WhackyNation

In a brilliant display of jurisprudence that made immediate legal history, the Supreme Court of the United States has scuttled programs in Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky, that use race as a determinant in assigning students to public schools. The court’s decision was by a 5-to-4 vote.

It was a decision that had to be made if public schools are to abide by the U.S. Constitution, which forbids decisions made on the basis of skin color. Admittedly, the Seattle School Board used the racial formula in desperation to solve the problem of school enrollments that exceeded capacity. But, in the final analysis, Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote for the majority, put it best:

“For schools that never segregated on the basis of race, such as Seattle, or that have removed the vestiges of past segregation, such as Jefferson County, the way ‘to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a non-racial basis’ is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

It was brilliant rhetoric and sound reasoning. But, as could have been expected, Democratic members of Congress who strongly opposed President Bush’s appointment of Roberts to the highest court were quick to condemn the court’s decision and to excoriate Roberts at the same time.

I think it was of great significance that the Supreme Court’s black member, Justice Clarence Thomas, concurred with the decision. He wrote: “Racial imbalance is the failure of a school district’s individual schools to match or approximate the demographic makeup of the student population at large….. Because racial imbalance is not inevitably linked to unconstitutional segregation, it is not unconstitutional in and of itself.”

Although the five justices rendering the majority opinion didn’t say so, I believe they hinted at the proper solution. It’s a solution I have been proposing for some time. It is substantially this: Racial equality should be achieved, not by tampering with school enrollments or other gimmicks, but by desegregating neighborhoods.

That means getting rid of ghettoes, primarily in the large urban areas. It also means getting rid of the real-estate industry’s habit of refusing to show minorities the homes that are for sale, lease, or rent in white neighborhoods. Only then can we achieve the racial equality consistent with the freedoms expressed in the Constitution.

A few weeks ago I wrote an op-ed piece in the Seattle Times arguing that capitalism does a better job promoting freedom than democracy. One of my examples was China. I argued that, in ten years, China would probably be more free than Russia. Well, it looks like 10 years might have been too pessimistic. Check out this article in the NY Times….

It appears that an emerging middle class (which can ONLY be created in a capitalistic society) is starting to demand liberty….and the Chinese government is giving it to them.

Score one more point for Milton Freidman and one less point for Karl Marx.

Thanks to the leadership and inspiration of James D. Ellis, whose Forward Thrust program brought so many marvelous developments to the City of Seattle, his latest dream, the Mountains to Sound Greenway, was celebrated and toasted by many Washington State citizens last weekend.

Now, I’d like to propose to Jim and his friends that they adopt a companion vision for Greenway. It’s my longtime dream of creating a Columbia River Paradise Plan. While the Greenway follows the route marked by Interstate 90, my Paradise Plan would follow the entire length of the Columbia River, from its origin in British Columbia down through the center of the state and to the delta at the Pacific Ocean.

The two ideas have many similar features. The Greenway is based on the notion that the entire I-90 pathway be protected for its environmental gems, but it also incorporates a variety of hiking, historic, athletic, and other events, many of which are already community treasures.

My Columbia River Paradise Plan has an even broader scope. In addition to protecting and featuring the river’s environmental treasures, it would be an incomparable vacation jewel that would be bound to attract visitors from Canada, the U.S., and many other nations.

My idea — bolstered by the expertise of many civil engineers — would include boat rides from the origin of the river in Canada to the ocean delta. The engineers told me long ago that such boats could easily be lowered or raised wherever waterfalls exist on the Columbia River. In fact, they told me such lifts already exist in some waters of the Northwest.

Included in the plan would be resort centers at various spots along the river, golf courses, and as many natural-history and arts museums as could be mustered in the future. The objective would be to offer a large number of attractions along the course of the river for vacationers, honeymooners, and visitors.

History has already endowed the Columbia with a great number of major attractions, dating back to the discovery of America, the famous Lewis and Clark Expedition, and the Civil War. It’s a grand, deeply appealing idea that is waiting to happen. Are you listening, Jim?

