Martin Luther King Day As Important for Whites as for Blacks

Although it happened several weeks ago on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day, I cannot erase it from my mind because it was so disturbing. A fellow whose name I don’t know --- which I suppose is fortunate in this case --- was standing next to me as we listened to the speeches in praise of Dr. King.

To nobody in particular but loud enough for the people around us to hear, he said, “What garbage! Who cares? This holiday is for black people only. Phooey on King!” Under normal circumstances, I would have cussed him out openly and told him what a dunce he was, but I didn’t want to disturb those around us, as he had. At any rate, he left the premises, continuing his grumbling as he departed. Good riddance.

If I had had the opportunity, I would have informed the scoundrel that the memory of the great Dr. King was extremely important to all Americans for many reasons. Most significantly, he gave black Americans for the first time the national hero they needed. And he gave them the dignity they had sought and the spiritual leadership that brought them together at last.

But the courageous civil-rights leader gave all Americans, regardless of race, color, or creed, something else --- something they sorely need. He demonstrated to us in so many ways that the race issue certainly wasn’t a black problem alone. It was, most of all, a white problem.

Before King came upon the scene, segregation and prejudice were eating away at American liberty just as surely s termites attack the foundation of a neglected home. In 1955, a black seamstress, Rosa Parks, refused to move from the “white section” of an Alabama bus to the “black section” at the rear of the bus.

Rosa’s loud “No!” was as important to free America as the Minuteman’s first shot at Lexington in the Revolution. And, in the final analysis, it was a “No!” that rang out much louder than that first shot --- a “No!” that, in effect, rang out through history and helped change America overnight.

When Dr. King took up the bus issue later on and carried it triumphantly all the way to the United States Supreme Court and a national victory against racism, his crusade became as significant as any other milestone in the nation’s history --- a milestone that rendered the world’s most important democracy “color blind,” at last.

The first celebration of Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday several years ago was a glory day for black Americans. But it was just as much a glory day for people of all skin colors, whether white, yellow, brown, tan, or whatever hue, because it was one of the most important days in the history of the world.

Homage to Dr. King automatically reaffirms the republic’s devotion to fair play, justice for people of all skin colors, and for liberty itself. It was late in coming, but when it finally arrived, it was a great day for America and all Americans. My hat is off to the great Dr. King!

State’s Demos Can’t Get Off Their “Tax the Public” Kick

Here it is, with less than a week left in its session of haranguing and indecision, and the Democrats in the driver’s seat in the Washington State Legislature still haven’t come up with a satisfactory decision in solving the state’s budget deficit --- and whatever they do come up with will most assuredly punish the state’s taxpayers.

The Republicans haven’t been much help, powerless as they may be, but the Demos are hellbent for some method of increasing taxes to meet the budget deficit that is pegged at more than $2.5 billion. One must hope that voters will set things right next time out and send a majority of Conservatives to both houses of the Legislature.

The Demos have consistently disregarded political necessity by refusing to recognize the dire need for the privatization of state government. Their compatriot Demos in Congress have been just as antagonistic toward any privatization move, despite the fact that it is the only answer to stopping the slide toward Big and Bigger Government and eventual Socialism.

The answer should be much easier at the state level than it is in Washington, D.C. A start toward the much needed privatization seemed to have gotten a start just recently when one brave non-Democratic legislator dared to offer legislation that would have removed the state from the expensive liquor business --- a first move toward privatization.

But, alas, the move received no support from the Demos --- not even the acknowledgment that getting out of the liquor business would have been a great start toward reducing the state deficit. Instead, the Liberal and pro-Demo Seattle Times offered a one-sided article attacking the liquor proposal and insisting that state control was good for the state and much needed to keep young people from imbibing in hard liquor.

What imbeciles many of these Demo legislators are! Then, just a short time later, still another great idea was proposed to make a serious advance toward privatization and the reduction of Big State Government. That idea was to turn the expensive ferry system over to private operation, thereby saving the state millions more.

Like the response to the liquor proposal, the Demos quickly scuttled the private-ferry-system idea and returned to their plans for more taxes, as if that could be a solution to the budget crisis. All they want to talk about is what form of taxation they believe should be adopted to reduce the state deficit.

In the meantime, a series of other possibilities exist that would be great candidates for a statewide privatization program. For example, the state seriously needs to get out of the health business and turn over related programs to the private sector, thus saving an enormous sum for the state.

Another potential is for the state to stop playing teacher and get the hell out of the education business. As with health issues, the private sector is better equipped to handle educational programs and to save the state many headaches --- and millions of dollars more.

There are other potentials to consider. But for the time being, the Demos and the Republicans need to be reminded that GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE THE WATCHDOG OVER ALL OPERATIONS IN THE STATE AND NOT, REPEAT “NOT,” THE OPERATOR IN CHARGE OF ALL THE PROGRAMS. Our forefathers ordained it to be so, but the Demos apparently don’t care about historical precedent.

Seattle Times Way Off Base on Issue of Privatization

Once again the Seattle Times has committed the unpardonable crime for a once-respected daily newspaper. That crime, unforgivable, is to publish a decidedly prejudiced and one-sided article on an important issue and pass it off as “news.” This time the issue is a proposal for the state to get out of the liquor business.

The article in question was headlined “State liquor stores make money and protect the public” and was written by two men who are not Times reporters --- the Rev. Jimmie James of Kent and Zack Hudgins, a Democratic state representative from the 11th Legislative District that includes South Seattle, Tukwila, and parts of Renton.

Right off the bat, James and Hudgins indulge in misinformation by referring to the move to privatize the state liquor industry as an attempt to “deregulate our state liquor stores.” On the contrary, the state would still maintain the right to regulate liquor sales if the industry were turned over to the private sector.

In their litany of reportorial errors and prejudicial statements, James and Hudgins say that state ownership “results in better public safety by keeping alcohol out of the hands of underage drinkers.” They don’t acknowledge that the same public safety could and should be the case with privately owned liquor stores.

However, I hasten to mention the Times’ major error in permitting such a one-sided report to appear on its pages --- and also to permit the one-sided article to be reproduced in quantity and offered as a free handout in state liquor stores everywhere in Washington State. That major error was the Times’ failure to represent the other side of the argument.

If the Times were to operate as a balanced, fair-minded news medium, the least it should have done was to place an article right alongside the James-Hudgins piece that clearly portrayed the proposal for privatizing the liquor business and the reasons privatization of state government is so important today.

The voters and taxpayers of Seattle and the rest of the state were at least owed that much from the only daily newspaper left in the Seattle area. A counter article would have pointed out that, with the state budget facing a deficit approaching the $3 billion mark, something must be done to reduce the state’s Big Government.

With the high-spending Democrats in the majority in Olympia at the moment, the talk among the Demos is not how to reduce the tax load on the public but how to add more taxes in order to meet the deficit. The Democrats shun the important word, “privatization,” as if it were a disease, instead of a preventive.

The Liberal-leaning Times has offered other examples of its one-sided, prejudiced approach to the news. Perhaps the most disturbing one has been its articles and editorials in praise of global warming, without providing an inch of newspaper space to the fact that the great majority of the world’s scientists have declared it to be a gigantic hoax.

Come on, Seattle Times. You used to be a balanced, honest newspaper at one time. What happened to you?

Political Debates Are Waste of Time and Hide the Real Issues

Whoever it was that dreamed up the idea for debates pitting one presidential nominee against another and one vice presidential nominee against his opposite number must have been hard pressed to come up with an idea to take the public’s mind off the real issues in a presidential election.

