WhackyNation

At the moment, a classical struggle is going on between the residents of the affluent Magnolia community and the city of Seattle over the future development of Fort Lawton, now called Discovery Park, which is adjacent to Magnolia — and both factions are missing a great opportunity for both Magnolia and the city.

Fort Lawton, once the property of the federal government, was a key facility in the Second World War. Its purpose was twofold; one was to process Army troops being trained for ground and sea duty in Alaska and the Pacific, and the other was to stand guard over the entrance to Puget Sound, with many big guns at the ready in case the enemy came by sea.

I have great memories of the old Fort. It was a training ground for me when I was assigned to it in 1942. I earned my master sergeant’s stripes there and at the Port of Embarkation and trained other troops, as well. But my most important reminiscence of the Fort was its magnificent beauty, its enormous ocean and Sound vistas, and its promise for the future when the war had run its course.

Later, as the critic-at-large of the Seattle Times, I paid a visit to the extraordinary Aspen arts, cultural, educational, and convention center, which remains to this day one of the most precious gems of the state of Colorado as it draws visitors and conventions from all parts of the U.S. and the world.

I thought immediately that, if the City of Seattle had any imagination, Fort Lawton could become “the Aspen Center of the West” and draw the same worldwide attention and marvelous reputation that Aspen has brought to Colorado. In the mid-1950s, I wrote my first column urging Seattle to consider converting the fort into another Aspen — and I wrote and spoke about the idea many times thereafter.

But now, the city, which will inherit the Fort, apparently wants no part of the “Aspen Dream” and is, instead, devoted to the idea that the precious land and all its vistas should be devoted to building housing for the homeless. Well, I, too, want to help find homes for the homeless, but the Fort Lawton site is not the place for it.

There is plenty of unused land available for construction of homeless communities on the outer edges of Seattle. The extraordinary Fort Lawton site, which is one of the most dramatic gateways to the city and the region, is crying out for a superior development that would be a boon to the entire city, state, and the Northwest.

What puzzles me is why the politicians down at Seattle’s City Hall can’t see the financial opportunities in the potential drawing card a “Seattle Aspen” would be for the city. If the arts and cultural opportunities don’t impress them, the money that would come in to the city by way of convention attendance should draw their enthusiasm.

If the politicians aren’t interested, the business leaders in the community and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce certainly should be. And, most important of all, the news media should be telling the people about the “Aspen” idea and its potential. If they did so, I have no doubt that public sentiment would force the politicians to pay attention.

Maybe the Magnolia residents who oppose the city’s plan to build housing for the homeless at the old Fort can ignite the public spark needed to make the city consider the Aspen plan.

Couldn’t help but notice the headlines in the NY Times today. Despite all the predictions that the US economy is in a recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth), the economy grew last quarter, albeit at a very slow rate. The reason we avoided outright recession is because of our increase in exports (e.g. TRADE). This news comes at the same time Democrats continue to stall the Columbian Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

Now I can understand why some labor activists and environmentalist misunderstand free trade and in their well-meaning ignorance oppose such deals. But opposition to CAFTA in a time of economic stagnation (or ever) makes no sense at all. CAFTA does NOTHING to open our markets to cheap products from Columbia. Our markets are already open to them with no tariffs. All that CAFTA does is open Columbia’s markets to our producers with no tariffs–an even playing field. Now would be a great time to increase our exports, create jobs for the 8,000 businesses who export to Columbia, and help boost our struggling economy.

But Democrats oppose the deal (they say) because they want to see labor reform in Columbia first. This is by FAR the STUPIDEST argument I have EVER heard!! Let me get this right. We Americans will not let the Columbians give us beneficial trading status unless they also do something else we want? That is like saying “I refuse to accept this Christmas present unless you, the gifter, also agree to clean up your house.” Where is our leverage here? If we were denying Columbia free trade status in the US unless they cleaned up their act, that might work. But the other way around makes Dems look intellectually silly.

Hey, all you Mariners sports fans! Are you as disgusted with the Mariners’ bull pen as I am? And do you want to see an end to the losses of games in which the team rings up an early lead, only to have it frittered away by lousy pitching in the late innings? Of course you do, and so do I.

Well, I have just the “cure” for those disappointing blowouts, if only the people who run the Mariners would listen. Now, hear this. It’s an idea I have been trying to popularize for as many years as I have been a sports nut who is immensely fond of baseball — as well as other sports.

The idea goes this way: The team has a regular pitching cadre of about a dozen men, culled from an even larger group of pitchers who show up for spring training. Each year, the manager designates four, five, or maybe six of what he considers his best pitchers as starters every fourth, fifth or sixth game. The rest, only so-so pitchers, are assigned to the bull pen.

So you have at least five, maybe six, pitchers you can say are your best arms. Let’s just say six are good enough to be starters. Each one starts a game every five or six days, right? I say, wrong! These days it’s a rarity for any pitcher, no matter how good, to pitch an entire game of nine innings.