It’s get a little scary on the left with their latest attempt to stifle free speech.

Hillary and John Kerry want to bring back the fairness doctrine for radio, which is nothing more than a poorly disguised attempt to kill conservative talk radio.

All but one of the Democrat Presidential candidates won’t go on Fox Network for a debate is a little bit disconcerting, too.  If they can’t face questions from Britt Hume, then they can’t face the questions from world leaders. 

When you couple this with Gore closing down debate on global warming, stifling conversation about this important topic, it leaves you with the sense that the Left has gotten downright bizarre.  Gore recently branded conservative criticism as an “assault on reason.”

The Left is so absolutely correct in their minds.  Their certitude is scary and they want you to conform to their beliefs and lifestyle.  They believe urgent action is needed or global catastrophes will happen.

The left is going lockstep.

Then I read an article by Robert Tracinski which begins:

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, drawing on his memories of Soviet oppression, recently declared that the global warming hysteria had replaced Communism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity.”

The environmentalists continue to do their best to prove him right.

In making the parallel to Communism, President Klaus cited the use of environmentalism as a justification for global central planning. But it is not just the vast scale of the controls proposed by environmentalists that is so revealing; it is also the detail. There is no aspect of life too trivial or intimate (as Sheryl Crow infamously reminded us) to fall outside of this new ideological regimentation.

The article goes on to review a new Australian TV Show called “Carbon Cops” who invade homes to measure the carbon “footprint.”  The left is going Big Brother.

…what gives this all the faint whiff of totalitarianism–is the global warming alarmists’ eagerness to reach into the smallest details of our private existence and re-arrange our lifestyle to fit the austere requirements of their political ideology.

In order to overthrow free market capitalism, socialists must go totalitarian to stifle criticism of their actions.  What we are seeing by mainstream Democrat candidates is their efforts to stifle free speech and thinking.

It goes without saying that it is vitally important to be physically fit, to exercise frequently, and to eat sensibly. But I think the experts on dieting have gone way too far with their mania for narrow waists. So have the news media, magazines, advertising agencies, the fashion industry, the movie industry, and television.

The national dance is now aerobics, and the only math many people learn and use is counting calories. A nationally recognized pediatrician who is acknowledged to be an expert on proper diets for young and old alike has told us what we have always known. Our children, he said, eat too much and exercise too little.

I wish the medical and food experts in our land would decide to talk about the other side of the coin — those individuals who refuse to eat or who have nothing to eat. The first group is made up mostly of teen-age girls in high school and college who are anorexic or bulimic — or both.

Because of the mania for slimness, these girls stop eating altogether or they gorge themselves, then give it all up by inducing vomiting. Nobody tells these girls there is something wrong with them, but they are seriously ill and do nothing to cure their illness. The terrible truth is that too many of these young anorexics and bulimics go to their graves at an early age.

Then there are those millions in poverty-stricken families, who must think it’s a cruel joke to be told they should eat the right foods! Their problem is economic, rather than medical, but if their condition is not ameliorated by an adequate supply of food, they, too, will suffer the same fate as anorexics.

With reference to anorexia and bulimia, the medical and research professions have tried to come up with a cure, but they have made virtually no progress in that regard. The reason is that the problem needs to be solved by psychiatrists, not medical doctors. Anorexics are, in fact, psychotics, who believe they are always “too fat,” even though a look in a mirror should convince them that they are wasting away.

In recent years, some advances have been made in the treatment of anorexics and bulimics, but much more must be done — not necessarily by psychiatry but by the news media, magazines, films, television, and the fashion industry. These elements in our society insist on exaggerating the importance of “slimness,” dieting, and starving one’s self to be popular.

Perhaps what is needed is a decision by psychiatric sources to appeal to all the news media, the film and entertainment industry, and the fashion industry to start playing down the importance of “slimness” and dieting and start offering sensible, reasonable tips on eating and exercise. It can be done, and it should be done.