Debates may determine which participant is the better debater, but they solve nothing, nor do they demonstrate which of the debaters would make a better president and vice president. The same applies to all other politically motivated debates, whether the contest be for a council member, a mayor, a governor, or a senator.

Consider what happens in a political debate. Ostensibly, the combatants spell out their stands on a variety of issues --- and, of course, a few of the issues are mentioned. But for the most part, the debaters launch personal attacks on each other, attacks that skirt the facts and often are outright lies.

Lost in these ridiculous skirmishes are the real issues, the issues that matter most to the people in a free society and democratic republic like ours. For example, each of the candidates for President belongs to and is supported by a political party, and each party professes to support a platform of ideas, of social and political programs, and a plan for the future.

Of greatest interest to all members of the voting public should be the contrasts in the parties, what each party stands for, and how its beliefs and actions will affect the public. These are the issues the parties and their candidates should be presenting to the public through the news media and in their campaigns.

When was the last time you heard a candidate for an important office discuss the platform of his or her party, instead of lashing out at his or her opponent? I would guess that the answer is “Never.” But why should that be the case in American politics? When are the rest of us voters going to insist that all candidates forget the mud slinging and concentrate instead on the program their party proposes?

Is this an idle thought? Of course not. A vibrant, honest, and responsible two-party system is the crux of our free society and our democratic republic. That is, it was the heart and soul of America --- until the middle of the 20th Century, when Socialist programs made their appearance and the welfare state was born.

One might say that many candidates prefer mud slinging to dwelling upon the planks in their party’s platform. If they did the latter, they would be forced to reveal the fact that their party has gone off the deep end and is more interested in traveling the path toward state Socialism. I trust I needn’t be more specific than that and don’t have to specify which party I am indicting.

News Media Should Keep Track of Election Promises

As a lifelong journalist, editor, and TV/Radio commentator, I have a challenge to make to all my brothers and sisters in the American news media, print and broadcast. It’s a relatively simple one, but one that I believe is extremely important if the news media are to bolster and clean up our sagging, hate-filled political system.

The challenge: When the next election rolls around, be it local, state, federal, or all of them combined, all the newspapers and TV and radio stations in the area involved should begin keeping records of every program and every promise made by each candidate and every promise or claim made by backers or opponents of ballot measures!

Then, after the election and for a reasonable period after each candidate has been in office, the news media should confront every one of the winning candidates with the statements he or she made in the campaign. The promises should be matched with the accomplishments --- or lack of accomplishments --- and the results reported to the public.

In the case of ballot issues, the comparison of promises to accomplishments obviously would take longer, but that, too, could be done. It would also be a good idea to retain the programs and promises offered by the losers in elections so they could be contrasted with the actions taken --- or not taken --- by the winners.

Keeping such records should be easy and accurate, thanks to the Age of Computers. If I had had the benefit of today’s remarkable computers when I served as managing editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer way back in the 1960s and 1970s, you can bet I would have ordered exactly what I have proposed in this commentary.

Would such a news-media program be fair, honest, and worth the effort? Your darned tootin’ it would be! Consider the benefits that would accrue from such a challenging program if adopted by all the news media --- benefits that would be noticed both before and after elections.

First, it would be a tremendous service to the voting public, because it would serve notice to all candidates and all issue-backing groups that the old game of “Promises, Promises” will be played under new rules --- and that the public will be sitting in judgment on every winner.

Second, and this is the aspect that pleases me most, it would put all candidates and issue supporters on notice that they will now have to be extra careful about the programs and promises they make before an election. That will be because everything they say or write will be recorded and related to the public.

The only question I have left is this one: Why on earth didn’t the print and broadcast news-media editors, reporters, and anchors embrace this idea years ago, even before computers were invented? It could have been done even without them. As a matter of fact, I’m asking myself the same question. Why didn’t I order it back then?

I didn’t expect this to be a confession, but so be it!

Pasta Passe? The Trend-Setters Have Gone Too Far!

So be it. A handful of self-appointed experts in Paris decides what kind of clothing the world will wear, like it or not. And the world accepts the edict and shells out billions for their products. Another handful comes down from Olympus to tell us what colors are “in” each year. And we buy those colors without a whimper.

Detroit, Berlin, and Tokyo tell us what automobiles to buy, what features the cars will have, and how long they’ll last, and we obediently swallow all that, too, quietly, and put up the dough. Film producers decide what movies we see. Bank presidents do, too, because they put up the money to make the films. And we accept that, too.

We worship our liberty and freedom of choice. But we let others make most other choices for us. OK. But somebody has gone too far. Not too long ago, some hotshot from the East waltzed into this territory and told everybody that pasta is passé and that nobody eats it any more. That did it! Now, I’m really teed off!

Pasta --- spaghetti, linguine, rigetoni, fettucine, lasagne, and all the rest --- are a thing of the past?!?! It’s been only a few years, relatively, that Americans have discovered what Italians and Chinese have known for many centuries: Pasta is the elixir of life and the mainstay of so many family cooks.

If you are what you eat, then this Roman is pasta personified. And so are thousands of others I know. Better you should take away Man’s pet poodles than his wet noodles! How did that hotshot from the East get pasta-me without an argument, any way?

* * *

Expert Courts Could Cut Insurance Rates, Defuse Crisis

Ballooning insurance rates have reached crisis proportions and threaten to affect the quality of medical, legal, and many other services. I’ve heard numerous proposals to halt the crazy spiral, but the one I like best is rarely mentioned because it’s a long-range correction.

It’s the revolutionary idea of changing our judicial system to place highly technical cases before expert tribunals, instead of juries. The crisis has sprung mainly from skyrocketing damage awards made by juries. Our system of choosing jurors by lottery has worked well in criminal trials, and it should be continued. But in highly technical, medical, or civil cases, jurors rarelyhave the expertise needed to absorb the complicated testimony. As a result, they are inclined to make emotional decisions and fix damages at excessive levels.

Over the years, the damage awards have gone through the ceiling. And now we’re at a crisis stage. For example, many doctors are considering curtailing services to offset constantly growing malpractice insurance charges. I don’t think our justice system has kept stride with the swift changes technology has made in our society.

Tribunals of specially trained judges would render fairer decisions in technically involved cases. And they’d hold down judgments to reasonable amounts. Although the proposal is bound to attract heated opposition, I think it is an idea whose time has come.

Hillary Does It Again With Move in Favor of U.N. Gun Ban

When is Hillary Clinton going to do the American people a great favor and retire permanently from public life? When her husband was President, she dipped into the bag of Socialist hokum and came up with a ridiculous program of health care that was promptly scuttled by Congress.

Then she added a brief period as a senator from New York, in which she once again failed to distinguish herself. That was followed up by President Obama’s appointment of Hillary as his secretary of state, during which she has once again failed to distinguish herself.

But the crowning mischief in the Hillary Clinton career has now come with her battering of the U.S. Constitution and her action signaling to the United Nations (which I have dubbed the Useless Nations) that the Obama administration is in full favor of the U.N.’s infamous Small Arms Treaty.

Details of the treaty have not yet been provided by the U.N., but there’s no doubt that it would require nations subscribing to the treaty to ban ownership and use by American and other citizens of small arms --- which, if ratified by the U.S. Senate, would be an action directly opposing the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which gives Americans the right to protect themselves by bearing arms.

As the GOPUSA website has put it, “disguised as legislation to help fight against terrorism, insurgency, and international crime syndicates, the U.N. Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun-control scheme. Ultimately, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban, and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens.”

Since approval of the treaty has been sanctioned by President Obama, it can be chalked up as one more colossal blunder by the Democratic President, albeit he is relying upon the Hillary Clinton name to absolve himself of any complicity in any move to counter the U.S. Constitution.

