Speed Up Graduations? Answer Lies Right Here in Seattle

Florida’s educators and government seem to have joined forces in a common cause: Find a way to speed up college graduation. Apparently some of the leaders of that state are reacting to a growing national shortage of well schooled and talented young people to fill the jobs our technological advances require. Makes sense.

In fact, I’m surprised more states aren’t similarly concerned. I’m surprised, too, that educators across the U.S. may not have heard about a remarkable recent experiment that addresses the very same problem the Floridians are facing --- and an extremely successful experiment it has been.

How do I know about it? I was part of it, and participated in the discussions that turned the experiment into reality. Several years ago, Seattle University and Seattle Preparatory, both Catholic schools, asked me to attend meetings to consider a proposal the two institutions were studying to establish a common curriculum.

The idea was to create a six-year program joining studies at the university and the high school. Called the Matteo Ricci College, it would make it possible for talented high-school students to complete a six-year course of study --- three years at Seattle Prep and three more years at Seattle University, instead of the usual four years at both schools. Thus, students would be able to earn a college degree two years ahead of time.

Needless to say, the proposal was adopted, and the Matteo Ricci program at Seattle Prep and Seattle U. has been a tremendous success since its inception more than two decades ago. Of course, organization of Matteo Ricci was made easier because both schools are run by Catholic padres.

But there is no reason that the same idea shouldn’t work everywhere else in the U.S. It might not be plausible to enlist every high school in a six-year program, because colleges and universities are presently overcrowded and might not be able to reshape their courses of study. But if even 10 percent of the colleges and universities in the U.S. considered the six-year format and coordinated it with a few high schools, the supply of highly trained young men and women for the work force might quickly end the shortage.

Another important aspect of the Matteo Ricci program is quickly evident. Young men and women eager to extend their studies by enrolling in graduate schools would be able to do it two years earlier. Still another point is that all the students concerned would be saving money on one hand and starting their careers that much sooner.

Calling the governor of Florida: The answer to your question about speeding up college graduations lies right here in Seattle.

Lopsided Research Puts the “Environmental Blame” on U.S.

Thanks to the Associated Press, we now have a positive indication that so-called researchers at American universities don’t know what they’re talking or writing about with regard to worldwide environmental rankings. If it weren’t so serious and preposterous a report, it would be worth quite a few laughs.

According to environmental researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities, two upper-crust collegiate emporiums noted for their Liberal faculties and lack of Conservative minds, Finland and Norway in Europe and Uruguay in South America ranked first, second, and third in “environmental sustainability,” which has become a byword of the environmental extremist camp.

The United States ranked way down --- 45th --- among the 146 nations listed in their research. Forty-fifth! The truth of the matter is that the U.S. has done more to advance the cause of controlling pollution, establishing wetland domains, and protecting virtually every other phase in the environmental realm than any other nation in the world.

The U.S. has been protecting virtually every other phase in the environmental realm --- at a pace far greater than has any other nation in the world.

The Yale and Columbia researchers said they based their rankings on 75 measures, “including the rate at which children die from respiratory diseases, fertility rates, water quality, overfishing, emission of heat-trapping gases, and the export of sodium dioxide, which, they say, is a crucial component of acid rain.

Their research indicated, they insist, that the rankings reflect the success of other nations at tasks “like maintaining or improving air and water quality, maximizing biodiversity, and cooperating with other countries on environmental problems.” The other “problems” weren’t specified, which leads me to believe those “problems” were as ridiculous as the total report.

Ahead of the U.S. in the researchers’ rankings were such nations as Japan, Botswana (Botswana?!?!), “and the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan and most of Western Europe.” No reason was given, but the renegade nation of nuclear-happy North Korea was the lowest-ranking country of them all. Perhaps that’s because the North Korean dictator and his military are too busy plotting the next war to deal with such mundane issues as a cleaner environment.

The researchers’ report is faulty in so many particulars that one cannot decide which one to tackle first. Therefore, I choose to tackle none of them, because they are simply just another indication of how our college and university faculties choose to distort scientific fact to support their Liberal agenda.

We already know that many nations, particularly those in Western Europe, blame the U.S. for every environmental problem under the sun. In fact, some critics of those nations are now blaming us for the deadly Southeast Asian quake and tsunami, because , they opine, we “failed to notify the rest of the world of the quake and tsunami danger.”

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this lopsided anti-American thinking is that so many of our supposedly erudite college-faculty members are foremost among the haters! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

Japanese and European Critics of U.S. Should Button Their Lips

Despite the otherwise friendly relations at the diplomatic level between Japan and the United States, criticism of American workers and industry in general has continued in Japanese economic and communications circles. And U.S. diplomats, as well as labor and industry figures in the states, are puzzled by the frequency and the hot-tempered nature of the remarks.

Now, I’d be the last guy in the world to apply a gag rule to anybody at home or abroad, whether the comments are personal or in the Japanese news media and industry, but I have to add just two words of advice for the Japanese officials and observers who are keeping up the insults to American workers, in particular. The two words are “Shut up!”

One of the reasons for the continuing diatribe in Tokyo is that, like our own politicians, Japanese officials need an excuse for their own economic troubles. And recent statistics from the land of the Rising Sun indicate that the Japanese are having serious economic troubles of their own and shouldn’t be shooting verbal arrows at friends overseas.

By pointing to the U.S. and the American worker as lazy or incapable of hard work, Japan’s prime minister, for one, and his associates are diverting attention from their own shortcomings and playing games with their people. It’s an extremely dangerous game, and it could rebound to the detriment of the critics initiating the charges.

What the Japanese are doing unwittingly is goading a gradually boiling Congress into enacting severe punitive tariffs against Japan. And, since we are Japan’s leading trading partner, high American tariffs could be disastrous for Japan --- and actually make our own economic position much worse in the long run.

So, to be very un-diplomatic about the whole situation, the best trade advice we could give Japan’s chief critics of the U.S. and our workers is “Shut up!” I’m not sure how to say “Shut up!” in Japanese, but, from my visits to that country, I daresay most of them understand that English term.

In the meantime, notice that a very similar situation exists with regard to those European nations that have been criticizing the U.S. for similar reasons. Not only have the Europeans been tossing sharp barbs at us for our boldness in fighting terrorism; the European Union, for instance, has persisted in applying government subsidies --- contrary to international agreements --- to the French-based Airbus company to give it a gigantic advantage in sales over American aircraft makers.

Let’s broaden that bit of advice, then, and tell not only the Japanese but most of the Europeans to, please, “Shut up!”

Gallup Poll: News Reporters Rank Low in Honesty and Ethics

Many thanks to my friend, Bill Taylor, for sending me a recent Gallup Poll, which contains some expected statistics and some surprising ones. The pollsters listed 21 professions or trades and asked respondents to rate each of them for “honesty and ethical standards.”

Although I have devoted my life to the print and broadcast news media --- and am now retired --- I accepted the numbers in the categories of “TV reporters” and “newspaper reporters” because I have known for many years that reporters have been slanting the news to suit their prejudices in all the news media.

Little wonder, then, that in the list of 21 occupations, TV reporters ranked 15th and newspaper reporters 16th concerning their honesty and ethical standards. Obviously, the general public is well aware of the problems with the news media, most of whose members have acknowledged their Liberal and Leftist leanings. It was also no surprise that the persons leading the list with the greatest amount of perceived honesty and high ethical standards were nurses. Seventy-nine percent of those polled rated the nurses as No. 1 on the list. That compares with only 23 percent for TV reporters and 21 percent for newspaper reporters.

Grade-school teachers rated second, with 73 percent of the respondents rating them in the “highest” ranking. Druggists and pharmacists came in third, tied with military officers. Medical doctors were fifth with 67 percent and policemen sixth with 60 percent. No surprises there.

What really surprised me and turned my frown into a belated smile were the professions and jobholders who rated lower than TV and newspaper reporters. In the 17th spot, for example, were business executives at 20 percent --- a very clear reflection of the recent scandals detailed with Enron and other big-business firms.

Congressmen and women should be hanging their heads with shame. The Gallup Poll revealed that the general public ranks them 18th, with only 20 percent of those polled ranking our esteemed officeholders in the “high” category for honesty and exemplary ethics. In the 19th spot --- and definitely no surprise to anyone --- were lawyers, with a lowly 18 percent rating by the public. No. 20 on the list were advertising practitioners (and I suppose that means those who write ads for newspapers and magazines or voice ads for radio and TV. They should be embarrassed by the 10 percent vote in the honesty category.

