WhackyNation

Thanks to the Democrats who now control state government, the sounds emanating from the legislative halls in Olympia lead me to believe that the only thing worse than a severe state deficit is a surprisingly huge surplus that puts lawmakers in an unbridled mood to spend your tax money and mine.

With free-spending Governor Christine Gregoire at the helm, gone with the wind are thoughts of holding down expenditures. Also forgotten in the state capital as the Democrats prepare for another spending spree in the January session are such old-fashioned ideas as cutting taxes, instead of increasing them, and reorganizing government so that it meets urgent modern needs — not the political boondoggles and machinations of the past.

When the prospect of a revenue windfall of at least a couple billion dollars was announced recently, virtually every pressure group, every city and county government, every legislator, and every state department hauled out the old wish list and quickly wrote a letter for more money from Santa Claus.

In case you are in doubt about who Santa is, just take a look in the nearest mirror. Hi, Santa! When the legislature reconvenes in 2008, the revenue windfall could turn the new session into a financial disaster unless legislative leaders do an about-face and insist on setting up priorities before a nickel is spent. Don’t bet on it happening.

Many of the items on the legislators’ wish lists come January could be regarded as desirable and perhaps even necessary. But most of them could wait until state government is restructured, the waste and fat are removed, and new, reasonable priorities are assigned.

But I suppose old-fashioned logic and common sense are commodities that are in short supply in Olympia when the tax bucks are rolling in and the Democrats are in command. As the governor and the Democrats in both state houses pile it on tax-wise as January approaches, I’m reminded of a proposal I have made often in the past three or four decades.

That proposal is for Washington State to consider the path Nebraska pioneered successfully half a century ago. That was to become the first and only state in the Union to bury the past and create a unicameral legislature to speed up the governmental process, make it work a lot better, and to save millions of tax dollars at the same time.

An important corollary to the unicameral idea would be to adopt another proposal I have tried to popularize for a long time. That is to limit all elective offices to a single six-year term, with no re-election permitted. It’s the politicians who remain in office the longest who are mainly to blame for the constantly soaring cost of government and the never-ending increases in taxes.

The two ideas together would undoubtedly move state government in Washington out of the red-ink category it never seems to leave and into the realm of black ink, lower taxes, and much better government. What are we waiting for?

I suspect that most of our readers have not been following what has been happening in Eastern Washington, particularly Kittitas County, for the last few months. We are experiencing one of the biggest power grabs in a long time. In the past few months, local land use decisions have been overruled at an alarming rate by unelected state bureacrats. It looks like the Governor has choosen Kittitas County to be a “test case” to see what she can get away with in other counties. I offer the experience of Kittitas County as a warning to all the other counties that think “it won’t happen here.”

I recently published a guest editorial in the Yakima Business Times. I re-post that essay below.

**************

The Loss of Local Control

“Greetings” my neighbors to the south. I come bearing tidings from Kittitas County that should be of concern to all the people of Yakima County. I know it’s easy to ignore us in our under-populated county north of you, but that is exactly what the State of Washington and her governor hope you will do. There is nothing less than a complete loss of local control at stake and the opening battle is being fought in your backyard. The bad news: the state is winning.

For reasons that are not quite clear, the clumsy and indifferent bureaucracy we call the state of Washington has targeted Kittitas County in an opening assault to seize all land use decisions from local county governments. If they are successful, we will be living in a state where west-side environmentalists will have their boots on the throats of eastern Washington residents. They want our land. They want our water. If we are not careful, they are going to get both.

Kittitas County is currently serving as their proverbial “canary in the coal mine” to see how much they can take before the people push back. My fear is that if Kittitas County capitulates today, the state will be coming for Yakima County tomorrow.

In the last few months, Kittitas County has received a host a World Wrestling Federation slap-downs from our governor and her appointed boards. Our land use laws have been tossed. Our comprehensive plan has been invalidated. Now there is an attempt to shut down our wells. All of these things have been done in direct conflict with our locally elected officials and their democratically arrived at decisions.