According to the GOPUSA, “If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly force national governments to (a) enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally; (b) confiscate and destroy all unauthorized civilian firearms; (c) ban the trade, sale, and privte ownership of all semi-automatic weapons, and (d) create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.”

Can ratification of the U.N. Small Arms Treaty be voted down in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required to adopt international treaties? That remains to be seen. Does Obama have a two-thirds majority in the Senate, where he would require 60 votes to ratify the treaty?

Judging by Obama’s difficulty in collecting 60 Senate votes to pass his health-care measure, it is possible that the treaty could go down to defeat. However, the anti-gun crowd is pointing to the fact that a total of nine Senate Republicans voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Down with Hillary and Barack!

12-Month School Program Should Be Adopted Nationwide

A few school districts here and there --- but only a few --- have dared to turn their backs on the past and begin to experiment with the latest good idea in education: Year-‘round school calendars in the grade schools, with shorter but more frequent vacation periods at the quarters.

As one who has been beating the drums for year-‘round schooling, I compliment the pioneering school districts. But I have to ask why all the rest of the districts in America haven’t followed suit? Are they bound so strongly to the past and the “comfort and convenience” of parents that they are unwilling to try the fabulous idea?

I think it’s about time every elementary school and high school, whether public or private, across the nation adopted the 12-month school calendar. The few that have already done so report great success and remarkable savings, as well, and they are determined that the new schedules will be permanent.

It’s long past time to junk the wasteful, archaic system of closing schools three months of every year. But that’s not all that’s wasted. Considerable time is lost in the fall term at the regular nine-month schools in reviewing all that the students have forgotten over the long summer vacation period. The time lost is close to a third of the school year.

Many parents who oppose the 12-month proposal and are inured to the usual three-month summer vacation plan are reluctant to switch to the new system because they are afraid of losing their long vacation period and the chance to take long trips with their children. That may be true, but I am positive that, once they become used to the 12-month plan, they will find it to be even more convenient and helpful than the present program. Here’s why: Although the new system provides for four equal quarters of schooling, it would also offer four interim periods for vacations of three weeks or more.

Furthermore, if the parents and the entire family should need a much longer period than three or four weeks for vacation and travel, all they have to do is inform school authorities and arrangements can be made easily to have the family’s children skip a quarter nd return to the classroom a quarter later. It would be that easy.

Families would find other advantages in the 12-month schedule. It would give them an opportunity to vacation or whatever else they might want to do three times a year, instead of the single summer time they are now afforded. Working parents would find that more to their liking, as well.

At the same time, the year-‘round school plan would give the schools themselves many additional breaks. Using the school facilities 12 months of the year would permit administrators, teachers, and custodial staffers the opportunity to utilize school properties an extra three months --- those months in which the buildings and facilities are shut down.

However, the most important element in the year-‘round program would be the fact that the youngsters involved would get a better education in the long run. That should be the clincher in a nationwide adoption of 12-month schools, regardless of any minor inconveniences. Oh, yes, there’s one more significant point: All but a few of the nation’s colleges and universities have been on quarterly schedules for many years, so it must be a good idea.

Health Study Seems to Be Patterned After My Idea

My idea has been not only to record the health statistics of 200 or more individuals from babyhood to 70 but to compare them with similar studies in the nine other installations. The comparisons would cover differences in environment, weather, and other geographical areas to determine how individuals are affected by those differences.

Well, until ten years ago, I thought my idea was a dead duck, doomed to be ignored. But in the year 2000, members of Congress created a program that seemed to have been patterned somewhat after my idea, although not exactly as broad as the plan I had proposed.

In a recent article, the New York Times reported “the National Children’s Study’s projected cost has increased to about $6.7 billion. With several hundred participants so far, it aims to enroll 100,000 pregnant women in 105 counties, then monitor their babies until they turn 21.”

One of the study’s differences from my proposal is that the study would run only until the age of 21. My idea is for such a study to extend to the age of 70 so that statistics could be offered on the various health problems of adults --- what I consider to be a vital part of the study.

Another difference between the congressional study and my proposal is that the babies involved would be scattered in various counties across the U.S., whereas my proposal calls for the creation of installations in ten regions representing different areas of the U.S.

Also, I have been proposing that Congress and the federal government should play no role in the plan and that no tax funds should be set aside for it. Instead, my proposal has been that each of the ten installations should be supported and administered by the medical profession, by foundations, and by individual contributions.

The present program created by Congress calls for scattered responses in various parts of the country. For example, the Times article reported that the workers in the study “knocked on 64,000 doors, screening 27,000 women, and finding 1,000 who were pregnant and in their first trimester (and therefore eligible).”

Continuing, the Times article reported “specimens include blood, urine, hair and saliva from pregnant women, babies and fathers; dust from women’s bed sheets; tap water; and particles on carpets and baseboards. They are sent to laboratories (placentas to Rochester, N.Y., for example), prepared for long-term storage, and analyzed for chemicals, metals, genes, and infections.”

Whatever the designs are for the federal program, I think my proposal is a far better one. The federal plan is too scattered and defies control. Also, it relies for funding on tax money. And, finally, it considers only the years to 21, whereas my plan extends the study to the year 70 and is more conclusive.

Catholic Church Needs More Than TV Ads to Win Back Deserters

With considerable fanfare and the expenditure of about $500,000 drawn from parishioners, the Seattle archdiocese of the Roman Catholic Church has launched an ambitious drive to get fallen away Catholics in Western Washington to return to the church.

As a lifetime Catholic and a strong supporter of the church, I do not oppose the archdiocese’s campaign, but I strongly believe there are many more important and effective ways to win the support of parishioners who have taken their leave of the church.

In the first place, it is obvious that the Seattle archdiocese is not the only one that has undertaken the full-scale TV campaign. It’s been reported that at least 15 other archdioceses in the U.S. have joined the campaign, which is most prominent in television promotions. The campaign will go on for at least the next six weeks.

As to my belief that there are many more important ways to keep Catholics in the church, I am anxious to spell them out with the hope that they may persuade Catholic leaders to understand that the church needs “many modern, 21st Century improvements and changes, not just a campaign to keep parishioners going to Mass.”

I realize that the changes I am about to propose would necessitate a startling about-face in the orders coming from Rome, but so be it. I also realize that I may also be risking being booted out of the church, but so be it. Somebody has to proclaim the ideas I will list here.

First of all, I believe the Vatican should accept the idea that priests should be permitted to marry and have families. It is not a new concept for the church. For some time in the distant past, priests and bishops were not only permitted but encouraged to marry and have families. Why not today?

Second, the right to marry and raise a family should be extended to all the orders of nuns, those gallant women who give up so much to embrace Christ and offer so many services, including teaching children, helping to heal the sick in hospitals and homes, and providing examples for all other Catholics to follow.

Third, I believe all men and women who serve as priests or nuns in the church should be granted regular salaries consistent with the services they provide --- and that those salaries should be supported by all the parishioners. Why not? If we are to expect the priests and sisters to have the right to marry and have families, we should also be willing to give them the financial support they require.

Fourth and finally, I would permit the men and women of the church to dump their restrictive clothing --- including those stringent collars and hoods --- into the waste basket and wear decent clothing, the same clothing the rest of us wear day in day out.

OK, Rome, I’ve said my thing. So come on and excommunicate me. I dare ya.

Obama Favors Nuclear Breakthrough, But It’s Not Enough

With considerable fanfare and very little logic, President Obama has announced his support for construction of the first nuclear power plant to be built in the U.S. in more than 30 years. He has pledged $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build the plant in a move designed to placate the Republicans.