Last, and for good reason, are the perennial last-place dwellers in polls of this kind: Automobile salesmen. I suppose they’re used to this kind of reaction from the general public. One might wonder why the auto-industry moguls in Detroit don’t do something about this public perception of car salesman as strongly lacking in honesty and ethical standards.

I don’t know about most of the trades represented in this Gallup Poll, but I do know that print and broadcast news-media owners should do something about the low esteem the public has for TV and newspaper reporters. And, please, don’t suggest sending them back to communications school. Most of the Liberal faculty members there are worse than the journalists they produce.

Scientists Reverse Selves on Malaria-Bearing Mosquitoes

Well, I’ll be damned! Sometimes I wonder if some scientists don’t know whether they are coming or going in the world of research. For example, take this report by the Los Angeles Times concerning a research team’s discovery concerning the malaria-causing mosquitoes.

“Malaria kills nearly a million people a year,” the report begins, “but it has a weakness --- to infect human, it needs mosquitoes. In a potential step toward eradicating the disease, researchers reported this week that they have developed a genetically engineered breed of mosquito that cannot be infected by the malaria-causing parasite.”

Well, how do you like that? Mosquitoes are known to cause malaria in swamps the world over, including the Southern U.S., so this research team has decided that the way to end the deadly malaria rampage is to create mosquitoes that carry no malaria infestation so they can’t infect humans.

According to the Times, “The research team, led by entomologist Michael Riehle at the University of Arizona, created the mosquitoes by changing a single gene, one involved in the production of insulin. To test the effect of that change, researchers injected 90 of the mosquitoes with the malaria parasite.

“Ten days later, at a point when normal mosquitoes would have bellies full of parasites, they didn’t find a single one. This is the first instance of a genetic modification that completely blocked development of a malaria parasite that can infect humans.”

How the researchers are now going to go about the gigantic problem of replacing the billions of mosquitoes around the world with their new phenomenal parasite-free mosquito has not been answered --- and it appears there never will be a method to accomplish such an impossible task.

After reading the Times’ report, I wondered if the Arizona U. researchers had ever heard about a much more important scientific discovery, the creation of DDT, a pesticide that was developed at first to prevent Army men and women from getting malaria way back in the 1930s.

DDT was so successful that it was applied to swamps in America’s Southland and eventually to swamp lands throughout the world, most importantly in the sultry nations of Africa and Asia. In all those regions, the deaths from malaria had once mounted to 3,000,000 a year!

After the application of DDT to all those swamps around the world, the number of deaths was brought down sensationally to just a few hundred within a few years of the application of DDT. It was one of the most remarkable feats scientists have ever produced in the world. Yet, it remained for the environmental extremists to complain that DDT was affecting the eggs of eagles, believe it or not, and that it should be banned. Congress and the federal government heeded the ridiculous complaints of the extremists and banned DDT in the U.S. --- a ban that spread around the world.

Within a few years, with DDT banned, the death rate from malaria climbed back to the 3,000-000-a-year figure. These are deaths that should have been blamed on the environmental extremists --- and they should have been charged with murder on a worldwide scale!

Obama Administration’s Freeze on Gulf Drilling Makes No Sense

The Obama administration continues to grow more ridiculous by the day with its outlandish orders. Its latest is an order to freeze oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, despite the fact that a federal court recently declared that its previous order to freeze drilling was unconstitutional.

When are Obama and his administrators going to wake up to the facts in the entire oil-drilling episode? This time, Ken Salazar, Obama’s interior secretary, said in ordering the latest freeze, which is good until November 30, that “such drilling poses an imminent threat of irreparable damage to the marine, coastal, and human environment.”

Salazar also said that “the government now needs assurances from oil drillers in the Gulf that they would have enough equipment to deal with any new spill --- knowing most such equipment already is being used to clean up the spill from the BP Deepwater Horizon well.”

According to a McClatchy Newspaper report, “An Interior Department memo said the (latest freeze) decision was supported by an extensive record of existing and new information indicating that allowing new deep-water drilling to commence would pose a threat of serious, irreparable or immediate harm or damage to marine, coastal, and human environment.”

In the meantime, British Petroleum has announced it has made great success in finally stopping the flow of oil from the Deepwater site. Let us just suppose that BP’s effort has succeeded and the flow of oil has been stopped permanently --- and that it won’t happen again.

If that were the case, it certainly wouldn’t end the tragedy over billions of gallons of spilled oil, ruined beaches, and the death of millions of species of fish and birds in the Gulf area. This is a tragedy that goes way back to political events that took place in Congress nearly 40 years ago.

At the time, Congress, mesmerized into ridiculous action by the efforts of environmental extremists, ordered a shutdown of all oil drilling within the continental United State, as well as an end to the construction of the much needed nuclear-energy plants across the nation.

That’s where the real blame in the Gulf mess lies. British Petroleum and other oil companies should not have been driven to seek and drill for oil in the Gulf or in any other waters off the coasts of the U.S. If Obama and his handpicked idiots had any sense, they would have issued orders to defy the environmentalists’ claims and lifted the bans on both oil drilling on land and the hundreds of new nuclear plants the nation needs so much.

Thanks to the extremists’ political action, the U.S. has been forced to rely on foreign oil for more than 75 percent of its needs. And thanks to the enviros’ stupidity, we are now involved in needless wars in the Middle East and in the Far East. Where is the Obama administration’s legal action against the extremists?

That isn’t all. While we’re at it, we should be prosecuting the extremists for their action that persuaded Congress to ban the use of DDT, the remarkable pesticide, that was once used to kill mosquitoes in the world’s swamps --- and which saved the lives of millions from the dreaded malaria. The extremists are murderers --- and getting away with it.

All the Arts Deserve Equal Billing With the “Core” Subjects

When I served as music, drama, films, and arts critic for the Seattle Times for close to 20 years, I frequently tried to make the case for public tax support of all the performing and visual arts. My reasoning was then and still is today that we should quit considering the arts as something of a “fringe benefit” and that their support should be provided only by the “elite, moneyed” citizens in society. Boloney.

The arts cut across all societal strata. They benefit everyone and are enjoyed by everyone in all societies. Therefore, they should be viewed in virtually the same way we look at the professions and the trades, as well as the traditional services and utilities governments provide with our tax money.

It’s hard to decide which is the worst offender - -- society in general or public and private schools in particular. No matter. All are equally guilty of denigrating the arts as a pursuit inferior to, say, architecture, engineering, teaching, carpentering, painting, plastering, or what-have-you.

In too many schools, any phase of the arts is condescendingly referred to as an “elective,” meaning the student may use it as something to “fill in” his schedule. What’s wrong with declaring a student’s desire to become a violinist or flutist in a symphony orchestra? Or a graphic artist with a department store? Or an actor or actress with an established live-theater company? There are plenty more similar options that are usually frowned on by too many educators.

I suggest that schools and society itself begin considering the arts as important in their curricula and in life as all other pursuits. That means the schools, for one, should offer arts studies right alongside all the “core” subjects --- English, history, languages, mathematics, and the sciences. Those who work in the arts should no longer be looked upon as “second-class citizens.”

POTPOURRI: Whenever a touring show of any kind is canceled, I am suspicious of the cause. In my 20 years of experience as a newspaper’s arts-and-entertainment editor, I recall that show cancellations were usually caused by disappointing advance ticket sales --- not the excuse that this or that star had the flu or some other debilitating virus or that a leading performer had an “accident” and couldn’t go on…. Buried in the news recently was an astounding report concerning the shipment of a new drug, nevirapine, to African nations to help them in their fight against AIDS in newborn babies. U.S. health officials asked the President’s (George W. Bush at the time) support in a plan to ship the drug supplies, and he did so, praising those who had created the drug and those who had arranged its shipment to African countries. But the National Institutes of Health, the federal government’s primary health-research agency, failed to tell the President about a serious warning from researchers that the drug could cause severe after-effects, including death. When the President has “friends” like these, who needs enemies?….I have a rather thorny and provocative question to ask, and I confess I don’t have an easy answer. It’s this: Since Muslim extremists have attacked and killed thousands of innocent American civilians and other innocent civilians around the world, do we have a moral right to return the “favor” and take similar action against Muslim citizens wherever they appear in or near combat? As one indignant radio commentator put it: What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander; nuke ‘em! However, I still have reservations about intentionally aiming bombs or bullets against innocents. How do you feel about it?

Return of Another Hitler May Have Already Begun

More than half a century ago, a war reporter, William Shirer, wrote “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” which should be must reading for every human being. It chronicles the life of Adolf Hitler and what can happen when free people take their freedom for granted and let despots flourish.

