Thoughts of a Spokane Demarchist

2011-02-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

My favorite movie of last year was Another Year. Black Swan was interesting in that it was a cross between Repulsion and All About Eve. I was disappointed that True Grit bored me a little.

2010-07-04T13:35:00.000-07:00

MORE ON ANARCHISM

A good intellectual introduction to anarchism can be gotten by reading Anarchism: A beginner's guide, by Ruth Kinna. Kinna is editor of the journal Anarchist Studies and is a Lecturer in Politics at Loughborough University, UK.

Here is an excerpt: "The clearest statement of anarchist suspicion of utopianism appears in Marie Louise Berneris Journey Through Utopia, an analysis of utopian thought from Plato to Huxley. In this book she argued that the outstanding feature of most utopias is their authoritarianism. With notable exceptions like William Morris's News From Nowhere, utopias promise material and spiritual satisfaction as well as social and economic equality at the cost of foisting on their ideal citizen a unifying moral ideal. Typically, utopias fail what Berneris called the test of art: Herbert Read's standard of individuality and social experimentation. Some anarchists have taken the critique further, rejecting utopianism in principle. It is not so much the contents of utopias that upsets these anarchists but the very idea of perfection--whether it applies to the social order or the framing of personality. As Rudolph Rocker argues, anarchism 'is no patent solution for all human problems, no Utopia of a perfect social order . . . since, on principle, it rejects all absolute schemes and concepts.' A similar view informs a recent critique of Zerzan. Zerzan's treatment of primitive society suggests an 'idealized, hypostatized vision of the past' that is at odds with critical self-understanding of the social and natural world that informs primitivist critique. It suggests a recommendation for preconceived ideals in a way that constrains free thought'.".

2010-06-18T15:36:00.000-07:00

We don't hear much about McCarthyism these days. It's a shame. For those who may not know, the phrase refers to the tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the early 1950s. He would accuse presumably innocent people of being communist agents of the Soviet Union, our cold war enemy He would hold senate hearings in which he would badger witnesses. His accusations were usually based on scant evidence. In a nut shell, he and his followers - who were many- simply assumed the guilt of those they considered their enemies.

Well, I see a similar mind set among certain implacable foes of the Spokane Police Department. This seems quite obvious to me But let me note just two recent remarks I heard or read. First, a former attorney with the Spokane Center for justice cited the fact that the Center received many complaints against the police. The way this was put, it was clear he expected the audience to assume these complaints were valid. Now, I can not think of a person more apt to have a false complaint lodged against him than a policeman. The second incident was the citing by PJALS of the disparity between the percentage of African Americans and Native Americans in the Spokane population and the percentage of those members tasered. These numbers prove absolutely nothing to anyone with any knowledge of statistical inference but are inflammatory to others. The numbers result from great social injustices, but police racism is not likely one of them. Or if it is, bring on a valid proof.

I finish by saying there are things wrong with the SPD but McCarthyism is not the way to fix them

2010-05-27T10:50:00.000-07:00

Here are some quotes from the back cover of Freedom Press's 1998 reprint of Peter Kropotkin's 1902 work, MUTUAL AID: A Factor of Evolution.

"I would hold that Kropotkin's basic argument is correct. Struggle does occur in many modes, and some lead to cooperation among members of a species as the best path to advantage for individuals. If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe exaggerated competition just as strongly. If Kropotkin drew . . . hope for social reform from his concept of nature, other Darwinians had erred just as firmly (and for motives that most of us would now decry) in justifying imperial conquest, racism, and oppression of industrial workers as the harsh outcome of natural selection in the competitive mode."

STEPHEN JAY GOULD

"In light of scientific investigation in the many fields upon which Mutual Aid draws since its publication, Kropotkin's data and the discussion he based them on stand up reasonable well . . . .Mutual Aid will never be any more out of date than the Declaration of Independence. New facts may increasingly become available, but we can already see that they will serve largely to support Kropotkin's conclusion that 'in the ethical progress of man, mutual support--not mutual struggle--has had the leading part'."

ASHLEY MONTAGU

"The earliest theorists of anarchism, such as William Godwin and Kropotkin, strikingly anticipate the findings of sociology in their estimate of human behaviour and the means of modifying conduct. . . . Kropotkin profoundly influenced biology by his theory of Mutual Aid, propounded as a counterblast to the social conclusions drawn from the Darwinian 'struggle for existence'. He was one the first systematic students of animal communities, and may be regarded as the founder of modern social ecology."

ALEX COMFORT

2010-05-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

Another anarchist I like is Jean Grave (1854-1930). Here is a paragraph from Louis Patsouras's book, The Anarchism of Jean Grave:

For Grave, anarchism embodied free and co-operative individuals in an egalitarian environment free of any authority associated with hierarchy in such institutions as government, private capital and religion, the antithesis of the Liberal view of legally free but economically and socially stratified individuals locked in competition. There was a social contract, so to speak, that united the individual to the general community, the universality of mutual aid, which anarchists would defend by arms if necessary. In the event of civil war, would not anarchism, however, not need organisation and hierarchy in order to defend itself? Perhaps, but one must not discount the various anarchist safeguards that would make hierarchy difficult in the long run, like absence of wage labour, general equality and participatory democracy.

2010-05-11T14:02:00.000-07:00

Here is something from Martin Buber's Paths in Utopia on the ideas of the German anarchist and martyr, Gustav Landauer.

"It would be madness," Landauer writes in a letter to a woman who wanted to abolish marriage, "to dream of abolishing the few forms of union that remain to us! We need form, not formlessness. We need tradition." He who builds, not arbitrarily and fruitlessly, but legitimately and for the future, acts with inner kinship with age-old tradition, and this entrusts itself to him and gives him strength. It will now be clear why Landauer calls the "other" relationship which man can enter into instead the ordinary State-relationship, not by nay new name but simply "People". Such a "People" comprehend comprehend the innermost reality of "Nationhood" - what remains over after when "Statehood" and politicization have been superseded: a community of being and a being in manifold community.

2010-05-05T10:45:00.000-07:00

As promised, here is a little more from Colin Ward. It is from his essay Harmony in Complexity appearing in Anarchy in Action. I'll just quote a few sentences to give the gist and recommend you read the balance for yourself, which is my strategy for all the posts in this series.

One of the most frequently met reasons for dismissing anarchism as a social theory is the argument that while one can imagine it existing in a small, isolated, primitive community, it can not possibly be conceived in the context of large, complex, industrial societies. This view misunderstands both the nature of anarchism and the nature of tribal societies. . . .

Anarchy is a function, not of society's simplicity and lack of organisation, but of its complexity and multiplicity of social organisations. . . .

The anarchist alternative is that of fragmentation, fission rather than fusion, diversity rather than unity, a mass of societies rather than a mass society.

2010-05-01T17:25:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite anarchists died recently. That would be Colin Ward (1924-2010). The journal, Anarchist Studies, is dedicating a special issue in Autumn 2011 to his work and legacy. The volume 18, number 10 issue of that same journal has a tribute to him written by David Goodway. I want to quote from it here and then in a later post I'll give a Ward quote from his essay Harmony Through Complexity.

" . . . His third book, Anarchy in Action (1973), was his only work on the theory of anarchism, and indeed the only one 'directly and specifically about anarchism' until his final publication, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction (2004). In Anarchy in Action he makes entirely explicit his highly original anarchism ( even if, as he always acknowledged, much indebted to Kropotkin and Landauer). The opening words have been much quoted: 'Th argument of this book is that an anarchist society, a society that organizes itself without authority, is always in existence, like a seed beneath the snow, buried under the weight of the state and its bureaucracy, capitalism and its waste, privilege and its injustices, nationalism and its suicidal loyalties, religious differences and their superstitious separatism'. His kind of anarchism, 'far from being a speculative vision of a future society . . . is a description of a mode of human organization, rooted in the experience of everyday life, which operates side by side with, and in spite of, the dominant authoritarian trend of our society'."

2010-04-26T11:17:00.000-07:00

William Godwin Thought

William Godwin (1756-1836) is said to the father of philosophical anarchism. He is also famous for being the husband of Mary Wollstonecraft, the father of Mary Shelley, and the creator of the detective novel genre, and the inspiration for the political ideals of Percy Bysshe Shelley.

Here is a sample of his writing and ideas.

The great cause of humanity, which is now pleading in the face of the universe, has but two enemies; those friends of antiquity, and those friends of innovation, who, impatient of suspense, are inclined violently to interrupt the calm, the incessant, the rapid and auspicious progress which thought and reflection appear to be making in the world. Happy would it be for mankind if those persons who interest themselves most zealously in these great questions would limit their exertions to the diffusing, in every possible mode, a spirit of enquiry, and the embracing of every opportunity of increasing the stock, and generalizing the communication, of political knowledge.

2010-04-23T13:27:00.000-07:00

CHOMSKY, ANARCHISTS, SOCIALISTS

This is from Alan Ritter's 1980 book, Anarchism: A Theoretical Analysis.

The error of those who claim that anarchists are socialists at heart stems from blindness toward their disagreement about the causal efficacy of the state qua state. A typical version of this claim is advanced by Noam Chomsky. Anarchism is not to be identified with socialism simpliciter, since many socialists rely on legal government. But there are also socialists (Chomsky cites Anton Pannekoek and William Paul) who are who are at one with finding the state antipathetic. It is part of this 'libertarian wing of socialism' that Chomsky thinks anarchism should be classed.

If the antipathy to legal government of council communists, syndicalists and similar representatives of socialism's libertarian wing came from alarm about the effects of the state's inherent attributes, Chomsky's claim that anarchism is a type of socialism would be correct. But even the most libertarian of socialists is alarmed by the effects of the state's changeable characteristics, such as its organization or policies. . . . And what they project as a successor to the existing state is not a society freed of legal government, but a society organized, in Chomsky's words, 'on truly democratic lines, with democratic control in the workplace and in the community'.

. . . Libertarian socialists . . . are not anarchists but democrats. [Libertarian socialists] . . . . cannot possibly be called anarchists.

2010-04-22T14:45:00.000-07:00

I am starting a series of quotes by Anarchists and about Anarchists. These will be according my own taste. There is a nice collection of quotes by Anarchists edited by Paul Berman I may or may not use some of them. Check the book out anyway. My first will be from Emma Goldman's essay, Anarchism. In a day or two I'll post one about Chomsky as an Anarchist. Here's Emma.

As to methods, Anarchism is not, as some might suppose, a theory of the future to be realized by divine inspiration. It is a living force in the affairs of our life, constantly creating new conditions. The methods of Anarchism therefore do not comprise an iron-clad program to be carried out under all circumstances. Methods must grow out of the economic needs of each place and clime, and of the intellectual and temperamental requirements of the individual. The serene, calm character of a Tolstoy will wish different methods for social reconstruction than the intense, overflowing personality of a Michael Bakunin or a Peter Kropotkin. Equally so it must be apparent that the economic and political needs of Russia will dictate more drastic measures than will England or America. Anarchism does not stand for military drill and uniformity; it does, however, stand for the spirit of revolt, in whatever form, against everything that hinders human growth. All anarchists agree in that, as they also agree in their opposition to the political machinery as a means of bringing about the great social change.

Emma Goldman from Anarchism and Other Essays, 1917.

2010-04-07T10:51:00.000-07:00

THE CHILDREN'S INVESTMENT FUND

A group of Spokane citizens is making an effort to get a petition on the ballot to raise taxes for helping Spokane youth.

The plan is similar the ones in Portland and a few other cities. And as is obvious, it is a mom and apple pie issue. So who should object?

Well, first, let us look at this fact. Few, if any, voters will read the actual proposed ordinance before they sign the initiative. I know this from personal experience. While the solicitors may have the full text with them, signers are on the fly and do not want to take the time to read it. Then once it reaches the ballot, there will be no text, only the title.

There will be a body of eleven citizens who decide where this money goes. Four of these will be at-large and some others are what I will call quasi-at-large. Now one of the most active groups putting this campaign together is the Spokane Alliance, which is made up of mostly labor unions and churches. It seems to me likely that a fair number of these at-large positions could end up filled by folks affiliated with this or that church. And so tax money could end up being filtered to groups with a religious bent. Not good.

