I support President Obama.  I find it hard to take those who voted for him and are now second guessing him at every turn.   I detect a paternalism afoot here among many members of the liberal media.

On Afghanistan, I take Obama at his word when he says the escalation in the war is to defend us from radical Islamists of the type who have already attacked us and our allies numerous times around the world.  He has the facts and he has the character to act on those facts.  Few if any of us has such an overall picture.  I believe  strict pacifist have every right to protest just as they did before and during World War II (see Alex Comfort).  But when protester simply drag out lame rebuttals to the President, as many have done,  it is hard to take. 

On the issue of health reform, Obama is also being abandoned by many in the media and public who know little of what they are talking about and nit pick the poor President to death.

DOUG CLARK, UNFUNNY CLOWN

It's hard to say why the Cowles family keeps Doug Clark as court jester.  A recent letters section of the paper had two sharp complaints for that fool's attack on serious attempts to clean up our river.   I wish they would print more, though I've nearly despaired of ever  ridding the paper  of this idiot.  His attacks on the police and the city government are not funny nor helpful.  One of the letters I refer to above mentions the issue of human lives at stake from the river pollution.  That could also be true in regard to the police.  I doubt Spokane harbors a worst citizen not behind bars than Douglas Clark.  If that is even his real name.  Finally, his columns firmly establish that there is no one in the city that loves himself more.

  HOORAY FOR MAYOR VERNER

 I heard a recent interview on the radio where Mayor Verner promised to reach out to the organizers of Prop. 4 and remedy the misinformation with which they have been burdened.   By so doing she hoped she and they, working together, might reach some worthy shared goals.  Bravo!

RIGHTS FOOLISHNESS - R.I.P.

Now that Prop. 4 has been smashed, I hope that that important segment of Spokane's progressive community which worked on the thing can turn their attention to some doable things that really matter and make sense.   How about an elected park board and elected planning commission?  Or better yet, picked by lot.  How about an independent police commission?  How about electing some freeholders to rewrite the city charter?  How about overhauling the neighborhood council system to make it democratic?

If Snyder's slim lead holds up, Spokane will have the most progressive council ever, at least on the green front.  This opens a slew of lobbying possibilities for the left.

BEWARE OF THE FAMILY

A real scary book is out.  It is, THE FAMILY, THE SECRET FUNDAMENTALISM AT THE HEART OF AMERICAN POWER by Jeff Sharlett.  The hardcover edition was published last year.  We discover with this book even more on the long list of what religion has to answer for.  Any history is a sham that does not take into consideration the facts spelled out by Sharlett.  Please read it.  I've just recently discovered the "bright" movement and perhaps that is something that can eventually be a counter force to the iniquity now being foisted on us by the Fellowship - as the Family is also called.

BILL OF RIGHTS PART 5
 

"Residents have the right to affordable preventive healthcare.  For residents otherwise unable to access such care, the City shall guarantee such access by coordinating with area healthcare providers to create affordable fee-for-service programs within eighteen(18) months following adoption of this Charter provision."

Note that general health care is not ordained a right, but only preventive health care.  I take this to mean things like regular physicals, exercise programs, weight loss programs, stop smoking programs, and such.  Now, these programs already exist in abundance. So, making them affordable seems to be the issue.  Should there be a local law that forces providers to sell these services at a loss?  I don't think so.  Is the City to make up the difference, or what?  The City doesn't have the money.  Maybe the Bill's sponsors should have first spent their time on digging up some more revenue for the City, before they launched this leaden monster.


Affordable health care is one of the more important issues the nation faces.  But it can not be solved by local action such as this.  Perhaps I'm not seeing the implementation possibilities of these "rights," but if that is the case we are back to the pig in a poke problem.


"Residents have the right to affordable housing, the right to a safely maintained dwelling, an the right to be free from housing discrimination.  The City shall ensure the availability of low income housing stock sufficient to meet the needs of the low income housing community.  People and family may only be denied the renting or buying of a dwelling for non-discriminatory reasons and may only be evicted from their residence for non-discriminatory causes."