In June of this year, the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (EWGMHB), a group of unelected Gregoire appointees, issued an “order of invalidity” striking down large portions of the Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan. The urban growth nodes were eliminated. Our ability to create three-acre zoning was thrown into question.

Following closely on the heels of that decision, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), a group of Gregoire appointees, overruled a local decision to reject a wind farm along the Yakima River. Our County Commissioners had earlier approved the largest wind farm in the state, but felt the location of this farm overly burdened local land owners and environmental concerns. Didn’t matter what our elected officials felt. EFSEC and the Governor told us that our local land use ordinances had no effect and the wind farm will be approved regardless of local input and rule of law. Interestingly there are five “interests” represented on the EFSEC board: Department of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Community Trade and Economic Development, and Utilities and Transportation. Not a single private representative in the group. No one to speak for land owners, private property, or local control.

Just last week, we got hit again. A new group, Aqua Permanente, which is closely aligned with west-side funded radical and fringe environmental groups such as Futurewise and The Ridge, have petitioned the Department of Ecology to prohibit the drilling of any new exempt wells in Kittitas County. We are all holding our breath up here. If we lose this one, most of our land will become worthless and economic development will halt immediately.

Right now, it is only Kittitas County that is suffering the arrogance of unelected Gregoire appointees. But let’s be clear. Although they are only coming for us today, they will be coming for you tomorrow. We are confronting the very real possibility that an indifferent majority of west-side voters will be colonizing eastern Washington. To many of them, we are nothing more than people who happen to live on resources they want. From their perspective, it is acceptable to build homes, factories, and businesses where they, and their children, live. We, however, are supposed to leave our land undeveloped… just in case they want to come fishing, hiking, snowmobiling, or camping in “their” backyard.

A friend said to me the other day: “Why can’t we get rid of these godawful ads on TV and radio and all the bra and panty ads in the newspapers, as well as many others?” He was not alone. Others have made similar remarks to me, knowing full well that my life has been devoted to the print and broadcast media.

I’ve always had a ready answer for my friend and others, and I am constrained to make it now for the umpteenth time. Like it or not, advertising is an essential part of our capitalist, free-enterprise system — and, thus, a most important adjunct to our freedom and liberty.

The explanation is easy to understand and should be made available to all those who complain about those “godawful” ads and the bra and panty ads, as well. It goes this way:

Advertising supports the free press, television, and radio. It also supports all magazines, department stores, drug stores, and commerce of every kind. Without advertising — whether it turns you off or not — these enterprises, which are the life blood of American commerce and industry, would vanish overnight because of the immediate falloff in paying customers.

At the same time, we see advertising on billboards, on transit buses, on the sides of delivery trucks and panel trucks, on many of the products we buy, and even on the movie screens these days at the neighborhood theater — although I’ll grant that’s one area I wish we could do without because I pay to get in.

All of these ads — yes, I’ll concede even including those on the movie screens — are critically important to the businesses that utilize them. Without the “salesmanship” provided by all these ads, most of the businesses and industries that use them would find it difficult to make a profit and survive.

Oh, yes, here’s one more crucial point: Advertising is a multi-trillion-dollar business in America and it provides many millions of jobs! Now, that point should be a clincher for the doubters in our midst.

I have a couple more selling points in my argument. One is that advertising is actually a significant news source, informing the public of what products and services are available and where they may be purchased. Another is that advertising can be instructive and even humorous.

However, I have saved the one most persuasive argument for the very last: In Communist countries and other totalitarian nations, the government owns everything and permits no advertising anywhere except what it wants its servile public to read, see, and hear. Do we want that to happen to us? Of course not.

So, ladies and gentlemen, make with the ads, please. Some of them may be silly or senseless, but we free people are willing to take the bitter with the sweet to preserve our freedom and liberty.

Here’s a story you won’t see in tomorrow’s Seattle’s dailies:

The Atlantic hurricaine activity is the lowest since 1977.