Now isn't the above a silly quibble where our children's future is at stake? Some will say that. I don't want to debate the issue here but it brings up the point of what this program will accomplish. Here are some examples of trouble: One of the major claims is that it will decrease the drop out rate. Well, The Spokesman recently had an interesting article showing that the school district itself has been hopelessly confused about just what is meant by drop out. The state has rushed to the rescue - somewhat. But some confusion seems to have lingered. So how are we going to measure success?

An Alliance hand-out quotes this so-called fact: Children who attend preschool are 17% more likely to complete the 12th grade. Now, this is could be a classic example of confusing correlation with causation. One can not be certain without more information on the study.

The law states that money will only be given to agencies with track records (I assume this means good track records). Well, if we have agencies with track records, how did we get into these alleged dire straits?

I do support help for our youth, but I could use a better thought out plan than what we may be looking at if this gets on the ballot. And I think the school district is being given too much of a free pass as to their responsibility.

2010-04-06T14:27:00.000-07:00

PLEASE FORGET THE PRAYER BREAKFAST

President Obama held an Easter prayer service the other day and it made the news as to how diverse the Christian attendees were. Hey, if he puts on a breakfast I don't want to hear the word Easter. And as to diversity, I want to see a guest list of Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Atheists, Hutterites, and every other color of belief.

This snuggling up to the religious community by Obama reveals a sad flaw in his thinking. In general, I am a fan of his and believe him to be an honest man, so I reject for now that he does this kiss-ass for strictly political purposes. But then that leaves me to realize he is not the deep thinker I usually admire, which puts me in a quandary.

I'll just have to live with it by remembering one of my basic principles of public policy: We must learn to go for the lesser evil because that is usually all we will have.

2010-03-14T11:37:00.000-07:00

SHONTO PETE AND POLICE COMMISSION

Shonto Pete has now been rebuffed in his attempt to hold the city of Spokane legally responsible for the fact he was shot by Jay Olsen. A federal judge did the rebuffing. It seems like an open and shut case. If a city-employed plumber helped me with some water line work during his time off and I suffered damage because of his incompetence, I can not believe I would think of suing the city. Hold it a minute. I might allow the thought to cross my mind only because the city has much more money. And this seems to have been the ultimate rationale behind Pete's case against the city. As to Pete's pressing legal and medical bills: If I had the money I would pay them myself in the interest of justice. Perhaps there are like minded individuals in Spokane who do have the wealth and the desire to at least partially right a wrong. Note though that there are hundreds of cases each year where judgments are made in civil actions but the aggrieved party never collects. I've had it happen to me.

This whole incident opens the door to a consideration of a wider issue: the setting of policy for the Spokane Police Department. For starters, let's keep one foot in the ore body and look at off-duty drinking of alcohol and taking of drugs, including prescription pain killers. Just what the policy should be, other than not what is now, I am not sure. But I do not believe the mayor or chief should set the policy by themselves. An independent board of citizens, properly selected, should act as a primary advisor. This would not be a "sounding board" group or an "oversight" committee. It would be, to start with, similar to what Eugene, Oregon has. And I would hope it would evolve into something at least as strong as the Park Board.

2010-03-02T15:35:00.000-08:00

CRITIQUE OF PJALS

The Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane is on the extreme edge of Spokane's political thought. Of course, the name is in their favor. Who can be against peace and justice?

I see that now they are stepping up their effort to abolish Israel by boycott, divestiture, and sanctions. They are denying Israel's right to exist through damnation of the two state solution, a solution accepted, I believe, in one form or another by nearly all moderates. Of course, this is the public face of PJALS. Who knows what the few hundred paid-up members say? Attempts to stamp out Israel are certainly not going to lead to peace. Though I do admit, the current Israel government needs to be thrown out on its ear and a more progressive one installed. And I condemn all truly unjust acts by Israel just as I condemn suicide bombings and other terrorist attack by the Palestinians

Another example of PJALS meddling in a manner with a formula overladen with venom and under dosed with reason is what they call "police accountability." One evidence of this is the way they trot out the name of Shonto Pete. Pete suffered an injustice at the hands of the County Prosecutor or a jury. The drunken off-duty policeman who shot him was very much in the wrong, but how the department may have been culpable is never addressed by PJALS. I believe the department needs to be overseen - if only indirectly - by an independent citizen group. This in addition to the Ombudsman. This body could strongly recommend a department policy as to alcohol and the police. But if an Ombudsman with independent investigatory powers - as proposed by PJALS - had been in place when Pete was shot, I fail to see where that would have led to anything more than criminal charges being brought against the drunkard policeman. That was done and still no one is happy. And finally, there is the matter of partnering with The Center for Justice on this issue. They have a civil suit going against a Spokane Policeman in the Zehm case. They have a money stake in this.

And so on it goes in knee jerk fashion. Someone yells foul and PJALS is off on another crusade with its parade of true believers.

2010-02-10T10:27:00.000-08:00

PJALS CRIES SUBTERFUGE

Yes. Liz Moore, PJALS spokeswoman, accuses our city of attempting a ruse, defined in the dictionary as a wily subterfuge. But it seems the mayor and all were not wily enough. They've been caught.

The impression I get from Moore and others who spoke at her press conferences is that the police are on a rampage. And why aren't they being sued, reported to the Prosecutor, the Mayor, the Governor, or the FBI? Because everyone is afraid of retaliation. Or so some say. But everything will just be dandy, they claim, if we only create an ombudsman position with independent investigatory powers. Of course, they have already hinted that it also could be necessary for them to pick the ombudsman.

Down the road I believe there will be an ombudsman with independent investigatory powers. And it will likely be a good thing. But please, let us get there without killing so much good will. The city council, administration, and police force are not packed with bad people. If this tool is needed it can be gotten to with a reasonable lobbying efforts; i.e., by sticking to the facts and making compelling arguments. Name calling and finger pointing do not impress me. It reminds me too much of Joe McCarthy.

2009-12-03T10:33:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-30T09:44:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-09T10:04:00.000-08:00

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!

2009-11-04T10:04:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-09-14T10:46:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-07T10:49:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-03T11:32:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-09-02T11:36:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-30T15:44:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-27T18:27:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-08-24T16:13:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-23T16:50:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-08-20T14:19:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-21T15:40:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-14T11:11:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-09T16:29:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-07-08T10:31:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-05-16T11:44:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-05-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-04-22T11:02:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-03-10T13:31:00.000-07:00

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.

2009-01-11T10:10:00.000-08:00

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.

2008-12-14T11:25:00.000-08:00

CHRISTMAS NOTES

I wrote this sonnet some years ago after reading "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" by the late John Marco Allegro. Check out the book. I call the poem "Earth Christmas."

In Spring much follows the cold winter of retreat:
Yearnings begin and a god rises from his tomb,
Soon again to brush the damp grasses with his summer heat,
And again plant faith where once was doom.
In Autumn a coupled Earth feels the Solstice nearing;
Her rythms pound in sweeping counts, and in time
She prepares for the coming celebration, not fearing
But embracing it, and joins on with the sublime.
A Christmas Eve of snow, in swaying fall,
Foretells the next day's customary bestowing;
A day on which She will share it all;
Tree up, cards sent, pies baked, juices flowing.
Then to death, in retreat again to wait

And cycle on from dawn to the holy date

2008-12-13T11:24:00.000-08:00

CHRISTMAS NOTES

One necessary characteristic of a community is reciprocity. Why should we care? Well, for ones thing, Anarchism can not function as a social and political system outside of a community. And I don't like that. And isn't the notion of community buried somewhere in the Christmas spirit? Let us talk about reciprocity, as discussed in Community, Anarchy, and Liberty by Michael Taylor.

Taking from Sahlins, Taylor lays out the spectrum of reciprocity: On one end is generalized reciprocity, in the middle balanced reciprocity, on the other end negative reciprocity. The range in which we are interested as we look for the necessary characteristics of community lies close to the first. In generalized reciprocity. the obligation to reciprocate is vague and diffuse but things like sharing and help fit in. Think of three neighbors: A, B, and C. A helps B fix his mower; B helps C roof his house; C cares for A's dog when he goes on vacation. There is no explicit tit-for-tat. An altruistic spirit pervades that tiny community. In balanced reciprocity there is direct exchange. That is, A will fix the mower if and only if B will care for his dog.

Now, note that this balanced reciprocity is not a condition of community but is what Christmas has become. I believe we need to move along the spectrum towards the generalized reciprocity if we are ever going to reach community. Doesn't that plan seem more in the Christmas spirit?

2008-11-24T10:41:00.000-08:00

Who is to blame for the economic and financial troubles washing over us? I thought it clear that it was too much Capitalism. But the Capitalists have another story. They say it goes back to the New Deal. That is, the goal of home ownership for all was a mistake: the unions have busted American industry; the poor have gotten too demanding; the Socialists have ruined us. Capitalist thinkers love to have it both ways. When times are booming. we clearly don't need socialism; when times are hard, it's all the fault of socialism.

One further note: In discussing his recent book, The Ascent of Money, a Harvard history professor makes much of the fact that home ownership for other than the aristocracy is a somewhat of a new thing and takes that as a kind of proof it is an unnatural thing. I guess the same could be said about any successful progressive movement, such as the end of slavery in the U.S.A..

2008-11-11T10:55:00.000-08:00

OBAMA'S TO-DO LIST

It seems everyone wants to talk about a to-do list. I say he should first adopt at least the following two of my essential principles of governance: Realize that you almost always need to select the lesser of evils and you should keep one foot in the ore body.

Among the first tier of items should be the resurrection of a war on poverty. I mean the type of war conducted by FDR and LBJ. Turn the factories over to the workers, under quasi-public control if necessary. Go to court to force corporations to comply with their charters as to the public interest.

Another issue to consider very carefully is this: Where do professional economists fit into the current debacle? Any who were getting paid to forecast and missed the mark should be banished from any public work or testimony.

Aside from satisfying certain administrative needs, the legitimate government has only two missions: See that society is just and provide for the common defense.

The capitalist system can not be allowed to kill itself with its greed, as it is now trying to do. It is set up to take too many innocents with it. It needs to be revived to the point where as many as possible are temporarily safe and then sentenced to permanent banishment.

2008-11-05T15:41:00.000-08:00

A GREAT VICTORY! BUT PALIN AND HER FOLLOWERS ARE STILL NOT CONVINCED. I SAY THEY POSE A DANGEROUS THREAT. THEIR NATIONALISM IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM OBAMA'S CALL FOR UNITY. THEY SEE THEMSELVES AS THE CHOSEN PEOPLE SURROUNDED AND SET UPON BY NON-PATRIOTS, BAD AMERICANS, TERRORISTS, SOCIALISTS, AND PEOPLE FROM SAN FRANSISCO. HITLER FELT MUCH THIS WAY IN HIS EARLY CAREER. I HOPE THE TRADITIONAL REPUBLICAN CAN FIGHT HER OFF.

2008-10-28T16:04:00.000-07:00

POST ELECTION ALERT

Given that Obama wins and perhaps the senate goes Democratic, the hate generated by McCain and Palin will need somewhere to go outside of a political campaign. Look for an increase in vigilante activity and rogue police work directed at blacks and war protesters. The bombing of government buildings and blaming it on the left is also not unlikely. Something analogous to the red scare around and after World War I has been generated. I hope I am wrong about this.

While we are at it though, what the hell kind of hero is McCain for tolerating these hateful campaign slurs? Let's drop this respect that is usually shown this phony. Spend the time on real military heroes.

2008-10-24T15:13:00.000-07:00

OBAMA AND THE LEFT

Now that Obama "appears" to have the election wrapped up, the left is coming out of the woodwork to claim he won't be much of a change. In his views, he is not black power enough, not enough of a peacenik, not ready enough to send all capitalists to jail nor to prosecute Bush and Cheney. The left just loves martyrs. Nader is their cup of tea. Oh, for the days of Sacco and Vanzetti, they say!

I only hope that enough of them have the good sense to make it to the polls and vote for Obama. The onrushing evil, given most recent serious impetus by Ronald Reagan, must be stopped. And Obama is our only chance. I believe he will learn much in a short time and could end up a savior. McCain and Palin would be a disaster - remember that!