Hitler carried his hate and bigotry up the political ladder one rung at a time. At each crucial point, he could have been stopped easily if those opposing him had acted. But each time he moved up, he grew stronger. Neither freedom-loving Germans nor the Western nations he would soon attack were willing to take a firm stand against him --- until it was too late.

It’s been said that it can’t happen here. But it has begun to happen already, and only a few hundred miles from Seattle. At Hayden Lake, Idaho, the apostles of hate who call themselves the Aryan Nations recently did their thing. They burned crosses in Ku Klux Klan fashion. Like Hitler, they preached the elimination of blacks and Jews. They insisted that God was on their side and that they’re the protectors of truth and the Christian white race.

Many of them boldly called themselves Nazis. They carried guns and said they would use violence if necessary to build a whites-only, Christian nation in the great Northwest. If you weren’t disturbed by any of it, read Shirer’s history of Hitler. It happened over there, and, if you don’t care enough, you may one day find it on your own doorstep.

* * *

Death Penalty for Murderers Is More Humane Than Life in Prison

We’ve been reminded frequently in recent times that the U.S. is the only free nation that hangs on to the death penalty. Could we be right and the rest of the world wrong? I’ve been tussling with the issue all my life, and I’m sure you have, too. The arguments for executions will be found in biblical references, historic tradition, the longtime practice of exacting an eye for an eye, and the idea of deterring would-be killers.

Perhaps more important than any of these is the fact that whenever a vote or poll is recorded, the people insist on a death penalty for murderers. Several years ago, 78 percent of Washington State voters said they favored executions. I’m inclined to favor the majority of the state’s citizens.

My argument today is that the death penalty is the most humane treatment for all those who have taken the life of another person in cold blood. I say it is more humane because I strongly believe that locking murderers away behind prison bars for life is by far more inhumane than the death penalty might be.

The do-gooders who have been pleading for an end to the death penalty have lost all reason. A minute or two of pain in the execution chair seems to me to be far more humane than insisting on putting a murderer away for life like a caged animal.

Except for Community Displays, Fireworks Should Be Banned

A young hand holds a match to the fuse. The cracker goes off too soon or veers off wildly. A finger is lost, or a hand. Maybe an entire arm is crippled permanently. Or a leg. Or, even worse, an eye. Or, finally, the worst, a life is snuffed out. It’s all needless carnage, the result of a mania for a cheap thrill that is not so cheap.

Human damage is the worst loss but not the only loss. Communities across the nation lose billions in fires caused by errant firecrackers, bombs, and sparklers. Firefighting equipment is tied up taking care of cracker-caused fires when it should have been attending other alarms.

Each year at this time, the dance of death and destruction begins across America on Independence Day in the name of patriotism. I don’t see the patriotic value of risking limb and life for the sake of a few backyard thrills. Laws in Washington State and King County are as weak and ineffective as the rest. I think the Legislature has been guilty of ducking the issue of life and death by refusing to enact a much tougher fireworks law.

In fact, I believe it should show some courage and ban all fireworks, except those displayed and controlled by communities and fireworks experts. I don’t buy the lament of fireworks dealers, whether legal or not, that we owe them a chance to make a living. They are purveyors of latent injury and death. And we owe them nothing.

* * *

It’s Corny As Nebraska’s Fields, But Seafair Is Welcome Event

For a couple weeks each summer, the big city of Seattle gets to act like a small town --- and call the whole thing Seafair. It invites all the neighbors from the districts and suburbs. It recalls a flock of clowns annually to do what clowns do. And it gives a gang of men dressed as pirates a license each year to do things they wouldn’t dare do if they were in business suits.

Nearly all the communities have parades and stuff like that there. And then there’s the big one, the Torchlight Parade, which is always a premier event. Toss in Miss Seafair, an assortment of district queens and queens from foreign lands, water displays in Elliott Bay, and the speedboat races on Lake Washington --- and you get that homey small-town spirit in the big town.

But there are things I miss --- like the Aqua Follies and the comedy divers and all the other shows once held at the now defunct Aqua Theater on Green Lake. I’ll never forget the Broadway singer who reached for a high note one night, then swallowed a swarm of Green Lake’s choice little flying things…. She gulped twice and went right on with the performance in the best “show must go on” tradition. Ah, memories!

Seafair, an early August event, may be as corny as the fields of Nebraska, as the saying goes, but it’s ours, all ours, for better or for worse. Enjoy! Enjoy!

Japanese and European Critics of U.S. Should Button Their Lips

Despite the otherwise friendly relations at the diplomatic level between Japan and the United States, criticism of American workers and industry in general has continued in Japanese economic and communications circles. And U.S. diplomats, as well as labor and industry figures in the states, are puzzled by the frequency and the hot-tempered nature of the remarks.

Now, I’d be the last guy in the world to apply a gag rule to anybody at home or abroad, whether the comments are personal or in the Japanese news media and industry, but I have to add just two words of advice for the Japanese officials and observers who are keeping up the insults to American workers, in particular. The two words are “Shut up!”

One of the reasons for the continuing diatribe in Tokyo is that, like our own politicians, Japanese officials need an excuse for their own economic troubles. And recent statistics from the land of the Rising Sun indicate that the Japanese are having serious economic troubles of their own and shouldn’t be shooting verbal arrows at friends overseas.

By pointing to the U.S. and the American worker as lazy or incapable of hard work, Japan’s prime minister, for one, and his associates are diverting attention from their own shortcomings and playing games with their people. It’s an extremely dangerous game, and it could rebound to the detriment of the critics initiating the charges.

What the Japanese are doing unwittingly is goading a gradually boiling Congress into enacting severe punitive tariffs against Japan. And, since we are Japan’s leading trading partner, high American tariffs could be disastrous for Japan --- and actually make our own economic position much worse in the long run.

So, to be very un-diplomatic about the whole situation, the best trade advice we could give Japan’s chief critics of the U.S. and our workers is “Shut up!” I’m not sure how to say “Shut up!” in Japanese, but, from my visits to that country, I daresay most of them understand that English term.

In the meantime, notice that a very similar situation exists with regard to those European nations that have been criticizing the U.S. for similar reasons. Not only have the Europeans been tossing sharp barbs at us for our boldness in fighting terrorism; the European Union, for instance, has persisted in applying government subsidies --- contrary to international agreements --- to the French-based Airbus company to give it a gigantic advantage in sales over American aircraft makers.

Let’s broaden that bit of advice, then, and tell not only the Japanese but most of the Europeans to, please, “Shut up!”

What’s More Disgusting Than a Hot-Dog-Eating Contest?

Is there anything more disgusting than a contest to see who can gorge himself on hot dogs --- and for awarding a prize to the winner, the man who has swallowed the most hot dogs in the least amount of time! Well, maybe there are more disgusting exhibitions, but I can’t think of one.

In this most recent case, a fellow from Japan, Takeru Kobayashi, who won the Coney Island hot-dog-eating contest six times, was arrested for disregarding police restrictions and dashing onto the contest stage and making a damn fool of himself with his shouts for being eliminated from the bizarre contest.

When he did so, the idiots in the audience started shouting “Let him eat! Let him eat!” with the intention that he be allowed to enter the competition he had won so often. That’s when the authorities at Coney Island stepped in and took Takeru away --- ostensibly to wait another day to gorge himself on hot dogs.

Why do the authorities at Coney Island --- as well as the authorities who sponsor other disgusting eating or drinking contests --- permit these outlandish exhibitions to go on, and, in addition, offering large prizes? This year’s winner, a fellow named Joey Chestnut, collected the first prize of $20,000, plus a bejeweled mustard-yellow belt. I presume the color yellow was designed to represent the mustard on the hot dogs.

Worst of all, ESPN, the television network, chose to cover the disgusting contest for all to see. Surely, the TV network must have had a much more important event to cover. It not only had its cameras and reporters on hand for the Coney Island event; it also repeated segments of the contest in later news reports.