We have city laws, state laws, and federal laws that ban discrimination in housing.  And these are laws which ban specific discrimination such as that on the basis of race.  So, why bother with this redundant law and why no specificity?  And we already have safety codes.  Again, the Community Bill of Rights serves as  a question machine.  There is no way the City can ensure an adequate stock of low income housing.   Though they certainly should do what they can to alleviate the shortage.  


As I read through the remaining provisions of the Bill, I see nothing but more of the same.   So, there is no point in more or less repeating myself.   So,  I'll finish with a statement of  my overall view.  The Bill either ordains rights we already possess under law or ones it has no authority to ordain.  The Bill is so unclear as to leave  the door open to tyrannical interpretation.  This is especially so in the ecology section.   A document such as this, written and conceived by intelligent men and women, yet so vague, invites speculation.  I know that the people who I see as the authors but who proclaim  themselves only facilitators conduct "Democracy Schools" which lay out many arguable evils  inflicted upon our citizens since the founding of the nation.   I speculate that each provision of this Bill has one of these perceived evils as a partially  hidden target  I guess that this fact is glossed over in the interest of getting votes.  I draw my speculations in part from attending a coffee house presentation of the Bill early on and interviews with some people who attended the Democracy School.  

POLICY BY THE NUMBERS

You know, I've long had the idea that football games should end at the point when it is clear who the winner will be.  Further play only risks further injury.  And the fans begin leaving at this juncture anyway, so what's the point of continuing to play?

I'm reminded of all the above as I view an evolving attitude towards our wars.  It seems we now have an argument afoot that at some number of casualties on our side we should declare the war as lost and quit.  Is this because it has become hopeless, or is it just a number? The anti-war crowd rely a lot on these numbers.   But isn't it a preposterous sort of war that you assume  is lost at some number of casualties?  Is the other side going to use the same number?  Of course, if the number is huge and in danger of becoming even greater as at the end of WWII in Japan, then that is different.  So, please spare me headlines about deaths of our military in Iraq or Afghanistan.  I will be for or against these wars on some sort of rational grounds such as how each affects our national interest.

Another issue on which many seem to be blinded by numbers is prison population.   Some seem to think there is a maximum number of people who should be incarcerated, independent of the number who have committed crime.  Now, they know this sounds a little silly, so they rig up this crazy argument:  Because the prison population has more non-whites than the population at large, from a proportion standpoint, prejudice is being practiced.   And hence, prisoners should be released.  Listen, non-whites, especially blacks, in this country have suffered disadvantages in education and economic opportunity for many years and this has brought about this crime situation.  We need to attack this social problem in a more determined and serious manner and get our head out of the sand.  In the meanwhile, I want dangerous people locked up or under strict supervision.

COMMUNITY BILL OF RIGHTS PART 4

 The main body of the Community Bill of Rights amendment is split into two sections.  The first section lists eight specific rights ordained for residents, the natural environment, and workers.  A ninth right, the right to enforce the Bill is also  in this section.  The second section lists rights of neighborhoods and neighborhood councils under three subsections, A, B, and C.

I am going to start with the first listed right under section 1, but before I  complete the list I will go to the enforcement section, since that adds quite a bit of flavor to the whole jumble.

"Residents have the right to a locally-based economy to ensure local job creation and enhance local business opportunities.  The right shall include the right to have local monies invested locally by lending institutions, and the right to equal access to capital, credit, contracts, incentives and services for businesses owned by Spokane residents."

It seems as though a professional economist would be required to make sense of this ordained right.  But let me try to look at a concrete case.  Say I deposit one million dollars in a local bank and demand that no part of that million be invested other than locally and my neighbor invests one million dollars and demands that his money not be invested locally because a better return to the bank is likely in that case.  Now, must the bank refuse his deposit and accept mine?  There seems something wrong with this and I suspect there are laws against it.  I don't believe cities have regulatory rights or duties regarding bank operations.  But, hold on!  Is this the whole idea of this initiative?  Is the intention to undermine existing federal and state laws in the interest of democracy?  This certainly appeals to my anarchist and demarchist instincts.  But the approach here seems ham-handed and silly.   