2008-10-01T16:23:00.000-07:00

The recent vote on the big bailout demonstrates a fundamental weakness in our political structure. The fact is that while the President, the two leading presidential candidates, and the duly elected House leaders of both parties favored the bill, it failed. Representative democracy failed because a vocal uninformed majority cowed enough members of the House to defeat the bill. Though there was some.more to it than this, as can be seen by the ideological breakdown of those voting against.

I will grant it likely that there were a few nay sayers with decent arguments for alternate plans, but the facts remain that polls greatly favored a no vote and those voting no were in the main either Bush-haters or those fearful of socialism. And both groups contain a good share of conspiracy theory followers.

A revolution that has been struggling to take place for a long time could be coming to pass. I mean that revolution which wants to reject all constituted authority, such as the major political parties, unions, elected officials, government officialdom, big business, and the "official word" on anything..George Wallace and Ross Perot each tapped into this sentiment. Don't confuse this with an Anarchist.revolution. The concept of mutual aid is missing from this one. It is a populist revolution of rugged individuals. I think Lou Dobbs is in their somewhere. And I expect a new crop of pied pipers to emerge.

The time is ripe. We have somewhat recent books and movements rejecting all of mainstream economics, accusing our President of being behind the 9/11 attacks, removing all corporate charters; and there is an internet culture where the most outrageous lies and false charges find millions of willing dupes. A new type of underclass has emerged, immune to reason - though specializing in a pseudo reasoning - and easily converted to a mob. This group is not in the position to yet lead but is close being able to obstruct and blackmail and thus destroy the country as we have known it.

2008-09-24T16:20:00.000-07:00

THE MORONS ARE TRYING TO SINK US

I believe the financial crisis is real because anyone who knows a balance sheet from a hood ornament says so. Only pundits and dimwitted congressmen say no. They think it is just another Bush-Cheney lie or in some cases actually believe the free market fairy tale. This thoughtless position could rally the public and hence Congress into a do nothing position - or worse yet, a wait for a McCain solution. If this happens, a gigantic world wide depression is likely, or perhaps the government will be seized and then who knows what.

As to McCain suspending his campaign, does he next want to suspend the election. His instability and lackk of coherent thought is showing more each day. Well, at least Warren Buffett is betting on sanity ruling, so that gives me some hope.

2008-09-08T16:05:00.000-07:00

THE BAD ALIENS HAVE LANDED

Palin fits McCain like a glove. Both are crazies. They each talk and act like puppets maneuvered by the "God" they say they are directed by. These are not humans. Just look and listen. But they are a novelty and make people laugh - which many voters confuse with feeling good about them. Of course, they have that well known power of most aliens to morph into the stereotype of an ordinary person.

What are you to do with such fools if you are Obama?. First, give them no respect. Secondly, show your own true humanity before people forget what such a thing is. Finally, work your ass off. The world is at stake!

2008-07-28T14:37:00.000-07:00

Mayor Verner on the Fence - Again

Jacob H. Reis, in his July 24-30 Inlander article, has neatly laid out the role of Mayor Mary Verner in the recent okay given by the Spokane City Council for big-box stores on the upper south side. The mixing of a stance and a no stance by Verner is very familiar to me. I was involved in a negotiation she set up between several large stores and PJALS over the living wage issue. At that time I was on the PJALS side, though now I do not support their efforts. But that is beside the point. Mary said she supported us privately but could not go public with her support. Were her reasons only political? Or was it an issue of her role as mediator? You know, during the Reign of Terror in France, it could be said the cart drivers who hauled the victims to the guillotine had gotten the parties in the dispute together. I detect a bit of that flavor in the mayor's approach to many problems.

2008-07-13T10:06:00.000-07:00

Eucharist Heist and Hullabaloo

A drama is playing out on the state/church front - again. Here are the players: The University of Central Florida, a public school which somehow allows a Catholic Church - our second player - to hold masses on its campus; Student Senator Webster Cook; Paul Z. Myers, a University of Minnesota associate professor and atheist,;and Bill Donahue, a national leader of Catholic lay people.

The early action: On Sunday June 29 Cook, according to him, instead of consuming the Eucharist was going to take it back to his pew to show to a friend. But after a few steps he was busted. As a female church leader tried to wrestle the wafer from his hand, he broke loose, put it in his mouth and raced out taking the sacred item with him as a hostage. He has since returned the wafer but an ensuing battle rages across the country. Church officials deny any physical confrontation and claim that Cook was disruptive and disrespectful at mass.

Comment: Once a school or a park or whatever "leases out'' a location, the location loses its public character and somehow becomes private property so far as protest is concerned. I believe that is the law and it often happens for political rallies and such. So Cook, if he was protesting in any way, had no right to do so without permission from the Church, which he clearly did not have. But what business did the school have in letting a mass be said there anyhow?

Later action: On July 8 Myers posted a blog where he attacked the church and the school (which is considering disciplinary action against Cook) as ignoramuses. He further volunteers to truly desecrate the Eucharist in public if someone will only mail him one or more. At this point , Donahue enters and demands the University of Minnesota fire Myers who is soliciting letters of support to the university president. Meanwhile, Myers and Cook are both getting death threats.

Comment: I have sent a note of support for Myers to his school president, not wanting any one to lose his job at the instigation of any religion. After all, he should be free to write whatever he likes on this issue. He doesn't respect religion because he considers it superstitious horse pucky. Why not say so? But further, he sees Cook as a victim. On this I'm not so sure. I believe churches, mosques, and so forth have the right to worship in private and undisturbed by atheists such as me or anyone else. It is a right to privacy. Of course, in no way should he be threatened. Fatwas are never to be tolerated from any religion.

2008-06-24T11:34:00.000-07:00

The recent harsh sentencing of anarchist Travis Riehl by a Spokane judge invites any of a number of commentaries. For example: What does breaking windows at military recruitment centers have to do with political protest? Why is it worse to damage government property than private property? Has the sentencing judge ever had an independent thought? What exactly is an anarchist and are they dangerous? But let us just look at the last issue. Of course, in this brief note I can not give a full explanation of anarchism, so I want to simply direct the readers to where they had best go for the details, with an inkling as to what they will find. For the dangerous part see a couple blogs back - in short, anarchists can be dangerous when pushed to the wall with injustice.

As an aside, it is odd that the local paper insists on referring to Travis as a self-styled anarchist. There is no other kind. In fact, Travis wrote a clever and mocking letter to the paper on this point but, clearly, it fell on deaf ears.

Many things about anarchism need to be clarified. But I believe it is probably important to first note that it is not helpful in trying to understand anarchism that members of the press so often confuse this perfectly legitimate social and political theory with chaos and criminality. And they do this is in spite of the fact there are so many worthwhile sources available on the subject.

Please understand that there is no anarchist club or party that one joins to become an anarchist. If one agrees in general with any of a number of past political philosophers who have been considered by themselves and most everyone else to espouse anarchism, then one calls himself or herself an anarchist. The first such writer to call himself an anarchist was Pierre Proudhon (1809-1865) and the title stuck.

Proudhon was a member of that constellation of primary anarchists which also includes the following: William Godwin (1756-1836) , Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876). Godwin is often called the father of philosophical anarchism. The great poet Percy Bysshe Shelley was his son-in-law and he also expressed many anarchistic ideas in his poetry and prose, much of which is required reading in our public schools. Proudhon and Bakunin had long running disagreements and feuds with their contemporary Karl Marx.

I'll mention just one more anarchist personality you might want to read, even though there are hundreds out there. And that is Emma Goldman. In the first two decades of the last century Red Emma's name was the first thing to come to an American's mind when he or she heard the word anarchism. In Warren Beatty's movie Reds you can watch her character debate the Marxist John Reed character over the issues of the day, like the war.

Alan Ritter has done much to legitimize anarchy as a political philosophy in contemporary academic circles. In his 1980 book, Anarchism, - A Theoretical Analysis, he rejects the commonly held idea that liberty is the chief value of an anarchist. He proves this with a careful reading of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin. The alternative chief value he ferrets out is communal individuality.

2008-06-21T10:58:00.000-07:00

A global warming non-believer has a letter in Thursday's Spokesman-Review. Nothing new about that. But the writer makes the huge blunder of pointing to the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's website www.oism.org as a good place to research the issue. This is a quack institute in the Oregon boondocks. Check it out on SourceWatch, or any other fair minded evaluator. I know, the people at SourceWatch are environmentalists but they are also reasonable, which is more than I can say about the folks at OISM. Why does the Spokesman not screen these sources.? The idea must go that any "Institute" with a URL has something valuable to say.

2008-06-11T11:30:00.000-07:00

Spokane Anarchists in the Park

Spokane anarchists will likely be protesting in the park this Fourth. And the police will continue their war against them. So I think it is appropriate to take a look at an earlier time when anarchists were warred against.

For the first scene of this anarchist war we go to Milwaukee on September 9, 1917. America has recently jumped into the ongoing world war in April. It is Sunday and an open air “loyalty rally’ is being held in the Italian section of town. Reverend Augusto Giuliani, pastor of the Italian Evangelical Church, is presiding. It just so happens that the rally is near the clubhouse of the local Francisco Ferrer Circle, a radical group of anarchists who are disciples of Luigi Galleanni, a man considered by his enemies to be a dangerous foreigner. He and his followers oppose the war, the draft, and capitalism. Some people even say that upon hearing Galleanni speak, one feels like going out and shooting the first cop to cross one’s path, though there is no evidence that was ever done. The Reverend finishes his speech and the crowd begins to sing ‘America’ when members of the Ferrer group rush the platform and rip down the American Flag, acting a little like last years protester in Spokane who picnicked on the flag. The police on hand in Milwaukee open fire, killing two anarchists and wounding another in the back. Two detectives are slightly wounded as the anarchists defend themselves. So begins a deadly and unfortunate concatenation of events.

The attack on the American flag by the anarchists had its reasons. For example, anarchists were being targeted as unpatriotic and subject to persecution by both official and unofficial flag wavers. The tone had been set by President Wilson in his Flag Day address of June 14, 1917, three months after America entered the war, when he threatened, “Woe to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way in this day of high resolution.” The National Security League, the American Defense Society, and the American Protective League, among others, were formed as private bands of super patriots, ready and able to dish out punishment to any who they considered anti-war. And in case the hooligans needed guidance, Attorney General Gregory agreed that radical agitators of any kind were obstructing the war effort and offered this, “May God have mercy on them, for they need expect none from an outraged people or an avenging Government.”

The day after his Flag Day speech, Wilson signed the Espionage Act, which among other questionable provisions, set a broad prohibition against what could be sent through the mails. This was especially hurtful to the anarchists who published and read a number of widely distributed newspapers. Then, on May 16, the Sedition act further curtailed America’s liberties by making it a serious crime to, for example, utter, print, write, or publish any “ disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” against the government, constitution, or flag. There’s that flag again. Other victims of this persecution were such as a sitting congressman Victor Berger and Eugene Debs. In 1912 Debs had gotten 900,000 votes in his quest for the office of President of the United States. Yet, in the fall of 1918 he was sentenced to ten years in jail for an anti-war speech. Though the above occurred after the Milwaukee events, the war hysteria was up to full steam by that time, and these later examples are an accurate reflection of the persecution the anarchists were under prior to Milwaukee.

But the anarchists had plenty to be mad about long before the war issues surfaced. I pause here to touch on just one of those provoking events before I take further inventory of the parallels to the present.

On April 20, 1914, the Ludlow Massacre took place during a coal mining strike in Colorado. The state militia shot and killed five miners and a boy. They then poured oil on the tents, set them on fire, and smothered to death eleven children and two women. As if this was not enough, after the strike, three prisoners, including a leader of the strike, were savagely beaten, then murdered. John D. Rockefeller Jr. was the principal owner of the Ludlow mines and fully supported the bloody activities of the soldiers. Provoked anarchists, heavily involved for years in the issues of labor justice, took immediate action. Anarchists in New York City, including Alexander Berkman, hatched a plot to blow up Rockefeller’s home near Tarrytown, New York in retaliation for Ludlow. The plan went awry when the bomb intended for Rockefeller blew up in a tenement on Lexington Avenue, killing three anarchists. That same day, anarchists were roughed up and arrested by the police throughout New York City. In other words more tit for tat.