* * *

POTPOURRI: Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger of California has made what I consider to be a major error in vetoing state legislation banning smoking at all of the state’s parks and beaches. He is a cigar smoker, and his action could have been forecast. But it was no excuse. The governor said he acted because he thought the law was “an intrusion on people’s lives.” But I say tobacco and all its products should be banned because serious ailments are caused by smoking. In fact, I believe Congress should act to shut down the entire tobacco industry. . . .· All hail the arts! Executives and others in all the arts --- museums, drama companies, the ballet, and so many more --- have hastened to cut all salaries and reduce expenses in Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. What a great example they are setting for the corporations, the banks, and other “big” operators in today’s society! Instead, the big mugwumps are doling out millions of dollars to the executives and the retirees, despite the rough economy. If pay cuts are suited for the arts folks, why aren’t they also applicable to the big wheels in our economy? . . . · Believe it or not, Buckingham Palace has revealed that it cost the British public $57.8 million dollars to support Queen Elizabeth and the royal family for just the first three months of the present year! One wonders why the British public doesn’t raise hell over the extremely high cost of supporting the royals. If I had my way, as I have said many times, I would ban all royalty on the basis of the fact that kings, queens, and all their brood don’t desert special treatment. Think of how much better all that money could be used! Phooey on royalty and special privileges.

Warning: See the U.S. Future in Europe’s Socialist Past, Present

If you’re interested in getting an idea of where America, the world’s greatest democracy, may be headed, you don’t have to consult a savant with a crystal ball or a self-proclaimed sage to get a satisfactory answer. All you have to do is take a good look at the nations of Europe --- and you will realize where the U.S. is headed, if we let it happen!

Why is a comparison valid? The main reason is that, although the U.S. has welcomed immigrants from nations of virtually every ethnic origin, it is predominantly a country inhabited by the millions who came to America from European nations from the days of the pilgrims to the present day. It was natural, then, that we should reflect the cultures and traditions of Europe.

What has happened to our European cousins in the past century? The Russians threw off the yoke of the Communism they invented and lived by for about eight decades and created a counter-revolution that banished the Soviet Union --- but at the present time, it is divesting itself of capitalist notions and falling back into Socialist ways and Big Government control of the lives of all Russians.

The Scandinavian countries have already adopted Socialism and have gradually placed virtually every once-private pursuit under government control, including health and education laws. France, Germany, and even England and Italy are leaning precariously toward Socialism and welfare states --- ergo, Big Government. The same can be said for the remaining European nations.

Is it any wonder that so many international observers keep repeating the same old refrain: “Foreigners hate America”? Sure, they hate us, but how can anyone explain why they keep coming here by the thousands every year to claim residence in the U.S. and to take advantage of our welfare dollars and, most important, our freedom.

But how long will that freedom and all its advantages remain intact? Where will all the freedom-seeking immigrants go if the U.S. falls victim to the same Socialistic virus that has attacked European nations and made individuals there the vassals of the state?

Canada, which also owes its early history, culture, and traditions to European nations, should also be included in the roster of countries in which Socialism has already taken hold. I could offer many indications of that fact, but I need only refer to one: Canada’s decision to Socialize medicine. Its state-run health system is the reason so many Canadians travel to the U.S. for serious surgeries, because the lines for health treatments are so long up north. Also, the Canadian system has forced hundreds of Canadian doctors to give up their practices and migrate to the U.S.

What should all of this mean to us? It should cause us to avoid the present drift toward Socialism and Big Government. We must privatize every program seized by federal and state governments and privatize all operations. If we don’t, we will go the way of Europe --- and kiss our privacy, freedom, and liberty goodbye!

Extremist Enviros to Blame for Environmentalism’s Black Marks

Have the environmental extremists in our midst been a success with their bold and frequently damaging behavior? In my opinion, they certainly have --- success in giving honest and sensible environmentalism a bad name.

I’m an environmentalist and so are the great majority of Americans in one degree or another. And I am proud of the fact that my old and brilliant friend, the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, and I pioneered the environmental movement in the Pacific Northwest without realizing we were pioneers.

But Dixy and I parted company with the loud-mouthed extremists when they took
over the movement in the 1970s and began preaching the misguided, scientifically inaccurate concepts of Rachel Carson and her “Silent Spring.” I repeat: The President, Congress, the news media, and the American public must demand a balanced, middle-road, sensible environmental policy if we are to silence the extremists on both sides of the issue….

It is not only possible; it is absolutely necessary to adopt a balanced policy if we are to avoid a serious civil conflict within our borders --- a conflict sparked by the environmental extremists, who think nothing of bombing or setting ablaze any facility that houses an activity that is verboten in their playbook. As I’ve said before, they are our homegrown terrorists; who needs the foreign variety?

* * *

POTPOURRI: I’ve said it many times, and I am moved to repeat it once more: Wild animals belong in their native habitat, not in zoos, circuses, and backyard pens. I realize that domesticated animals --- including dogs, cats, and horses --- are “at home” with their human benefactors. But elephants, tigers, lions, leopards, rhinoceroses, crocodiles, gorillas, and other wild species should be free to live and roam in jungle areas in which they were born. I will agree that a few of them can be brought out of their habitat when they are needed for scientific research. But that should be the extent of a “migration” to developed nations….I’ve had it up to here with those persons and agencies (like the American Civil Liberties Union) who are doing everything in their power to banish mentions of God and any semblance of religious purpose in our public buildings, our schools, our legislative chambers, and everywhere else in our lives. They are turning their backs on our history as a Judeo-Christian nation, our traditions, and our national character. I strongly believe that, if there is no God, as they insist, we should have to invent him. Take away the loving, the care, the happiness, the intelligence, and all the good things in life that have been created by worship of the Lord, and we would have a desolate, animal-like world without rules of civilized conduct and compassion….The more we know and hear about Afghanistan’s new president, Hamid Karzai, the more we are convinced he is the best man for the job in the war-torn nation. The Associated Press tells us that Karzai has called for a holy war on his nation’s huge narcotics industry and has asked for the help of other nations in curbing Afghanistan’s sprawling heroin trade. The U.S. and the entire Western World should give him all the help they can muster to rid the planet of the scourge of heroin and other illegal drugs and dope.

Creation of Special Sports Colleges Is Long Overdue

From time to time, I have tried to interest both collegiate and sports interests in an idea that would be highly beneficial to both --- and to the entire American population, as well. You guessed it; the idea involves a brand-new look at college and university sports and the way the schools manage the athletic programs that have been great moneymakers in the past and present.

First things first. I have suggested that all universities, and particularly the major schools, consider establishing special sports colleges, in which all students interested in varsity athletics and careers somewhere in the vast pro-sports realm would be enrolled and offered degrees after a four-year program.

The students in the newly formed college would not have to sign up for the usual academic courses in history, mathematics, languages, and the sciences. Instead, they would take courses in a variety of subjects that will be of importance to them in whatever phase of professional sports they choose.

Let me be specific. While they are playing football, basketball, baseball, track and field, and other sports, they would be enrolled in classes that will benefit them if and when they seek careers in professional sports. Those classes would be extremely varied. One course would consist of teaching students the details of negotiating contracts --- an extremely important item, considering the big-money agreements and complicated clauses in today’s pro-sports leagues.

But that should be only the beginning. Why stop at enrolling the players? How about those students that seek careers as sports writers, sports announcers in TV and radio, coaches, physical-education instructors, agents in all fields of sports, referees, umpires, and even pre-law students specializing in writing sports contracts and managing players? I almost added stadium cooks and concessionaires and cheerleaders. Who knows? Maybe….

I’m sure I’ve left out one or two phases in the sports arena that could be added as the idea takes form. I would add one more important element to the proposal. Those students who play on college teams that draw big bucks at the turnstiles should receive a percentage of the proceeds at the gate.

I’m not the first to make the suggestion, but it still awaits acceptance by the nation’s major colleges and universities. While many of the players receive four-year scholarships, they should be paid a regular salary to make certain they wouldn’t have to accept handouts from over-zealous alumni and others. It’s a practice that has brought too many shady deals, and it should be eliminated.

Which college or university will be courageous enough to start the ball rolling and create that worthy sports college? Their first assignment would be a determination to get rid of the notion that sports are a “sideline” in our society and don’t deserve special treatment.

Face it. Pro sports are an extremely important part of American society --- as important as any of the professions, industry, business, etc. They should be treated as an equal to all other phases of our culture.

Some Judges Are Going Way Beyond the Judiciary’s Authority

More and more, judges in American courts, particularly in the federal judiciary, are ranging beyond the authority granted them in the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions. If it continues, it could seriously threaten the balance ordained by the fathers of the U.S. Constitution --- the balance long enjoyed by the three fundamental elements of our republic: The executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch.

We’ve already seen the flagrant misuse of judicial authority in Massachusetts and other states concerning the issue of same-sex marriage. Despite the clear indication in all constitutions that a legal marriage is one between a man and a woman, these renegade judges have declared that persons of the same sex have a legal right to marry.