You won’t see it because the editors are embaassed that their zealous embracement of Al Gore’s junk science was misplaced.

For it was the doomsdaying environmentalist who predicted that global waming was causing bad hurricaines.

Guess his predictions and science were junk.  And if his predictions were misplaced, maybe the rest of his global warming hype was mispalced as well.

I have a gigantic pet peeve, and I’ll bet that everyone reading this shares it with me, perhaps even without realizing it. It’s this: Cities and towns across the nation have let their road signs go to hell, and most of them aren’t doing a thing about it — and probably don’t intend to, pleading that they can’t afford to do anything about it.

Street signs in every city I’ve been in during the past 30 years or so — and that’s a lot of cities — are in such a state of disrepair for the most part that they are useless for the driver or even the stroller. In addition, too many signs are obliterated by branches of trees that have been permitted to grow beyond reason, as well as beyond tree-trimming crews.

Even in many cases in which street signs are visible to a motorist, they are frequently painted in white on green. Why green? White letters or numbers on green are among the most difficult to read from a distance. In some cities, street signs are white on black, as they should be, but, unfortunately, the street signs are so small they can’t be read from a distance, or they are so dirty they can’t be read.

If you’re like me, you frequently have had to read road signs from your car in order to find a home or a building that is not easy to spot. And if you’re like me, you frequently have been lost because you missed a street or a turn because you couldn’t make out one or more signs along the way.

Don’t ask professional truck drivers who deliver the mail or department-store packages if they have any trouble finding addresses. They have been at it for so long that they already know every twist and turn and every hidden street without having to read road signs. They’re no help.

I think there should be a national campaign to improve street signs, because I am convinced there are many others like me who have lost their way on many occasions, thanks to illegible or tree-hidden street signs.

Most street signs are too small to be easily visible from the road. They should be much larger. Also, all signs should be white on black. And, finally, because road signs collect dirt daily, city road crews should wash them from time to time.

Oh, yes, one more thing: All of us beleaguered motorists could use a small traveler’s dictionary that would explain how a boulevard differs from an ordinary road, why an avenue is an avenue and not a street, what the definition of a court, a place, or a street is — as well as any of the other names given to a stretch of concrete or asphalt automobiles are supposed to use.

By the way, who is the demonic genius who thought up this morbid street sign seen all too often: Dead End!

In view of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Hitlerian actions and his defiance of other nations that demand he abandon his nuclear-bomb plans, President Bush has done the right thing in ordering total sanctions on Iran until Ahmadinejad closes down his plans to enrich uranium, the fuel of nuclear explosives.

However, I wish the President had broadened the scope of his action before announcing it to the world. I think he should have exerted great pressure on other world powers — notably France, Germany, England, Russia, China, and India — to join the U.S. in the move for sanctions on Iran.

The President hinted that he would like other nations to join the sanctions effort, but just saying so isn’t enough. Past experience tells us that he was right in not expecting the U.N. (Useless Nations) to put some muscle behind its limp proclamations suggesting Iran cast aside its nuclear ambitions.

That’s why Bush should have asked the other world powers to take sanctions action — or face a harsher response from the U.S. The other powers must be shocked into action, if necessary, to realize that the international war on terror is already under way and that they, along with the U.S., are targeted by the terrorists.

According to the Associated Press, “the U.S. sanctions on elements of Iran’s vast armed forces and its largest bank are the most sweeping since 1979, when the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran ended diplomatic, business and military ties.”

It’s quite obvious that the major European nations have intricate financial and economic deals with Iran and, as they did in refusing to join us in the invasion of Iraq, they don’t want to upset their lucrative deals with Ahmadinejad. That’s why Bush should demand that the Europeans can’t have their cake and eat it, too — and that they must choose between temporary economic advantage and the war the terrorists have threatened.

Sadly but not unexpectedly, congressional Democrats are already attacking the President for his decision to order sanctions against Iran. They’re saying he did the same thing in the Iraqi case and that he should resort to initiating diplomatic talks with Ahmadinejad, not sanctions or threatened military action.