It might be a good spot here to jump to a line in the enforcement right, # 9.  "Corporations and other business entities shall not be deemed to possess any legal rights; privileges, rights, powers or protections which would enable these entities to avoid the enforcement of these rights . . . ."  So I guess the banks are out of luck,  as are any small business who opposes these provisions.

I believe the big corporations hold  way too much sway with our politicians, but let's stop electing that type of politician and do some election and campaign reform that will help..  That is one place that the energy of those seeking social justice should be directed.  Things like this initiative just dilute that energy.

  BILL OF RIGHTS PART 3

It is unfortunate that the debate over this issue is being framed by announcements in the media as  a battle between big corporations and regular citizens.   There are thousands of small business people, wage earners, retirees, and others who oppose this amendment because they find it against their interests.   So be careful not to be caught up in a fake bandwagon effect.

Moving on to another point, I am aware that many say the U.S. Constitution was designed at its conception largely as a support and protection for the privileged.  But it is a living document and the past is not the present.  Over time our country has become more enlightened,  and through positive Supreme Court decisions, tragic sacrifice by citizens, and instances of progressive legislation we have  advanced from those long ago times.  Our society as it exists today is malleable, and through reason and hard work a positive future is in sight.  I can not go along with burning the house down every time  a fuse is blown or a drain plugged.  I find this Bill both too much and too little.

My continuing commentary is now at the third whereas:   "Whereas the people of the City of Spokane recognize their responsibility to be well-informed and involved citizens of the City of Spokane, to be stewards of the natural environment, and to assume the responsibility for enforcing their rights and the rights of others."  This is a somewhat laughable formality that barely deserves comment.  I will only say that I shudder a little when I read about someone being "responsible" for enforcing rights I may not even know I have.

"Whereas the people of the City of Spokane have adopted a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Spokane, which envisions the building of a healthy, sustainable, and democratic community, but the people recognize the Comprehensive Plan is not legally enforceable in many important respects; and whereas, the people of the City of Spokane  wish to create a Community Bill of Rights, which would among other goals, establish  legally enforceable rights and duties to implement the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan"  Now we seem to be  getting somewhere.  Or are we?  Is it all about making the Comprehensive Plan enforceable?  Well, not quite.  It is the vision we want to make enforceable.  How does one enforce a vision?  And why is the Comprehensive Plan itself not enforceable in some respects?  I hear people claim it is enforceable.  How can we make sense of this thing without really looking at the Plan and court cases regarding it?  Is the average voter inclined to do this.  I see a pattern here.  We are again asked by the Bill's authors to agree with something without having all the facts.

 BILL OF RIGHTS PART 2

A couple of preliminaries:  First, I am especially interested in this Bill of Rights (BOR) because for a number of years I have seen a  need for a redo of local government  I presented ideas to the last elected Board of Freeholders as it considered a wholesale change to the city and county governments.  I also introduced members of that body to the book The Vermont Papers which I believe proved useful to some on the board.  And I submitted numerous ideas at their public hearings.  I have interviewed several council members, mayors and activists as to their ideas on democracy in Spokane.  In all, I have read, thought and been concerned about issues of governance in Spokane for quite awhile.  But I have found no place for my input to be effective on drafting the BOR.  So, if some might look on my opposition to the BOR law as sour  grapes on my par, so be it. And finally, the extended critique I am putting forth is only my opinion , an opinion I feel I have  a duty to put forth,  even if only on this blog.  And I am open to any and all showings that I am wrong or that more needs to be said.

Okay, on to the initiative.  It seems to me that it is  essential that this type of legislation be clear.  But as  I move on from the title to the "whereases" section, I see that nothing could be foggier than  this listing of allegations which attempt to lay  a foundation for what follows.  The confusing language cuts the legal legs out from under the BOR without even getting to the much discussed legal problem of multiple topics.  And this brings up an issue:  The statements in support of this Bill are invariably  mom and apple pie simple such as, it supports democracy..  This just doesn't jibe with the garbled actual text which leaves much room for mischief in the carrying out of the eventual law.