Now comes yet another instance of the misuse of judicial powers and authority. William Nielsen, a U.S. District judge stationed in Spokane, Washington, has ruled, according to the Associated Press, that “plutonium-making at Hanford in the mid-1940s was an abnormally dangerous activity that put thousands of people in Eastern Washington at risk.”

So, now, out of the clear blue, this judge fancies himself as a scientist and an authority on nuclear physics. I acknowledge that it is possible that emissions from the Hanford plant may have affected the health of a few “downwinders,” as they are called, but that determination should be made by reputable scientific researchers, physicists, and medical experts, not by a judge. The proper function of a judge is to determine whether a constitution has been violated or laws have been broken, not whether John Smith or Lucy Jones has a thyroid problem.

As one might have suspected, a clever lawyer is behind the lawsuits filed by “downwinders” who have reported illnesses they insist resulted from radiation emissions from the Hanford plant. The Hanford contractors, General Electric and DuPont de Nemours, have said Judge Nielsen’s decision “was fundamentally wrong and merits appeal.” They predicted that the lawsuits will take years to settle.

In his verdict, the judge said “the emissions of Iodine-131 could result in serious illness with serious consequences --- thyroid problems, in particular.” That may have been the case, but how does the judge know that? Wouldn’t it have been proper for him to hear the other side in the case, instead of relying only upon the arguments offered by the attorneys for the downwinders?

GOP Chairman Half Right, Half Wrong in Afghan Comment

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is deeply embroiled over a comment he made recently at a party fund-raiser, and some members of the party have been calling for him to resign. To this date, he has refused to resign, and I don’t think he should.

The trouble is that Steele was half right and half wrong in his remarks. On the “right side,” at least in my estimation, was his declaration that “the United States was on the wrong side of history with its conflict in Afghanistan.” Many Americans agree with him --- and with me --- in believing we should immediately depart that war zone.

The “wrong side” of Steele’s remarks was that he blamed President Obama with the observation that the war in Afghanistan was “a war of Obama’s choosing.” While I disagree with Obama in his call for 30,000 American troops to be sent to bolster Allied forces in Afghanistan, the war there was initially the idea of Republican President George W. Bush.

Nevertheless, I hope Steele’s position is bolstered by the Republican Party and by the great majority of Americans. As I have pointed out in earlier commentaries, British generals in Afghanistan some time ago reported their concern over a meaningless war because, they said, most Afghans agree with the Taliban’s position there.

I have no idea how all this rumpus will finally end up, but I believe the President should heed the advice of Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, and immediately declare a halt in hostilities and call a peace conference that would bring all three sides in the conflict together at a peace table.

Those three sides, of course, are Karzai’s legitimate government, leaders of the Taliban, and the Allied Forces, led by the U.S. If such a peace conference does not take place, the war in Afghanistan could go on for years --- and never produce a winner and the end of hostilities.

I have blamed Obama for not heeding Karzai’s request for such a peace conference. Instead of sending thousands more American troops to Afghanistan and continuing the quickly climbing casualty rate there, the President should heed the wishes of the American people and many of our Allies and proceed to the peace table.

What on earth do we have to gain in Afghanistan by continuing the war there? Winning that war would undoubtedly earn us the undying hatred of the great majority of Afghans. Continuing the battle would bring us a mounting death toll that eventually would dwarf the death rate in the Iraqi war.

In the meantime, relying upon the United Nations (or, as I like to put it, the “Useless Nations”) would be a waste of time. In a previous commentary, I said the Group of 8 major industrial nations, along with an additional five or six other major nations, should abandon the U.N. and establish an international military force to begin policing the world and putting a quick end to any civil conflicts wherever they take place.

The Group of 8 (or more) nations could also begin quick deliberations for peace conferences wherever they are needed, as is the case in Afghanistan today. What in the world are we waiting for!

Limit on Public Office Needed to Halt the Corruption

It seems that not a day goes by without a report by a newspaper, television, or radio station that this or that public official --- be he or she a legislator, member of commerce, or city, state, or federal officeholder --- has been cited on a charge of corruption, theft, or similar crime.

In my many years as a newsman or commentator on a newspaper or on television or radio, I have noted this disturbing fact: Almost without exception, the official charged with an act or many acts of corruption has been a man or woman who has held public office for many years.

It became clear that public “rookies” are not knowledgeable enough to raid the government cookie jar. At first, I couldn’t understand the criminal phenomenon, but in later years and after several investigations by my staff, the truth dawned on me, as it has on other news veterans.

The truth is this: It takes more than a few years for a public official to “know the lay of the land in government,” as it were, and to where the “goodies” lie and are available to the knowing official. It’s the oldtimers, those officials who manage to get elected again and again, who are the corruptible individuals.

How, I asked myself, can we get rid of these official criminals BEFORE they commit acts of corruption? And the answer dawned on me --- and I have repeated the answer many, many times in newspaper columns, TV and radio commentaries, and the many speeches I made in the years I was on the national speakers’ circuit.

That answer --- and here I go repeating it once more --- is to limit all public officials, whether at the national, state, or public level, to a single, six-year term in office, with no re-election permitted. In addition, I have stated that such a new constitutional provision should include this most important addition: The public should be given the privilege of removing any elected official at any time without cause.

Why such a seemingly harsh addition to such a constitutional provision? Simply put, it’s this: In the freedom our system as a republic provides, the public should not only have the right to elect any persons they choose but the right to “dis-elect” them whenever they should so decide, without recourse to any criminal charge.

My opinions in this case are based on my very strong belief that serving as a public official should be a privilege, not a career. No one in America is indispensable. After one has served his or her six years in office, he or she should be ready to return to the occupation he or she was engaged in prior to election.

That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way I strongly believe our forefathers meant it to be when they created the Constitution and wrote the Declaration of Independence.

I am surprised that no other country in the world has ever adopted such strong language in their constitution or whatever passes for one. But, then, no other country is like the United States of America.

Wild Animals Belong in Jungles and Forests, Not Zoos

The Seattle Times tells us that two women representing the Animal Legal Defense Fund have filed a civil lawsuit against the city of Seattle claiming that the Woodland Park Zoo has been guilty of the inhumane treatment of the three elephants residing there and that the treatment violates local anti-cruelty laws.

The plaintiffs were identified as Mary Sebek of Seattle and Nancy Farnam of Ednonds. In their complaint, filed in King County Superior Court, the women said, according to the Times, that “the zoo’s inadequate facilities --- a one-acre enclosure and a barn --- do not meet the animals’ need to walk extensively and have led to chronic foot and joint problems for the elephants.”

As if that weren’t enough in this ridiculous lawsuit, the women cited a segment of the Seattle Municipal Code, which they say declares that “it’s unlawful to keep an animal in quarters that are of insufficient size to permit the animals to move about freely.” And, I hasten to ask, what constitutes “sufficient size” for pachyderms?

In their suit, the two women charge that “keeping elephants in captivity contributes to psychological distress, which is expressed in swaying and other repetitive behaviors that, have been caught on video.” Well, now, I’ll have to go to the Zoo to see the elephants swingin’ and swayin’ --- presumably to piped in music!

According to the Times, “Sebek said her daughter got interested in elephants two years ago, which eventually led them to become elephant advocates. Sebek said an ideal outcome would be for the animals to move to the Elephant Sanctuary in Hohenwald, Tenn., which has more than 2,700 acres of open space. The lawsuit could help give the elephants a chance to retire.”

Enough of this silliness. If the two women, as well as all others who think as they do concerning elephants and other wild animals, had any sense or courage, they would not be concerned about the treatment of elephants in city zoos. They would, instead, agree with me that all wild animals belong in their native habitats, not as prisoners in city zoos --- or even in circuses or in the private grounds of those who have captured the animals and brought them to graze on their own farmlands or backyards.

Elephants, lions, tigers, giraffes, alligators, crocodiles, and all other animals large or small --- with the exception of domesticated cats, dogs, and even horses --- have as much right to remain in their homes in jungles and forests as we have to live in cities and towns.

Thus, I believe we should start a movement to force the closure of all zoos and pass laws forbidding circuses and any other organization to capture wild animals and bring them to the cities and towns as “exhibits” or other entertainment. Would such laws work a hardship on anyone or any organization?

So what if it did? Think of the hardships endured by caged or chained animals whose forbears came from an African or Asian jungle. I can’t help but think of the old observation that “we should all be kind to animals.” That should apply not only to your pet dog or cat, but also to that poor elephant in chains in the zoo and all the other caged or otherwise restrained wild animals.