When will the Democrats snap out of their political stupor? We are already involved in World War III, and we know that the enemy is the Islamo-Fascist movement in various parts of the world. The Muslim extremists have declared again and again that their resolve is a jihadist movement to kill Americans and Jews.

Will they awaken and recognize the truth before it’s too late?

I haven’t always agreed with the statements or congressional votes of Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House and a onetime ambassador to Japan, but I will always remember one brilliant incident involving the softspoken Democrat when I was serving in the U.S. State Department as a public-affairs officer way back in the mid-1970s.

At the time, Foley, a congressman from my own home state of Washington, had been asked to address the State Department staff, because he was one of the most powerful congressional voices on foreign affairs, thanks to his lofty position as Speaker. An audience of 90 to 100 greeted Foley as he entered the large meeting room on the Seventh Floor of the State Department. He began the meeting by challenging the staffers to talk about their dealings with foreign envoys and nations.

The fellow manning the Japanese desk rose to detail the problems the Japanese were tussling with and how the U.S. was arranging to transfer funds to help them. Then it was the man at the Brazilian desk who quickly explained how the State Department was marshaling financial and material help for the government in Rio de Janeiro.

Foley sat by patiently as the staffers went through what seemed like an endless ritual. Saying almost the same things as the Japanese and Brazilian desk chiefs, other staffers representing U.S. interests in Mexico, Argentina, the Balkan nations, Italy, France, Spain, Australia, and virtually every other nation on earth spelled out what the U.S. taxpayer was shelling out in aid funds.

After listening to the repetitious accounts of how the U.S. had contributed funds and other goodies to virtually every nation, Foley rose from his chair with a smile on his face. Having known Foley for many years, I sensed that his patience had come to an end and that he was about to explode.

Well, he didn’t explode, but with his usual quiet demeanor and easy smile, he said to the department staffers (and I must paraphrase, because I don’t remember exactly how he said it): “Ladies and gentlemen of the State Department, I am impressed with your deep concern for the welfare of nations around the world. But I believe I have an important suggestion for you and the Secretary of State. In my estimation, what we need most of all in the department is an American desk! Yes, you heard me correctly — an American desk that will listen to the problems of America and relate them to the problems you are trying to solve in foreign nations.”

I could tell from the surprised looks on the staffers’ faces that Foley had struck a most sensitive nerve in the entire department apparatus. He went on to explain what he thought the department should be doing to help our relationships abroad without dipping into the U.S. Treasury to do it.

To this day, I don’t know whether Foley’s wry comment had a beneficial effect on the department and its foreign policy, but for one day at least, these trained give-away artists were stopped short and forced to examine what they had been doing.

I left the meeting with the strong hope that some day Tom Foley would be given the job of State Department Secretary. Unfortunately, he has never been offered that job, but I wish the Republican administration would heed the good sense Foley spoke that day at the meeting of the “foreign-desk pilots.”

The sorely needed world women’s revolution appears to have started in the most unlikely place — South America. A remarkable dispatch from the McLatchy Newspaper syndicate reveals that many of the countries in South America, as well as in Central America and even Mexico, have elected more women to legislatures than are found in the U.S. — in Congress and in our state legislatures!

I can say with assurance that it’s about time! Now, I hope the feminine revolution spreads to all other nations of the world — including those desperate Third World countries suffering from severe poverty, dictatorial government by warlords or theocrats, or standards of living that are so low that they are the springboards for civil conflicts and wars.

In South America, the new revolt has been recorded in recent years in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Guyana. Why it has not taken hold in Brazil, South America’s largest and most prosperous nation, is a deep mystery. Keeping pace in the new revolution are these Central American and Caribbean nations: Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama.

Perhaps most significant to Americans is the fact that even Mexico exceeds the U.S. in the number of women legislators in office — with the U.S. percentage of 16.3 women legislators compared with the Mexican total of 22.6 percent! With so many Mexican laborers entering the U.S. illegally, it’s about time the Mexican women asserted their influence in eliminating the corruption and poverty driving them northward.

