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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.