"Whereas the City of Spokane wish to build a healthy, sustainable, and democratic community:"  Is this saying that we do not now have a healthy, sustainable, and democratic community?   I guess so since it is proposed to pass a law that "ensures" that we "build" one.  Isn't this the kind of language one would use in chartering a new city?  Yes it is, and so a note of revolution creeps in.

One more whereas and then we'll wait  for part 3.  "Whereas the people of the City of Spokane wish to build that community  by securing the rights, freedoms, and well-being of residents, workers, neighborhoods, and the natural environment;"   Normally we think of rights as certain negative rights because that is what we are granted in our federal and state Bill of Rights. There, we are protected from government infringement.   Government can not force us to shut up, testify against ourselves, allow it in our houses without a warrant, and so forth.  But positive rights are a little different.  They are more like what a baby demands.  You say you want something, you say you have a right to it.  You want a $20 an hour job, you have a right to it.  Now, there are clearly some natural positive rights such as the right to life; but most of these are universal and do not need to be in writing.   Note the use of the plural freedoms.  This tips me off we are going to looking at a claim of positive rights on down the page.  And next, I see any right granted to a resident as granted to that resident whether he or she is a worker or a non-worker; and every resident is a member of a neighborhood.  Why the specificity?  This brings us to the rights of the natural environment.

 I say you can only grant rights to those who can appear to claim those rights, or in the case of the incapacitated, have designated representatives appear for them.  Now how should the representative, however selected, figure out just what these rights and freedoms of the natural environment are?  Shall one go way back to some past truly natural environment and seek to restore it.  How else to say what is natural?  Must  the downtown dam be removed?.  Should all cars be removed from the city? Where is this band of experts to be found that will determine the number of fish of each species to be maintained in the Spokane River?  And once found to whom are they to answer?

A Community Bill of Rights as an amendment to the Spokane charter sounds darned impressive. But let's start a dissection of this amendment, dealing first with the title. Bill of Rights? Hey, isn't there a United States Bill of Rights? Oh yeah, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Now, why didn't James Madison call those ten amendments a Community Bill of Rights. Are the Spokane authors saying something like that earlier Bill does not serve the "community." And what community might that be? Think about it.

June 8, 1789, Madison said the following: "For while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself: But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."

Madison states well how I feel about the issue now before the voters of Spokane. I feel for the charter. In passing this thing we are opening the door so wide as to jeopardize the city's structure. It certainly does not limit itself to those provisions "against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."

Anyway, coming up will be my thoughts on each specific of the Bill.

PROPOSAL FOR LOCAL PRIMARY ELECTION CHANGE

I make the following proposal as to how Spokane might change for the better its election system for council positions. I propose that, subject to fine tuning, the top three finishers in the primary advance to the general election and that the top finisher in that election be declared the winner.

In general, it seems that an election would best fit the democracy bill if the winner were that citizen who was preferred by the greatest number of eligible voters. Now, this could be determined if any filing and official list of candidates were eliminated and we just let each voter write in his or her choice on the ballot. The winner would be the one with the most votes.

In principle, we have a version of this now since write-in votes are allowed, but with an an official list of candidates and all the campaigning associated with that fact the write-in is meaningless as a practical matter.

Getting to the nub of the major evil I'm trying to correct, note that once elected the candidate is considered by himself and others as somehow a majority choice. Of course, this is a result of the current primary system where a heads up race is forced upon the voters and then combined with talk of a duty to vote regardless as to whether you care for one candidate or the other. But it is clearly nonsense.

I am happy to move in stages. That is, go ahead with filing and all - though this probably screens out the optimal choice for the position - but pick the top three for the general election. I believe that most of the time but not always the winner will win with less than 50% and so will have a more realistic view of just where he or she stands with the electorate and so just how much legitimate authority he or she really has.

I am very pleased that Jon Snyder will be in the November run-off for a seat as one of my district's City Council positions. And I hope he wins. I believe he will present views not seen before on the Council and this will be for the good.