If you don’t think the need for a sensible approach is important, you should know that estimates of the number of young people suffering from food disorders has ranged as high as 12 million in the U.S. alone. Since the great majority of those stricken are teens, the potential damage to America’s young generation and the nation’s future is great.

I think the experts, the media, and especially the fashion and advertising moguls should get off the backs of the chubby kids and spend more time helping the millions who won’t or can’t eat.

Karl at Leaning Straight Up writes about a Swedish scientist who says the IPCC scientists cherry-picked bad data and falsified data in order to conclude that sea levels are rising much faster than the real evidence shows.

Scientist Nils Axel Morner cites this example:

those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use.

Morner gives other examples of shoddy science.  The post is worth a read.

Protecting the rights and the work of creative people in all the arts, music, drama, and entertainment has long been a personal crusade for me — and I know for certain that I will keep on crusading in that regard as long as I live. As a lifelong writer, composer, arranger, musician, and critic in all the arts, the crusade is a natural one for me.

For example, it’s the primary reason I have often written or spoken the notion that creators in all the arts should be compensated for their work long after they have created it. Let’s say an artist has painted a masterpiece and sold it to a dealer or other buyer for a relatively small sum. Then, the work gains considerably in value as it passes from one person to another buyer.

Now, the work, which the artist sold for, say, $500, suddenly is worth $50,000 and is sold for that figure. The seller makes a handsome profit — but the original artist gains nothing, not a cent. My longtime proposal has been that, whenever such a sale ensues, a percentage of the profit, say 10 percent, should be assigned to the artist.

I realize that it is a new concept and a difficult one to execute. But if it were to be written into laws at the national and local levels, it could be accepted gradually by the public, the art world, and the legal profession. Why not? I think it is a reasonable, easily understood concept — and one that is long overdue.

I am reminded also of a related incident several years ago, In which Garth Brooks, the country-music star, stuck his chin out a mile by saying he would not permit his recordings to be sold in stores that sold used CDs — a statement that drew severe criticism from some persons, who said they would boycott Brooks’ recordings, as a result.

Instead of castigating Brooks, the critics should have been applauding him for his courage. Brooks protested the sale of used CDs in stores, because, he said, the sellers had frozen out the composers and original performers from their rightful percentage of the sale. His position: Who, better than the creator of the music, had a greater right to the profits of a recording? Why, he asked, should the merchandiser and publisher pocket all the income?

As an author and musician, I take my hat off to Brooks. Country music may not be my cup of tea — although I once used to play bluegrass fiddle — but from that moment on, I became a Brooks booster. Except for the extremely successful and wealthy authors, composers, and musicians who can afford a battery of attorneys, the vast number of creative people out there are at the mercy of the publishers and merchandisers as they scratch for payment.

Another factor pops up. It is an unfortunate commentary, but it is true that most creative people do not live long enough to see their works of art accepted and accorded the dollar value they deserve. Why shouldn’t their families and their estates receive that “10 percent” of each sale of the creator’s work?

Although I am not a country-music fan, I feel that Brooks and I are kindred spirits and devotees of the concept I have embraced all these years. The sad truth, however, is that our shared idea has not been adopted by any government at the national, state, or local level.

In the 20 years I served as a critic-at-large at the Seattle Times, reviewing movies occupied most of my time. Of course, the most vexing problem I found was bad movies and the time wasted watching them. But the next most irritating problem was dealing with the inconsistent, often wacky system of censorship the movie industry imposed upon its output.

It was bad enough during the years in which the “X” for naughty adult movies epitomized the rating system. Then, the industry’s decision a couple decades ago to junk the “X” rating for adult movies and replace it with an NC-17 rating made some sense in protecting many daring but worthwhile themes from the censor’s hand — but, in the long run, it created more problems than it attempted to solve.