The flag theme, of course, is one tie of the present to the Milwaukee incident. but I believe it is an important one, a sort of "indicator" issue. So let’s stay there. A few of those on the left have suggested recently that they themselves expropriate the flag as a symbol to ballyhoo a progressive brand of Americanism. This may seem appealing but let’s face it, the American flag has war written all over it. And Bush has summed up the dominant sentiment behind it with his “if you are not with us you are against us” rants. I believe this sentiment prevails for most of those who give any thought at all to a meaning behind the flag, but there are also a huge number who never actually articulate any idea behind their flag waving; it is all irrational emotion. And there is the additional point that businesses are practically compelled to fly the flag if they want to avoid a boycott or worse. The anarchists in the early part of the twentieth century loved America, just as nearly all protesters today do, but the power structure would not listen to them and refused to recognize that brand of patriotism. This was exemplified dramatically in 1921 during the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti ( itself an indirect result of the Milwaukee affair) when the bully prosecutor unfairly ridiculed and badgered Nicola Sacco as the defendant tried in broken English to express what it was he loved about America. No, jingoism is here to stay.

Anyway, the anarchists in Spokane are following in a proud tradition of protest. Let us hope that the police and vigilantes don't repeat history with a retaliatory response that escalates for years and gets people really hurt.

2008-06-03T10:52:00.000-07:00

RECALL MAYOR VERNER?

Spokane's police department is running Mayor Verner rather than the other way around. And that is not good, because when the mayor is being bullied it is the citizens who are being bullied. What can be done about it? Do we want to to wait for the next election and try to make it an issue. That won't work because by the time a scheduled election gets here she will be able to hide behind other issues and voters may say she is doing a good job "overall." And of course, we didn't do that with Mayor West. Recall is sort of a drastic and awkward oversight by the voting public on an issue by issue basis. And a representative police oversight committee, independent of the mayor and council, is what is really needed. But for now recall is all we have. I say police oversight is a much more important issue than misuse of city computers. We should insist on a mayor who will push for effective and independent police oversight. Public safety consistent with our American principles is our greatest public need.

Let us see what the Fourth of July in the Park bring us. I don't believe it will be pretty. But if everything does runs smoothly and peacefully I will give the mayor and police credit, though I still say recall should be considered

2008-05-22T10:53:00.000-07:00

EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE - AGAIN

Last time I left out the math in a sketch of a proof for the fact that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. See that blog. Here is the math and remember, evidence and proof are two different concepts.

Defintions: A is evidence of B if and only if (iff) Prob(B/A) > Prob(B/not A).
Denote absence of evidence by a = not A and absence by b = not B.

Prob(B/A) > Prob(B/not A) iff 1 - Prob( not B/A) > 1- Prob(not B/not A) iff

Prob(not B/A) <>Prob(not B/ not not A)

iff Prob(b/a) > Prob (b/ not a). QED

2008-05-20T11:07:00.000-07:00

JULY 4 SPOKANE ARRESTS

On the police tape of the anarchist uprising in the park we hear policemen wishing they could punch out the protesters. At least, that is one impression a person could get. Why doesn't the city aggressively pursue this little detail ? If after a public investigation the police are cleared, good. But if they are truly expressing public contempt for the protesters and a wish to do them harm outside the law, fire them. We do not want a city police force of this type.

I do not think it tolerable to trust the a Chief of Police to see that the force be limited to men and women who understand the rights we are all entitled to. And Mayor Verner is not much help with her remark that she believes the police acted properly on that infamous day. I choose to believe she knows better and is speaking in a political survival mode. I could be wrong and it could be worse.

An ombudsman is not the answer. An elected or randomly selected independent committee of citizens is required to run the police department. Instead of a chief there would be an executive director of the committee.

2008-05-18T11:17:00.000-07:00

It seems that whenever I complain about an Islamic driven ideology that supports the killing of any person who offends the ideology with such things as disrespectful cartoons, movies, books, or just plain dissent, I get the same response. First, any concrete example is met with the claim that this is not true Islam, no matter what the perpetrators claim. Secondly, I am reminded by my betters of some example from the myriad of historical examples where one religion or another has called for a massacre of innocents.

I don't really care what is true Islam and what is not when a Muslim says that Allah commands that he kill me, for whatever reason. And please, what do past religious slaughters have to do with me. If there are religious cults other than Islam currently issuing death threats, I say deal with them. But I haven't read of any.

I know there are millions of Muslims who do not support the radicals. But it is their duty to more forcefully speak out against them. Please!

2008-05-10T10:50:00.000-07:00

RPS BOSSES CUT CANDY HUT

It will be a sad day June 1 when the long time kiosk tenant Candy Hut departs Spokane' s River Park Square. I have been getting my weekly sweet and sour sucker ration there for quite some time. Also, I always look forward to my short chats with the friendly and efficient candy girl Sandi, who will now be out of a job. I don't know all the politics but it seems the Hut is just too middle class for management and RPS wants to better serve their upper class clientele by going with a more tony tenant. I suppose that the millionaires in the condos across the road would rather not mingle with any more of the hoi polloi than absolutely necessary

2008-04-29T15:43:00.000-07:00

It's about time for some random thoughts on those contenders for this country's top job: Obama, McCain, and the Clintons. The Clintons? Yes, no one should doubt we are looking at the possibility of a co-presidency at least as entangled as Bush/Cheney, even if in a different way.

First, note all are senators, a fact that serves to save each since senators don't usually win. So that's sort of a plus and a minus. Another plus and minus factor is Obama's inexperience. A new face picks up points in tough times. But his enemies are on to something if they can paint him as a naive child in the manner of Stevenson and McGovern

It gives a little insight to remember Hillary worked on two of the most unsuccessful campaigns in history, that of Goldwater and of McGovern. I believe that that and the fact that Bill and her were under such vicious personal attacks from the right while in office have been enough to turn her into such a frantic figure. She reeks of panic and behaves like a cornered junk yard dog.

I still believe what I said over a year ago. McCain is the most dangerous man in America. I say this because many citizens see him as the embodiment of the American Ideal: war hero, straight shooter, reliable pal. jovial maverick, strict with the wrong doer. All of this is a self constructed pile of bull and has been proven as such in a recent book, but who reads. I see McCain potentially to be as dangerous as Hitler was, even though they are very different from each other. But Germany of the twenties and thirties was also quite different from the present America. I'm afraid McCain fits America in the same dangerous way Hitler fit Germany.

I find Obama fascinating. I knew nothing about him before this campaign. He is unique in the way he calls for radical change yet has hopes of developing a coalition. His overall rationality and his equanimity in the face of the gutter tactics hurled his way are two attractive traits.

It bothers me that all three profess to believe in God. And though I don't believe that Hillary or Bill really do, that still is not enough for them to win me over. It scares the hell out of me to know that McCain's admiral dad prayed on his knees every night and morning for at least one hour. What's that about the acorn not falling far from the tree?

I've had a lot of personal experience with dementia and I can tell you it doesn't happen overnight. McCain shows tendencies. And what about this: Say, McCain begins to show obvious signs of further derangement during the campaign. Would Bush persuade Congress to postpone the election until the Republicans could drum up a mentally fit candidate? It may start as a short delay and then drift into what we see Mobuto pulling off. I know, it sounds farfetched to me too. But Gore Vidal is going around talking about some such scenario. He sees a motive in the fear Cheney and gang have that they may end up in the hoosegow if the Republicans don't win.

2008-04-16T08:46:00.000-07:00

CARPETBAGGER ALERT!

Pennsylvania carpetbaggers have landed in Spokane. They actually landed a few years ago, to begin their work of rounding up acolytes, but now they are about to go public in a major way. The mother ship is called the The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (celdf.org) and is based in Pennsylvania.

These folks consider the federal constitution to be archaic and want to do something about it. Spokane has been singled out as their next big step after several successes in smaller ponds. They want to eventually court test the notion that "home rule" city charters rule over federal and state laws. And for reasons only their inner circle knows Spokane has been chosen as a likely guinea pig. .

It is ironic that lawyers are behind this movement. Usually a Tim Eyman type suffices. And by the way, much of what is wrong about Eyman's onslaught lurks here. It appears that celdf has lost some environmental cases and concluded that the "law" was just not on their side, nor were lawmakers. What to do? Hey, dynamite the law and rewrite the Constitution to give rights to nature, among other things.

The ongoing strategy is not shabby. First, indoctrination camps - called Democracy Schools - are held. From these camps there comes the "demand" from the students to do something about evil corporations and their supporting laws. Surprise, surprise! At the present time a Spokane Board has been formed to come up with a list of amendments, or maybe a proposal for a whole new charter. The cheerleaders on the Board and many of those on the sidelines are quite enthused about buying this pig in a poke. Or if it's not a pig in a poke, are they not simply puppets fronting for a preconceived set of amendments?

By the way, who is on this Board? Not independent citizens but representatives from organizations such as churches (churches?), labor unions, neighborhood councils, the ACLU , PJALS, and so forth. Not a very democratic list. Of course, a carrot is being held out to these groups in the form of the idea that here's your chance to get all grievances taken care in one revolutionary swoop, without the messy technique of each having to lobby, campaign, or sue. Whoever controls the charter controls the city.

Much of the celdf strategy is meant to give a grass roots appearance to the process. But face it, the agenda has been set. Stay tuned. This is only an alert. There is much more to come.

2008-03-18T15:40:00.000-07:00

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE
IS
EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE

Let's start with what we mean by evidence. Evidence is that event of discovery which increases one's degree of belief in a second event. Now, note that this increase can vary from one hard to perceive to a maximum and that the original and resulting degrees of belief can be expressed as probabilities. Example: We take the probability of a Sasquatch as zero until a friend who we trust tell us he has seen one. We now think there is a small chance they do exist. We have uncovered evidence in this friend's testimony.

Now, consider absence of evidence as the negation or complement of that evidence; and consider absence as the negative of what we have evidence for. From these definitions and a little reasoning, remembering a negative of a negative is a positive, we are led to the conclusion of the title. For the mathematically inclined, the use of elementary probablility and algebra makes the reasoning easier. Check out http:oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html.

Let me throw out here another example of nonsensical use of the language. A "mirror image" is not the same as a copy. Just look in the mirror; your right hand is the mirror image's left hand. There are real needs to deal with mirror images of one kind of another, so let's get it right. And remember, there is no proof in the pudding; the proof of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding.

2008-01-30T13:49:00.000-08:00

VOTE THE LESSER

Ralph Nader got a lot of mileage out of his "evil of the two lessers" quip in the 2000 run for President. This was, of course, because of the tired old complaint that we are always being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, as though that was a bad thing.

But wait a minute. That is precisely the proper stance to take when choosing between two candidates or among many candidates. That is, if we insist on using a voting system at all. It's like this, one should first ascertain they are all evil. This won't be too hard, you'll find. And by evil here is clearly meant unworthy, unqualified, or in some way unfit to hold the office. This initial effort might place a considerable burden on the voter in that one must learn all there is to know about the duties and the potential of the office and also read or listen to a all the candidate has had to say on any matter pertaining to these duties and potentials. And a good study of history wouldn't hurt either If the voter is diligent in these studies I am sure he will find all candidates unfit and he can begin the hard work of judging the least fit, the next least fit and so on. Unfortunately, I believe I am only talking about an ideal here, as the voters and pundits I observe seldom work this hard at selecting their politicians. But we all can learn.

Looking at it a different way, it is essential we do not vote for the most dangerous candidate, and so must above all ferret out the degree of danger each candidate represents. Moving up through the list we naturally arrive at the least dangerous. And then he or she is the least evil and our rational choice.

2008-01-28T11:29:00.000-08:00

CAN WE SKIP THE PRAYER?