The President’s announcement will not only fail to win over GOP support; it falls far short of the energy needs of the nation. What the President should have done is demand that the Democrats in Congress end the ban on construction of nuclear power plants --- a ban they have maintained for more than three decades.

America faces a severe national power shortage, thanks primarily to the Democrats. By this time, the U.S., with about 110 nuclear plants already in operation and doing well, should have constructed at least 1,000 nuclear-power plants in all 50 states in the union.

Ironically, it was the U.S. that inaugurated the Nuclear Age and built the first civilian nuclear plants. But, thanks to the actions of the environmental extremists and the Democratic Party, other nations have passed us up in recent years. France now leads not only the U.S. but the world in relying on nuclear-plant construction. And several other nations also have shown their nuclear heels to the U.S.

Federal money --- like the $8 billion loan Obama promised --- should not be necessary to build the needed 1,000 or more nuclear-power plants in the U.S. All that needs to be done is for the Democrats in Congress to remove their longtime ban on construction of the plants.

The energy industry in the nation has stood ready to build the plants through all the 30 years it has been denied the right to do so. In addition, Obama and the Democrats need to face down the environmental extremists and tell them to go fly a kite on the nuclear issue.

The failure to build the needed nuclear plants has been an extremely costly one to the U.S. During all these years, we have been forced to go to foreign countries, particularly those in the Middle East, for the oil that has been required to keep our industrial plants and our homes going.

For a time, it appeared that the environmental extremists had been pacified on the nuclear issue. Some of their adherents had announced that they favored nuclear power because it was a clean, reliable power. But that incidental opinion failed to turn the environmental camp into a pro-nuclear one.

In the face of the severe energy shortage we face, it is surprising that the Democratic Party has not defied the environmentalists and embarked on a major program, along with the Republicans, of nuclear-power-plant construction. Surely the Democrats can see the oncoming energy shortage and should want to take whatever action is necessary to forestall it.

Of course, Greenpeace and other extremist organizations are criticizing Obama’s action in supporting the construction of one or two new nuclear-power plants. Jim Riccio, Greenpeace’s spokesman on nuclear issues, criticized Obama’s action and called nuclear power “a dirty and dangerous distraction from the clean-energy future the President promised America.” Would Greenpeace prefer “an energy depression”?

State’s Move to Get Out of Liquor Business Is Welcome Effort

At last! The first ray of genuine hope for the beginning of the much needed privatization of government has come with the announcement that four states --- one of them being Washington --- are now seriously considering getting out of the liquor business and turning it over to private interests.

Market Watch reporters have broken the ice with the announcement. They have said Washington and three other states --- Virginia, North Carolina, and Mississippi --- are considering the action because they are in desperate financial straits and are seeking ways to control their errant budgets.

According to Market Watch, “The effort could take months to play out because lawmakers have to show how privatization would deliver significant revenue and cost benefits. It also faces stiff opposition from labor groups, religious communities, and others who would prefer keeping the state in charge.”

Remarkably, the movement toward privatizing the liquor business in Washington State has been led by a Democrat, Tim Shelton, a state senator from Potlatch, Mason County. For many years, Shelton has been proposing that the state get out of the liquor business and turn it over to private industry.

In fact, just last month Shelton’s bill “earned its first-ever committee hearing in the state legislature because the state faces a $2.6 billion budget deficit for the two-year fiscal period ending in mid-2011, and continued shortfalls in the years beyond,” according to the Market Watch article.

However, as expected, another Democrat, Washington’s Governor Chris Gregoire, opposes Shelton’s bill and, if it should get to her desk, she said she would veto it. That’s par for the course for Democrats like Gregoire, who are responsible for the rapidly expanding role of Big Government and the slide toward Socialism.

It’s no surprise that labor leaders are opposed to the privatization move for the liquor business, because they have supported the slide toward Big and Bigger Government. But I am surprised by the Market Watch report that religious communities are opposed to the privatization effort.

Religious leaders should be leading the effort to reduce the size of governments at all levels and bringing America ever closer to Socialism, which has been the enemy of organized religion in Europe and elsewhere. The members of religious communities should be demanding that their leadership take a leading role in the important movement to reduce the size of Big Government and to return private rights to the people.

Returning the liquor business to private industry should be the first move in a much needed “American revolution” against Big Government. Next should come the privatization of government’s role in education, industry, the professions, agriculture, and every other phase of American life.

I have been proposing the privatization effort for many years. In fact, in speeches, commentaries, and articles, I have urged the people of the U.S. to undertake what I have called the need for “the second American revolution.” In the first Revolution, the new nation of the U.S. revolted against government authority from abroad. Are we nearing that second American revolution? I hope so. At any rate, the move to privatize liquor is a welcome effort.

Are Political Races Nothing More Than “Beauty Contests”?

Many years ago in the newsroom of the Seattle Times, I remember the gruff, headshaking wisdom spouted by an old, grizzled newsman as he edited the latest piece of wire news in the midst of a raucous, mud-slinging election campaign: “A pox on all their houses; elections have degenerated into nothing more than popularity contests.”

In this day of numerous women running for office, I think he would have used the term, “beauty contests,” instead of “popularity contests.” At the time, the rest of us in the newsroom scoffed at the old fellow’s remark, informing him that he didn’t have much faith in the American system of free and open elections.

Today, however, as I think back on it, I have to agree that our old grizzled friend was right and it was the wiseacres in the newsroom, including me, who were dead wrong about the nature of U.S. elections. Now, I, too, believe that, with so many uninformed or ill-informed voters going to the polls, males and females, virtually all elections for political office are, in fact, little more than “popularity contests.”

Little wonder that we get so many incompetents not only running for office but winning, as well. Even those aficionados who brag that they vote “on the issues” may not be doing so, at all. To address the point I am about to make, I must dwell once more on the history of democracy in America.

Our nation has maintained its liberty and freedom substantially because we have nurtured and supported the two-party political system --- two major parties, that is. Until the middle of the 20th Century, the two parties may have disagreed on some economic issues, but they were united in supporting the basics proclaimed in the Constitution. Both parties learned to absorb the demands of third parties.

That political security vanished with the advent of FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society and the Socialist-leaning programs embraced by other Democratic Presidents and their party. In no time, the delicate and extremely important Constitutionally-bound two-party system was dealt a blow that may become fatal if not corrected soon.

Today the Democratic Party is for all intents and purposes a Socialist Party as it continues to build Big Government even bigger and thrives on taking away personal liberties and property rights from individuals and private organizations. Despite its problems and indecision, the Republican Party remains the only political party that believes in free enterprise, the capitalist system, and the principle of getting government out of our wallets and private affairs.

But do most voters choose the party that is most interested in reducing Big Government, cutting government spending, cutting punishing taxes, and getting the U.S. out of the red? No, those issues rarely motivate the men and women who enter the voting booth. Most of them vote, instead, for the candidate who smiles the broadest, kisses the most babies, has the most attractive, wavy hair, and stuff like that there.

In the meantime, the basic policies of the two political parties are conveniently forgotten and the most popular candidates in every race receive the most votes. As a comedian once put it, “What a way to run a country!”

A Free Press Must Never Shirk Its Duty to Tell the Truth

Oh, how the news media have changed since I was active, first in the newspaper field and then in the television and radio field. It isn’t only that the financial condition of the news media have changed; it is also in the attitudes of the reporters that a decided change has taken place.

Let me be more specific. Back in the 1960s, I was attending a national newspaper conference in Washington, D.C. when I found myself in a bull session with four other editors of U.S. daily newspapers. They were all older than I was, and all of them had once covered the White House and capital politics and campaigns.