It should be remembered that the industry’s rating system was self-imposed early in the 20^th Century because of heavy criticism against the exploitation of sex in films. Even today, the classification system doesn’t have the force of law behind it — and censor boards are imposed locally wherever they are created.

It stands to reason that, sooner or later, the producers of pornographic films, who are growing stronger every year, are going to go to court to protest the industry’s lockout of skin flicks, and they could win. In fact, such a move may actually be under way today and may have escaped notice in the press.

The issue of sex is one problem that will probably never go away, no matter what kind of classification system is in vogue. Another issue is violence, which has gone on for years virtually untouched by the ratings system or those critics of films who keep calling attention to it without fomenting action.

I am convinced that extreme violence and a passion for gore that goes along with it are the real villains of the movie industry, both the Hollywood brand and the explosive foreign brand. And the very same could be said for what is sometimes referred to as the “small screen” industry, television.

While do-gooders worry unnecessarily about exposing children to sex in films, violence on the screen in the movie houses, as well as on the TV tubes in the living room at home, has contributed unquestionably to the instances of violence we see daily in real life.

That’s why I have long pleaded for a major revision of film and TV industry codes that would tone down or ban scenes of excessive cruelty, blood-letting, and physical violence that are not essential to the plot but are designed by writers and producers purely to sell tickets.

In that regard, I hasten to point out that many reputable survey agencies have determined clearly that films with “R” and even “NC-17” ratings that are loaded with scenes of sex and/or excessive violence don’t do nearly as well at the box office as G-rated movies.

That factor alone should exercise a much stronger influence on film production than the motivations of those producers with a penchant for what some have called “dirty movies.” My own personal feeling, as a longtime reviewer and admirer of good films, is that excessive sex and violence seriously hamper the artistic quality of any film.

Hat tip to MaxRedline for posting a link to a RushCam where Rush proposes Las Vegas style global warming catastrophe wagering lines.  Funny, funny, funny … and the satire hits the Gorists very hard.

A sorry spectacle is unfolding in the Senate of the United States as a few members of that august body have literally bitten the hand that has fed them politically with their cheap shots at the Conservative radio talk-show hosts who have dared to oppose the immigration bill favored by President Bush and many Democrats.

The complaining members of the Senate apparently have short memories. Talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and others have been critical of the bill mainly because they regard it as nothing more than an amnesty bill that will fail to curb illegal immigration and will actually encourage many more illegals to sneak across our borders. And I agree with them.

In a way, one cannot be too angry with the complaining senators, because they have supported President Bush, who has backed the ill-conceived bill. They can be praised for their loyalty to the administration, but this is an instance in which the President has erred in seeking passage of the bill.

At the same time, the Republican senators seem to have forgotten recent history. Before Conservative talk radio came into existence, the Democrats — whom I insist are more Socialists than Democrats these days — were taking the nation down the road to total Socialism and Big Government control of every phase of our lives.

Then, in the 1980s, sparked by the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the Conservative camp took heart and found new emphasis in combating the slide toward Socialism. The new voice of Conservatism eventually asserted itself in radio with the advent of Rush Limbaugh, whose powerful Conservative voice soon brought Michael Medved, Michael Savage, and others to talk radio.

Limbaugh’s great success and huge listening audience had much to do with the appearance of the Fox News Channel — and with the spread of Conservative news reporting to television. Soon the Limbaugh Conservative parade was joined by Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and many others.

Without the strong Conservative reporting of these new voices, the Democrats would have run rampant in Congress, and there would have been no stopping their mad dash down the road toward full-scale Socialism. And those senators who are now tossing barbs at the Conservative radio hosts could have kissed their political futures goodbye.

What grieves me most in all this is the missing Conservative voice — the one that could have been most powerful in blocking the Socialist movement. That is the voice of most American newspapers, which have been virtually silent regarding the amnesty-driven immigration bill and the Socialist menace promoted by the Democratic Party.

I have many memories of my days as a television and radio commentator, and those that have been the most meaningful are those in which troubled individuals sought my help and advice — as if I were some specially endowed savant with special intellectual powers, which I’m not.