Prayer is a tool for brainwashing that is second to none. No one is expected by the
faithful to pray only once. Whenever we want something we are expected to pray for it. Whenever we like what happens we are expected to give a prayer of thanks. No, we are not supposed to ask why things happen. We are to accept the nonsense that someone named God is responsible for all good things. And if I repeat enough prayers, as I did in my naive youth, I'm apt to believe there is such a thing as God - a sort of self hypnosis. But I say count me out..

2008-01-16T09:54:00.000-08:00

City of Spokane Reorganization

Spokane's political structure has recently been changed after what was perceived by many as a disastrous crash of the the city manager form. It was said that the new strong mayor system would be more more accountable.But believe me, in a few years a similar crisis will develop, and a cry will go out for another system. There are only three or four forms of city government now in use throughout the country and two of these will have already been used by Spokane. So it can not hurt to have another option
.
I propose a radical reorganization. The new system would eliminate the growing influence of monied interests, empower more citizens, and be more efficient. And if the basic philosophy of this new system should take hold and expand, the city government as we have thought of it could disappear. A good thing. What follows is an outline. The actual transition would take place in stages and after much public negotiation among the citizens

This proposal would put into practice some ideas developed by the Australian philosopher John Burnheim in his book Is Democracy Possible? The first of his two key ideas is to set the basic units of governance into functional units rather than geographical units. The second is to select those who set the policy of these basic units by lot from a population who have an actual interest or stake in the function rather than simply being interested. The upshot of this would be governance by negotiation among representatives of a class of stake holders rather than governance by an unstable collection of power seekers. Burnheim calls this system demarchy.

Spokan' is usually thought of as being run by a council and a mayor. The council serves as a legislative and quasi-judicial body and the mayor heads up an executive branch as he oversees the police, public works, and so forth. Anyway, this is the view which gets our attention because the mayor and council members are the only elected "city" officials.. Though, remember that district 81 school board members are elected. This education system is independent of what we think of as the city government but education is certainly a local public good as important as our streets, parks and public safety. So right away we have an example of Burnheim's functional unit, though still suffering somewhat from electoral politics and without as much autonomy as possible, being beholden in several areas to Olympia and even the federal government... But do you see? We have no need for a mayor or council to meddle with the school district .

And furthermore, there are many other people, though all unelected, making decisions on our public life, under varying degrees of review by the elected officials. First, we have a partially independent park board with a budget as a fixed percentage of the overall budget; and periodically, calls are made to change this board from an appointed body to an elected body. Then we have the planning commission and library board. In fact, there are over twenty city boards and commissions. Members of these sometimes shadowy bodies are appointed by the mayor and council from a pool of volunteers

Now, why do we have these boards and commissions? It is because the elected officials do not have the expertise or time to make all the required decisions on their own. No one council member or the mayor can have at the ready the same knowledge of facts and conditions as a planning commission member and a park board member and a human rights commission member and a police commission member and a library board member and on and on. Such true generalists are just too few and far between, and precious few if any of those that do exist are being elected. Perhaps we can do away with the need for such pretenders.

Where shall we start? Let's try the police department and consider a public safety board to oversee the running of the police department -- no Mayor or city Council. I believe the ideal here would be to parallel the public education sector, A law or constitutional amendment would be passed in Olympia placing an obligation on the state to provide public safety for city residents. Of course, like with the education system, the money provided would be far short of what is needed and the board would need to ask the public to vote on regular and special levies. But short of that ideal, let us say we simply cut the police department out from under the mayor and council and place it under the governance of a police board. On the board there could be a judge, a defense attorney, a local activist with a history of being affected by crime, three citizens from a area of high crime, and two citizens from an area of moderate crime. This board would be the sole local policy making body as to the city's police department. They would be selected by lot from a list of volunteers in such a way as to be a representative cross section of those with the most material interest in the operation of the police.

2008-01-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

DOWN WITH THE PEOPLE

The will of the people is often claimed as a political consideration. The meaning of this will of the people expression requires a closer look to see of it makes sense on its face. And the same can be said about a government by the people or for the people. I don't believe these notions exist in the sense we are expected to believe they do; it is not reasonable to imagine any group having a will, a wish or a desire, excepting quite rare circumstances. In what follows I hope to give am understanding as to how attributions of such notions to the "people" are misleading..

It has become a widespread practice to use nonsensical statements such as butchered aphorisms and incorrect words to express underlying ideas only partly or incorrectly understood by the writer or (more usually) the speaker. A common example of this is when one needs to say "Time will tell," and they actually say "The proof is in the pudding." This latter piece of nonsense is clearly a misstatement of the old remark " The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sometimes a feeble defense is made that we are simply dealing here with a contraction of the correct statement. I don't think so. Anyway, the ubiquitous use of "people" in political discourse could be said to fall into this general category of misuse. But the consequences of such sloppy thinking in the arena of politics are much more serious than in our everyday life.

Let us start with two clear thinking and independent citizens picked at random in my city or yours and consider this small collection as the people. Now, as these two look out upon the vast range of those possible changes to their life and its enjoyment which lie within the power of the state to effect, just what are their shared wills? Note that as they each become more particular, at some point it is almost certain they will not share wills; but if their will is general enough, they are quite likely to share it. Though I dislike slowing matters down here with too many obvious examples, let's consider this. In the former instance above, each could wish a different type of park in their shared neighborhood. In the latter instance, each could wish for a park. Beginning to see the picture?

We do have the experience of things like mass hysteria, mass hypnotism, and phenomena bordering on these. Think of crowds at sporting events and prayer meetings. But we can come back to these at the end and see how they fit in.

Now, even in the provision of a quite general public good, our two citizens may go their separate ways as the options for details of its delivery are brought to light, But perhaps they won't. So let us say that here with just two persons we could have an unlikely example of a people sharing a will. But now let us begin to add citizens at random to our band. Look at a group of three, four, and on and on. Is the likelihood of a common will getting greater? Clearly not. Experience tells us that as the numbers grow, differences spring up. As we reach a decent sized citizenry the only chance we seem to be left with is for some such thing as a common will to live - and we know that even that is not universal. You name it: liberty, wealth, health, or whatever. Not everyone of a decent sized population wills it, so there is no will of the people in the sense of unanimity Hence, such sentiments are a very poor foundation upon which to lay a theory of governance. Of course, an immediate objection is to assert that it is not unanimity but overwhelming majority that is being referred to. But what is overwhelming? Exactly. An issue which can not be resolved with any certainty.

Some say democracy as majority rule is a bully boy system. And by talking a lot about we the people and government by the people and for the people the bullies can pull the wool over our eyes. Those rule who have the money, the power, the chicanery, or whatever it takes at the time. Do they make the dissenters suffer as much as they could? Not usually. But only because they don't welcome a fight to the death. They might lose. Anyway, that is one view.

Another more temperate view is that it is a harmless game where we all agree with the rule that a majority of some sort rules. We make our play, and if we come up short in the voting, we pull ourselves together until the next election and act as good citizens because "the people" have spoken. This is justified as a tit for tat system. The outs suffer along for a time and then they become the ins. This system more or less defines the political process as being run by two less than zealous groups, swinging back and forth over a number of years between basically moderate candidates.

In neither of the above two views can it be said the people are represented because, as was shown above our experience tells us there no such thing as a single will of the people. But there is a further sense in which the notion of people does mischief.

In practice the people are always the British, the Cubans, the American people. There are boundaries. But many problems are global and so a government by the people and for the people can be conceived coherently only as government by all existing human beings in the long term interests of the human race and the world that it dominates. A clearly out of reach goal.

So, as sad as it might make us, we must find a way to leave this mode of thought, a mode which tempts us to set our reason aside and give credence to those in politics who speak of such things as the people. Let us leave such expressions to those who characterize mobs and others in mass frenzies.

endnote: A closely related problem is the loose way in which people of cities and nations are said to have one character or another.

2007-11-13T15:36:00.000-08:00

NOT THE SEASON FOR ATHEISTS?

Here is a column I submitted to the Faith and Values page of the Spokesman. It was in response to the October guest column of a retired theology professor. I got the cold shoulder, even though I had been encouraged earlier to submit something from the atheist perspective. Is this the wrong season for diverse views?

In last month's column, Professor Howard Redmond reported that he and his Christian brethren are apt to leave out the subject of human suffering or, "natural evil," as they sit over coffee and donuts to explore the basic tenets of their theology. It is interesting to read such a confession. Though I do not believe that human suffering can be confined to disappointment and aimlessness, as he seems to say. And also, I would rather see Redmond and others state flat out their tacit assumption that God exists before they go on to discuss evil and so forth. It would show a more proper humility in the face of such a momentous question. As while it might seem redundant to some, readers like me are offended by the implication that we need to share this belief in order to be brought into the discussion But that won't stop me. To my mind, God is a fiction , the implications of which I find frightening and disturbing.

According to Redmond, "If we disobey or ignore him (our heavenly father), there are consequences we bring upon ourselves. But he always wishes our good." Consequences? Does he mean punishments? I could take it that way. Or if he is including good consequences, what is the point?. I'll bet that at the least he does not have in mind as a consequence anything which I might put on my list to Santa. So here I am, both ignoring and disobeying an omnipotent and omniscient tyrant - real, in the eyes of many. Shouldn't I be shaking in my boots, in case the faithful feel God needs help in meting out proper consequences?

The entire argument, used by Reynolds, that " In all things God works for good" is total malarkey on its face. It says that God allows evil so that some good will come in the future - hooray for God's providence. But without these evils permitted by God there would surely be much more good. Isn't that obvious? The unreasonable desire for faith in such a chimera as God blinds one to what should be crystal clear.

Evil is here to stay though it certainly should not be welcome. And in fact, belief in God has contributed more than its share to the total supply. But since there is no credible evidence supporting the argument for the existence of either a good God, an evil God, or any kind of God in between, it does not seem likely that he has anything to do with it, and hence there should be no real problem of God permitting evil. So why are these theologians giving themselves such a headache over the matter? Oh, that's right, they're theologians Astrologers get tangled up in the same way.

One issue that does give me pause is the huge number of humans that profess to believe in a God and his prophets. And when I see included in this number people I love or respect, the mystery for me deepens. That's when I like to recall the words of the great French mathematician LaPlace: "The mind has its illusions as the sense of sight; and in the same manner that sense of feeling corrects the latter, reflection and calculation correct the former." And it seems when an emotional payoff is added to the mental illusion it is extra hard to right the ship. But I have hope that in time more of the world will dig down and begin the required reflection and calculation

Finally, the authoritarian overtones contained in the references by Reynolds to a heavenly father and his children are disturbing. He asserts correctly that love can not be commanded - even by his God. But what about commanding belief in the absence of evidence? Should not our reason be free from commandments just as our love is? After all, if something appears false the best and most natural thing we can do is to acknowledge the fact, while of course leaving ourselves open to rational rebuttal or contrary evidence .

2007-11-07T10:44:00.000-08:00

How has mankind lasted this long? We have proven ignorant enough to believe the most outlandish propositions; such as, the sun revolves around the earth, sex has nothing to do with birth, the meek shall inherit the earth, gods exist, and chiropractors can improve our overall health. And all this as so-called rational beings. But this is not the worst of it. We are consensually dictated to by unqualified strong men, many drugged, drunk, or half crazy. Not only are we ruled by such people. We have those just like them tending to our medical, dental, legal, engineering, and accounting needs. For spiritual needs, we turn to sexual deviates. Isn't this all enough to inspire a mass suicide. Apparently not, since we are still here and these curses seem to be in a roughly steady state.

There is one flaw though that is not in a steady st ate and combined with the above propensity for stupidity should shortly prove fatal. That flaw is our need to fight, evolving into a need for bigger and bigger wars. And the bitter thing is that there will be no one on this planet left to say, they did it to themselves.

2007-09-29T08:33:00.000-07:00

CELL PHONE KILLS MUSING

See that girl coming out of the movie with a cell phone on her ear? What do you suppose she might be doing if she had no cell phone? Possible she and people like her would be musing; thai is, pondering or in deep thought. And that would be good. But one does not ponder well while talking on a cell phone. Hence, the world is being denied billions of hours of musings by the ubiquitous cell phone. That is not good. Einstein is said to have been a prolific muser. And many examples of genius such as songs and plays have been written in one's head while musing. Lyrics to Midnight Sun were written that way on a drive in a California desert. If Shakespeare had had a cell phone we may not have heard of Hamlet.