”SOL-Searching” Is the Key to Achieving World Peace

If the world in general and America in particular are ever to achieve the yearned for world peace and friendly relationships among all nations --- and a permanent end to wars and internal conflicts --- it is imperative that all of us start doing some real “SOL-searching.” SOL, of course, stands for that eternal societal bugaboo, Standard of Living.

To begin an understanding of the essence of SOL, it is necessary to examine the unfortunate decisions that have been made to divide the world into three classifications: The Third World, the Second World, and the First World. The fact that we recognize those divisions is the first clue needed to solve our global problem.

The world’s most powerful and most industrialized nations, like the United States, constitute the First World. It includes Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Canada, Australia, China, Italy, and a few other nations in Europe. The Second World is in the middle of the economic and industrial map and includes nations like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, the two Koreas, and several other countries.

It is in the Third World that we encounter those nations that are most in need of help in virtually every category of human needs. They are in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and South America. While the nations in all three “worlds” are quickly distinguishable by their differences in language, education, skin color, and health programs, the most important difference is that the Standard of Living in each is alarmingly different.

The great variation in SOLs in the three worlds accounts for virtually every problem the planet faces. For example, the U.S. has a serious immigration problem, because suffering people from the Third and Second Worlds are streaming into our nation every year --- and the numbers are increasing annually. The immigrants create problems for us in education, health, jobs, and their daily welfare.

If the U.S. and other First World powers strove mightily to help raise the Standard of Living in the Third World countries, as well as in the Second World, our immigration problem would lessen dramatically. Our objective, then, and that of all First World nations should be to help the underdeveloped countries to improve their agriculture, their industrial potential, and all other phases of life so that their SOL matches ours. We should do the same for the Second World nations.

When that is achieved, the constantly shifting of poverty-stricken peoples to the First World nations will stop, and so will the problems a low SOL inflicts upon hapless human beings. Therefore, it is in my interest as an American with a high SOL to do what I can to raise Third World families’ SOL to our level so we will be permanent friends --- and they will be far happier staying in their homelands instead of fleeing to a strange new country.

The fact is that raising SOLs everywhere around the world to match that of America would be the greatest stride we could make toward achieving that elusive world peace and permanent tranquility.

Sexual Harassers, Not Agencies, Should Pay for Damage Costs

Among the alarming signs of the times are the increasing number of lawsuits that are being filed by women who are charging sexual harassment. These women are certainly entitled to their day in court for the despicable practice of harassment. But I’m concerned that we may encourage big damage suits, instead of curbing harassment cases, because we’re missing the real targets.

Businesses, large corporations, and government agencies from the federal down to the local level may be guilty of permitting sexual harassment to take place on their premises or of doing nothing about it when these cases occur. But it seems to me that the real culprits get off scot-free.

Those culprits are the macho types who think it’s great sport to taunt and humiliate a woman. They should be the ones who ought to be stuck with major damages, not the businesses, corporations, or government agencies alone. In fact, I believe it’s the only way to stop the foul practice of sexual harassment.

Consider what might happen --- or might not happen, as the case may be --- if our society corrected the present situation by getting laws passed and the courts turned around so that the offenders were stuck with the entire bill of damages in all sexual-harassment suits that go before a court.

With such laws in place, the potential macho offenders would then be aware of the fact that they would have to pay and pay big if they dared harass a woman in the workplace or anywhere else. I have no doubt that the number of cases would drop dramatically from the moment the new laws were on the books.

At the same time, the ambulance chasers in the legal profession would be given notice that the holiday of enormous damage awards would be over, because they would no longer be able to pursue cases of sexual harassment with the knowledge that a court verdict or even a settlement would extract big bucks from a company or agency that could easily afford it.

The public would be specially interested in those cases of sexual harassment brought against a government agency, because there is no question that the money needed to pay for damages would be coming out of the agency’s budget --- and, thus, out of the taxpayer’s pocket.

I would like to see women themselves, who are the direct targets of the sex-mad machos, lead a movement to revise our laws and our court procedures so that the damages, if any, have to be paid by the individual villains, and not by the innocent people who hire them.

Even Noble, Mighty Mount Everest Has a Litter Problem!

So, you thought discarded garbage, pollution, foul air, and human waste of all kinds are to be found only in the big cities. And you also thought that only the world’s most advanced nations had to put up with the trash that marks so-called highly civilized cultures. Well, think again, my friend.

Not too long ago, the Associated Press first reported that Mount Everest, the world’s highest mountain, has become a garbage dump for climbers. Yup, you read right. Mountaineers, those worldly wise adventurers and protectors of the environment, have been littering Mount Everest for a great number of years. Imagine that!

I’m reminded of the time George Mallory, who was among the first to reach the summit of Mount Everest, answered the question as to why he found it necessary to go through so much physical torment at the risk of his life, just to make it to the top of the world’s highest mountain. His answer has echoed through recent history. He said:

“Because it’s there.”

Of course, when he and his party made it to the top of the mountain, no humans had as yet negotiated the deed, so there were no signs of human waste, garbage, and all that stuff. That “avalanche” of civilized goodies came later, after it became the thing for mountain climbers to do.

In recent years, the new breed of climbers of Mount Everest have been appalled to find the summit looking like a junk yard. Their immediate predecessors had left, as the Associated Press reported, “all kinds of trash, including paper wrappers, empty food containers, bits of rope, and even broken camping and climbing gear.”

Near the end of the 20th Century, the trash problem had become so severe that Nepal’s Ministry of Tourism decided to give its blessing to a volunteer cleanup crew of climbers from a variety of nations. Three of the volunteers were Americans, but they were not identified. It has been assumed that at least two of the three --- and perhaps all three ---were from the Pacific Northwest, which has had a long tradition of developing mountain climbers.

The Nepalese officials, for unexplained reasons, instructed the first cleanup crew that it could climb only to the 26,000-foot level of the 29,000-foot mountain. They assumed the top 3,000 feet were litter-free, so the early crew accepted the order. It’s apparent that the Nepalese and the cleanup crew were satisfied with the order because it has always been extremely difficult and dangerous for climbers to make it to the summit.

At any rate, one is willing to accept the assurance that the topmost 3,000 feet of Mount Everest have been spared the litter problem. To put it another way, I suppose that means the very few human beings who were good enough and brave enough to reach the top have been “above” littering, if you’ll pardon the levity.

Are you laughing? I’m serious. After all, I think it is extremely important to alert the world to the dire need for removing the junk and garbage from the world’s tallest mountain. Why? Because it’s there! Oh, go ahead and laugh. I won’t mind.

Presidents Should Never Be Permitted to Travel Abroad

Whether it was a valid threat or not, the report five years ago that a murderous rebel group had planned to assassinate President George W. Bush while he was in Colombia on a state visit brings up an old question concerning the travels of a President outside the United States. And now, with President Obama traveling extensively, the question remains.

The fact that the threat to Bush was reported by Colombia’s Defense Minister Jorge Alberto Uribe lends credence to the belief that the threat was real. Also, the great turmoil that has brought the nation of Colombia to a boiling point, as well as the realization that the rebel force is a powerful menace to the nation’s stability and its future, combine to underscore the possibility of an assassination attempt.

It is also significant that the White House and the Secret Service refused to comment on the threat to the President. Their silence is understandable. They don’t want to magnify the assassination threat nor indicate to potential terrorists and assassins that the U.S. is worried. A show of weakness or fear would make matters worse.

Along that line, I can relate to the effort to remain calm and not acknowledge that assassination attempts are a deep concern to those who guard a President or any other important U.S. official. That goes for state governors, too. In the four years I served as Governor Dixy Lee Ray’s chief policy officer in Washington State, the State Patrol relayed reports to the Governor and her staff --- and no one else, and certainly not the news media --- that her life had been threatened not once but several times. In fact, the Patrol’s chief told me it was a common occurrence for governors in virtually every state of the Union.

He put it this way, without going into any explanation: “There are a lot of nuts out there, and we don’t know which ones are going to flip their lids.” He showed me a confidential file that contained letters, telegrams, and telephoned reports relaying threats to the life of the governor.

But to get back to the subject of the President’s safety, I must repeat what I have said again and again in columns, editorials, TV and radio commentaries, and speeches on the lecture tour: The President of the United States is not only the most important official in America; he is also the most important chief of state in the world. We cannot afford to have him placed in grave danger “from the nuts out there.”

I know that Presidents like to travel abroad. But I don’t think that, while they are in office, they should be setting foot outside the U.S. It is not only dangerous; it isn’t really necessary. Every President has numerous talented aides who can represent him at meetings, conferences, or trade sessions abroad. Communications technology has become so powerful and so far-reaching that the President can make his voice heard anywhere in the world and at any time.

