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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

<

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.