Of course, you might say these people dashing around or lolling in public while talking on their cell phones are brainstorming, a very popular way of "creating" in this day and age. But I have heard many of these "conversation" from one end and that does not seem to be the rule.

It is hard to see how to stop this plague, this ongoing idea dearth, but we may at least be able to plan for coping with the dire results. That is, if we can find time off from our cell phones to muse on it.

2007-08-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

SACCO & VANZETTI COMMEMORATION

Remember that 80 years ago today Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two immigrant anarchists who loved the America of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, were unjustly executed by the state of Massachusetts. I am nearly certain they were both innocent. But the ideals and opinions of those who say that they were do not fall upon the guilt of the two anarchists, though those ideals and opinions do soar upon the fact of their innocence. It is in this circumstance that one can see the rot of which we must rid this country.

The judge, the jury, the prosecutor, and much of the public wanted to see these two draft-dodging, Italian immigrant, atheistic anarchists slain - evidence and justice be damned. And this is what they got, in the hope that the execution would send a warning to all such men and women, and so save the country for the "good" people. Well, two years later the capitalist economy came crashing down, and not much later we were plunged into a horrific war, neither the doings of anarchists or immigrants, but of the capitalists themselves.

2007-08-11T16:00:00.000-07:00

IRONY OF OUR AGE - PART I

The most brilliant men and women who were ever born are now with us. They comprehend the most complex material facts of the universe. Their individual brains are full to capacity and so they must work in teams, further multiplying their brilliance. Yet, we have a much larger horde of the dumbest bastards who were ever born and raised running rampant and threatening our existence. What a tragedy!

It is not simply pathetic education, though there's plenty of that. The American southern black was educated in sub par schools for years, yet he was smart enough to know it and to do something about it. The modern moron does not want to know the truth. He is too busy with booze, drugs, sex, religion, mindless travel, kissing his boss's butt, gaming, gambling, and making money - all things which take no serious thinking.

This trend was underway, as I see it, soon after the traumatic last world war, which was also not far from the end of a terrible economic depression. Brains were affected. We can see evidence for this in the political victories of DDE, first over Robert Taft and then over Adlai Stevenson. I'm not even saying here that Eisenhower was a bad President, but he was much dumber than his opponents. And many, many American voters admired that.

How is being deliberately dumb harmful? I'll let you know in part II.

2007-07-23T11:16:00.000-07:00

I see that the current slant on the Spokane anarchists in the park dust up is that the police were protecting protesters from flag loving citizens. Weren't those thugs who threatened the protesters breaking the law?. What does our Chief of Police say about that? Why did the police not arrest the vigilantes, or at least take their pictures ? And it is disturbing that there have been so many letters to the Spokesman supporting such vigilante actions.

Two of the most shameful events in the history of this state were massacres of protesters carried out by vigilantes with tacit support of the police, one in Everett in 1916 and one in Centralia in 1919. Those particular incidents were a long time ago, but recall the citizen violence carried out during the more recent civil rights movement. . Let us not return to those days of lynch mobs and the abandonment of legal protection for those we don't like.

Please, Mayor Hession, get your police force under control and adopt a policy that requires everyone on the force to understand and support the principles of people like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, two men without whom there would be no Independence Day

2007-06-09T10:40:00.000-07:00

ATHEISM AT LAST?

Can it be true? Are we finally to embark along a path leading to the time when a significant majority of the world outgrows religion? Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens are three bright and articulate writers who hope so and are doing their part to help. And they are not alone. Check out the upcoming (September) atheist conference in Washington D.C..

God Is Not Great, by Hitchens, is the latest of these books to get to the public. Harris wrote A Letter to a Christian Nation and Dawkins gave us The God Delusion. These are said by most reviewers to be a delight to read, proving that arguments from evidence do not have to be dry. It is amazing to me that three such books have arrived on the best selling scene over such a short time..

Let's skip the excellent credentials of the three writers. You can look them up. But each work establishes its own validity; a different kettle of fish, you’ll notice, from so much writing of the religious, which must resort to the authority of a god or prophet. Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins rely on neither prophets nor gods, nor do they claim to be such. They simply have well-trained and keen minds, capable of finding truth where it exists. And they certainly convince me that there is no such thing as God.

But can they and their followers convince enough people so we finally have a world where there is no God? History does not hold out promise. Various regimes have tried over many years to stamp out religion and so far have failed. There is no doubt there is a mysterious universality of religious feeling, or at least a susceptibility to it's blandishments. But of course, that is no proof of a religion's validity. There are a number of theories as to the source of these puzzling "irrational" feelings and as to why they are defended with such passion.

The Stanford mathematician Keith Devlin offers, in a different context, one interesting speculation as to the source of this passion. Devlin is a regular contributor to NPR and on one of his shows he discussed a certain probability problem with a counter-intuitive correct answer . It is called the Monty Hall problem (see wickepedia) Many listeners were so sure their incorrect answer was correct they become quite angry with Devlin for demonstrating otherwise. He pondered this response, since it was so contrary to that of his students when he corrected their papers. Here's what he came up with.

Devlin posits that we have two reasoning processes. One he calls our everyday reasoning, and it has been "a highly successful survival strategy throughout evolutionary history, and today, is to base decisions on the immediate past and on the evidence immediately at hand." And though it rarely serves us well in this day and age, we are stuck with it. The other reasoning is that which we need for numerical calculations and to rigorously examine evidence, rather than to make unreliable snap judgments which would have been in the interest of our physical survival some thousands of years ago. But the first type of reasoning, Devlin asserts, while not often arriving at truth is a tremendous source of pride to us and its abandonment instinctively seen as a threat. So in a sense it seems a matter of life and death that we are right when relying on it. He feels that the Monty Hall problem is phrased so that this reliance on it is triggered. Is the same thing going on with religious beliefs?

A slew of other theories as to why religious feelings are so universal is presented by Paul Gabels in his recent book on the persistence of religion in Russia. Again they are mostly based on natural selection. But the bottom line is this: I am not going to believe something for which there is no evidence and is contrary to reason. Others are going to defend such beliefs, based on feelings and natural impulses. And if we don't kill one another, or others, over the dispute, what's the problem? But if we do, something must be done.

2007-05-14T14:50:00.000-07:00

Concise General Statement and Solution of Monty Hall Problem

Two required math facts: For any integer n > 2, (n-1)/n > 1/n; The probability (Pr) of either event A or event B is the sum of Pr(A) and Pr(B) and equals 1, provided that Pr (A and B) = 0 and the two events exhaust the universe of events under consideration

Let there be n > 2 rooms, one which contains a car, all others being empty. If using a prescribed method of selection you pick the room with the car, you win the car. Here is the method: You pick one of the n rooms at random; i.e. with probability 1/n. Then (n-2) empty rooms are removed from the drawing and you are left with the option of selecting one of the two remaining rooms. Now, if you want to have the best chance of winning the car, do you keep your first selection or switch? That is the problem.

Solution: Since the car is certainly in one and only one of the rooms, the two probabilities are 1/n and 1-1/n = (n-1) /n. So our math facts say to switch and also that you increase your chances (n-1) times by doing so. The original Monty Hall problem was for n=3 and had several mentions of goats and doors.

2007-03-18T13:19:00.000-07:00

The two current writers to whom everyone should be paying the most attention are Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Superstition has hampered human progress for thousands of years but it is only now that it directly threatens the survival of the human race. Yes, I mean it! And Harris and Dawkins are two of of a too small band of rationalists who have the nerve to speak to the problem without apology and with readily accessible works.

A scary side note to the above is a study in the current issue of Sceptic. Researchers suggest that superstition may be inherent and heritable. So we may be doomed by this path in any case. Right now I don't want to accept that.

2007-02-27T10:41:00.000-08:00

INMATES TAKING OVER THE ASYLUM

I know it's a cliche, but our public discourse as reported in the columns and letters of the Spokesman-Review is truly a case of insanity in charge, with a fair share of mendacity thrown in to boot.

In the 2/27/07 letter section we have a letter writer attempting to make his case against man made global warning on the back of a petition circulated by the totally discredited Frederick Seitz to a list of "scientists." Before he reached his dementia, Seitz was the man who (mis) directed a major tobacco company's research into the harmful effects of tobacco.

A couple weeks ago the syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell tried to say Toyota was outbattling GM because they were non-union, completely ignoring the fact Toyota pegs their wages to the union wages at GM, only differing by pennies. This is the sort of phoniness in which Sowell regularly engages. Any fact that contradicts his biases is ignored, twisted, draped with obsfucation, or otherwise violated.

2007-02-15T10:08:00.000-08:00

I want to start a list of a certain type of word. These will be words that are too little understood by many of those who use them. The thought behind them is quite fuzzy but the words reek of importance or erudition. The first word I put on the list is democracy. The second and last for today is parameter. Each of these words is in a different category of fuzziness. For democracy it would take a long essay to explain but take it from me it fits our definition. For parameter it is when the word is used informally that it fits. I'm still trying to come with a word or phrase to describe these words - and there are a lot of such words.

2007-02-10T10:19:00.000-08:00

As the media attacks on Mayor Hession and his clandestine ways pick up, and the election campaing gets into full swing, it becomes even more clear that Spokane's strong mayor system is a bust. The architects of the change from the prior system were mostly looking to create a job for themselves. Al French worked mightily on the change and he is now running against Hession. And there may be more from the group of "founders" who will toss the old dunce hat into the ring. Power and the spotlight are quite magnetic.

Finally!!! A public official is speaking out against this tax increment financing dodge. Spokane County Treasurer Skip Chilberg is threatening a lawsuit if that form of theft of public property is used to help finance the Kendall Yards thing. This racket is just like the 10 year tax property tax abatement in that most developers lie and say it is essential to their project. How can you prove them wrong? And who even tries ? The developer and the decision maker are usually buddies, linked through campaign contributions, future jobs, business connections, and such. It's a network. And by the way, why aren't all the Spokane city council members who are professionals be required to make public a current list of those past and present clients and business associates who benefit in any way from city decisions?

2007-01-10T10:39:00.000-08:00

ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS AGAINST MANDATORY WAGE LEGISLATION

Laws which mandate wage level, - such as the one which may be passed this fall by the voters in Spokane - are ubiquitous in the United States. Only four states, all in the South, have no state minimum wage. And we have a federal minimum wage. Through an abuse of language and the facts of life, some expansion of these laws to special companies and conditions have come to be known as living wages. But in no case have the levels finally mandated risen to the level of a true living wage as measured by any scientific study.

Now, since these legislated pay levels are all but national policy, it is a little odd that as they are adjusted they should meet any substantial opposition in principle. But they do. And who are these radicals who want to overthrow the current regime? They can be divided into two overlapping groups: some of those who must pay the mandated wage increases and those who make an ideological case against the law. Let's consider the second group.

First, I dismiss the free marketeers by saying there never has been and never will be a free market that need concern us. Such phantoms exist only in the minds of ivory tower inhabitants and their unthinking followers.

Then there are those who say the law is bad for the low-paid working class at large in that there will be a lot fewer jobs. This proposition has been disproved by several studies and economic models. Along these same lines the opponents warn against employers deserting a region with these "high" wages and so inflicting a blow to the local tax base. I say it is along the same lines in that in both cases the advocates express a fake concern for the welfare of those other than themselves. This second attempt to stir up fear also fails to hold water when real world examples are studied, such as those of San Franciso and Santa Fe.

Now let me move on to those who say there is nothing wrong with a minimum wage as long as it is low enough. These folks like to call it an entry level wage, not a real wage but a token or sort of charity paid by the employer while the worker gathers the skills needed to move out of his or her slot, said slot described as a sort of holding pen for the unskilled. They make it sound like the jobs are simply make-work jobs and not essential to the business enterprise. This latter is a very dubious claim. I've heard all of the above with my own ears more than once from big companies , industry reps, and a chamber of commerce spokesman. While I started this paragraph giving the benefit of doubt to those discussed in the last paragraph as to their agreement with some measly minimum wage, I suspect many of them would just as soon entirely do without one.