For example, I will never forget the absorbing letter from a woman who said she had nothing to live for — and that she was preparing to kill herself and might take others with her in the process. Many suicide threats are simply cries for help. But this letter was so well written and sounded so determined that I knew it was much more than a bid for attention.

The woman said she had been a mental patient, had once nearly killed her own child, and had no family nor friends in the immediate area. She had lost her job, as well. Her husband had died a few years earlier and her two children were thousands of miles away and could be of no help or solace to her.

She was about to destroy herself and had provided no name or address in her letter. On the advice of the Seattle Crisis Clinic and psychiatrists, I tried to reach her with a direct appeal on a KIRO-TV and Radio newscast, telling her many of us cared what happened to her, that help was available, and that I would like to talk to her in person.

I knew the situation was desperate and that it was important to buy time. It worked. Two days later, she called me on the phone and, in a quiet but troubled voice, told me she had sought professional advice and was on her way to a Mental Health Clinic for help. I hoped and prayed that a life had been salvaged.

I never heard from her again, and I trust she was able to repair her life and find hope and faith in a better future. I’m relating her story in the hope that other troubled minds may be encouraged to seek help at the Crisis Clinic or elsewhere. Equally important is my hope that I may be able to reach those families who have a young person with disturbed behavior and who should get attention — before it’s too late.

Don’t put it off, and don’t give up. If you’re reluctant to seek private professional advice, call the Crisis Clinic or one of the many Mental Health Clinics in the Puget Sound region. Mental illness is a curse ONLY if you do nothing about it.

Although hampered somewhat by arthritis as he moves deep into his 80s, Oscar Peterson, Canada’s supreme gift to the world of jazz, is continuing to tour American and Canadian cities, although not quite in the concentrated manner in which he visited jazz hubs everywhere for more than 60 years.

As an amateur at the keyboard but an aficionado of jazz, I used to look forward eagerly to the annual visits to Seattle in the days I served as music critic of the Seattle Times. I never missed a chance to review an Oscar Peterson show when he was traveling under the auspices of Norman Granz’s Jazz at the Philharmonic, and I made sure that his agent put me down for an interview with Oscar before or after each of his performances.

I remember one special occasion above all others. Oscar had played an early Saturday matinee with his trio at Seattle’s Paramount Theater, and immediately afterward, when the theater had cleared, he met with me and two other local music critics at the front of the stage, where the piano rested.

For nearly three hours, Oscar ranged through the jazz repertoire and the pops classics, humming as he played and, at the end of each piece, talking about the composer, the tune, and incidents of his life that coincided with each song. We also asked questions after he paused and thought about the next selection — all of them popping up without being programmed in any way.

At one point, I praised him for a spectacular rendition of “Body and Soul” and said to him: “Oscar, I’ve never heard it played as sensationally as you have just interpreted it. You are, without a doubt, the greatest jazz pianist in history. No one I’ve ever heard can improvise with such skill and imagination.”

He was shaking his head as I spoke. Then he said: “Thank you. That’s very kind of you. But you are forgetting the guy who was truly the most inventive and most technically perfect jazz pianist who ever sat down to play. He was my longtime idol, the incomparable Art Tatum.”

It was my turn to shake my head. I responded: “Sure, I’ve heard some of Tatum’s recordings — recordings that were somewhat faulty. And I’ll grant you that his technique was extraordinary and original. But I still believe that your improvisations on familiar tunes are jazz variations that have never been matched, not even by Tatum.”

Still shaking his head slightly, Oscar said: “Well, thanks again. But, you see, you’re talking about my absolute idol, the guy whose great talent led me to pursue a career at the piano. If I am a good jazz pianist, I really owe it to Art in good measure. Without him as a model, I may never have made a career at the piano.”

