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.