Of course, critics might be inclined to say that the illegals are coming to the U.S. by the millions to get away from the influence of all the new women legislators in Mexico. But I think that reasoning lacks logic and the realization that it’s the men in office who have contributed most to the worsening conditions in Mexico.

I’m hoping that the women’s revolution that has taken hold in South America, with the exception of Brazil, will soon begin fostering a simultaneous revolution where it is needed most in the world — that is in all the nations controlled by Islam, which has for centuries forced women into virtual slavery. In addition to the advancing numbers of women winning elections in the South American and Central American countries, another extremely significant factor has developed. According to the McClatchy report, the wages of women workers in the Latin American countries have risen higher and faster than the wages of women in the U.S.

Does all this mean the women’s movement in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean islands has outpaced the movement in the U.S.? If so, I say “Good!” Now, it may be up to the women in the U.S. to make some additional headway to catch up with the strides made by the fair sex south of the border.

Some of the comparative figures supplied by the McClatchy report are astounding. As already indicated, for example, only 16.3 percent of the members in the U.S. Congress are women. Compare that percentage to these statistics: Argentina 35 percent; Peru 29.2 percent; Guyana 29 percent; Cuba 36 percent; Costa Rica 38.6 percent, and Honduras 23.4 percent. Thus, it is clear that Americans cannot afford to be smug about the way our women have progressed in government, politics, and the wage scales. Maybe the female revolution needs a new start right here in the 50 states before embarking upon a tour of the rest of the world.

I’m indebted to my good friend, Duane Smart, for sending me the following message, which should be read by every American and which one will never find in the Bush-hating, anti-war, Liberal press:

“Yes, we’re an imperfect country… and some of the media delight in that, pointing it out to us repeatedly. But here’s a pleasant read about America and our unselfish motives around the world:

“When in England at a large conference, General Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of ‘empire building’ by President Bush. He answered, saying: ‘Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.’ It became very quiet in the room.

Then there was a conference in France, where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American representatives. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room, saying: ‘Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intend to do — bomb them?’

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: ‘Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear-powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have 11 such ships. How many does France have?’ Once again, dead silence in the room.

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included admirals from the U.S., British, Canadian. French, and Australian navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks, but a French admiral suddenly complained that ‘whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.’ He then asked, ‘Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences, rather than speaking French?’

Without hesitating, the American admiral replied: ‘Maybe it’s because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies, and Americans arranged it so you wouldn’t have to speak German.’ You could have heard a pin drop!”

These are incidents that are seldom if ever reported by the print and broadcast news media in the U.S. Maybe the French and other America-haters abroad would be happy to learn that the once-free and objective U.S. news media seem to be on their side in deriding our President and forgetting what America has done to promote freedom in the world.

Bravo to the black community of Philadelphia! Seven thousand black men showed up in answer to a call by the police chief and civic leaders to start patrolling the streets of the city to put a stop to the epidemic of murders that have plagued Philadelphia — most of them involving black males in black neighborhoods.

Not since the massacres in Los Angeles’ Watts District has a black community answered a call for action to quell a murder rampage. In Philadelphia, 406 murders were recorded primarily in the black community in 2006, and this year the murder count is already up to 300, with more than two months to go.

Blacks have already begun to patrol the streets day and night to put a stop to the carnage and to enlist everyone in the black community to join the fight against crime. The call for black patrols came in desperate appeals from the police chief and other city leaders when normal police actions failed to stem the tide of murders.

Many whites have joined the blacks in patrolling the streets, which is as it should be. The action by Philadelphia’s 7,000 blacks should be noted by black communities in all American cities from coast to coast. Together, blacks and whites can put a stop to murders everywhere — and keep it that way.

The 7,000 volunteers in Philadelphia will carry no weapons while on patrol. Also, it was reported that none of the volunteers will have the power to make arrests. Instead, they will be trained in conflict resolution and mentoring, according to a dispatch from the Los Angeles Times and Reuters News Agency.