Eventuallly the conversation got around to the experiences of each of the editors on the capital beat. Taking turns, each man told stories about the sex escapades, drinking bouts, and carousing of men and women in public life --- including presidents and senators that were well known.

The stories they told were replete with sexual encounters, drunken experiences, and even bouts with the law that were never reported in the newspapers nor on television or radio. I asked them why they didn’t report the incidents in print and on the air so that the public might know the candidates better and have all the information they needed for decisions at the polls.

The editors laughed heartily at my question and even called me naïve. Their reaction generally went this way: “Why, you just don’t do things like that when you’re a responsible reporter or editor --- especially with people like the President, a senator, or a congressman.”

I didn’t hesitate to tell them that I didn’t think much of their double standard of reporting the news. In a spate of anger I couldn’t hold back, I told them their job was to report the news, not make decisions for the public --- and it was their duty as newsmen to tell it like it was.

Well, Nixon and Watergate changed all that, and, as a lifelong newsman and editor, I’m grateful for it. Watergate took Presidents off the pedestal and brought them down to earth with the rest of us, where they belong. Since that time, reporters have not hesitated to report “all the news,” regardless of the consequences.

Many Presidents and would-be senators and congressmen --- some of whom failed to make the grade as a result --- have felt the real power of the honest report, and that’s as it should be in the realm of the newsmakers. Of course, it often has been rough on the reporters who dared reveal the truth, but so be it.

At least the hypocritical double standard that once prevailed in the capital’s corps of reporters and editors has gone by the wayside and is gone forever. Telling the truth remains the most precious right of a truly free press.

National Movement Needed to Put Lid on Federal Budget

Whatever happened to the attempt that almost succeeded 16 years ago to put a permanent lid on the federal budget? At that time, as I remember, 63 senators voted for the lid, but it was a move that fell just four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the historic measure.

Had the Senate passed the revolutionary measure, the House was reported ready to pass the balanced-budget amendment. It is a national tragedy that a mere number of four reluctant senators was able to forestall real progress in a democratic society by failing to read the handwriting on the wall.

Then and now, the American people, in poll after poll, have said resoundingly that they want Congress to slash spending and reduce the national debt, which is galloping undisturbed toward the $5 trillion mark. Maybe a national referendum should be in order to bring those reluctant few to attention and to read that handwriting.

Meanwhile, members in both houses of Congress keep telling us things will change and that a great deal more than a two-thirds majority in the Senate, as well as the House, will come around and put the nation’s welfare before the political advantages some congressmen believe is paramount.

In the past, it has been a few Democrats here and there that have been the strongest opponents of a budget lid and who have used a variety of methods to sidetrack the measure so it cannot come up again on the floor of either house. It’s one more disturbing example of Congress’ refusal to listen to public sentiment.

It is also a stark example of how just a few members of Congress can prevent important measures from coming to a final vote. But there are a couple ways in which the public can override the will or lack of will in the halls of Congress. Earlier I mentioned the possibility of employing a national referendum to do it.

However, I have another, better idea. A national referendum would require Congress’ approval before it could go to the public. A national initiative, on the other hand, would not need congressional approval. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for an initiative process, such as most of the states already have.

So, a constitutional amendment is sorely needed to create a national initiative process. I know that would take time, but it can be done. Are there enough national leaders interested in the project to make it happen? There should be. And maybe there will be if the mass news media desired to make it happen.

Perhaps the ongoing Tea Party Movement, which has been gathering many voters anxious to curtail Big Government, will be the means by which America can end the dangerous slide toward Socialism. If it worked to signal the beginning of the American Revolution, it just may be the means by which the Second Revolution can begin.

Anybody for tea?

Greatest Danger Facing the World? A Surprise Answer

What is the greatest danger facing America and the world today? After surveying every possible danger and taking a long look at every corner of the world, I have come up with what I’m sure will be a surprise answer. At least it will be a surprise to those who are looking abroad for the answer.

In listing the potential dangers, let’s start with some of the very obvious ones. First, the danger posed by our bold ventures into Afghanistan and then into the Middle East to depose the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, and introduce Iraq to freedom and democracy. Could it touch off an endless holy war? Or encourage new democracies in the Middle East and elsewhere?

Second, will environmental problems, particularly in all the underdeveloped nations, cause grief and despair, not only in those nations, but in the neighboring, developed First and Second World countries, as well? It’s a question that goes both ways: That is, excessive, militant environmental practices can be just as dangerous as no environmental controls whatsoever.

Third, will the nations developing nuclear arms pose a serious threat to those nations that already possess those arsenals but have agreed to treaties controlling them? Of course, I am referring first to Iran and North Korea, which are thwarting inspections of nuclear facilities, and second to the treaty-obedient countries --- the U.S., Russia, Israel, Pakistan, China, and India.

Fourth, will the Third World nations that are constantly facing civil wars and blood baths upset the balance of power in the rest of the world and lay the groundwork for another World War? And will these insurrections produce another batch of troublesome dictators?

Fifth, will the accelerating war against terrorism grow more dangerous and bring on a Holy War reminiscent of the Crusades and the excesses of the Ottoman Empire? And, finally, sixth, will the world’s most populous nations, China and India, turn belligerent and throw their masses at Asia and the rest of the world?

Yes, they are all great dangers, but I believe the greatest danger of all to America and the world lies right here at home! The U.S. is the hope of the world, not only to create world peace but to function as a model for all other nations concerning the benefits of a free society and a democratic republic that thrives on a free-enterprise system.

If we falter and continue to lean toward Socialism, Big Government, and the loss of individual and property rights, the world will have lost its greatest hope for freedom and peace. Socialism leads to dictatorship, the end of the great American dream, and the possibility of another civil war.

Democrats Propose Defying Electorate’s Voice on Taxes

The Democrats in the Washington State Legislature are about to deliver a slap in the face to the state’s voters. It will come in the form of the Democratically controlled Legislature’s move to suspend Initiative 960 so that it will be free to vote for tax increases the Demos say are needed to do the state’s business.

Back in 2007, Tim Eyman’s I-960 measure was passed overwhelmingly by the electorate. It decrees that any tax measure being considered by the Legislature will need approval by at least two-thirds of the lawmakers to pass. At present, the Democrats control both houses but are far short of the two thirds they would need to pass any tax increase.

At issue is a projected state budget deficit of $2.8 billion, which, according to the Associated Press, “is the gap between state expenses and expected tax collections through June, 2011.” The Republicans in both houses of the Legislature are arguing that there are other ways to control the deficit.

And I agree heartily with the Republicans in this case. As usual, the Democrats look to tax increases whenever they run into trouble in running the state. For years I’ve been arguing that the lawmakers need only start cutting back on government programs and agencies to make ends meet.

For example, a start in that direction has already been suggested. A Republican legislator has submitted legislation that would force the state to end its role in the liquor business and hand over the state’s liquor agency to private industry --- a move that would save the state millions and help prevent tax increases.

At the same time, the lawmakers could end the state’s slide toward Socialism by privatizing several other state functions --- for example, its heavy-handed role in running the schools, its equally heavy-handed role in health administration, and its unnecessary intrusion in other agencies that should be turned over to the private sector.

In fact, it appears that only a victory in the next state election by the Republicans can bring an end to Big Government and the slide toward Socialism. Is that possible? I think it may be, given the increasing clamor by the electorate for a more Conservative approach to governing --- as evidenced by the growing popularity of the Tea Party movement.

What remains to be seen is whether the courts would consider any move by the Democrats in the Legislature to bypass I-960 to be unconstitutional. That appears to be a distinct possibility and would settle the issue once and for all.