The philosophy underlying this last claim of those opposing a minimum wage seems to be this: Might makes right. We pay as little as we can get away with - and then rationalize. On the one hand they say the low paid worker does not produce enough to justify the pay, but when a high paid worker such as a CEO does not produce he can be paid plenty, as Home Depot recently demonstrated. The difference is that the low paid worker has no power and can be replaced. The higher paid workers do have power in one form or another, such as proprietary knowledge of the company, unique skills, and so forth. Of course, this variation in power is feathered from the bottom to the top.

Traditionally, unions have come in as an equalizer of power on the side of the low paid worker. But for a number of reasons large sections of the labor force are now without union representation and not likely to get any soon. So those members of the community who value justice must ban together in support of the exploited worker and pass a law, thereby meeting the power of money and property with the power of a people's law.

2007-01-07T15:51:00.000-08:00

I must get back to this blog on a more regular basis. I could be putting out a monthly newspaper keyed to lengthy letters, say 300-700 words, mostly from the left. It may have just a few news and humor features. Is this a good idea?

2006-08-13T14:32:00.000-07:00

I've decided I'm really more of a demarchist than an anarchist, but I'm not changing the name of the blog. I believe demarchy holds out much more hope for immediate relief from the capitalist boot, though I will continue to push on behalf of the ethical system that underlies most anarchism, especially the mutual aid aspects.

2006-08-08T10:02:00.000-07:00

Mayor Hession just does not get it. The citizens complaint about the SPD is that it is a good ole boy network and that coverup is always the first reaction to a challenge. The appointed chief has already said she "knows" that there is no "good ole boy" thing. And she does not want oversight. So again the mayor goes with sham: he appoints cops to investigate cops and he reappoints the same tired old review committee which has not functioned, or raised any hell, in years. This will not work. We need an independent and active review commission written into the city charter.

2006-07-27T10:12:00.000-07:00

Mayor Hession Report

Notice how the mayor and the the new chief match up in their interests, such as jogging? It's as if they were put together by a dating service. And It does not augur well for us that the chief sees the Spokane department as devoid of any good ole boy philosophy.

It is good the mayor wants a limited review of the police department. But why doesn't he just do it himself and then provide the council with his results to form a basis for some kind of public hearings on their part. That's one thing our system sorely lacks: true public oversight hearings. As for the mayor conducting his own fact finding investigation, he's an attorney and so should be up to the job. Let's face it, he's going to appoint someone with same judicial temperment as himself. I say, hold his feet to the fire. If he thinks he is too busy, he can appoint someone to take over his other duties.

2006-07-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

<

Here's a few of my initial thoughts as I ponder the tak break being given to those developers building high priced multi-family projects in downtown Spokane.

The fact that our lives have private and public aspects is clear. But just how these aspects are to be best balanced and mingled by public policy is not so clear and is in constant debate. I want to discuss one recent trend in that public policy which, besides being an excellent example of how confusing things can become, raises important issues of justice.

The following is often presented by community leaders to the citizens as a maxim: If a public body should ratchet up public subsidies to a private business person or corporation, there will be a general public benefit which will return, on some economic scale, many times the original subsidy. I should say, the leaders hope this appears as a maxim. But note that to be a maxim the above proposition must be independent of the subsidy and the private beneficiary. And concrete proposals never do fit that bill; it is always a specific subsidy and project which is proposed, with the insinuation that such a maxim is lurking below the surface.

If all such subsidies were so magically beneficial, should not every real estate development, for example, be totally paid for with all public funds available, allowing the developers to reap their required profit and the public to be guaranteed their investment returned many fold? But I’ve never heard this general proposal officially put forth. Of course, there is still the possibility that certain policy makers do believe we are dealing with a maxim here, in spite of the preposterous conclusions, and they don’t propose it as a general policy only because there is not yet a legal basis for such plundering of public funds. But setting that aside, I hope we agree that it is each particular subsidy we need to evaluate as to its justice.

A subsidy for a sports arena is one much discussed example of what I am discussing. But I want to deal with another example: a subsidy for a more ordinary real estate development. And the one I want to dissect is one being implemented by our lawmakers and mayor right here in Spokane. The concept was devised and made into law in Olympia and says that at the whim of city officials certain developers should be enriched in the following way: Lands within clearly defined boundaries can be mandated by the city to be blessed such that any newly constructed multifamily structures on such land shall be exempt from property taxes for ten years. The lawmakers in Olympia showed the usual moderation we find these days in stealing from the lower classes in that they leave the land itself on the tax rolls.
.
The section in Spokane’s municipal code needed to launch this endeavor at making a killing for all involved lists seven possible purposes, a number that on the face of it is a red flag and near assurance that all is not well in the whim department; i.e., if one purpose might seem too fanciful, another shall be at the ready, and so the opposition can be worn down by sheer numbers. Let us ask a few questions: Why a subsidy of ten years and not five years or twenty years or fifty years? And what about the unlucky property owners just outside of one of these hallowed boundaries? Might they be running with the wrong crowd?

It is difficult to get the lawmakers in Spokane to discuss their personal rationale for this law. At least, they won’t talk to me about it. But for starters, let’s assume one of them would say something like this. There is an old ramshackle house sitting on a 30,000 square foot lot in Peaceful Valley. The yearly property taxes on the house are $1400. Now, developer Ben E. Factor has always had a hankering to build a twenty unit condominium on this site with a value, let’s say, excluding land value, of $500,000 per unit. The problem is that the buyers, while willing to shell out $500,000 for the unit, will not pay the property tax of, say, $7,000 per year. And hence, the developer must just let this land sit idle, saving himself from a poor development decision and depriving the community of tax dollars they may receive ten years down the road. But it is even worse than that:. Because Factor is not building, neither is any one else in the district, so the blight goes on. Is any one laughing yet? Please tell me developers had no hand in the writing of this bill in Olympia, nor any role in it’s implementation in Spokane. And then I’ll be ready to say this is other than pure blackmail.

Now, government subsidies are common in our society and many serve a useful purpose. And in fact, many are accepted with little debate; for example, the provision of public goods such as roads, clean air and water, and public safety. Though these are too seldom thought of as such, these goods are business subsidies in the sense that they provide a the minimal infrastructure required for any commercial enterprise. And then there are social goals sought through other more special policies such as special tax breaks for the poor, disabled, the elderly, homeowners, and on and on. These are all under regular review and debated as to their details.

It is a different fish we are looking at here. As proposed, the tax abatement is proposed as a sort of financial perpetual motion machine or, better yet, a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. First, we are shown there is nothing in the hat. That is, there will be no development at site A if the public doesn’t ante up through their government. Now this is impossible to prove or disprove once the particular subsidy is on the table because the developer can simply threaten to hold off unless the subsidy comes through. A weak attempt at a proof is sometimes tried by pointing out, for example, how long a certain piece has remained undeveloped. But market conditions, interest rates and so forth are always changing, so that doesn’t always work either. To state it flat out: with no subsidy available, the developer would, I believe, most likely proceed with the development anyway, putting the property right on the tax rolls. And think how much better this would be for all public projects needing immediate funding

2006-07-15T09:37:00.000-07:00

COUNCIL HEARING ON LIVING WAGE

The arguments against this modest proposal were quite revealing of the capitalist mind set. Nancy McLaughlin, an ardent admirer of Ronald Reagan, expressed the fear that young people may resourcefully make do on $10/hr, by communal living and so forth, and then lose all ambition to do more. In other words, she sees starvation and misery as the proper spur to worthless youth, resulting down the road to a well trained and exploitable workforce.

And then Chud Wendle was quite amusing as he flaunted his millions with numerous references as to what he "gives back." Some of his workers may have been thinking, "doesn't charity began at home?." And of course he threatened to move his business out of the city.

Al French fretted over the wording. I believe he considers himself the Ben Franklin of Spokane. French never seems to have a proposal that will not put money into some business person's pocket.

There were the usual speakers who, though having listened to Doug Orr's excellent presentation, did not absorb a word of it and presented the same old arguments that Orr had demolished just moments before. Are these folks in a hypnotic state, or what?

2006-07-03T11:59:00.000-07:00

BILL GATES AND ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI

The idea that bill Gates is some kind of St. Francis like character is gaining way too much currency. He is not a holy man. Much of this money he is giving away, to great fanfare - and persuading others to give away - will come back to him as the direct and indirect beneficiaries swear eternal loyalty to Microsoft products.

This is especially pernicious as regards his money to education where children will be hooked on Microsoft at an early age. What school administrator would dare to purge Gates software after getting a Gates grant?

And don’t be fooled by the cheesy ruse of having his wife’s name on the foundation, and all this chatter about retiring from the day to day operations.

If Bill is really sincere, let him get rid of all his earthly possessions in the exact manner of St. Francis and then I will certainly apologize.

From what I read of his parents, I believe their giving would be purely alturistic. But I can not buy BG’s bull.

2006-06-29T15:51:00.000-07:00

The idea of a part-time city council might be in the public interest
somewhere - say, for a hamlet. But it will never work for Spokane. The
Council is too unrepresentative, and that flaw is baring its ugly teeth
as the living wage issue grinds through the current council's mill.
There is not a single member of what is commonly called the working
class sitting on the council or as mayor. Nor is it likely there will
ever be under the current charter, other than as a fluke. Instead, we
are overburdened with attorneys and business people, loyal as ever to
their class. .

It is often said the present set-up is a good one in that we don't have
"professional politicians" to contend with. Oh, yes! Beware of
someone who devotes her professional life working to dispense public
goods such as progressive taxes, adequate public safety, and steps to
combat global warming, instead of private favors such as property tax
abatements for millionaires, fast tracks for their favorite developers, and excuses
for renegade public servants.

If we raised the council annual salaries and reduced the term to two
years, perhaps we would find a council composed of hod-carriers, former
Wal-Mart employees, landscape workers, baristas, and the like. In other
words, a real cross-section of Spokane. That is much more the American
way than what we have now.

2006-06-19T11:03:00.000-07:00

Bush in Iraq

Bush's surprise visit to Iraq was another of those unintentional blunders that shows what fools he and his advisors are. I put it in the same category as Cheney's shoot-'em-in-the-face fiasco. Now think, how would Russia or Britian react if Bush showed up to see Putin or Blair with a fifteen minute notice? Very disrespectful, they would say. The visit simply underlines the fact we intend to have Iraq as a puppet for a great many years. In fact, I see us as in the process of dropping an "iron curtain" around the oil producing middle east and central Asia. My apologies to the ghost of WC.

2006-05-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

LIVING WAGE LAWS FOR SPOKANE

It is the duty of every employer to pay a living wage. This is deeper than a rule derived with cold mathematics from an incomplete economic model. It is an ethical appeal to our humanity.

Imagine this scenario: Sally, a single mother of two, is working in Spokane for a diversified company which happens to contract with the city to enforce the handicap zone parking ordinance. The company is induced to build a new office building in the city after being dealt some tax breaks and other incentives from the city. Now from what she reads in the paper, Sally learns that the reason for these subsidies is that her company contributes to the general welfare of the community by providing jobs. In other words, the city has somehow gotten into the business of buying jobs for citizens of the region. But Sally scratches her head because she is being paid the starvation wage of $8.12 an hour with no health benefits and can not see how being a poorly paid wage slave contributes to the city’s general welfare.

It is on behalf of people like Sally that a national living wage movement was launched. The momemtum began to build after Baltimore passed an ordinance in 1995. That law tied corporate incentives doled out by public bodies to what the corporations paid their employees. Specifically, the Baltimore City Council passed a bill requiring companies that have service contracts with the city of Baltimore to pay workers at least $6.10 an hour. Two earlier living wage laws had been passed in Des Moines, Iowa in 1988 and Gary, Indiana in 1991, but they were not followed up as vigorously as was the Baltimore ordinance..