Some overall thoughts on the Council: The district system should be tossed. The districts are just too big. In general, the difference of interests (that which is in their interest not what they are interested in) are just as great within the districts as they are among the districts. When we look at the City Council, ideally , we should see a cross section of the city. This is because Spokane is not a community in the sense of a collection of people with shared ideals and certain other mutual behaviors. It is a hodgepodge of competing interests. And we need representatives of these interests on the Council negotiating and bartering out their needs. And by a representative I mean a sample of that group, not simply an agent for the group. To get to this point, a first step might be to enlarge the Council. Also, the recent increase in salaries will be helpful in broadening the spectrum of interests.

SPOKANE JURY NULLIFICATION DRESSED UP AS A BILL OF RIGHTS

A SMALL PACK OF ATTORNEYS DON'T LIKE THE LAW AS WRITTEN AND DISCOVER WHAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT: GET A COMMUNITY BILL OF RIGHTS ON THE BALLOT AND TRY TO BAMBOOZLE THE VOTERS INTO VOTING FOR IT. AND BY THE WAY, NOTE THIS IS NOT A BILL OF COMMUNITY RIGHTS.

THIS IS THE WAY JURY NULLIFICATON WORKS, TOO. THERE IS THE POWER

TO THROW OUT THE LAW. BUT IS THERE THE RIGHT? NO!

IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS CASE, IF PASSED, THERE COULD BE DESTROYED, FOR EXAMPLE, DECADES OF WORK AND THOUGHT BY HUNDREDS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND PLAIN CITIZENS ON PLANNING PROCEDURES AND POLICIES. JUST ON THE WHIM OF A TINY GROUP OF ATTORNEYS, SOME NOT EVEN FROM SPOKANE AND WITH BIGGER FISH TO FRY.

THERE IS MUCH TO SAY ON THE DETAILS OF THE PETITION, BUT i WILL SAVE THAT FOR LATER. AND MANY OTHERS WILL BE WEIGHING IN. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION.

ENVISION SPOKANE HEARING

The City Council held a hearing last night as to whether Envision Spokane (ES) had presented a valid initiative. It was entertaining and instructive. Even though the petition was clearly not valid, five members of the council were sufficiently cowed by ES as to accept that it was.

The way certain members caved in to ES you would have thought ES was actually tied into the Russian military and a nuclear strike was imminent. After all, ES opponents were calling them Communists. I wish they had been Communists. Any self respecting Communist would have written a more sensible and democratic petition.

I do have to give the ES plotters credit for effective tactics. A few months ago, I thought they were going to be laughed out of the room. But they've cobbled together a coalition of the naive and the special interest that is working just fine. Keep throwing out the word democracy. You'll get your way.

As of today, I still only give it a 60% chance that they have enough valid signatures. You would be suprised at the number of folks who don't know whether they live in the city or not but sign petitions.

The five wimps on the council seemed confident that the voters would see through the nonsense in the initiative. But remember that these are voters that elected George Bush twice. How smart can they be?

Just to be clear, let me close with this. I am in favor of a major overhaul of city government, which would actually be more radical, democratic and "leftist" than what ES proposes. It would center on a new structure of governance, truly responsive to the people. But I hate to see a diversion such as what we have here. ES has the goal of wiping out our US constitution (their own words). I don't buy it.

FRANCIS COLLINS NOMINATION

The President has nominated a born again Christian to head up the National
Institute of Health. This is not good. Check out the Collins-Dawkins debates to see how muky Collins's thinking is. I would expect to see his religious views affect how
the NIH spends its money and hence how health science progresses (or regresses) in this country.

NOT PERFECT

The sports world loves the memory of Steve McNair. Oh, sure, he wasn't perfect, they say. Well, if he was so dang "not perfect," why didn't we hear more about it before? Why didn't we hear months ago, over the air or in print, that, "McNair was a great footballer, but he is cheating on his wife and kids with a fun loving teenager. No one's perfect." ?

And then we get this additional tripe from the jockstrap world. They want to leave judgment to the higher authority. This shows how really dumb and perverted they are. There is no higher authority; that is, other than our human reason and moral sense. But I regret to note the obvious fact that that is not what they are leaving it to.