It is significant that when the House took up the measure to suspend the provisions of I-960, the vote was a bare 51 to 47. Before the late-night vote, the AP reported, “Republican legislators exploited their limited powers to extend debate and strongly protest the measure.”

If the electorate raised its collective voice in favor of supporting I-960, it is possible that enough senators will hear their expression of anger and vote down any attempt to suspend provisions of the initiative.

Even the Issue of Mammograms Has Been Politicized

Until a preventive measure or a cure is found for breast cancer, the issue is bound to keep coming up week after week and year after year. One of the reasons is that, in addition to being a most important health issue, it has also managed to become a hot potato in the realm of politics.

I remember the time not too long ago that the National Cancer Institute sparked a hot political dispute when it decided to withdraw its recommendation that all women 40 to 49 should get regular breast X-Ray examinations. One would have thought that the advice of the reputable Institute would be accepted without a murmur of disapproval.

But, at the time and frequently since then, some voices in Congress have issued loud protests that the Institute’s new policy was racist and sexist, of all things. Leave it to members of Congress to reduce a major national issue from the sublime to the ridiculous! The politicos were not fazed by the Institute’s statement that its decision was based on very new scientific studies concerning mammograms.

Chalk up the continuing political gripes and outlandish cries of “racism” and “sexism” as just more attempts to politicize an issue that should be decided in science laboratories, not political assemblies. For example, the Institute clearly explained that it had not ruled out mammograms. It still recommended regular examinations for all women over 50. That remains the Institute’s policy to this day.

All the Institute did was to recognize legitimate scientific studies from various health centers around the world and in the U.S. --- studies that indicated that the value of mammograms for women under 50 has been inconclusive. Did it, therefore, rule out such examinations for younger women? Of course not. It simply stated that such examinations should be at the discretion of the women themselves and their doctors.

It has always been obvious that the protesters in and out of Congress have had their own agenda in mind. Looking ahead to health-care reform, they want to make certain that mammograms are among all the freebies and other politically sponsored goodies that will be available in a system of socialized medicine.

What they don’t want to admit is that nothing will be free under most of the government-operated health-care systems that have been proposed. What they don’t pay the doctor, they’ll have to pay in taxes to Big Brother for running the system.

Poison Payola Racket That Promoted Rock Has Reappeared

It appears we may be seeing the beginning of another payola scandal like the one that tarnished the reputation of the record industry and those radio stations whose very existence depended on promoting pop records and the singers and musicians who produced them.

The New York Times News Service recently reported that New York’s Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had begun an investigation of “whether the United States’ largest record companies are skirting payola laws by hiring middlemen to influence which songs are heard on the public airwaves.”

Spitzer has served subpoenas on three of the largest record companies asking for copies of “all e-mails, letters, contracts, and other correspondence between the companies and the industry’s leading independent promoters.”

The companies subpoenaed are Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, EMI Group, and Warner Music Group. For some reason Spitzer’s office did not explain, no subpoenas have been issued for radio stations and promoters that may be involved in the payola racket. And that surprises me. I can’t understand why the promoters and the radio stations, which are primary keys in the payola schemes, have been left the hook.

Federal and state laws outlawing payola came into existence at about the same time the miserable rock-n-roll era began right after the Second World War. How well I remember it. I was serving as the music critic for the Seattle Times when the rock racket emerged and killed the cause of legitimate folk music and classical music, as well.

I blame the record companies distributing the rock records and the hot-shots who were the go-betweens and promoters for creating and greasing the skids for the Rock-n-Roll Era. I refuse to call it “music,” because it is more akin to caterwauling or organized noise. However, equal blame should be placed on all the radio stations that willingly accepted dirty cash on condition that they play the “favored” rock records. Some of that disdain should apply to the disk jockeys who were also part of the racket and may have been guilty of accepting cash to play certain records.

Why do I make so much of the payola racket? Because it was that criminal practice that popularized the entire Rock-n-Roll Era, beginning with Elvis Presley and winding up with all those bands of noise-producing “musicians” that poisoned the minds and musical tastes of millions of American youngsters. I realize this is a most serious charge, but so be it.

I’m rooting strongly for the New York attorney general to root out the payola cancer and to penalize everyone involved, from the record companies that make the trashy records to the promoters, radio stations, and disk jockeys who play a rotten role in the process.

A Tribute to Mothers Who Are Victims of Alzheimer’s

I hope you don’t mind if I dedicate this message to the two million or so mothers in America and elsewhere who are victims of Alzheimer’s --- and don’t recognize their children, their families, nor anyone else. I do it because my dear Mom was a victim of the dreaded disease the last ten years of her life.

In her active, vibrant life, she was typical of most other Moms --- unselfish, generous, always placing her children’s interests above her own, and fiercely protective of her brood, no matter what miseries we perpetrated on others. Before Alzheimer’s stole away her mind, she told me in detail about her life as a child, a young woman, and finally a bride --- before she gave me life. And I have all her words on tape.

She loved music, literature, art, and the theater, a love she transmitted to me as one of her greatest gifts. Her girlhood dream was to be an actress, but her father, a brilliant musician and composer, was an uncompromising, old-fashioned martinet, who believed all women should stay at home, cook, wash, and care for the children.

I know she would have been a marvelous actress. But she stayed at home and played an even greater role as an incomparable wife and mother, who taught us not only manners and politeness but how to make dreams come true, how to enjoy great books, music, drama, and all the arts. The only consolation I have now is that, before she lost her memory, I told her every day how much I loved and appreciated her.

* * *

Blame Mom for Society’s Ills? How About Pop’s Role?

While we’re on the subject of Moms, I have to say that the only people in the world who don’t have a union negotiating for them are mothers. And, you know something, no people in the world are in greater need of a bargaining agent to state their case and to make demands.

I read not long ago about recent studies that told us that many of society’s ills should be laid at the feet of mothers who insist on having lives of their own --- you know, going off to work because Dad’s not making enough money to keep the family going and turning the kids over to day-care centers and stuff like that there.

Why are such studies zeroing in on Mom? Where’s Dad in all this? I’ve said before in other commentaries and I’ll say it again: It’s a new world, and the rules of the domestic game have changed. Bringing up Junior and Sally are the EQUAL responsibilities of Mom AND Pop. The two-career family is no longer a storybook plot; it’s a modern necessity.

That doesn’t mean that science should work on switching roles so the male can have the babies. But it does mean that all chores in the family process should be shared in the modern world. I think we should celebrate Mother’s Day and Father’s Day on the same day --- and make them real equals in the world of tomorrow.

Inventors’ Luck: Guess Who Came Up With Karaoke Years Ago

Just before I left the Army after the Second World War, I wrote to six or seven record companies --- RCA, Decca, Columbia, and others --- and suggested a brand new project. As a musician and arranger, I was looking for a new, lucrative career, so I wrote to the record companies.

My idea was to produce a variety of records of all kinds --- classical, light pops, folk, swing, jazz --- with the solo or melody left out. That solo line was to be supplied by anybody who wished, when they wished, and how they wished. It would encourage people to amuse themselves or others in their own special, private way and would apply particularly to students learning to play musical instruments.

I think it was the best idea I ever had. But every one of the record companies turned me down, saying it was not cost-effective and would never catch on. Oh, yeah! It sure did. I don’t think the Japanese got it from me, but they tried out the idea back in the 1970s and called it karaoke.

It became the rage there, in America, and everywhere else. And where do you think karaoke wound up becoming the greatest rage? Why, of all places, in my old home town, Cleveland, from where the idea came in the first place! Hmmmm! I wonder…..

