Early Deaths Have Robbed the World of Numerous Masterpieces

Thanks to the almost miraculous developments in health and medicine, life is being extended for billions of people, particularly in the First World countries that include the U.S. and the Western world. The average longevity of women is now at 78 or 79 and of men about 74 or 75 --- and rising in both cases as the years go by. Of course, many more men and women are breaking the 100-year barrier. And who knows how much higher that barrier will be in 50 or 100 years.

As I thought about longevity the other day, I wondered what we may have lost in music, drama, and all the arts years ago because the life span was so much shorter. The first name that came to mind was one of my favorite composing geniuses, and also one of the world’s favorites for good reason.

In the 18th Century, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart wrote enough music for ten lifetimes --- operas, symphonies, chamber music, and a variety of other works, most of which are still played and performed in countries all over the world. He demonstrated his extraordinary talent at a very early age and was one of the most prolific composers in history.

With reference to my “ten lifetimes” comment, it is sad to note that the great Mozart lived only 40 years! Imagine how many more superb symphonies, operas, oratorios, chamber works, and other musical gems he might have produced if he had had the benefit of the medical marvels we have today and had lived to, say, 75, 80, or even 90!

My mind shifted to others. Just a short time after Mozart’s brief lifetime, another great composer, the Austrian, Franz Schubert, produced a library full of superb musical works, including eight symphonies (the last one being the great “Unfinished Symphony” in B minor. He died at 31. Again, imagine what glorious works he could have created if he had lived at least 40 or 50 more years! At least, he would have been able to finish the “Unfinished.”

Meanwhile, in Germany at almost the same time, another musical genius, Robert Schumann was turning out the masterpieces in great numbers, too. He was at the peak of his career when mental illness struck him down. Schumann died at 46. Once more, one can only speculate on the number of superior works he would have created had he been given at least 30 or 40 more years of life.

One of my favorite composers, George Gershwin, was on his way to creating an American tradition in opera, piano works, concertos, and the musical theater when he lost his life in a tragic accident at 39! What a waste of great human talent. When he died, Gershwin was on the verge of revolutionizing American musical composition --- not only in opera, thanks to his “Porgy and Bess,” but in the musical theater and other musical formats. American music would be far richer today if he had lived at least 30 more years!

The list is far too long. It includes Felix Mendelssohn, the prolific composer, who died at 38; Percy Bysshe Shelley, the gifted poet, who lived only 30 years --- and even the greatest dramatist of them all, William Shakespeare, who died at 52. What wondrous stage dramas have we been denied because Shakespeare didn’t live another 25 or 30 years!

We can dream, can’t we? And only guess, with a tear, how many masterpieces of music, literature, and the rest of the arts the world will never know.

Backers of Move to Legalize Pot Are Ignoring the Facts

We’re told by the press that the move to legalize marijuana for civilian use is growing and collecting adherents daily across America. I say “Boloney!” The advocates of legalization aren’t considering what the impact will be if the feds and all the states pass laws legalizing marijuana.

OK. So some people have tried pot and found that it doesn’t have a serious impact on their health. Really? The legalization crowd isn’t looking at the facts. For example, they are overlooking the fact that, no matter how one looks at the issue, marijuana is an illegal drug that has a detrimental effect on chronic users.

In addition --- and I believe this to be the most important fact --- many marijuana users are inclined to go on to use and demand other more powerful illegal dope and they resort to all sorts of illegal means to obtain those more powerful drugs. That means they are inclined to break the law to satisfy their habit.

A few states have already legalized pot and others have passed laws permitting the use of marijuana by people with certain serious ailments. Scientists are duty-bound to come up with much better antidotes for illnesses. They should address the issue and tell the world that other, far better medications are available --- and legal.

* * *

POTPOURRI: Leave it to the Japanese to come up with something new --- and ridiculous. This time it’s toilet paper on which is imprinted horror stories. As reported, “each $2.20 roll carries several copies of a new nine-chapter novella written by Japanese author Koji Suzuki. ‘Drop,’ set in a public restroom, takes up about three feet of a roll and can be read in just a few minutes, according to the manufacturer, Hayashi Paper.” As one wag might put it, that’s a lotta crap! Maybe the Japanese have come up with the proper place to publish cheap, lousy novels! In that case, I withdraw my charge that the whole thing is ridiculous. . . · I have a brilliant idea for the Seattle-based Starbucks coffee-house chain. Because of the economic downturn, Starbucks has appealed to its landlords to lower their rental rates by at least 25 percent. Obviously, the landlords aren’t happy with the demand. My idea: Why doesn’t Starbucks offer stock to the landlords to replace the rental charges? In that way, the landlords will prosper when Starbucks does as the downturn ends and profits rise once again. Sounds simple to me. . . . · Citizens of Port Huron, Michigan, don’t know whether to be alarmed or happy over the squirrels that have been taking the small flags planted on the graves of veterans and displaying them around their habitats in trees. I’d say they should be cheering those squirrels, not demanding they be captured and put away. They are clearly American squirrels --- and very patriotic! Why not honor them for honoring our fallen heroes? . . . · I am one of those persons who applaud the airlines for charging very obese passengers for extra seats. Frankly, it serves the grossly overweight clients right for permitting their terrible eating habits to render them into “balloon” status. Maybe the airlines and other industries should be complimented for providing another reason for the obese to trim the fat. I don’t have any sympathy for the “fatties.”

Staggering Death Statistics Call for Bans on Smoking, Alcohol

It could easily have been forecast. Immediately upon the heels of reliable research reporting the people of America were growing more obese than ever before, fast-food eateries from coast to coast began a program of offering low-calorie salads at a relatively low price --- a low price, that is, compared to what may be found in elite restaurants.

No one should be surprised by the action. For some time now, health authorities have been telling us that the poor health --- and excessive weight --- of our young people, as well as many of our adults and seniors, could be traced to the high-calorie meals an increasing number of Americans were consuming at fast-food spots.

While you’re munching on those factors and contemplating another ride on that treadmill in your exercise room, try another set of facts that emerged in Washington State. It was reported that 8,000 deaths in the state in 2003 were directly attributable to smoking and about half that many to intoxication, the latter figure including those who died in traffic accidents in which drunkenness played a most important role.

The state’s statisticians also reported that deaths from home and non-alcoholic-related traffic accidents totaled less than a quarter of those from smoking. They also reported the statistics are very similar in most other states and probably even higher with regard to smoking in some of them.

All of the above leads me to a conclusion I know will be booed by many, as unwise as they may prove to be. It is this: Congress and the President should call for a ban on both smoking and alcoholic beverages because it has been proved beyond any doubt that they are killers.

If you disagree, you will probably say that we tried prohibition once before and that it was a failure nationally. Was it a failure? Really? It certainly was not by my reckoning. While it’s true that prohibition gave rise to bootlegging, the importation of illegal liquor, and the rise of racketeering, the ban on alcoholic drinks could have been sustained with much better police work at the federal and local levels and much greater penalties for bootlegging, racketeering, and all the rest.

A national ban on smoking would hurt tobacco farmers in the pocketbook, but that would be a minor effect compared to saving millions of American lives each year. Are we courageous enough to ban smoking, tobacco, and alcohol? If the decision were up to you, would you vote a resounding “Yes!” in order to save all those American lives? I certainly would!

It’s Time for Feds and States to Turn to Program of Privatization

In a woeful report reflecting the nation’s economic crisis, the New York Times has reported that all 50 states, without exception, are undergoing monetary conniptions as they act to reduce the pain of producing year-long budgets that maintain state services and operations.

It won’t be easy --- but that’s because the states, like the federal government, refuse to explore the advantages of privatization. They are so firmly tied to the machinations of Big Government and the convenience of political controls that they are reduced to doing nothing to relieve the helpless taxpayer.

Now is the time for that “helpless taxpayer” and the millions of citizens like him to demand that government turn to privatization to solve the economic distress. The Times’ report provides a litany of scrambled action by the states to reduce their budgets and forestall bankruptcy.

For example, most states are laying off workers --- an action that, by itself, won’t help much and will add to the growing numbers of workers who must rely upon federal or state aid dollars to survive. In addition to laying off help, most states are cutting the salaries of many other employees.

California’s Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for the legislature to release thousands of prisoners early to save money --- and also close more than 200 state parks for the same reason. It seems to me that those two measures will, in the long run, cause more monetary problems than those they solve.