As the Baltimore Sun put it, “At neighborhood orientations, the volunteers will learn how to direct residents to education, jobs, and services, such as drug treatments. The training sessions have already begun and they will continue throughout the next few weeks. Volunteers are expected to be sent into the streets on three-hour patrols within the next 30 days.”

Earlier efforts to quell criminal actions and murders have failed to curb the murder epidemic in the past. However, civic leaders and the police are confident that the newest attempt has a much better chance to succeed, mainly because so many black men have responded to the calls for street patrols.

Equally important is the fact that the leaders of the black community have joined the latest call for action and have complimented the black volunteers, as well as the whites, for responding in such great numbers. Also, the black leaders have counseled their followers to quit blaming all but themselves for the murder rampage.

That alone would be a good place for black communities in other cities to start their campaign to emulate their fellows in Philadelphia. Now, what I believe is needed is for the President and congressional leaders to call for a national movement to reflect what is now happening in what has long been called the City of Brotherly Love.

Once again, a bitter tug-of-war has developed over the future of the B Reactor at Hanford, Washington, which has great importance because it was the first of many nuclear-producing plants in the U.S. — and provided the first nuclear materials used in the historic explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico, as well as for the bombs that ended the war with Japan.

One side ranges from total eradication of the Hanford and all other nuclear-producing plants in the U.S. to the costly removal of all radioactive waste alone. The other side consists of the residents of the Hanford area in Richland, who want the B Reactor and environs preserved as a museum.

As far as I am concerned, both sides are wrong — and how well I know why they are wrong. When I retired from the editorship of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 1965, I was hired as a communications consultant to my old friend, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who was the chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

One of my chores with the A.E.C. was to visit the various nuclear installations in the U.S. to meet their directors and to discuss the much needed requirement for adequate dissemination of news about nuclear power to the public. In the process, I met some of the most brilliant scientists in America.

But, even more important, I saw firsthand how important all the nuclear installations were to America’s role as the foremost power in the world — power for peace, that is. Even while Dr. Ray was serving as chairman, the debate began over what to do with all the nuclear installations, like Hanford, after the Cold War subsided.

I’ll never forget Dr. Ray’s strong pronouncement — and how I wish Congress had listened to her then and adopted her proposal. Dr. Ray emphasized that America and the world were now deeply involved in the production of energy of all kinds to raise the standard of living of all nations.

Therefore, she said, it was incumbent on the U.S. to avoid destroying the nuclear facilities but imperative upon us to turn all of them, Hanford above all, into modern facilities to explore all the methods of producing the much needed energy for all regions of the nation.

I helped her relay her message to leading congressmen and to the directors of all the nuclear installations. Dr. Ray wanted all the stations to probe the potential of solar energy, wind power, coal and gas power, nuclear power, and all other forms of power.

Unfortunately, her message was set side by Congress — and the news media, as could have been expected, either ignored her plea or disagreed with her and wanted the nuclear plants torn down. Dr. Ray’s message is still valid and her proposal deserves a full-scale review by Congress.

I am in sympathy with the people of Richland, who want Hanford’s B Reactor and environs preserved as a museum because of their gigantic importance in American history. But I wish they would carry the fight one step further and embrace Dr. Ray’s proposal — which, in fact, would preserve the installation but turn it into an even greater advantage to the U.S.

When ABC’s 20/20 reporter John Stossel says “Gimme a break” about Al Gore’s global warming hysteria on network television, maybe the rest of the drive-by media will start reporting both sides of the issue.

It’s a joy to watch this report, and see the other side of the story finally start to be reported by the mainstream media.

My prediction: other mainstream media will start reporting similar stories and eventually the global warming hysteria story will gradually disappear … but without holding the socialist Democrats in this country accountable for one of the biggest lies ever told.

I have long believed — and preached and written — that one of the greatest needs of American education and society as a whole is career training for everyone, and preferably at an early age, say 14 or 15, and perhaps even earlier.

