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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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 .

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.