Why in the world don’t the states quit listening to the Liberal lawmakers and insist that their legislatures turn to the great advantages offered by privatization? Most state programs could easily be turned over to the private sector to save millions --- like education, for example.

Of course, it would first be the duty of Congress to end the grip the federal government has on American education and give that function back to the states. The states, in turn, could finally look to the potential of turning over all schools to private systems. That would not only take a great load off the feds and the states; it would permit private education to improve standards and bring our schools back to the eminence they once enjoyed.

Many other states, ignoring the advantages to be gained from privatization, are turning to adopting an income tax, which is just another blow to the beleaguered citizens already suffering under sales-tax increases, layoffs, or increases in the cost of food and other services.

Meanwhile, several other states that already have income taxes in addition to the federal income tax are considering increasing their programs to gain additional income. One wonders why the taxpayers in those states don’t raise hell and threaten to vote against lawmakers approving the increases.

One also wonders why the American public doesn’t mount a huge protest against all these moves and demand that all states turn to a privatization program. Is it time for that “Second American Revolution”? I think it is.

It’s Time for America to Adopt the Sharing Principle

My heart bleeds and my tears form (boo-hoo-hoo!) for all those poor, suffering multi-millionaire C.E.O.s in America who have lost a few bucks in the recession and don’t know where their next million bucks are coming from! Why the press even listens to their tales of woe and publishes them as if they are headed for the poor house baffles me.

Almost every day in recent times, the pages of newspapers and the broadcast news programs reflect the dire situation of some C.E.O. who is lamenting his loss of a few million greenbacks. They couldn’t care less that so many Americans have lost their jobs and even their homes and the rest of us are pinching pennies to survive.

How I wish Congress and all 50 legislatures would adopt my Sharing Principle and end the “misery” the millionaires are going through as they lose a few bucks here and there --- bucks they will more than make up for as the recession ends and good times return to the U.S. of A.

You haven’t heard or read about my Sharing Principle? Well, there is a chapter devoted to it in my first book of ideas, “F!D!F! (Fire! Dammit! Fire!) A Feast of New Ideas”, and in many articles, speeches, TV reports, and commentaries I’ve delivered in the past 30 years or so.

My Sharing Principle provides for making the best use of this Computer Age, particularly in large corporations, but not limited to them. Here’s how it would work: All companies, large and small, would arrange payments to individuals, from executives down to the lowest-paid workers, of graduated salaries based on the earnings of each company.

As each company prospered, so would all workers prosper, from the top executive down to the messenger boys and girls. And as each company fell upon hard times, so would all workers have to accept pay cuts, from the top executives down to the messenger boys and girls.

The entire pay scale would be adopted in meetings of the executives and representatives of the workers. Executive salaries would be at the top of the list but any increases would be determined by computer figures based on the profit-making or profit-losing status of the company.

Retirement awards would also be determined by computerized scales --- and the outlandish multi-million-dollar rewards to retiring moguls would come to an end.
Retirement awards would be given to all workers from the executives on down and would be based on a program all of them have detailed and agreed upon.

“Yeah,” said one observer, “but that really sounds like Communism or Socialism to me.” Hardly. The Sharing Principle is anything but Communistic or Socialistic. In fact, it is a guarantee that true democracy will rule and that executives or employers can no longer feast on the labor of scores of workers.

If it were adopted throughout the nation by all companies, large and small, the Sharing Principle would guarantee that no downturn in the economy would seriously hurt anyone on one hand and no sudden upturn in the economy would be enjoyed by C.E.O.s and higher executives alone.

At least one more important facet of the Sharing Principle must be mentioned. It would end the union movement and make all unions unnecessary. Is that bad?

Iran’s People Moving Toward Separation of Church and State

To me, the deadly struggle in Tehran and other cities in Iran symbolizes something far greater than simply what is happening in the historic nation that was once called Persia and was the scene of so many major happenings since the birth of Christ. It symbolizes the awakening in many nations of the dire need to separate church and state.

That separation was accomplished in America by our forefathers and in many Western nations by similar minds. In fact, one might say that the separation our forefathers wrote into our constitution was the primary reason that the people’s democracy has ruled and been dominant in preserving our freedom.

Perhaps what is happening in Iran is the beginning of a move to introduce the elements of the philosophy of separating the church from the state to the Islamic world. What a blessing that would be! The people could still have their Islamic religion, while enjoying truly democratic government run by private citizens, not theocrats.

One wonders why President Barack Obama didn’t adopt that policy when he went to the Middle East --- and in his pronouncements in speeches and directives. The forces of the dictatorial Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have adopted hate-filled, anti-Israel policies --- but those policies have been endorsed, if not created, by the man who really runs Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Muslim cleric.

Khamenei, who could have sided with the millions protesting the fraudulent election, devoted himself instead to supporting Ahmadinejad, whose forces manipulated the election. If the Ayatollah had responded honestly to the demands of the protesters, he would have called for a new election and an honest recording of votes.

It’s quite obvious --- as it should have been to President Obama --- that Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, had won an overwhelming victory and should have been installed as Iran’s new President. Why the Ayotollah chose to side with Ahmadinejad is a question that has just become quite clear.

That revelation is contained in the report that many other Islamic clerics are now siding with Mousavi and against the Ayotollah and Ahmadinejad. It appears to me that a real revolution is now in the making in Iran and may eventually unseat both Ahmadinejad and the Ayotollah. The more important result would be the creation of a real democracy in Iran, run by private citizens.

I still believe it is time for the creation of a World Council of Religions, in which all the major religions could meet to put the heat on those Islamic nations that permit leading theocrats to run their affairs --- and deny the establishment of democratic governments.

Are you listening, Mr. Obama? Quit relying on the defunct United Nations to solve the world’s problems. Since we are going to be blamed for the world’s ills anyway in many quarters, why not insist that the U.S. lead the way in making the philosophy of separation of church and state a worldwide issue?

In fact, we should be asking all of the world’s downtrodden, poverty-stricken nations to adopt the U.S. Constitution as a model for all democratic governments. It would be a major step toward the world peace people everywhere yearn for.

Soaring Damage Awards Forcing Doctors to Quit Practices

Washington State doctors are leading a national movement by the American Medical Association to win federal and state laws putting a ceiling on damage awards made by juries hearing evidence in lawsuits against physicians charged with malpractice or accidents in the operating room.

The A.M.A. in Washington State has reported that at least 500 physicians have given up their practices in the state because excessive amounts granted in lawsuits have sent malpractice premiums soaring to heights that have made it financially impossible for doctors to continue to serve their patients.

At least 19 other states have reported a similar crisis and more are joining the movement by the month. Republicans in Washington State favor ordering the ceiling, while Democrats are in opposition. Leading the opposition is Senator Patty Murray, a Liberal, who insists the problem is high health costs, not damage suits.

I think Senator Murray is way off base, as usual, and that she has not done her homework concerning the doctors’ financial predicament. Her opponent in the November election, Representative George Nethercutt, a Republican, counters Senator Murray’s view by charging that the doctors’ dilemma in the state and nationally can be attributed directly to greedy trial lawyers, and I believe he is right on target.

The courts share some of the blame, along with the lawyers. Many of the damage suits filed against doctors are nothing more than “nuisance” suits, and they should be tossed out of court before any trial begins. National and state laws placing ceilings on the amounts that can be awarded in damage lawsuits would go a long way toward correcting the critical situation.

I think the doctors’ movement should be broadened to encompass the entire scope of damage awards, not only in the field of medicine but in all other fields. The common-sense appeal is one that does not ban lawsuits; it seeks only to bring the awards down to a reasonable level that does not make lawyers multi-millionaires overnight --- and sends doctors out looking for other work..

For example, I remember a typical case a few years ago in which a woman ordering a cup of coffee at a drive-in accidentally spilled the coffee on her legs and sued the drive-in for damages because she said the coffee was too hot. She received many millions of dollars --- I forgot the exact amount --- in a court trial, despite the fact that the spilling accident was her fault, not the drive-in attendant’s.

Why is the A.M.A. in Washington State, in other states, and in Congress having a difficult time get a ceiling law passed on damage suits? There are two answers. The first is that Democrats agree with Senator Murray’s naïve point of view. The second is that lawyers dominate Congress and the state legislatures.