It’s not a new idea, and it isn’t mine alone, for sure. But we have done little in America to investigate this great need and to do something about it.

Examine the reasoning behind that statement: Millions of Americans go through life in jobs or careers that don’t satisfy them — jobs or careers for which they may not be qualified or for which they may not be suited. Nevertheless, they go on plodding along in unsatisfactory positions, simply because they must do so to make a living.

Persons who are in such jobs frequently don’t perform their duties well or, because of the boredom, may even endanger themselves or others because of their boredom, or worse.

I am not referring to jobs in business offices, industry, the professions, or services alone. Career training should also be applied to those who may have a hidden talent or aptitude for, say, music, the theater, any of the other arts, journalism, poetry, teaching, creative writing, and so many others.

Because I have been interested in this idea for many years, I know about the various agencies that offer unusual testing materials to help discover what individuals like to do, what they may be specially qualified to do, what will make them happiest in their lifetime of work, and, perhaps most important of all, what latent talents and skills they may already possess for a lifetime career.

When I first took the tests to determine their effectiveness, I was somewhat bewildered by many of the questions that seemed nebulous, overly detailed, and even silly. How, I wondered, could the answers I supplied to all these questions help determine the job or career for which I was best suited?

Those who had administered the tests gathered them and informed us they would have a response later in the day or the next day. When I received their reply and their summation of the job or career for which I was best qualified and would like the most, I was astounded by their erudite response.

Without knowing who I was and the various skills and talents I possessed, they gave me a summary that amazed me with its accuracy and depth. The questions had not been specifically addressed to musical, journalistic, or artistic subjects, which were the basics of my career, but the responses the testing agents gave me virtually described me and the talents I had. It was so accurate that it seemed spooky to me. Yet I was deeply impressed then and have remained so since.

Imagine how much happier a population we would have if all Americans were investing their lives and time in the jobs and career they not only loved but for which they had the most important talents and skills! A nationwide career-training program applied to everyone in the early teens would help make that a reality.

The world’s largest and most experienced aircraft manufacturer, the Boeing Co., has announced it is now into planning and production of a most unusual flying machine — an electric plane powered by a fuel cell, batteries, and an electric motor.

The company’s laboratories are also working on new designs for the passenger planes of the future, experimental aircraft for the military, and a variety of new designs for other passenger and military aircraft and space vehicles.

Boeing believes the development of the small electric-powered plane will eventually lead to the production of large passenger and cargo planes and even military craft powered by fuel cells and batteries. It is believed that fuel-cell planes will not only provide a much cleaner burning engine but that they will drastically reduce the cost of flight, a feature that will be cheered by the airlines.

As a longtime resident of Seattle, Boeing’s home city, I am happy for the big aircraft company and wish it continued success in the aircraft and aerospace field and many more years of increased income. But I believe the company has overlooked at least two bright ideas — “bright ideas” because they have been mine for several years now.

First, I have tried in vain to coax Boeing to put more emphasis on flight safety — far more emphasis than it has in the past. If a plane pilot can parachute from an errant plane and, thus, save his life, why can’t Boeing make large passenger planes with a large equivalent of the chute system that will bring a troubled plane down to earth slowly and safely, instead of crashing with a great many deaths, as has been the case up to now?

Given the ingenuity of Boeing’s large staff of bright scientists and engineers, I strongly believe that some kind of safety akin to parachuting could be devised, even if it meant a reduction in speed and fuel efficiency would be the result. Wouldn’t saving thousands of lives over the years be worth it?

Second, I believe the Boeing Co. should seriously consider a major change in its modus operandi. Instead of selling planes to airlines around the world, why not lease them to the airlines and supervise the maintenance and upkeep of each craft, all of it in return for a leasing fee that would more than pay for the cost of each plane in the long run.

With the addition of a chute-safety-type program and leasing arrangements, I am positive Boeing would insure its dominance as the world’s largest and most important aircraft and aerospace company for at least another century.