I’ll take it a step further. I think Congress should enact a statute that blocks any foreign travel by a President. And, if a statute won’t do the trick, a constitutional amendment may be in order.

Stay home, Mr. President! We need you far more right here than you could be needed abroad.

Libel, Slander Laws Should Be Made Part of Political Campaigns

As another torrid, mud-slinging election year approaches, I cannot help resurrecting an idea I began voicing many years ago with the hope that it might catch on some day and become common practice nationally and in every state, county, and local region in the United States.

Whenever I have written columns, made TV and radio commentaries, and delivered speeches detailing the idea, people who have read or heard it have responded with almost a single voice that goes something like this: “Wow! What great idea! Why on earth don’t we make it the law of the land!”

The reason it has not been made “the law of the land,” of course, is that it rankles the professional politicos who see the idea as a threat to their cozy fiefdoms and their murky campaigns that often cover up the drawbacks of their candidates. As far as they are concerned, they treasure the status quo and political chicanery as usual.

This is the idea they fear: I have proposed that national, state, and local laws be revised or amended to apply the same rules of libel and slander that are practiced in all other fields to political campaigns --- including statements made by candidates in flyers, ads in the print and broadcast news media, speeches they make in public meetings and on radio and television, and everywhere else.

At present, we have permitted candidates to make the most outlandish charges and assertions against opponents and we have simply nodded and let them get away with it, no matter how untruthful or damaging their accusations have been. All too often, the scurrilous lies are told in the final days of a campaign, too late for an opponent to counter them. Thus, the damaging charges go unchallenged --- and very often turn a close race in favor of the candidate who makes them.

I have suggested that such libelous or slanderous charges should be countered under the new laws proposed, and that they should go immediately to a special court of law considering such cases. If a candidate is found guilty of libel or slander, he would have to forfeit the position he has won and pay a fine, as well. And if he didn’t win, he would still be liable to a heavy fine.

Would such punitive laws clean up all campaigns and bring a new, respectable tone to all elections? You’re darned tootin’ they would! Why, then, you may be asking, haven’t we already changed our campaign laws to force all candidates to speak the truth and nothing but the truth --- or suffer the consequences?

It hasn’t happened for good reason. Seated in all our lawmaking assemblies, from Congress to the state legislatures and local councils, are the very politicians who would be most reluctant to have stiff slander and libel laws control their election rhetoric. It is up to the people, then, to start a national movement to clean up all elections through the introduction of strong slander and libel laws.

We Must Entrust Future State Development to the Private Sector

As governments at all levels continue to usurp more and more functions of the private sector and write more laws depriving us of our privacy and our individual rights, I’m prompted to repeat an idea I once proposed in our state of Washington --- but which the governor at the time chose to ignore.

It’s an idea that should appeal to the people of all 50 states and to Americans in general who are worried by our continued slide into full-scale Socialism, particularly with Liberal Democrats now running Congress and many state legislatures. Here is the proposal I addressed to the Washington governor and which was published by the Seattle Times:

“The best brains in the state are now working in the top ranks of our leading transportation industries --- in this case companies like Boeing, Microsoft, Kenworth, and others --- as well as our major road-construction industries. Why not ask them to come up with a combination, statewide program of communications, roads and highways, and related needs in the Washington of the future?”

Of course, I added many more details, but you get the idea. I reasoned that, instead of relying on government bureaucrats to plan the state’s future in all these areas, why not seek out the best and most imaginative experts to look into the future and come up with the communications, transportation needs, and other related needs of tomorrow?

In addition, I suggested that all our future needs in these vital areas should be linked to similar plans in adjacent states --- as well as to the future development of communications and transportation in all those states that border Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Such planning would require compacts with the Canadians and Mexicans.

It would make sense, too, to include the expansion and improvement of port facilities in those states, like Washington, that have busy ports on oceans, lakes, or rivers. Why go on trusting the future to government hacks whose primary interest is to satisfy the whims and political expediencies of a bygone era?

Many new ideas should be considered. For example, we should have decided long ago to build highways and rail lines adjacent to each other to save space and to promote the association of auto traffic to rail traffic --- not only for humans but for the tons of cargo that must be moved daily across America. Many more airports should have been built long ago to improve air travel and to open up more landing areas for helicopters, cargo planes, and private aircraft.

Finally --- and perhaps this is one of the most significant points of all --- the flight to the big cities from small towns and rural areas could be reversed to the advantage of all by vastly improving communications and transportation between the big cities and the small towns and rural regions --- so the small-town folks could stay where they are.

Cities have grown far too big, resulting in increased traffic jams, more crime, a rise in the ranks of the homeless and poverty-stricken, the development of slums, and a shortage of housing. With great improvements in communications and transportation, people living in small towns and rural areas would not be drawn to the big cities.

I suppose that what I have delivered here is another appeal for reducing the size of government and relying instead upon the much better brain power that resides in the private sector. If that is what I have done, so be it!

Demos Ignore Public, Support Full-Amnesty Immigration Bill

The Democrats may have won a congressional majority in recent elections, but they keep giving continuing indications that they aren’t really listening to the voice of the people. An excellent example is contained in the Democrats’ mad rush in Congress to proceed with a bill that will grant amnesty to close to 20 million illegal aliens.

In survey after survey, the people have overwhelmingly declared that immigration legislation should direct that all persons who have come into the U.S. illegally should be sent back to their homeland --- and the sooner the better. They also want the federal government to put an end to the mounting freebies given the illegals at taxpayer expense.

Unfortunately, a leading Republican, Senator John McCain, who should know better, has joined Senate Liberals like Patrick Leahy in supporting the bill. The big question remains: Will President Obama dare to veto the bill if both houses of Congress approve it and send it to the White House for his signature?

Why aren’t the Conservatives in Congress and in the rest of the nation mounting a stronger voice against the full-amnesty bill? Have they lost their courage and common sense --- or has the presence of Senator McCain in the forefront of the bill scared them off and persuaded them that amnesty is the “humane” way to go?

The rush of illegal immigrants into the United States threatens severely to upset the cultural, political, and economic balance of this great land. As the son of two legal immigrants from Italy in the very early years of the 20th Century, I am specially sensitive to the changes the illegals are forcing upon us.

When my parents came to the U.S. and settled in Cleveland, Ohio, after being registered at Ellis Island, one of the first things they did was to enroll in an English class at a school for new immigrants. They didn’t have to be ordered to do it. They did it because they wanted to be American in every sense of the word.

Today, however, relatively few illegal immigrants from Mexico are interested in learning the language, insisting upon continuing to speak Mexican. They remain totally disinterested in going to school to learn English. In fact, many of the loud-mouths among the illegals have asserted that most of the Southwestern region of the U.S. belongs to Mexico and that they have a right to ignore English and to speak Mexican only.

The do-gooders aside, I believe --- and I am positive most Americans feel this way --- that every person who has entered the U.S. illegally, whether Mexican, Chinese, Canadian, or any other nationality, should be exported back to his or her homeland. And they should be told that, henceforth, they will not be permitted to return to the U.S. unless they come in legally under a quota prescribed by Congress, apply for citizenship, and immediately go to school to speak English.

Whatever happened to the nation’s longtime insistence on adhering to a strict quota system and forcing every illegal entry to be sent back home immediately? Have we grown so soft that we cannot see what the introduction of millions of illegal immigrants can do and, In fact, has already done to America?

If the Democrats approve the new legislation and President Obama is foolish enough to sign it into law, I hope the American people become so incensed by the full-amnesty bill that they mount a national movement to undo the damage and defeat every congressman who votes for it!

Cussing a Cop Is Hardly Worth Hauling in the Swearer

In an extraordinary article in Parade magazine, the Sunday newspaper supplement, it was revealed that “at least 750 people are arrested or summoned to court each year for cursing. In New Jersey, a woman was charged in January with being disorderly after allegedly swearing at the principal of her daughter’s middle school.”

Mercy! For once I have to find myself in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Pennsylvania persons who have been arrested for cussing. Its argument is that “swearing is free speech and thus is protected by the First Amendment.”

In the meantime, David H. Martin, chairman of the Law Enforcement Defense Fund, has argued that “if someone who curses is arrested, it’s most likely that he or she has also made threats of violence.” He hedged a bit in saying that “police officers, however, are trained to handle difficult individuals without bringing them down to the station unless absolutely necessary.”

The A.C.L.U. has argued that legal precedent is undoubtedly on the side of the foul-mouthed. “In 2001, a federal appeals court in California overturned the conviction of two men who used profane language in addressing Yosemite Park rangers, calling their behavior disrespectful but not criminal.”