Doesn’t that latter fact prove my point? It may be that the only way to force Congress and the legislatures to pass damage-ceiling laws will be for the public to raise hell because of the threat that doctors’ services are being denied them as physicians give up their practices in droves.

Sleep-Happy Educators Have Gone Soft on Schools, Students

There seems to be a movement in the land, encouraged by an organization called the National Sleep Foundation, to persuade public schools to start classes later in the morning to give students a chance to sleep longer --- and also to encourage naps in all classes during the day.

Leaders of the movement say that students in all grades will learn more and get better grades if they get more sleep at night and can start classes later in the morning. They also say that several school districts across the nation have already gone to later starting times in the morning in an effort to improve learning and record higher grades.

I think these sleep-happy education leaders are simply going to make a bad situation in the schools worse. What America’s school children need, particularly in the middle and high-school grades, is a much greater challenge in their schooling, not more sleep.

In the past few decades, comparisons of learning skills and test grades between American children and those of other First World nations have revealed that our children are down near the bottom of the list in educational development. I am convinced that the reason for the disparity is that U.S. education has “gone soft” in the classroom.

One of the reasons, of course, is that we have grown afraid to discipline our school children, thanks to the complaints of some parents and the refusal by timid educators to face up to their responsibility and ignore the bleatings of the misguided parents. They have forgotten that the terms, “education” and “discipline,” are virtually synonymous.

I can agree with the complaint that children are watching too much TV and, thus, don’t have time nor an inclination to do their homework. That is a problem parents should solve, not educators. But I have an idea I’ve been trying to popularize for some time regarding homework.

I recognize the importance of good homework lessons in education and believe that parents who complain that Little Johnny and Little Suzie are overburdened with homework are undermining the education of their children. My idea is to take the “home” out of “homework” and lengthen the school day to include an hour or so in which children would complete their “home” work.

Teachers would be assigned to supervise the homework hours at school and help students with their lessons and, if necessary, their research. This plan would also permit children to take part in sports or other activities after school hours and on weekends without worrying about when they must make time to do their homework.

McDermott Should Resign Over Call for Pork for Elite Club

It has become quite apparent that all the promises made in Congress this year to eliminate expensive earmarks --- better known as “pork” --- were just a lot of political hot air, and that few if any members of that august body had any intention of heeding the calls for an “earmark revolution.”

One of those congressmen who refused to honor the call for an end to pork is Washington’s own Democratic representative, Jim McDermott, one of the most Liberal among the Liberals in the House,. Just recently, it was revealed that McDermott obtained passage of more than 100 pork measures destined for Washington State.

As if that weren’t bad enough, one of the earmarks McDermott inserted into the congressional budget bill was $250,000 for --- now get this --- the rich man’s clubhouse in Seattle, the Rainer Club in the city’s downtown area. The money will go toward window repairs at the club.

The elite club had raised half the $500,000 needed for the elaborate repairs and prevailed upon McDermott to see to it that the other half came from the federal government --- and, to put it properly, from the pockets of Washington residents. It goes without saying that most of those taxpayers cannot afford to frequent the elegant Rainier Club --- not that they’d want to.

Add this latest misappropriation to the list of McDermott miscues as one of Congress’ most Liberal members among Democratic Liberals. Over the years, it has become a sure thing for McDermott to be re-elected for term after term, despite his Far Left record in the Lower House.

It has always puzzled me to understand why the taxpayers in McDermott’s district continue to vote for the big spender. Perhaps now they will begin to recognize the spending nature of the Demo congressman. All they need do is look into the details of the gift to the club. We cannot bank on the Senate to throw out the Rainier Club gift.

The Rainier Club has 1,200 regular members, who pay $191 a month to belong. Imagine that! Members must be wealthy enough to afford an annual club fee of $2,292! Is it possible that 1,200 wealthy patrons of an elite club can’t reach into their fat wallets to come up with $250,000?

But the question that is far more important is this one: Why should the taxpayers of Washington State, already weighed down by heavy taxes and rising prices in a troubled economy, pay their hard-earned money to remodel the windows in the clubhouse of the wealthy?

According to a Seattle Times report, “at least one congressional watchdog group believes McDermott’s earmark request is off base.” Steve Ellis, vice president of the group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said this: “They are earmarking the fund for the Rainier Club because they can’t get in through the front door, so they are climbing in through the windows.”

Although his remark is a bit subtle, it certainly hits the target right on. In the meantime, the taxpayers in McDermott’s home district should call on him to resign for ignoring the repeated calls for an end to the pork in Congress.

Japan’s Princess Is Vivid Example of What’s Wrong With Royalty

Readers of my commentaries on this website are already aware of my antipathy toward royalty wherever it happens to be. They know, too, that I have suggested that kings, queens, princes, and princesses belong in fairy tales and not in real life, and that they flaunt their undeserved special privileges and should be shorn of their thrones and the millions spent on them by taxpayers.

Although there are almost daily examples of the outlandish behavior of royal figures around the world, one of the saddest examples of them all was revealed recently in Japan, whose people adore their royal family --- although I’ve never been able to understand why.

The Associated Press reported that Japan’s Crown Prince Maruhito complained that the pressures of royal life, motherhood, and news-media scrutiny over the lack of a male heir to the throne have taken their toll on the health of Crown Princess Masako. The prince went further; he blamed the news media directly for worsening the strain on his wife.

It was disclosed that Princess Masako decided to remain virtually hidden from public view for a time because she was stricken with a case of the shingles and her health had deteriorated seriously because of the “intense mental and physical strain of life in the palace.”

The Princess suffered a miscarriage about eight years ago, then gave birth to a daughter about two years later, but that didn’t satisfy the news media and most Japanese. They had been making her life miserable because of the national passion for worshipping a male heir to the throne.

It’s been no secret that Princess Masako, a graduate of Harvard University and a worker at the Japanese Foreign Ministry when she married the Prince, has not exactly been happy because of the heavy demands made on her as a Princess. She has complained that she has had many difficulties in adjusting to royal life. The difficulties were not detailed.

I feel sorry for the Princess, but I wonder why she doesn’t toss her crown into the nearest waste basket, give up the royal life she abhors, and inform the Prince that she’s going back to being an ordinary citizen --- and that he can lump it if he objects. If she did that, I would be the first to congratulate her and suggest that other royalty in nations that still support Kings, Queens, and all the rest follow Masako’s example.

As I’ve said before, I dislike royalty because it exemplifies the height of special privilege and ludicrous pomp and circumstance. Furthermore, royalty and democratic republics are not suited for each other.

Seattle Owes a Great Deal to Philanthropist Max Gurvich

The death last week of Max Gurvich, prominent Seattle business man and remarkable philanthropist, brought great sadness for me and rekindled some very pleasant memories for me back in the days when I was writing a daily column as a critic-at-large for the Seattle Times.

In the early 1950s, I began a campaign in my column for the beautification of Lake Washington and particularly the remodeled Floating Bridge, which was one of the first of its kind and an engineering feat that was being copied in many other countries, as well as the 50 states.

Why, I wondered in print, doesn’t the county, state, or some foundation appropriate funds for a magnificent water fountain or water-spouting sculpture that should grace the bridge, increase its beauty, and engross the thousands of motorists and bus riders traveling across the lake every day of the year?

After the fourth or fifth column asking the pointed question, I received a note from a fellow named Max Gurvich. He and his wife Helen, he said, were interested in advancing funds for the creation of an artistic water display alongside the bridge. I wrote another column concerning his offer to fund the endeavor.

Gurvich and his wife chose a sculptor named Parks Anderson to design the display and left it up to Anderson to detail the fountain or whatever it was to be called. In just a matter of a few months, Anderson came up with a design, the Gurviches approved, and work was under way on the project.

When it was time to turn on the water for the Anderson fountain, I was invited, along with many other Seattleites, to board a ferry boat for a visit to the fountain site alongside the Floating Bridge. When we arrived and the water was turned on, I was disappointed in the result.

A few meaningless metal arms were on a metal-and-concrete base floating on the lake surface and a few rather puny streams of water sprinkled the base. I was disappointed in the new fountain, and so were most of the people on the boat that day --- and they didn’t hesitate to say so.

Among the disappointed were Max and his wife. As a result, a new fountain was commissioned within the next year. This time, cascading water would be plentiful and harmonize with the lake and the Floating Bridge. I wasn’t totally satisfied with the result, but it represented a far better display than the original design.