As of now there are about 130 laws in place and 75 or so campaigns underway. And one of these campaigns has been chugging along for a number of years right here in Spokane. The Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane (PJALS) got the ball rolling in 1998 with a 3000 signature petition they presented to the Spokane City Council. That proposal was tabled - no surprise. In 2002 PJALS resurrected this activity and hired a coordinator, since succceeded by two others, the current coordinator being Wil Elders (contact him at livingwage@qwest.net if you want to help). All PJALS activities are under the general direction of Rusty and Nancy Nelson. Since the beginning of the PJALS effort, all staff members and volunteers have worked diligently to fashion a result. But it hasn't been easy and there still is no ordinance.

I have been an on and off observer of this local process since 2002. And under each of the earlier regimes I have seen considerable time spent in meetings where discussion centered on either of two paths. The first of these was to set a campaign strategy. The other path was to pound out details of the law itself, things such as who is to be coverered, the wage level, health benefits, and other very complicated details. But as time went on a chicken or egg situation developed. Some of those at the meetings would not move farther down one path without advances first being made down the other, and there were others who felt the same but reversing the paths. So there developed a certain ping pong effect, encouraging stalemate.

Also, in those early days great emphasis was placed on coalition building as part of a best strategy. But from what I saw, nearly all of the proposed coalition partners seemed very unpartner like. One example was John Powers, Spokane's first mayor under the so-called strong mayor system. A PJALS commitee, including me, visited, hat in hand and face-to-face, with one of his chief aides. The mayor had begun a movement to raise awareness of poverty in Spokane, trumpeting that this was the necessary first step to ameliorate said poverty. Well, at the meeting the commitee was told that Powers did not object to our campaign and would welcome PJALS as part of his coalition to work on this poverty awareness thing. But of course, he firmly believed it would be political suicide to publicly sponsor any kind of living wage law, due in large part to the attitude of his financial backers. See? Money talks.

There's much more significant history, with both advances and setbacks. But space dictates that we stop here and ask, what now are the prospects for a meaningful living wage ordinance in Spokane? The current mayor, Dennis Hession, has been approached on the issue. He says that neither the he nor a majority of the council will support it. Though I'm sure he or any other politician would like to add that, "We have an open mind, of course." This is not a good sign.. Then there is the option of trying to get an initiative on the ballot and passed despite the fact there is no visible mass support from those who would most benefit. I'll conclude with suggestions for an attack on these two seemingly dismal situations.

Let us look at the underlying philosophy of those opposing a living wage ordinance. I believe there are many of these folks, often politically influential, who are led by their philosophical inclinations to assert that there is no such thing as a right to a living wage, a position which clearly translates into no right to life. This is indeed a barbarous doctrine; and I agree with philospher John Burnheim when he surmises in a slightly different context that no one would embrace such a doctrine "were she or he not convinced that once one grants a right to life there follows all kinds of rights, that can only end in the worst kind of 'socialism' or state despotism." So if fears such as these could be assuaged, perhaps the mayor and the Council would come around.

It has been stated and I find it to be true that revolutions are always accomplished by a passionate minority toppling an indifferent majority. Well, we have just this opportunity in Spokane IF we can spur what I believe now is the minority who support a living wage law into an increased awareness and passion. Unfortunately, as it now stands I am afraid the passion lies on the side of the majority who already are involved in a successsful national revolution of their own in rolling back the New Deal. But in the immortal words of David Mamet as put in the mouth of Don Ameche, "Things change." We can hope.

2006-03-12T14:28:00.000-08:00

CITY PRIORITIES

Last week, a member of the board which oversees the Spokane region's air quality introduced the notion of requesting cities to do what they could to combat global warming, thus introducing the problem of global warming in a somewhat official way to the City of Spokane. The City Council has seen presentations on this issue, but as usual they have ignored them. So let me take this opportunity to list some other ignored issues which are also vital to our survival as a free and safe democracy.

First, we need a ombudsman. This is essential so that the average citizen will feel connected, as a participant, to his government.

Next, we need to redesign the current neighborhood council system in a major way. This move relates to the ombudsman proposal in that the current neighborhood council system is too elitist, though it was never intended to be other than that. We need much less authoritarinism in Spokane, and a democratic neighborhood system as an actual part of the city's governance system would help.

In fact, the whole city government structure needs a major overhaul, carried out in the total daylight of public participation. For example, what sense does it make to call a third of Spokane a district? The differences between the members of one of these "districts" are much greater than any similarities. So the alleged attempt at better representaiion is foolish on the face of it.

Then we need a citizen police and fire departments review committe, picked from other than the crony pool; this is to counteract the PR blitzes we've been subject to for years.

We also need a living wage law and several other changes, but I'll let it go for now.

2006-02-13T09:43:00.000-08:00

CHENEY UNCHAINED

Dick Cheney shoots friend while hunting quail. What a metaphor!!!! Hunting quail? Little tiny cute birds? Was he doing his part to combat bird flu, or just playing the rich man's game of brave hunter? What A moron! And of course he says it was not his fault. It never is, as when he breaks the law or launches an ill-conceived imperial adventure. But here he is clearly the no-conscience buffoon with no place to hide. Dick, it's you, you, you.

2006-01-24T11:23:00.000-08:00

BUSH AS A CRIMINAL, ETC.

Bush is defending himself as though the charge is that he is a sort of sneak thief. He points out how he has briefed Congress on his wiretapping and so forth and wants us to buy this as evidence he is innocent. No! He is a different and worse kind of criminal. He is a political criminal, a usurper of our rights, and a claimant to judge for himself what the law is and to say to hell with the courts. If he is so innocent let us hear his case before the Senate in a public impeachment trial.

Hey, end of year movies his year have been bad. King Kong and New World are boring. I haven't seen a real good movie since Capote. Backing up, KK might is worth and econ hour ticket just to watch Jack Black. Tristan and Isolde is not too bad but not great.

2006-01-22T11:38:00.000-08:00

ASSASSINATION AS A WAR TACTIC

The Bush gang strategy of lopping off the enemy's head in hope the snake will die is quite foolish. And dangerous for us all. This tactic makes Bush himself and any innocents who may be at his side targets. I would not be in the least surprised to pick up the paper(or turn on the computer) and find Bush has been blown to hell. I just hope he takes none of my loved ones with him.

Who could ever have dreamed we would be led by such an arrogant pack of liars, torturers, and general law breakers. What a slap in the face to the good people who voted for them. Of course, the not-so-good people who voted for them should be condemned in the same terms as they.

2006-01-12T17:51:00.000-08:00

"YOUNG MAN"

You can be sure of this. If you are addressed by anyone as, "young man," you are either too young to be a man or too old to be young.

2005-12-23T15:31:00.000-08:00

Bush Being Bounced?

It looks to me like the idealogues of the right are bouncing Bush. Presidents are expendable; it 's the idea that must live. The president, you should notice, has been given a new persona, sort of like the honest fool. He is now taking personal responsiblity for all the booboos on the war and elsewhere. The underlying ideas are right but his honest mistakes have screwed up the execution. After his term, who needs him, he may be a liabilty - or so his handlers think. The one negative they especially want to dispel, though, is his image as a liar. Thus all the recent candor, even if it's at his expense. Of course, the fact that Bush is going along with this says a ton.

2005-12-22T16:10:00.000-08:00

TODAY'S SPOKESMAN-REVIEW

Now that Evo Morales has won big in the Bolivian elections Bush has a third South American country on his enemies list, along with Brazil and Venezuela. Don't be surprised if another American-backed coup pops up. Remember we are already fighting a war in Columbia.

Speaking of elections, check out the news on the contesting of the Iraq election results.

I see the streamrolling of an tax increment financing district is taking place in the valley. This dubious notion also is being pushed hard in the city by Al French. I can go along with some of these public-private partnerships, when the public good aspects can be clearly demonstrated. But in the case of TIF I'm afraid it is a case of the complex technicalities making it a bit of a shell game, with the developer walking off with the loot and the citizen scratching his head.

Letters: Dave Hamer's letter is a great example of using non-facts to bolster a discredited theory (American Exceptionalism).

2005-12-21T09:37:00.000-08:00

TODAY'S SPOKESMAN-REVIEW

Judge Jones did us all a big favor with his ID ruling. And by the way, the letters section should stop publishing letters on this subject. If it is a serious issue, it should be thrashed out it in peer reviewed journals. What will we see next, letters from businness majors trying to apply string theory to time travel? The S-R's published letters supporting ID are 90 % ignorance and 10% craziness.

More good news: Four Republicans are helping to straighten out the Patriot Act and driving Bush nuts. Of course, the present act has nothing to do with patriotism, sharing this trait with bills named by Bush and (Dr. Strangelove) Cheney

Letters: Curt Craig has his analogy askew. Bush is not giving tax cuts because he thinks his service has been poor. And the answer to the pizza refund is that all families should share in the twenty bucks except the rich family. Yes, I am proud to be a libertarian socialist in the mode of Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, Albert Parsons, and many other worthies. Judith Jones should research the defintion of race and genetics more carefully. I believe that race is now considered by the academic community to be a passe concept.

2005-12-20T09:43:00.000-08:00

SMOKING BAN AND MY ANARCHISM

Some might think it peculiar that I support Spokane's smoking ban AND consider myself a brand of anarchist. Those who think that make the common mistake of believing an anarchist should behave as though he or she is already living in the anarchist society we so wish for. No. We live in a capitalist society - not a good thing! - and must defend ourselves accordingly. In my opinion, in an anarchist society there would not be addicts so inconsiderate as to smoke in public places. For more on anarchism check out infoshop.org.

2005-12-14T08:03:00.000-08:00

BRIEF COMMENTS ON RECENT NEWS

It was a sad thing that Tookie Williams was executed. It is bad enough that capital punishment is still with us, but in his case it is likely an American state has continued in its long tradition of slaying men and women who are innocent in spite of what a jury might have concluded. It's noteworthy that Sean Hannity justified his call for execution by pointing out he was not judging the man's "soul" and was willing to grant that Tookie's "soul" might be saved, but the eye for an eye rule must be followed; and since the man may be going to heaven, what's all the fuss about? Isn't this thinking akin to that of suicide bombers and another example of religous fanaticism?

The voters have endorsed the Review's assault on Jim West and Spokane is about to have a new mayor, Dennis Hession. I see a coming renewal of the all-out council warfare, as splits in the council are becoming more apparent. The strong mayor system is not workable for Spokane for a number of reasons. And one of them is that at least some council members will always have their eye on the job, and in such a small council this will be disruptive. Another reason, applying to the current system only, is that the charter was devised by a tiny minority and not thought out over time as it should have been. A final note: it is ludicrous that the committee which worked on the recall should think they deserve any say in the transition policies of the new mayor. The fact they claim otherwise puts the lie to all their previously announced intentions.

Go see Syriana. It's very educational.

Eugene McCarthy died and he was one of my heroes. I was a delgate supporting him in 1968. I identified with his quixotic tendencies as regards principles. Mary Shelley also accused her husband of these same tendencies. But I don't think they're all bad.

2005-12-04T09:51:00.000-08:00

More Movies

I found the John Cash movie a bit tiresome because his character is a tiresome, bullying, whining loser. Was he really like that in that period?. Probably. But it doesn't make for an entertaining movie. The film is somewhat redeemed by the potrayal of a saintly June Carter by Reese Witherspoon. Was she like that. Who cares. I sorely missed Cash's actual voice, as well as that of Lewis, Presley and Orbison. I can't recommend but if you're easy to please you'll like it.

The Ice Harvest is great. It is a noir sendup of film noir, mocking many classic scenes from that genre, and going with all the cross, doublecross stuff. The casting is excellent, especially for John Cusack, though Billy Bob Thornton is the funniest. Beware - it is a counter-Xmas movie. But if you're sensitive to that, you probably don't like film noir anyway.

I watched Dr. Strangelove on dvd last night. It's as fresh as ever and maybe even more important to watch now. I believe Dick Cheney may be scarier than HK.

2005-12-03T10:05:00.000-08:00

SOME THOUGHTS

Mary Shelley has a character in The Last Man say, " . . . there is but one solution to the intricate riddle of life; to improve ourselves, and contribute to the happiness of others . . . . Note that this is about the reverse of how most behave.

It seems to me that quite often the left wing consider those on the right to be as a wicked stepmother and the right look upon the left as very spoiled brats. I am afraid these emotional takes too often substitute for rational discourse.