An executive of the A.C.L.U., Mary Catherine Roper, commented that the U.S. Supreme Court made a similar decision back in 1971. The case she referred to was Cohen vs. California. It “centered on a man arrested for walking through a courthouse wearing a jacket that bore an expletive expressing his feelings about the draft.”

In the California case, the justices excused the man with the ruling that “the free exchange of ideas --- even those voiced crudely --- was central to American democracy.” But, as the Parade article states, “shouldn’t people who swear at our nation’s law-enforcement personnel face some penalty?”

“No,” answers the A.C.L.U.’s Mary Roper, “because cursing at a police officer is tantamount to criticizing the government, and being able to do that without going to jail is one of the most important freedoms we have in this country.”

I am compelled to bring up another important point in this discussion. Don’t police officers have enough much more important duties to perform than bringing foul-mouthed idiots down to the police station and booking them into jail? Think about all the much more important duties the cops have to perform in our society!

Think about this possibility: Suppose a policeman is taken from his post to bring a cussing idiot down to the station --- while a robbery or even a murder is taking place on the station he just left? It could happen.

I’m sure you could think about many other instances in which a policeman or even a detective is called away from a real crime scene somewhere in town because he had to handcuff a cussing individual down to the police station. Frankly, I’ll bet the great majority of policemen and police women in all our cities would agree with the A.C.L.U. that cussing is hardly worth the effort needed to haul the swearer down to headquarters.

An Expanded Group of Eight Is the Hope for World Peace

The Group of Eight major industrial powers met recently in Toronto and made at least a couple of important decisions --- mainly to condemn North Korea for its action in destroying a South Korean warship and to work toward a withdrawal of all Allied forces from Afghanistan in five years.

While I believe the eight nations could have endorsed an immediate peace conference to end the war in Afghanistan, I am convinced the organization of the Group of Eight is the beginning of the best way toward solving all of the world’s conflicts and bringing about an enduring world peace.

First and most important, I believe the Group of Eight should invite China and India into its organization, which now consists of the United States, England, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia. And after China and India are included, further invitations to join should go to Brazil and Argentina.

In time, one or two other emerging nations could be invited. But the main point I am making in this commentary is that the Group of Ten --- or Twelve or Thirteen, as the case may be --- should replace the United Nations --- or the Useless Nations, as I prefer to call it.

Once the major group is called together, I believe it will be ready to take on far more important functions in the world. For example, I think it should be called upon, in time, to organize an international military force, as I have proposed, to be composed of paid volunteers from all nations to quell civil conflicts wherever they show up in the world.

Commanding the international military force should be a revolving leadership drawn from all the sponsoring nations. Each nation should be responsible for contributing the same number of volunteers to the military force, and the cost of military equipment, uniforms, and other needs should be borne equally by each nation.

Then, after creation of the new military force, the Group should address the newest and perhaps the most serious international danger, Islamic terrorism, by creating what I have described as a World Council of Religions --- an international organization of all the world’s leading religions.

The main purpose of the World Council of Religions would be to confront the leaders of the Islamic religion to facedown those Muslim extremists who have been causing so much mayhem, murder, and conflict in the world --- and whose worst adherents have announced they seek death to all non-Islamic persons the world over.

Would the new world order I have described be impossible to create? Hardly. The U.S. should be the primary sponsor and call its Allied friends into conference to set forth the means whereby the new world Group could begin deliberations toward increasing the number of member nations and writing rules of conduct.

President Obama and Congress should wait no longer and embark upon a crusade to junk the Useless Nations and replace it with the Group of Eight --- or Ten or Twelve, as the case may be. The future of world peace may very well depend upon the action we take to make that peace a reality.

President and McChrystal Both Wrong on Afghan Policy

The fingerpointing clash between President Obama and General Stanley McChrystal is finally over, with the ouster of the general from his command in Afghanistan. But it is painfully obvious that the word battle between Obama and McChrystal hides the real problem in Afghanistan.

It is also obvious that the general’s critical remarks concerning the President’s stand on the Afghanistan war, as well as his remarks concerning that dunderhead of a vice president, Joe Biden, bore considerable validity, but it is clear that both factions have been leading the U.S. down a path of futility in Afghanistan.

Both the president and the general have been dead wrong in my estimation concerning our mis-adventure in Afghanistan. Both want more American troops assigned to the war --- a war we cannot win. In the interim, hundreds of our troops are losing their lives in a cause that has never made any sense.

It has been obvious for some time that a large majority of Afghans favor the Taliban and want no part of the government run by President Hamid Karzai. British generals saw the futility of the Allied position in Afghanistan a long time ago and tried to persuade leaders of the Allied nations to pull out of the futile war.

But, no, U.S. generals, including McChrystal, have continued to pursue the war in a country that is actually opposed to Allied control. In the meantime, hundreds more American and Allied troops are going to their death --- and the U.S. generals, as well as President Obama, continue to pursue their policy of sending more and more troops to fight the useless and meaningless war.

Some time ago, I made a proposal that was championed by many others concerning how to end the Afghan war and bring all American and Allied troops home for good. Unfortunately, the proposal has been ignored by the President, as well as his war-minded generals.

That proposal was for the President of the U.S. to bring other Allied nations to the peace table, along with Karzai’s government and the leaders of the Taliban --- the primary purpose being to bring all three factions together to detail a peace plan for the future of Afghanistan.

A lasting peace would have put an end to a useless war that has been going on now for almost ten years. It would be a peace that would actually strengthen Karzai’s hand and shore up his government, a government that would finally include a strong contingent from the Taliban.

President Obama and U.S. generals must share the blame for the mistaken policy of pursuing a war we never should have become a part of in the beleaguered nation of Afghanistan. In fact, it is about time we heeded the advice of Presidents Washington and Jefferson to adhere to the Monroe Doctrine and stay out of the affairs of foreign nations.

It’s about time Congress and all Americans demand a return to the good sense of the Monroe Doctrine and to mind our own business, as the old tale prescribes. We can help downtrodden and impoverished nations in ways other than to send our armies to fight their wars.

Congressional Lawmakers’ Stock Ownership Is Real Eye-Opener

A revealing eye-opener was recently published by the Washington Post, and I am surprised that it was a piece that was not picked up and run by all other newspapers in the land, as well as all the television and radio news broadcasts. Maybe it will in time, as the importance of the article is recognized.

The Post reported that “Nearly 30 members of the congressional committees overseeing oil-and-gas companies held personal assets in the industry, totaling $9 million to $14.5 million late last year. That included at least $400,000 in three companies at the heart of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, according to financial-disclosure forms.”

Then the Post added this astonishing paragraph: “Lawmakers increasingly invested in oil-and-gas firms last year. Members of the five panels in 2008 held investments worth at least $8.1 million in companies they oversaw; that figure had grown by more than 12 percent by the end of 2009.”

With direct reference to the Gulf oil mishap, the Post added this: “Holdings in the companies involved in the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion also grew, from a minimum of $98,000 to a minimum of almost $400,000. At the top end of the estimates, lawmakers on those panels may have held nearly $1 million in shares of BP; Transocean, which owned the oil rig, and Anadarko Petroleum, a lease partner.”

How in the world could we expect so many lawmakers to make appropriate decisions in any of these oil-and-gas cases when they have so much of their wealth locked up in the oil companies! Little wonder that Congress has been immobilized as it faces a decision on the oil spill and other related cases.

Furthermore, the Post article calls attention to the real culprit in all this --- the environmental extremists whose excessive propaganda goaded Congress into ordering a ban on all oil digging within the U.S., despite the fact that geological experts have pointed out that all the oil we could need is available right here.

It’s important to point out that the oil-digging ban was accompanied by a ban on all nuclear plants more than 30 years ago, an action that was also the result of the environmental extremists’ political assault on Congress. Little wonder that we are reliant on foreign oil and energy, thanks to the loud-mouth enviros.

In addition, the Post article lends support to my proposal that we need a constitutional amendment to limit all terms of public office to six years, with no re-election permitted --- and with a provision permitting the public to vote any lawmaker out of office whenever the voters so decide.

It is also important to note that British Petrolium was forced to go deep into the Gulf to dig for oil because it was not permitted to do so on land within the continental U.S. In effect, the extremists could be blamed for the Gulf oil tragedy and the great damage it will cause as the oil moves to Atlantic shorelines.

The American people should demand that lawmakers owning stock in the oil companies or any other companies be denied the right to vote when issues involving those companies come up in committee or on the floor of Congress.