Best of all, it was a worthy artistic display and it pleased Max and Helen Gurvich, who hastened to name the new water fountain the Nellie Cornish Memorial Fountain in honor of the woman they worshipped, the founder of Cornish School and the teacher of so many young people.

What matters most is that the display honors a couple that contributed so much to the business world and so many charitable agencies. Rest in peace, Max! And please accept our condolences, Helen, and our thanks for your important role in the life of a great philanthropist.

One Papa’s Lament: Fathers Just Don’t Get No Respect

I borrow from Rodney Dangerfield: “Fathers just don’t get no respect.” In researching Father’s Day, I discovered that the encyclopedia was a waste of time. Its only mention was brief and virtually a throwaway: Father’s Day began in Spokane in 1910, it read. That’s all. Big deal!

I checked at least ten other almanacs and reference books. Nothing! Frustrated, I turned to the books on speech topics and after-dinner remarks. In the category marked “Father,” I found this: A policeman saw a man pacing the sidewalk at 3 in the morning. “What are you doing here?” he asked. The man replied: “I forgot my key and I’m just waiting for my kids to come home so they can let me in.”

Would you believe it? That was the best entry. I turned to a collection of jokes and looked under “Father.” One read thus: A father asked his small child: “What’s that you’re painting, Dear?” She replied: “It’s a picture of God.” He responded: “But nobody knows what God looks like.” She said: “They will now.”

You see what I mean? The kid gets all the good lines. It’s true. Fathers don’t get no respect. Maybe I’ll do better today, Father’s Day. My kids love me….I think. Do families concentrate their attention on Mom and virtually ignore Dad, tossing him a tie or a package of golf balls, then forgetting him till next year?

I’m afraid it happens to many fathers --- but not to me. If you’re like my kids, just skip this commentary. If anything, they spoil me with their love and attention, and I love every minute of it. But if you’ve been ignoring your Dad because you think he doesn’t like that mushy stuff, think again.

If you haven’t told him you love him and think he’s the greatest guy in the world, try it. It will make him feel ten feet tall --- and you’ll probably grow a few inches in self-esteem yourself.

I have a hunch we could prevent a lot of those sad family tragedies if we made a bigger fuss over Dad and the key role he plays in our lives. So, along with the tie and the golf balls, try some heartfelt hugs --- and tell him how you feel about him. Then try doing it the other 364 days of the year.

Greedy Porn Industry Thrives in California, Despite AIDS Cases

The insatiable greed for big bucks has manifested itself in the pornographic industry, which knows no bounds in, of all places, Southern California, just a stone’s throw from the legitimate film industry. A New York Times report is not only a real eye opener but cause for great public indignation.

Get this: The Times report revealed that “22 actors in adult-sex movies had contracted HIV since 2004, when a previous outbreak led to efforts to protect employees in California’s multi-billion-dollar pornography industry.” That’s an incredible report that makes one wonder why Americans put up with disgusting pornography.

The most disgusting aspect of it all is the fact that California not only puts up with the rotten pornography industry; it has written laws and regulations that not only permit it to exist but actually protect the performers and all the workers in it! Sounds like a report from Hell, doesn’t it?

The Times report includes this paragraph that should make your blood boil: “Regulations require film makers to provide protection against the transmission of disease, such as condoms or using film techniques that involve simulations.” Then, this comment was added, coming from Dean Fryer, a spokesman for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health:

“There is no reason these infections should be occurring if these employers are following the precautions….. We don’t even know who the employer is in the most recent case. We don’t know who the talent is.”

The “recent case” he was referring to involved an adult-film actress who had tested positive for the AIDS virus, an infection that was confirmed by the Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foun/dation, which was founded by an actress who was once a leading lady in pornographic films.

The unidentified adult-film actress contaminated a number of male actors she had engaged in sex for a pornographic film. She and the males who tested positive for HIV were all quarantined for an unspecified time --- as if that should serve to protect the other performers in pornographic films.

Here’s another “pregnant” paragraph in the Times report: “The pornographic-film industry is centered in the San Fernando Valley, northwest of downtown Los Angeles. An estimated 200 production companies in the region employ up to 1,500 performers, making up to 11,000 films and earning as much as $13 billion a year.”

Despite the call in some quarters for a law requiring the use of condoms in sex scenes, the porn industry has ignored all calls for such devices. One industry executive said condoms were optional among the actors, adding: “Performers have the right to choose to use or not use condoms. They’re adults. They know what industry they’re in.”

Horse radish! I think California citizens should demand a ban on all pornographic films, not only for health reasons. Obviously, the billions the industry creates for the greedy film companies are the main reason it will be difficult to ban porn. But it is something that seriously needs to be done in the state that prides itself on being the movie capital of the world.

Keep Gitmo Open! President Obama Has Made a Big Mistake

President Obama must be somewhat daft to keep insisting on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and releasing all of its more than 200 international terrorists to prisons or camps in the states. He and all others who agree with him should ponder the dangers inherent in moving the terrorists to the mainland.

All the prisoners should be tried by a court working at Gitmo to insure that each person that goes on trial receives a fair hearing --- and that, most important of all, the lives of Americans living on the mainland are protected from the onetime terrorists. Why is that too much to ask?

Those persons who are demanding the release of the Gitmo Bay prisoners to the states that will have them and try them in their own courts have already forgotten the horror of the 9/11 tragedy and all the other murders committed by the terrorists in the U.S. and other Western nations.

It is entirely possible --- and, most likely, probable --- that the majority of the Gitmo prisoners committed murder before they were apprehended by American forces fighting insurgents abroad or even here at home in the U.S. Consider your own feelings if you were asked to sit on a jury trying someone for murder.

If that were the case, would you be inclined to forgive the murderer and permit him to live somewhere in the states? Of course you wouldn’t. Then why would you even consider the possibility of voting to forgive and forget and letting the murderer go free and to live among us?

I cannot understand why the do-gooders feel sorry for the terrorists locked up at Guantanamo. Some of them were guilty of killing our servicemen in the Middle East or in the Far East --- specifically as insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. And many of them were guilty of killing Iraqi and Afghan civilians, including women and children.

Most if not all of these terrorists serving time at Guantanamo Bay were much more than prisoners of war. History tells us that prisoners of war were, for the most part, honorable soldiers who were captured by the opposing side and held in military prisons for a time.

No, these terrorists locked up at Gitmo Bay, were far more than prisoners of war. They were captured and held prisoner because they committed terrorist acts that included the killing of soldiers, women, and children --- killings that were not necessary but were undertaken because of the basically cruel nature of the terrorists.

We must hope that President Obama and all others who agree with him in this instance will consider changing their minds and decide that the wisest and most humane thing to do will be to try the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay --- and not endanger the citizens of the states.

Could the Supreme Court of the United States be called upon to help make the final decision in this case and show the way to a proper decision to President Obama and all the others who agree with him? Why not? It’s worth a trial.

State Is a Leader in the Arts, But Much Remains to Be Done

Washington State is already acknowledged as a leader among American states in taking the arts to the people. That’s good, but we must not rest on our laurels until every resident of the state has an opportunity to see and hear the finest quality arts on a steady basis.

Despite our great progress over the years, thousands of Washingtonians of all ages have yet to experience the thrill of an opera or musical on stage, a symphony concert by a great orchestra, a ballet performance, a performance of folk dancing and singing, a live stage drama, and the greatest examples of the visual and plastic arts.

But there is another crucial aspect of the arts that remains virtually untapped. That is the use of the arts --- music, painting, sculpture, and the crafts --- in helping in the rehabilitation of the ailing, the handicapped, the incarcerated, and especially the elderly and the infirm.

Some experimentation and progress has been made in this field, but it represents only a scratching of the surface. We had made such a start in the administration of Governor Dixy Lee Ray and in my service to her as the state’s arts director and her chief policy adviser.

But we were denied a full-scale movement in that direction when she was denied re-election as governor back in 1980. If she had been re-elected, we had planned a full-scale program of all the arts for every community across the state, as well as for those unfortunate persons housed for the rest of their lives in rest homes for the elderly and the infirm.

While serving the governor back in the late 1970s, one of my duties was to visit the state’s retirement homes, nursing homes, and rest homes for the ailing oldsters. After my first round of visits, I reported back to the governor and made suggestions on the various programs the state should offer the denizens of those homes.