Pressed further, Oscar acknowledged that he was also a devotee of the music of Bach, Beethoven, Liszt, and Mozart, and, if Art Tatum hadn’t shown him the way, he might have tried to make a career as a concert pianist. When he said that, I smiled and, shaking my head, said only “Never!” I’m sure he understood.

Oscar Peterson a concert pianist? I’m grateful that he never went that route in music. The world of serious music has more than enough concert pianists of great skill to fill the need. As a concert pianist, Oscar would have been lost in the crowd. As a jazz pianist, I insist that he is unquestionably the greatest who has ever lived.

It happened about 15 or 16 years ago, as I remember, but the surprising governmental action was so unbelievable that it lives on in my memory — the more so because I have been shocked by the fact that the news media virtually ignored it and the religious camp has never made an issue of it.

Perhaps you don’t remember it either — or never heard of it in the first place because it elicited a wall of silence everywhere in America. If you believe you’ve heard and seen everything, listen to this: Did you ever think you’d see the day when the federal government would go into the brothel business and insist it was all legal and proper?

Well, it happened, as I said, about 15 or 16 years ago. And where else should it have happened than in the gambling capital of America, the state of Nevada, where prostitution, gambling, sex on demand, and everything else imaginable appears to be legal and protected by the state.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised about anything that happens in Nevada, properly designated as the nation’s cesspool. And, in fact, we shouldn’t be surprised by anything the feds do these days either — including taking over the protection and operation of houses of ill repute, as happened in the early 1990s.

Considering the nature of houses of prostitution and the principal activity that goes on inside them, we shouldn’t be surprised, since the government has been doing it to taxpayers across the land for years — and, for goodness’ sake, we have been paying for it, too, and seldom complaining.

But, let’s go back to the incident that was barely reported back then. How did the ladies of the night like the novel idea of working for the federal government? After all, haven’t French prostitutes been doing it for centuries? Well, at that time, the ladies were talking earnestly about boycotting the bordello taken over by the feds.

The reason? They didn’t want to work for a stipulated government salary, preferring their usual “contractual” arrangements and negotiated fees. Honest! They didn’t want to be controlled by unions either, as if working for pimps isn’t, in fact, the very same thing, or worse. However, they soon forgot their boycott plan.

I’m not making all this up! It was barely in the news 15 or 16 years ago, and then it disappeared from the reportorial landscape. Sometimes I wonder: Was I the only one who read it and who was taken aback by the fact that our federal government had worked its way into the brothel business? As a lifelong newsman, I am awestruck by the fact that the feds’ action in Nevada went unnoticed across the country and that the news media never made it a Page 1 occurrence. At the time it happened, I delivered a hard-hitting commentary on television, but nothing came of it, despite my efforts.

While I’m at it, permit me to unload more rancor on the subject. In this day of raging sexually transmitted diseases, I think every brothel in America, beginning with those in Nevada, should be closed down and boarded up, with stiff penalties for anyone daring to reopen them. I had to reserve one reluctant note of sympathy back in the early ‘90s — this one for a Reno prostitute named Beth, who said of the feds’ takeover: “I want to go back to the Mustang Ranch, but I’m not going to work for the government!” Atta girl, Beth; now go find some honest work.

I had the opportunity to sit on a panel at this year’s Washington Policy Center’s health care conference with pollster Stuart Elway.  Elway presented his polling findings and I had the opportunity to interpret and respond to them. The panel aired on TVW last night. If you would like to watch the whole 1 hour event … here is the link.

If you just want to watch my comments on Washington’s health care environment … skip about 25 min into the program.

A Liberal columnist in the equally Liberal press has opined, almost gleefully, it seems, that the Republican Party is wallowing in the midst of an “identity crisis.” In other words, he said, the G.O.P. is so confused that it doesn’t know what its policies are, nor which of its many leaders should be followed by party members.

In the process, the columnist, in the true Liberal mantra of the day, blames President Bush for sparking what he calls the party’s identity crisis. It’s the predictable course of blasphemy espoused by the Left Wing these days in its frantic effort to install one of its own in the White House next year.