Under the Guzzo Plan, you would select your six best pitchers and have each of them go three innings every other day, instead of waiting five or six days. In that way, each pitcher would give his best effort in three innings, then go to the bench and rest for a day. He would do the same every other day and never tire.

Under such a plan, you wouldn’t need daily visits to the bull pen with the hope that a second-rate pitcher can save the day for you, something that rarely happens. I’ll bet that the first manager who dares try the Guzzo Plan would soon wind up as a pennant winner and go to the World Series, where his new idea would work wonders.

So, now you say, how in the world are you going to score such pitching? If Jack Jones pitches only three innings, he would never record a victory, something every pitcher must have in abundance to win a better, more lucrative contract. I realize that would be a problem, but there is an easy answer for that problem, too.

If three pitchers go to the mound and the team wins the game, each pitcher would be awarded one-third of a victory. By pitching every other day, he would soon amass a total victory string that would far surpass today’s efforts. In effect, it would be only the scorekeepers and the newspaper sports reporters who would have a problem, but even they could learn to live with the “one-third-of-a-victory plan.”

Only one other problem would remain to be solved. And that is what to do with the bull-pen pitchers under the Guzzo Plan. It would solve itself. The best pitchers in the bull pen would be called on only if one of the three-inning starters faltered and didn’t have his best pitches on a particular day.

I forgot to mention one other problem the plan would solve or at least minimize. Note that most pitchers who suffer an injury on the mound do so because they have pitched too many innings and they go on stubbornly in search of a win. Not much can go wrong with a good pitcher who toils for only three innings every other day. Have I made my case? Now play ball — three innings at a time and win pennants and World Series!

Here’s a politically incorrect thought tonight:  Is there a connection between the subprime crisis and the Democrat’s zeal to end red lining this last generation?

I think there might be … just as there is a connection between the Democrat zeal in the 70’s to curtail the power of our intelligence services and their failure this decade to provide us with accurate foreign intelligence.

Red lining was the practice of banks to mark off whole neighborhoods or commercial disticts with which they would not do loans.  In the 70’s it was seen as racist and it was outlawed.  In the 90’s (read that Clinton Democrats) anti-red lining laws were strictly enforced and the mortage companies loosened their lending standards.

I wonder what sort of overlap you would have if you mapped the addresses of today’s defaulting mortgages with the old red line districts?

No final decision has been made, but an Associated Press report from the Middle East indicates that two longtime enemies, Syria and Israel, may be on the verge of an astonishing peace effort that could go a long way toward cooling off conflicts in the region — or it could be a cloak-and-dagger scheme that could bring even greater conflict, or war.

As the A.P. reported it, a Lebanese cabinet minister revealed that Israel had delivered a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad that it was prepared to return the strategic Golan Heights in exchange for a peace treaty. However, the Israeli government has refused to comment on the report thus far.

Nevertheless, it is known that Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did tell reporters several days ago that he and Syrian officials have exchanged messages “clarifying what each nation would expect from a peace deal.” Olmert also told newspapers that “they know what we want from them, and I know full well what they want from us.”

I would be greatly surprised if Israel gives up the Golan Heights land, which it seized way back in the late 1960s to thwart the repeated attacks by Syrian military forces on Israeli villages in the immediate area. Because of the strategic position of the Golan Heights, which looks down on Israel’s territory, it is ideal for lobbing bombs and missiles down on the Israelis.

How well I remember the elation of the Israeli military a short time after its troops had routed the Syrians and taken control of the Golan Heights. I was visiting Israel at the time with other American newsmen, and we were permitted to travel up to the high region and to interview Israel’s military leaders.

They were a happy lot, because they had removed one of the sorest spots in their battles with Syrian forces. One of the men I interviewed was an Iraeli colonel in charge of a tank division. He was eager to answer questions, so I asked him a few humdingers, including this one:

“Colonel, I know you’re pleased with your victory over the Syrian forces and have driven them off the Heights. Now that the battle has ended and at least a temporary peace has been established, are you willing to make a permanent peace with the Syrians? Oh, and how far is it to the capital of Syria, Damascus, from here?”

He smiled, then said:

“I would hope that we can achieve a permanent peace with the Syrians, and the sooner the better. But I will leave that to the diplomats of both countries. And, if it doesn’t work, well, so be it. You asked how far it is from here on the Heights to Damascus. It’s about an hour’s ride — by tank.”

His meaning was clear. And Israel’s determination to keep control of the strategic Golan Heights has never wavered all these years. That’s why I am now surprised to hear about any talk of a peace treaty by Israel that would give the Heights back to Syria. If such a peace deal were arranged, what guarantee would the Israelis have that Syrian forces would never again lob missiles and bombs down on Israeli towns? Stay tuned.

The bloody tragedies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and so many other places on the planet point up one of the greatest deficiencies in a world that is desperately seeking permanent peace. That’s the need for a permanent, mobile military force to keep the peace and put an end to what is already the Third World War.