Besides the usual arts-and-crafts programs, Dixy and I surveyed the many other musical, dramatic, and specialty shows we had hoped to organize and tour from home to home. It was not an easy assignment, but we both hoped that, in time, it could be done and made a permanent feature the state could provide.

As I said, it was unfortunate that she did not win re-election, because it would have been in her second term that all the programs we had planned would have been ready to go on tour. Governorships that came afterward did not share our lofty designs for the touring companies --- nor for the need to provide introductions to all the arts to each of the state homes.

As of this date, the programs Dixy and I had designed remain unfulfilled --- which is a tragedy. Will a future governor read this and take the action we designed? We can only hope that may be the case.

Celebrities Should Keep Political Opinions to Themselves

Why do so many celebrities in movies, television, the stage, the arts, sports, and other pursuits that bring them national attention and publicity insist on using their fame to thrust their political opinions upon the rest of us?

Not only do I not care a whit about the political leaning of a movie star. I am also inclined to lose interest in that movie star if his or her political ranting offends me and indicates he or she has opinions opposite to mine. Of course, these stars are certainly entitled to voice their opinion, but they are inviting censure and dislike from those persons who don’t agree with their political stands.

In a recent debate on television, one of the participants said the celebrities were brave to speak out on an issue or a political debate. I agree, but why do it? I don’t consider it “brave.” In fact, I think it’s rather foolish of a celebrity to venture into the arena of politics.

I don’t know if others feel as I do, but I suspect there are a lot of fans out there who resent these political jabs and lose interest in, say, a movie in which the celebrity appears --- or a TV program, stage play, game, or other event. And stays away, as a result of that personal feeling.

In my 20 years as a movie, music, drama, and arts critic for the Seattle Times, I frequently had to put aside my personal likes or dislikes for a performer and judge him or her on the basis of his or her performance in a film, concert, play, or whatever. It was not easy to do, but I always felt, and still do, that media critics should never permit their personal feelings to influence their judgments about a performer or performance.

Believe me, in my case it was often extremely hard to do. For example, I gave high praise to Barbra Streisand for her great talent as a singer, actress, and even her ability as a film director. But I strongly detested her outrageous political drivel and her ultraliberal mouthings outside the film studio or the stage.

The same was true with Jane Fonda. As a film critic, I thought she was outstanding as an actress, and I said so in my reviews. But she, too, couldn’t button her lip when it came to politics. And when she went to Vietnam to compliment the Communist forces and berate her own nation and its military forces, she made an absolute fool of herself. I still believe she should have been tried for treason.

On the other side of the ledger is Charlton Heston, whom I praised highly in every film he made. But I disliked his becoming so important a political figure, as well as the head of the N.R.A., even though I have long agreed with the positions he has taken on the right to bear arms and other political issues.

It doesn’t matter to me which side of the political scene these celebrities take. I just wish they would keep their opinions to themselves. I realize they have a right to pop off, as all of us do. But I believe they are taking advantage of their celebrity status when they engage in political propaganda.

Obama’s Blunder Regarding Wounded G.I.s Ignored by Press

In this sixth month of 2009, we are seeing one of the most flagrant abuses committed by the American press --- a shabby, serious abuse that is one of the most revealing examples of why the print and broadcast news media need to be revamped to bring back honest, unprejudiced reporting.

Just a few days ago, the President of the United States made a declaration that American servicemen wounded in combat duty anywhere in the world should be required to have their own private health insurance pay for whatever treatment they will require, no matter how long it takes or how serious it was!

Imagine that! Throughout the history of this great nation, any serviceman or woman wounded in battle or otherwise injured while performing his or her service has been treated for wounds or injuries by the health services provided by the government of the United States.

Apparently, President Barack Obama doesn’t care about history or tradition. When a barrage of protests descended upon him for his extraordinary statement, he tried to counter the fury by saying “he was puzzled by the magnitude of the opposition to his proposal,” which, he said, was designed “to cover the estimated $540 million annual cost to the federal government of treatment for injuries to military personnel received during their combat tours on active duty.”

In trying to account for his proposal, Obama said: “Look, it’s an all-volunteer force. Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing costs of their choice? It doesn’t compute….”

The President unwittingly went on to make the situation even worse. He added: “I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country. I wasn’t asking for blood --- just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I’d have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation’s deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans.”

If Obama had dared make such a duplicitous statement during the election campaign, I am positive the American people would have been horrified and would have voted against him. Now, I am similarly positive that it will result in his defeat if he seeks re-election.

Of course, he can count on the equally Liberal news media to ignore his outlandish statements. Thus far, they have overlooked Obama’s very serious faux pas, but Conservative broadcasters certainly won’t ignore it when the President seeks re-election. He doesn’t deserve to be the nation’s leader.

Obama’s incredible assertion regarding healthcare for the battle-wounded servicemen was given national attention by no less a person than a television comedian, Jon Stewart! But it wasn’t funny --- and it should have been played on the front page of every newspaper in the U.S. and as the main item on network TV newscasts. What a deplorable situation we face, courtesy of the Leftist press! Americans deserve better.

News Media Should Hire Real Experts to Provide Advice

Although I have already predicted that most daily and weekly newspapers will eventually be absorbed by the Internet and television, I wish the print and broadcast media would make some much needed changes in their makeup and their personnel, changes that are long overdue.

For starters, I point to the many advice columns in the print media and, in differing forms, in the radio and television media. The newspapers of America, notorious for their lovelorn columns, for instance, are guilty of hiring unqualified or, quite often, dangerous advice to persons with minor or very serious affairs of the heart.

In many of these cases, the letter writers should be seeking the advice and care of a trained psychiatrist or psychologist --- or, perhaps, even an experienced physician. Instead, they are usually given “advice” by a columnist with little or no experience in the fields of psychiatry or medicine. Sometimes the advice could lead to serious consequences.

Why these lovelorn “experts” are not challenged by real experts in the medical or psychiatric fields I’ll never understand. And why the owners of newspapers don’t insist on hiring bonafide psychiatrists or physicians to write or at least supervise the lovelorn columns, I’ll never understand.

When I was running the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I made an appeal to the ownership to expand my budget so I could hire a doctor to write the health column and a psychiatrist to run the lovelorn column. My request was denied, and with the denial came the note that I must be out of my mind. I remember that I canvassed the entire field of daily newspapers and found that only one newspaper, the New York Times, had hired a doctor to write its health-advice column. Only one out of a couple thousand papers had thought it was important enough to entrust medical advice to a medical expert!

On another tack, I have pursued this belief without success throughout my more than 55 years of experience in the print and broadcast news media: I don’t believe columnists, commentators, or even reporters should be required or permitted to air or write advertisements of any kind. They’re called “plugs” in the trade.

Assigning a reporter, columnist, or commentator to pitch a service or product is wrong because of the possibility of a conflict of interest --- or the possibility that a newsman or newswoman might show partiality for a product or service he or she is pitching or might choose to ignore criticism of that service or product.

The print and broadcast news media do not do a good job of separating the news from the ads. I am surprised that no higher authority has ever chastised the news media for failing to draw that line. News reporting and opinionating are honorable pursuits, and so is advertising. But as Kipling might have suggested, “never the twain should meet.”

Institution of Marriage Seems Headed for a Rocky Future

In an earlier commentary, I referred to the marriage of one man and one woman as a relatively new phase of civilization and the basic element for a good family life. That is, it is new compared to the relationships that once existed in the days of cave dwellers and jungle societies.

But, in view of what has been happening in recent decades, I wonder how long the “new” system of man-woman marriages is going to last. Take a look at what has been happening around the world. The institution of marriage seems to be taking a beating --- even in the so-called “modern” societies of the Western world.

Probably the single most destructive factor has been one that is not so new but which has become prevalent in most nations. That, of course, is divorce --- or, to put it in a different way, the dissolution of marriage. Since either party to a divorce is then able to marry again, the damage can be said to be minimal.

One of the greatest assaults on the institution of marriage as we recognize it has taken place in those backward nations permitting men to take as many wives as they can afford or which tribal practice permits them to own. I can hear someone saying that the practice of permitting men to marry several women was acceptable in certain Mormon communities --- and can be found even today.