* * *

Noble Bill of Rights Needs One Addition: Right of Initiative

If the Constitution of the United States is the foundation of America, then the Bill of Rights is the nation’s heart and soul --- the instrument that differentiates us even from the other democratic republics of the world.

Like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights is not perfect, of course. Nothing is. But it is the glue that has held this nation together for more than two centuries --- and will continue to do so as long as we hold to its principles. So, having said that, are there any changes I would make in this near-perfect document?

Yes, there is one, and an extremely important one it is, as each of the 50 states has found. The founding fathers provided a referendum process, which is too cumbersome and depends entirely upon Congress to set it into motion. I think the Bill of Rights needs an amendment giving the nation as a whole the right of initiative --- the right of the people to make or change laws and even to change the Constitution, if they so chose.

We should have the same right of initiative that we enjoy and frequently use at the state level. We should be able to right the wrongs of a frequently errant Congress or do what Congress refuses or fails to do. Members of Congress so often forget or ignore the people --- except at election time.

Hold the Presses! A Star Is Born! Well….Not Exactly

As a kid, I often dreamed of being a movie hero like Rudolf Valentino, Tom Mix, Hoot Gibson, or even Clark Gable or Cary Grant. You can see how far back I go. But I got my first job at a newspaper at the tender age of 14, and I have been in the news business ever since. However, I never really lost that Hollywood yearning. While pounding a typewriter all those years, I would frequently do a Walter Mitty and imagine that I was the good cop cleaning out all members of the mob, the war hero saving his battalion from nihilation, or the scientist finding a cure for cancer.

At the end of my imagined movie, I always got the girl, of course. Then, as movie critic for the Seattle Times in the 1950s and 1960s, I began traveling to Hollywood and film locations around the world --- and reveled in every glorified moment. But through it all, I never got a role in the movies. Then one day in the late 1980s, I was asked to audition for a Shirley MacLaine movie titled “Waiting for the Light,” a movie that was somehow related to the ongoing Cuban missile crisis. Glory be! I was hired after the audition. After a half century as a newsman, I had finally made it in films.

Yup, I made it, and what do you think I wound up playing? Why, a newsman on TV, for Pete’s sake! And I can tell you definitely that I didn’t get the girl. All my scenes had already been shot. All I had to do was film my TV scenes --- and I was able to do it without wearing my glasses; my glasses were ruled out because they were deemed to be too modern for the film, for goodness’ sake. So, if you should see the film, you may not recognize me without glasses. So, what else is new? Oh, yes, one more thing. At one point in the film, the director said to me, “Relax. Just act naturally.” I didn’t relax, but I had a lot of fun pretending to be a newsman.

No Reason to Celebrate Elvis Presley’s 50th Birthday

On the day of Elvis Presley’s 50th birthday, I remember writing this commentary. Do you mind if I don’t celebrate? And if I mourn instead? In the 1950s, a shrewd promoter named Colonel Parker signed on a kid named Elvis Presley. And the miserable age of Rock was born.

Presley was shy and personable. But quick, immense wealth, then the curse of drugs and dope cut him down before his time. The Age of Rock was created by sensational hype and hotshot promoters and recording salesmen. And, most of all, the advent of the super-sound amplifier.

It didn’t matter what was being played and sung. If it was loud enough, it was good enough. Half a century of Rock has fractured normal hearing. I think future generations may be born without ears. When Presley came along, we lost something valuable. At the time, we were experiencing a marvelous resurgence of American folk music.

Remember the profound, memorable songs of Burl Ives, the Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, the Weavers, and even the Smothers Brothers? But the short-lived folk period was plowed under by the ear-splitting, monotonous racket of Presley and the Rockers who came after him. The news media had to share the blame for promoting Presley and other Rockers. Elvis’ 50th birthday? I pass. I’d rather remember Gershwin, Porter, Rogers, and others.

Autumn’s the Time to Do All Those Things You Need to Do

Maybe I like autumn because I crave cool weather. I’m something of a workaholic, and I’m addicted to sweaters. Yup. Sweaters. They’re like a constant embrace from a loved one. But sweaters aside, I think autumn is more of a “get up and go” season than spring. And I’m not just talking about cleaning up the garage.

Autumn’s the season to jog your mind and start doing all those things you promised yourself 10 or 15 years ago. Here are some fr’instances: You keep talking about learning to operate a computer. Well, don’t just sit there. Pick up the phone right now and call a vocational training school or community college about courses for beginners.

You’ve also talked a lot about enrolling in continuing education courses at one of the colleges. Quit talking about it, and do it. Learning isn’t a chore. It’s the most exhilarating experience of your life --- well, maybe next to sex and football. Have you ever bought a season ticket to the Seattle Symphony, Seattle Opera, Youth Symphony, the Reparatory Theater, ACT, Intiman, or any one of the theaters that help make this the nation’s most exciting live-theater region?

And how long has it been since you last visited the Seattle Art Museum, the Frye Museum, the Henry Gallery, or any of the scores of galleries in the blessedly cultural Seattle area? I hope I’ve jolted your conscience. Autumn’s not the twilight of the human drama, as some of the poets have suggested. It’s the real beginning.

Balanced Trade Policy Needed, Not Protectionism

The great protectionist dispute has split America. One side wants to restrict foreign imports to protect American jobs. The other side wants no part of restrictions, fearing other nations will retaliate and reject U.S. goods. I think both sides are wrong, and that the key word to a solution is “balance.”

First, I believe the feds are right in proposing a fund to help American factories compete with foreign products. Other nations subsidize their industries so they can undercut American prices. An American subsidy would help the U.S. balance things and wipe out our huge trade deficit.

Second, I think Congress should be talking “balance” in trade agreements. The daily loss of thousands of American jobs to foreign products must be halted. One way to do it is to insist on balancing imports with exports and make it permanent American policy.

It would work this way, using Japan as an example: Instead of penalizing imports, I think we should tell the Japanese they must accept as much from us as we accept from them. The products need not balance exactly. But they should be held to a 50-50, 60-40, or whatever proportion was agreed upon by the two countries.

Finally, I think no solution is possible unless we slash the federal budget drastically. Our bloated budget is keeping the dollar too high. With a reduced dollar, more foreigners could then afford to buy our products.

It’s Time to Spell Out Some of My Most Egregious Pet Peeves

Hey! It’s “Pet Peeve” time --- and I didn’t have to research this commentary for a moment, because the pet peeves listed here won’t leave my mind, dammit! So, without wasting a second more, permit me to launch into my list of pet peeves, most of which I believe are yours, too.

Pet Peeve No. 1 --- Nothing bothers me more than those disgusting all-you-can-eat contests that frequently are shown on TV, whose directors and camera crews should know better. Is there any activity of humankind, particularly in this era of starving nations, that is more ludicrous and upsetting than a contest in which the competitors keep shoving pounds of food into their mouths and stomachs? Makes one want to throw up.

Pet Peeve No. 2 --- Pro-sports and college male athletes who let their hair grow so long that it frequently obscures their names on the backs of their jerseys. Men, the long, flowing hair is for the ladies! Get a haircut, dammit, and clean up your act! Quit trying to look like Samson.

Pet Peeve No. 3 --- All tattoos and particularly the tattoos on the bodies of both men and women in or out of the sports realm make my blood boil. Tattoos mar the natural beauty and health of the human skin. Why, oh, why, doesn’t the medical profession come out strongly against tattooing as being dangerous to healthy skin? Babies are born without tattoos and they should grow out of life that way, too.

Pet Peeve No. 4 --- Why do so many people --- and particularly young people --- insist on bastardizing their speech with exclamations like “You know” and “You guys”? And why do they do it again and again and again? Are they so limited in speech that they can’t use more meaningful terms?