CHANGE OF NAME

I've decided to dress as a demarchist - see John Burnheim's Is Democracy Possible? - rather than as an anarchist. I just can't cotton to the current crop of anarchists. When I took up the anarchist banner it was under the influence of Godwin, Shelley, Proudhon, and Kropotkin. I would guess at least half the youngsters now calling themselves anarchist know little or nothing of these folks.

The most famous "anarchist" of today is Noam Chomsky, but according to the analysis of anarchism scholar, Alan Ritter, Chomsky is not even an anarchist in the above tradition, but a type of Marxist. But it is just that Chomsky brand of extreme and sterile negativism that is so admired by many of those protesting as anarchists. Can you imagine Kropotkin or Godwin wearing a mask?

Anyway, I still have heroes in the anarchist community of the past, such as Gustav Landauer. And believe Sacco and Vannzetti were innocent,and more importantly I think it matters whether they were innocent or not. I say that because Howard Zinn says he doesn't care. That is, to Zinn it only matters that the prosecution was corrupt. He is like many others on the left of today who enjoy the war of unproven allegations - rhetoric and cleverness are everything, truth nothing.

GARY CROOKS PULLS CURTAIN FROM NANCY McLAUGHLIN

The local daily's Smart Bombs columnist does it again today. This guy is an order of magnitude smarter than anyone writing for his paper. Anyway, today's column exposes Spokane councilwoman McLaughlin and other neo-reaganites of the GOP for the shallow thinking, fear mongering, conspiracy loving, divisive gang that they are. And he makes one laugh while so doing. McLaughlin loves to put on a "reasonable" face at council meetings but her policies are anything but.

Some random thoughts:

Obama has his hands full with the economy. All this pressure on the torture front is not necessary and is distracting, especially the retribution angle. This can be worked out over time. The left is pathetic as usual when it comes to solutions but comes front and center when it comes to calls for political lynching. I believe many of them think it a crime for a Republican to even be in office. And maybe it is, but can't we wait for a little more general support on the issue?

On Spokane's revolutionary and silly attempt to codify through initiative various rights : Though the Envision Spokane authors of the campaign may not know it, they have an ally in Thom Hartmann. He also thinks health care, decent wages, and so forth can assured by proclamation and a police state, because the people want it. Another vote for the tyranny of the majority, I see.

HATE THAT NEVER DIES AND CONSPIRACY

The haters of the Cowles family are at it again in their opposition to Obama's choice of Michael Ormsby as U.S. Attorney for Eastern Washington. These people - Talbott, Rodgers, et al - do not forget and wish to take no prisoners. It's a way of life with them and suspicions always trump facts.

I see this same temperament in those who thnk the internet movie Zeitgeist amounts to anything. Read Michael Schermer of Skeptic magazine on the part doing with Jesus Christ. He says the whole thing is nothing more than The DaVinci Code on steroids.

The thing that scares me the most about these people is the scapegoating. I trace much of Hitler's success to the use of that terrible trait. Beware the True Believer.

2008 MOVIES

I saw forty or so movies last year. Here are few of my thoughts.

First, I rank the the top seven in this order, from top to bottom: Slumdog Millionaire, The Secret of the Bees, Happy-Go-Lucky, Frozen River, Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda, Rock'n Rolla. Forgive me if the titles are not exact.

On the better known films: Doubt talked too much about doubt. Milk had its moments but was boring for me in its first half. The Dark Knight also had its moments but it was too long. I saw it a second time and still snoozed a little. W was both interesting and boring. The religious part was scary. A Body of Lies was better than reported. Ghost Town was witty, sad and good. Another movie I found witty was X-Files which tackled taboo subjects and was, I thought, fairly true to the tone of the series. I walked out after the first hour of Hellboy II. I saw Bank Job twice and liked it much better the second time; in fact if you plan to see this movie, you should plan to see it twice. The best anti-war movie I saw was Stop Loss. Young at Heart, The Counterfeiters, and The Visitor are all well worth seeing. I think I've given you enough to go on.

One more movie I want to comment on is A Flash of Genius. I see this as being in the same category as Grizzly Man and Into the Wild in the sense that they are all stories of an obsessed man who destroys himself, but more to the point takes others with him in one way or another. And the others are supposed loves ones. I don't think this theme is explored enough in our society.