I suppose it could be said that the greatest affront to the sanctity of marriage is committed by the men and women --- primarily in the movie world --- who seem to have made a game of it and bounced from one spouse to another. Some of them have undertaken the nuptials as many as eight, nine, or even ten times! I’ve often wondered what possesses some people to say “I do” so often in a single lifetime. Maybe our society should coax them to say “I don’t” once in a while.

Today a new challenge to the modern concept of marriage is causing ripples of discontent for many, while it pleases many others. That challenge is what has been called same-sex marriage, and the furore it has caused may never subside. I don’t believe the dispute will ever be settled as long as the term, “marriage,” is used to indicate that persons of the same sex have pledged their troth.

If only a suggestion made by many observers, including me, were accepted, the dispute could be resolved immediately. Our suggestion is that, instead of applying the “marriage” term to a same-sex couple, they should be permitted to go through a ceremony that unites them in a “partnership,” or, as some have called it, a “civil union.”

With divorces and same-sex unions multiplying by the year, I wonder if the “modern” type of marriage --- one man to one woman --- will survive in the centuries ahead. Your guess is as good as mine.

What Can Be Done About Soaring Murder Rate of Prostitutes?

Ordinarily, one would have thought the life of a prostitute was somewhat precarious because of the health dangers --- primarily the exposure to AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other sexually transmitted diseases. Prostitutes have acknowledged the health risks, but they have shrugged them off because “the pay was pretty good.”

To some degree, their health problems have been alleviated a bit in those cities, states, or countries that have exercised rigid control over the ladies of the night and subjected them to periodic examinations and other controls. Some European nations, for example, have given special protection to prostitutes, provided they remained within specified districts.

However, a new element has arisen in the lives of prostitutes --- an element that is far more dangerous than the ever-present health problems. That element is murder at the hands of crazed men, who find that satisfying their sexual needs isn’t enough; for reasons only psychiatrists can fathom, they are driven to kill the prostitutes, as well.

Serial killers seem to thrive on spilling the blood of the prostitutes they have hunted down. In the Greater Seattle area, a serial killer made a habit of tracking prostitutes plying their trade in the International Airport area, strangling them, and then dumping their bodies in the Green River area south of the city.

After more than three decades and at least 47 murders, the police finally caught up with the serial killer, Gary Ridgway, who admitted he had a special fondness for prostitutes but seemed to enjoy ending their lives after he had had his fill of sex. He actually admitted to police that he believed he had killed at least 80 women of the night!

In a bizarre twist to his trial, Ridgway somehow managed to coax the county prosecutor into dropping his request for the death penalty. The prosecutor did so on condition that Ridgway lead police to the bodies of many of the murdered prostitutes, in order that “the families of the victims could have closure.”

Ridgway was given a life sentence, and defense attorneys have since made it a habit to cite the Ridgway case in trying to gain leniency for the murderers they represent. Their reasoning? “Ridgway, who killed at least 47 women and admitted slaying 80, went to prison for life and beat the death rap. How can the prosecutor ask for the death penalty for my client, who is accused of killing only one person?”

At any rate, murders of prostitutes have soared in many areas of the U.S., and a great many of them have occurred at truck stops, where prostitutes have climbed into truck sleeping areas to turn their tricks --- and lost their lives, as a result. Of course, the best answer to the murders would be for the prostitutes to quit plying their trade and turn to better occupations, but that would be asking for a miracle.

How can authorities everywhere stop the burgeoning rate of prostitute murders? There’s only one way: Run them out of business and quit protecting the red-light districts. I know that sounds harsh, but can you think of a better answer?

Wake Up, Liberal Congressmen! Housing Crisis Is Easily Solved

Shame on the banks and the building industry! In the face of an increasing number of foreclosures by home owners who can’t afford to make the payments and thus save their homes, the greedy bankers and builders have, in fact, raised the mortgage rates across the country.

And they’re doing it despite a program by the Federal Reserve and Freddie Mac to hold the rates down or even decrease them. According to new reports by the Bloomberg News syndicate, “the average 30-year rate rose to 5.29 from 4.91. The last time the rate was higher was higher was December 11, when it was 5.47.”

This time around, government is not the villain of the piece. It flies in the face of the old adage that “government is not the solution; it is the problem.” One of the main reasons we’re not getting the right answers from government is the fact that Congress, which should have acted long ago, is controlled by Liberal Democrats, who refuse to take strong action to end the climbing home-foreclosure rate.

I’m not the only one saying it, and I’m certain to go on saying it: Congress could have saved the housing industry and, at the same time, ended the economic downturn, if it had taken positive action on behalf of the millions of families that have lost their homes because they could not make the rising bank payments.

Actually, Congress should have acted to forestall greed --- greed by the banking and housing industries to keep or increase monthly home payments and interest rates. I was not the only observer to appeal to Congress to take that action; others have seen the same solution to the crisis.

What I have been proposing for more than 15 years is that Congress should have passed a law ordering bankers and the housing industry, as well as the home-insurance industry, to lower mortgage and monthly payment rates substantially to a point that would have permitted millions to keep their homes.

At the same time, I have appealed to Congress frequently to junk the 20-year-old and 30-year-old contracts enforced by bankers and others in the housing industry. Instead, I have appealed for new laws increasing mortgage contracts to 40, 50, or even 60 or more years --- in what I have called “lifetime morgages.”

The bankers and the housing industry have simply permitted instant greed to stand in the way of home ownership by newlyweds and even the elderly. The big question I have posed is this: Why should the greedy bankers and housing industrialists go on increasing mortgage rates and even monthly payments to persons who can’t afford them?

That leads to this question: Wouldn’t it be to the bankers’ advantage to keep families in a home they can afford, rather than accepting a condition in which no payments can be made because of foreclosures? It’s really a matter of employing common sense, isn’t it?

Why should bankers care if a family needs a 40, 50, or even longer period to pay off a home? Wouldn’t it be better, even for bankers, if smaller monthly payments were made for a longer period --- than no payments whatever from foreclosed homes that bring no payments at all? Come on, Barack, and all those other Liberals in Congress. Wise up!

World Must Have a “Safety Chute” for Large Air Transports

The recent terribly tragic loss in an Atlantic Ocean storm of an Airbus passenger plane bound from Brazil to Paris with 228 persons aboard is another grim reminder of the proposal I have been making in vain for several years --- the need for a new mechanism on large planes of a parachute-like device that could save planes in deep trouble.

Sure, I know. It’s easier said than done. I don’t buy that. I firmly believe the ingenuity of man makes anything possible --- and the device I have spoken of so often is not only possible but, I think, practical and not so difficult to accomplish by Boeing, Airbus, or any other plane manufacturer.

As I have said so many times, consider this: Pilots of small aircraft have in the past and will again in the future save themselves --- and, in some instances, even their aircraft --- by employing parachutes they are often required to wear on flights of short or long duration.

I reasoned this way: If we have already devised and utilized a device called a parachute to bring a pilot --- and sometimes even his plane --- safely or with minor damage, why can’t we build large passenger planes with a device similar to a parachute to land them safely, or at least with minimal damage?

OK, so I’m a dreamer. But in reality, isn’t such a device possible to manufacture and build into an Airbus or Boeing craft? I’m irritated that the big plane companies aren’t even trying come up with such a craft-saving and life-saving device. Not too long ago, it was deemed impossible to build a vehicle that could fly from state to state or country to country.

How I wish the Wright Brothers were still alive today! I’ll bet that if Orville or Wilber Wright were still around, they would be working on a “plane chute” that could be employed whenever a passenger plane were in serious trouble over land or over one of the oceans or lakes.

I realize that any plan to land a large, troubled passenger plane safely challenges the mind. But I know from talking to some of them that ingenious scientists or plane designers that anything is possible. Somewhere, some place in the field of aeronautics, I’m convinced that a man or woman with the skill of a Marconi can eventually come up with such a plane-saving and life-saving “chute” if he or she is given the assignment.

Perhaps it will happen if a foundation, billionaire, or even a country would offer a large enough prize for the plane designer who comes up with that extraordinary “chute.” It’s certainly worth the try. Consider the reward to the designer who succeeds!

At any rate, suppose some foundation or nation (most likely the government of the United States) publicized the need for such a chute and offered a sizeable sum of money to the designer who came up with the answer. I’ll bet that, if that should happen, it wouldn’t be long before a modern Marconi came up the answer.

In fact, that answer probably should have already come up within the Boeing company. It has an ample supply of bright scientists and aeronautical engineers “to create the impossible.” Go to it, you brainy Boeing staffers!

