had been sitting there waiting. If Craig hadn't begun the toe-tapping, would the cop have initiated it?

Again, it is significant that no sexual contact occurred between Craig and the cop... only the signaling routine. Does that constitute lewd behavior? Who is the victim in this case? To my way of thinking, in the absence of a victim of some kind, there can be no crime. Even if the other man hadn't been a cop, there would be no victim. As it was, the cop pretended to be willing to accept sexual contact. If Craig is guilty, so is the cop.

The "crime" is so minor that most of Craig's critics have resorted to the ridiculous conjecture of "suppose the other person had been a kid?" Well, it wasn't a kid. We could speculate about what would have happened if there had been a kid in the other stall? It's possible that Craig wouldn't have been interested at all, but even if his desires did happen to include sexual contact with a boy, is it likely the boy would have tapped his foot in response? If he didn't, isn't it likely that the incident would have ended right then?

Nobody (except Larry Craig) was harmed by what occurred in the men's room, and it's hard to imagine how anyone could have been harmed by Craig's actions. The idea may disgust you, but we often see people doing disgusting things. We cannot make harmless but disgusting activity into crimes. More importantly, we should condemn law enforcement people who use entrapment as a means of producing results. The idea of law enforcement people breaking laws in order to prompt law-breaking by others is ludicrous.

The illegal act by the cop was the act with a victim... that's the real crime in this case.