Pet Peeve No. 5 ---Who was it that first created the notion that fighting and killing bulls was a legitimate sport? It must have been a Spaniard --- and one who had so little to do that all he could think of was not just tossing the bull but sticking a sword through the animal’s skull. At any rate, bull fighting in Spain and everywhere else should be outlawed as cruel and inhumane.

Pet Peeve No. 6 --- People who insist on carrying on conversations while watching a film in a movie theater or listening to a concert, drama, or opera at the concert hall. Why in hell can’t they save it for the intermission or for the ride home? Worse yet is the idiot who not only carries on a conversation at the theater but also laughs so loud that others can’t hear what’s going on in a film or on stage.

Pet Peeve No. 7 --- Drivers behind you who insist on speeding up so close to your rear bumper that you don’t dare slow down or stop at a caution light. If they’re in so great a hurry, why don’t they switch to another lane or take a road with fewer autos on it? Or, better yet, why don’t they take a bus or a taxi?

Pet Peeve No. 8 --- So-called aficionados who insist on showing off their ignorance by applauding too soon or after every movement of a four-movement symphony --- or before a singer has completed a work. And they do it as if to show off their musical savvy, when, actually, all they’re doing is showing off their stupidity.

Well, that’s all the Pet Peeves for today, but, believe me, there are many more. I wasn’t a newspaper critic for nothing!

Obama’s Call for New Global-Warming Agency Is Major Blunder

President Barack Obama has committed another major blunder in his increasingly faltering administration. This time he has tossed caution to the winds and joined the world’s global-warming hoaxers with his proposal for a new and totally unnecessary government agency to pursue the global-warming issue, otherwise known as “climate change.”

Where in the world is the President getting his information? It is obvious he is not getting it from all those honest, legitimate scientists who have been trying to tell the American people that global warming is a sometime thing that has been going on for millions of years --- and that it is certainly not caused by mankind.

One has to wonder why the President apparently paid no attention to the recent revelations that the U.N.-sponsored I.P.C.C., which consists of many phony scientists in search of headlines, was guilty of outright lies in its reports that global warming was a serous problem --- and suggesting that the major powers, including the U.S., should be devoting billions or even trillions of dollars to eradicating a problem that doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, the nation’s Liberal news media are reporting the President’s announcement concerning a climate-change agency as a major news event --- and once again the media are ignoring the thousands of honest climatologists who are begging to be heard and who insist that the global-warming scare is a political hoax.

Like the news media, the Associated Press has treated Obama’s announcement as if it were a good thing. In fact, the A.P. report is loaded with such misinformation as this: “Climate change has drawn widespread concern in recent years as temperatures around the world rise, threatening to harm crops, spread disease, increase sea levels, change storm and drought patterns and cause polar melting.” What hogwash!

The A.P. also reported that Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, former governor of Washington State, and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with N.O.A.A.’s National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.” How low politician Locke has fallen!

In a statement, Locke said: “Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat.” And Lubchenco added this: “Climate change is real, it’s happening now.” She added that climate information is vital to the wind-power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers, and public-health officials.

More hogwash! If only these misguided politicians would seek out the truth from the world’s great majority of honest climatologists. Those scientists would tell Obama, Locke, and Lubchenco that incidental warming comes and goes, as it has for millions of years, and that the earth’s populations have nothing to do with it.

The least the President and the hoaxers could do is pay attention to the Petition Project created ten years ago by Oregon’s top-grade scientist, Dr. Arthur Robinson. The project he sent out to thousands of climatologists and other scientists drew the names of 31,000 to the petition who stated unequivocally that the global-warming belief was a hoax and that, definitely, humans had nothing to do with any incidental warming trend. Do your homework, Mr. President, and save your country billions or even trillions of wasted funds.

Is the American Dream of Freedom Headed for Extinction?

I repeat this commentary every once in a while because I believe it is so important that it bears repeating as often as possible.

Is this great nation nearing the end of its existence as the hope of the free world? A couple of philosophical minds of the past warned us that, if we do not change our ways, the torch of freedom is destined for extinction. One of those minds was Alexander Tyler, a Scottish professor, who made his prediction back in 1787. The other was Lord Thomas Macaulay of Great Britain, who echoed it 80 years later.

Although we’re not sure which man was the original author, the solemn warning of the statement cannot be ignored. My longtime friend and co-author, the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, included it in the last chapter of our book, Environmental Overkill, which itself was a warning that, if we failed to neutralize the Socialist-leaning efforts of the environmental extremists, the democratic republic of America would be a thing of the past.

The Tyler or Macaulay warning went thus:

“A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.

“The average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence:

“From bondage to spiritual faith.
“From faith to great courage.
“From courage to liberty.
“From liberty to abundance.
“From abundance to complacency.
“From complacency to selfishness.
“From selfishness to apathy.
“From apathy to dependency.
“And from dependency back again into bondage.
“Can we escape this fate?”

Dr. Ray and I agreed that, yes, it will be possible to escape this fate, provided we turn back the clock and cut federal, state, and local governments down to size, return operations to private hands, restore all the personal and private rights our forefathers wrote into the Constitution, and end the growing policy of “promising the greatest benefits from the public purse.”

Thanks to the Democratic Party of the past 65 years, we have been drawn steadily toward the welfare state and Socialism, and if we don’t reverse course, our “democracy will collapse from loose fiscal policies” and, inevitably, will be “followed by a dictatorship.” Can we afford to disregard the warnings?

Refusing to Vote Beckons Downfall of Democracy

The best secretary I ever had was a feisty Irish girl. Is there any other kind? She liked to spout Irish philosophy and humor --- particularly on Election Day. With an engaging smile and a learned expression, she’d say a person had only two examples to follow when preparing to vote.

One was Maggie, who said she never voted for politicians “because it would only encourage them.” I’ll bet you’ve heard that one many times in recent years. It retains its comic wisdom no matter how often it’s used by comics or anyone else. The other example mentioned by my Irish secretary was that of Aunt Bridget --- obviously another Irish character.

Aunt Bridget loved elections, unlike Maggie. Her motto was: “Don’t get mad. Get even. Vote!” I recommend Aunt Bridget to anyone on Election Day --- and for good reason. It’s on Election Day that politicians turn government back over to you and me for repairs.

It’s like Democracy’s family sedan. It has to go in for a thorough checkup, a lube job, or maybe even a trade-in. Officeholders everywhere have been driving the sedan for two, four, or more years, often recklessly and without paying attention to the rules of the road.

The sedan has many dents, scratches, and other marks on it. It is out of oil and gas and maybe much more. You and I have it for only one day --- Election Day, so we have to make the most of it, since it won’t come along for at least two or four more years. However, it’s obvious we can work wonders with the old sedan in a short time, if we choose to do so.

Some people are like Maggie. They say it’s useless to vote, so they stay home, because they’re willing to let the sedan deteriorate and become junk. To this day, I have yet to hear or read a logical or sensible reason for NOT voting. Some elitists have suggested that democracy is better served when only those “intelligent enough to vote go to the polls.”

What an idiotic statement or belief that is. Who on earth is “intelligent enough” to vote? And who is to decide which candidate or issue is the “intelligent choice”? I’d say that one of the marks of a failing democracy is the indication that too many people are staying away from the voting booth because “it would only encourage” the political rascals.

So, when that old sedan comes rolling around for an overhaul on Election Day, forget Maggie and remember Aunt Bridget. Who knows? You may want to fix a tire, charge the battery, change the spark plugs, or even remove the nut at the wheel, as the saying goes.

How can you resist? Please, for your sake and mine, don’t get mad! Get even! See you at the polls.