Limbaugh & Co. Deserve Praise, Not Liberal and Demo Attacks

It appears that President Obama and the Liberal Democrats now running Congress are preparing to do anything they can in their effort to silence Conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh --- and all the other Conservative-radio hosts, including Michael Medved, Paul Harvey, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and several others on local radio shows.

The Liberals’ No. 1 effort to muzzle Limbaugh, et al, is to re-instate the old Fairness Doctrine, which required radio hosts to offer equal time to anyone opposed to opinions voiced on radio. That doctrine, which should have been labeled the “Unfairness Doctrine,” was properly junked about a half century ago.

Why is this issue so important? And why should the American people raise a storm of protest to stop the President and the Liberals from gagging Limbaugh and all the other Conservative hosts? The answer is that Limbaugh & Co. should be hailed as American heroes for their effort to try halting the Liberals’ effort to turn America into a Socialist nation.

That slide toward Socialism actually began with FDR’s New Deal and was accelerated by LBJ’s Great Society. Other Democratic Presidents, culminating in the presidency of Bill Clinton, pushed the Socialist agenda even farther along until the two Bushes called a halt to the slide.

It was left to Limbaugh and those Conservatives who came after him on radio that began detailing the danger that lay in a continuation of the Socialist gravy train. Thanks to Limbaugh & Co., Americans began to see the nature of the Liberal programs espoused by Congress and the Demo Presidents.

Perhaps most important of all, the Conservative radio talk-show hosts sparked a new strength in the Republican Party, which had all but given up the struggle two or three decades ago. With Limbaugh pinpointing the various dangers toward which the Liberals were leading us, the Republicans found a vocal leader and new political strength.

If Limbaugh and all the other Conservative voices that began following his lead had not come along and if radio stations across America had not provided them with the time and medium they needed, I believe the nation would now already have succumbed to the same Socialist dogma that has enveloped most European countries.

The danger still persists. Limbaugh and all the other Conservative voices must turn their attention to what I would call the most important issue of them all, and this may sound strange to some. That issue is the need for a drastic reorganization of the Democratic Party, which actually has become the Socialist Party.

Before FDR and LBJ came along, the platforms of the Democratic and Republican Parties were very much alike in their support of the U.S. Constitution, the sanctity of private rights, and the authority of each state to make its own decisions in virtually every field of endeavor.

In the past half century, the feds have seized virtually all avenues once controlled by the states and private citizens. Thanks to Limbaugh & Co., the danger of Big Government has been called to the attention of Americans. Limbaugh and all his Conservative friends deserve plaudits, not the derision of the Liberal news media and the “Socialists” in Congress.

Women’s Organizations Go Too Far in Revising the Language

Although I’ve been championing women’s causes most of my life, particularly when I served as editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and hired a large number of women and blacks as reporters, I have become somewhat exasperated by a few of the demands made by women’s organizations.

Leading my list is the demand by these organizations that women in the military should serve on the front lines in combat zones, regardless of the dangers involved. I don’t believe women who join the military services should be exposed to such danger. I know that sounds like a macho reaction, but military men have a right to say: “After all, I’m fighting this war to make sure our women are safe and out of danger.”

Funny thing. I made that very statement in a TV commentary one day, and when I left the set, I encountered deep frowns and a couple of boos from the women in the newsroom who had just listened to me. Unpopular as my statement might be to most women, I vowed then --- and still do --- to stick to my guns and my opinion regarding women in or anywhere near combat.

Not mentioned by the organizations insisting on the right of women to serve in combat zones is another factor that is almost as serious. And that is the number of women serving in the military who are victims of rape. One of the reasons for the lack of concern is that most of the rape victims refuse to file charges against the rapists or are threatened with reprisal by the rapists if they do.

Those two instances are on the very serious side of the entire issue. Over on the other side --- the silly side --- are demands that provoke laughter or a “Tsk! Tsk!” at worst. For example, I served on a jury hearing a child-molestation case recently and couldn’t believe my ears when I heard the woman leading the jury referred to as the “foreperson.”

Although I stifled a protest, I wanted to shout “Holy Toledo! That’s ridiculous!” but I didn’t want to upset her nor the male judge, who didn’t seem disturbed in the least as he relayed instructions to the “foreperson.” My mind played games with the term. It would apply, for instance, to a woman golfer who had just sliced her ball into a crowd and yelled “Fore!” Now that would make sense.

Speaking of silly terms, why do we insist on calling the fair sex “women”? If we are to obey the new rules forced upon us by the women’s rights organizations, shouldn’t we refer to them as “wopersons”? Still another instance is the term “chairperson,” which is now substituted for the old standby, “chairman.” I’ll never forget the reaction of my late and much lamented friend, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, to a Washington, D.C., reporter, who began his questioning at a news conference with this introduction: “Madame Chairperson….”

She stopped him cold and responded: “My dear fellow, the position to which the President of the United States appointed me is as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. I am not the commission’s chairperson. Some other person has been assigned to take care of the chairs in this meeting room.”

Even the male reporters in the room enjoyed a laugh at that one. I wondered why other women in the U.S. couldn’t see the silliness in the campaign by the feminists to erase the term, “men,” wherever it appeared in the English language. As I said, I have championed the cause of women virtually all of my working life, but there should be a moratorium on ridiculous assaults upon the language.

Congress Should Pass a Law Banning the Tobacco Industry

Are we heading at last toward a total ban on cigarettes, cigars, and all tobacco products in the U.S., despite the losses that might bring about in the Deep South and all related industries and businesses, including the lucrative advertising industry? As one who has argued for such a ban for a long time, I say it’s about time!

At least one state, Mississippi, has taken action along that line with a measure giving the state authority to bring legal action and financial suits against the tobacco industry for all illnesses and surgeries that can be traced to the use of tobacco. And Mississippi is one of the longtime Dixie tobacco-growing states!

As one of the growing-up smart alecks of yesteryear, I was one of those curious young fellows who thought it would be smart to start smoking cigarettes. I did so at the age of 17, and I did it in front of my parents, who didn’t understand what health problems could ensue from prolonged use of the habit.

As a daily columnist and critic-at-large for the Seattle Times in those young years, I worked long days and nights. And, in the process, I developed a fierce cigarette-smoking habit I thought was a sign of “growing up.” With each sentence or paragraph, I puffed away at a cigarette.

At the height of the terrible habit, I was smoking three packs of cigarettes a day and night. Each pack had 20 cigarettes, so you can see what a terrible grip the habit had on me. That’s the way it continued until the day the inevitable occurred. Thanks to the smoking habit, I experienced both a bleeding ulcer and a hiatal hernia, both of them directly traceable to the smoking habit.

When that happened, I had been smoking for about 25 years. My doctor, bless him, treated me as best he could. Finally, he warned me thus, in a way I have repeated so many times since in articles, speeches, and commentaries: “Lou,” he said, “you are temporarily healed. But I must ask you this: ‘Do you want me to keep treating you or, if you continue smoking cigarettes, do you want to seek out the best undertaker?’”

That’s all he said, and he wasn’t smiling. Right then and there, I decided to quit the foul smoking habit, which had not only included three packs of cigarettes a day but also an occasional cigar and even a pipeful of tobacco --- all of which I had been inhaling without fear, until my body rebelled.

That doctor, who became my hero, succeeded in getting me to quit my smoking habit. In fact, that doctor actually saved me life. He was a strong opponent of cigarettes and all other forms of tobacco use. I wonder how many other lives he saved in warning his patients to quit any and all forms of tobacco use.

At this very moment, Congress is considering a measure giving the federal government the authority to require the tobacco industry “to allow consumers to see what chemicals and other additives tobacco companies put in their products.” That would be a good start, but it isn’t enough.

What Congress and the federal government should consider in the interests of better health for all citizens is a total ban on the tobacco industry and enactment of laws that would penalize tobacco farmers heavily if they continue to plant and nurture tobacco plants in any form. It would truly be a lifesaving measure. And that’s the opinion of a grateful onetime user of tobacco who owes his life to that noble doctor!

Move to Give Felons the Right to Vote Is Ill-Conceived

I can’t believe it! Will someone please tell me it isn’t so? I’m talking about the move by some individuals and even one or two states to get laws passed that will give felons the right to vote. That’s right --- felons, prisoners, including murderers, rapists, and bank robbers!

What in the world has come over these “do-gooders” --- or should that be “do-badders”? Do men and women who have committed serious criminal acts deserve the right to join us in the voting booth or even the right to vote by absentee ballot? The answer, of course, should be a long, loud “No!”

Those who are promoting the idea of giving felons the right to vote are saying the prisoners should have that right because it will help rehabilitate them and prepare them to re-enter society and behave well when they are released from prison. I strongly doubt that giving prisoners a ballot will do anything of the kind.

Frankly, I believe felons in many prisons are being given more comforts than they deserve. The most glaring “comfort” they receive in most prisons is one I’ve long opposed. That’s what’s called “conjugal rights,” in which special quarters are assigned a prisoner so that he can spend a night or two with his wife or live-in girl friend.

Some observers, including many wardens, believe conjugal rights contribute to the rehabilitation of a prisoner and better prepare him for a return to the outside world. I don’t agree. A man or woman who has committed a serious crime and who is put away to protect society doesn’t deserve all the comforts some wardens insist on giving them.

The primary reason these criminal men and women are imprisoned is that they must pay for their crime. If they are uncomfortable, that’s just too bad. The victims they have left behind --- if they’re alive, that is --- have a right to know that the person who has seriously wronged them is paying the price. And if they are not alive, their families should have that right.

Now, to return to the move to give prisoners a right to vote, what could possibly be gained by such a move? How could a man or woman who is barred from the outside world vote intelligently on any issue or candidate? Enough said.

Pro Gamblers Gradually Taking Over Life in the States

Sooner or later, it was bound to happen. Walter A Moses, a member of the Tulalip Indian tribe, and a onetime supervisor of the massive Tulalip Gambling Casino outside Marysville, Washington, has been arrested and charged with stealing thousands of dollars from a player-reward program he supervised.

As detailed in the District Court indictment, Moses has been accused of “using members of his family as unwitting accomplices to drain cash from the accounts of some of the casino’s best customers.” The indictment says he used his rank as a Rewards Club supervisor to manipulate the thefts.

This paragraph from the Associated Press report of the indictment is rather telling: “The Rewards Club program at the casino offers incentives to gamblers --- cash rewards, merchandise, and other prizes --- based on how much money they play at table games and slot-style machines.”

As a newspaper editor who led his staff in eye-opening investigations of gambling casinos and the sleazy operators they attract, I have to say once more, “I told you so.” The warnings have gone unheeded, despite the fact that gambling casinos bring unwelcome pro gamblers to a state --- as they have in Nevada, Georgia, and other states.

In the past few years, Washington State has seen a dangerous influx of gambling casinos, despite the dangers revealed in the investigations my staff at the P-I conducted. Unfortunately, that investigative spirit vanished soon after I retired from the P-I and some of my best staffers did, as well.

Where the devil are the feds in this case? And why haven’t Congress and the federal government joined forces in eradicating pro gambling and the casinos from the U.S. Instead, the Nevada “disease,” left to prosper, has spread to many other states across the U.S., including Washington, Oregon, and California.

At the same time, the newspapers, radio, and television have caught the disease, mainly because it represents huge ad revenues. Ads for the casinos are seen mainly on sports programs --- and they promise great rewards for those persons foolish enough to risk family funds on the gambling games.

I have mentioned this before, and I feel compelled to do it again. Notice that the gambling-casino ads on TV especially feature the winners at the gambling tables and the merriment that goes on. Never shown on the ads at any time are the far greater number of losers at the casinos.

For that reason, I must chastise the news media for failing to round up the losers and have them indicate just how much cash they lost at the casino tables and games --- and how they have to make up for those losses. I know it would be embarrassing, but it’s something that should be done to even up the gambling reports.

If the news media won’t do it, what is stopping local, state, and federal cops from publicizing “the other side” of the gambling story --- the side that shows the embarrassment and the heavy losses sustained by the gambling-casino losers? It should be easy to do --- and extremely important to do before the gamblers take over operations of the states.

Obama on Right Track in Appeal for Peace With Muslim Nations

President Barack Obama’s visit to the Middle East this week could have historic implications we should not hasten to condemn, just because we have disagreed with so much of his political rhetoric early in his presidency. Yesterday in Cairo, he made a direct appeal for a new relationship between the U.S. and the West and the Islamic world.

Is Obama’s call for a new understanding a welcome shift from President Bush’s “war on international terror” policy earlier in this century? I say that it is and that we must go along with Obama’s repeated assertions that we must seek a fresh start in our dealings with all Muslim nations everywhere in the world.

In a quotation reported by the McClatchy News Syndicate, Obama said his Cairo speech was designed “to deliver a broader message about how the U.S. can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world.” Then he added this statement to the press and to the Egyptians:

“That will require, I think, a recognition on both the part of the United States, as well as many majority-Muslim countries about each other, a better sense of understanding, and, I think, possibilities to achieve common ground.”

One of Obama’s obvious goals is to “rally Muslim countries to join in efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear program.” However, he also indicated that he realizes “many Arab governments also see Iran as a threat, an issue that divides Muslims, in part because Israel is pressing for military action against Iran.”

I wish Obama had gone further and embraced a plan I have been reiterating for many years. It is a proposal in which I have called for the creation of a new World Council of Religions, not to be confused with the somewhat useless World Church Council, which has skirted political issues.

In a World Council of Religions, every religion on the planet --- and, I understand there are about 150 of them --- would meet to discuss those problems they could solve in a quest for universal peace and an end to those destructive elements that have cursed so many underdeveloped nations.

In such a council, for example, the Western religions could encourage the Islamic nations to persuade their extremist factions to lay down their arms and join in a crusade for worldwide peace.

Many Islamic nations have said the document created by Muhammad in the 7th Century prescribed world peace. If that is so, they should be given a chance to enforce that dictum on the extremist factions and make it possible for the Western World and the Islamic World to reach the promised goal of a permanent world peace.

Obama should be given a chance to bring about a peaceful understanding between the U.S. and the Western World and the Islamic World. If that resulted in the establishment of a World Council of Religions, the President could merit the support of not only the American people but all other Western nations.

Foul Practice of Tipping Should Be Outlawed Everywhere

One of the most insidious and unnecessary aspects of American life --- and the life of other nations, too --- is the practice of tipping for virtually every service offered under the sun. How in the world did the degrading practice get started, and what keeps it going, despite its continuing presence as an expensive nuisance?

In my younger years, and particularly those years in which I attended college and needed odd jobs to pay my tuition and other costs, I had to work for meager pay but rely on the beneficence of people I served to provide tips and make the job worth it. It was always a demeaning experience.

Tipping is a foul practice because of the implication that the tipper is thereby entitled to special service denied those who don’t or can’t tip. To me, it amounts to a bribery system that is an insult both to the receiver of the tip and to the person or persons offering the tip.

Not long ago I received a newsletter that offered an outlandish “Guidelines to Tipping,” which provided a long list of when and to whom a person should give a tip. It also included the amounts to be tipped in each case. Here are a few examples of the tips the newsletter said should be given and those who should receive them:

Fifty cents to the hotel doorman or a dollar in bad weather, 15% of the bill to the waiter at a restaurant, 5% to the captain or headwaiter (!), $5 to the person who directs the diner to a special table, 10% to the wine steward at a restaurant, a dollar or more to the bartender, 50 cents to the hatcheck girl or man, and 50 cents to the restroom attendant.

Isn’t that ludicrous? How can it be stopped? Of course, it could be stopped if people gritted their teeth and simply refused to tip anyone. However, that’s not likely to happen. Also, we cannot expect the labor unions of the nation to crack down on all fronts and demand that salaries be increased wherever tipping is traditionally expected.

And that, of course, is where the solution to the problem resides. If we cannot depend upon labor unions to cure the malady, we should ask legislators and members of Congress to amend labor laws to outlaw tipping and to raise salaries to include amounts that are usually expected from tippers.

Among the reasons that are usually heard as an excuse for supporting the tipping system is the complaint from the owners of restaurants, hotels, and many other facilities that their cost of operation would rise considerably if tipping were eliminated and that they might have to operate at a loss and thus have to go out of business.

That argument can easily be dismissed. All the owners would have to do is to raise the cost of their services to cover the expense of increased wages to servers. For the long-abused customer, the cost of those services would amount to the same total that once included the tip! Simple, isn’t it?