Add to that the international terrorist war sparked by Muslim extremists in many parts of the world and it is obvious that such a military force is an absolute necessity. Those persons who say we can solve all the problems by simply withdrawing American and allied forces from the trouble spots are the peaceniks whose policy would bring surrender and chaos to the U.S.

It has become quite obvious in the past few decades that the United Nations, which was created immediately after the Second World War to establish world peace, has been a colossal failure. Even its so-called “peacekeeping force” has been a failure and, in fact, has been made a liability because of inbred fraud and corruption.

We can no longer depend upon the U.N., which I have labeled the “Useless Nations” because of its ineptness. One of the reasons for its ineptness has been the presence of so many Second and Third World nations that are unwilling to support a strong international force or are involved in political or economic struggles that make them unwilling to marshal such a world force.

In order to stem the tide of the increasing bloody tragedies, the United States should adopt a new, two-pronged policy. The first action should be to withdraw from the U.N. and keep the billions we have been giving it over the years as the largest contributor to its treasury.

The second action should be to bring together the world’s major powers, usually referred to as the First World nations, and organize a volunteer military force that would be sent to trouble spots to quell rebellions or other deadly conflicts that threaten the peace of well-established governments.

The men and women who joined the ground forces, air forces, and naval forces of the new military force would have to be volunteers. And it goes without saying that the pay of such personnel would have to be high enough to attract the best and most experienced volunteers.

Furthermore, the military leadership of the international force should be rotated so that all member nations would be equally represented in the top echelon. They, too, should be well paid to make certain that the men and women at the top of the unusual military structure are of the finest caliber.

Overseeing the entire effort should be a council of military leaders chosen by each country represented. They would operate like the staff chiefs of the U.S. Defense Department and the chairmanship of the council should also be rotated to make certain that each nation was given equal responsibility.

Are we ready for such an ambitious undertaking and solution of the world’s chronic tragedies? Frankly, we really have no choice. The conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and other regions must be stopped. And there is no other real solution to the ongoing international war on terror, which is, in essence, a religious war.

Remember this? Some time ago, I was amused, as I’m sure many others were, by an Associated Press report from Winter Haven, Florida, about Police Chief Paul Goward, who was forced to resign by the town’s fathers because he had called obese members of the Police Department “jelly bellies” and tried to embarrass them into losing pounds.

Chief Goward did it in a memorandum he addressed to the 80 members of the town’s police force. In part, this is what he told Winter Haven’s cops: “Take a good look at yourself. If you are unfit, do yourself and everyone else a favor. See a professional about a proper diet and a fitness training program, quit smoking, limit alcohol intake, and start thinking about self-pride, confidence, and respectability.

‘And,” the memo continued, “stop making excuses for delaying what you know you should have been doing years ago. We didn’t hire you unfit, and we don’t want you working unfit. Don’t mean to offend; this is just straight talk. I owe it to you.” The title of the memo was “Are You a Jelly Belly?”

Goward was fired because, the town’s leaders said, he had embarrassed the police officers, some of whom complained about being called “jelly bellies.” Instead of being fired, I think the town should have given the chief a handsome raise and championed his call for his police force to shape up so its members wouldn’t peter out in chasing criminals, and stuff like that there.

I have an even better idea. Goward should be hired by the professional baseball, football, basketball, and other pro-sports leagues to force all those over-paid players to shape up and become, in looks as well as actions, the idols many of them are to the youngsters of America. Some enforced discipline about their appearances to fans would do a world of good in the pro-sports field. Note, for example, the “jelly bellies” on the football fields of America, the basketball courts, the baseball diamonds, the hockey arenas, and even the nation’s soccer fields.

In addition, I wonder if you are as repulsed as I am by the sight of two feet of braided hair or a huge pony tail bouncing around a player’s shoulders as he catches a pass, makes a tackle, or even is caught by the hair as he tries to elude a tackler on the football field. That goes for the earrings, the nose rings, the offensive tattoos, etc.

The same is true on the other fields or courts in which the pros cavort. And, as if that isn’t bad enough, take a look at the umpires, referees, field judges, and even coaches and managers, many of whom are “jelly bellies” and vastly overpaid, as well. They, too, should be given the “Chief Goward treatment” and ordered to shape up or ship out, as the saying goes.

Have you ever watched a terribly overweight umpire try to bend down behind the plate in baseball so he can get a better look at the incoming pitch? Or maybe you’ve wondered how umpires and referees nursing a jelly belly can possibly keep up with the players so they can arrive at a base or play in time to make a judgment call.

Pro athletes who make millions playing a game should at least keep in good athletic shape and get a haircut (!) for the sake of all those kids who call them their “idols.” Calling Chief Goward!

Hmmmmmm. Let me get this straight. A couple years ago, Republican members of Congress pressured the federal government to make public a large amount of secret documents seized by American forces invading Iraq. They were documents that had been found in Saddam Hussein’s official papers.

President Bush approved the creation of a special web site on which the papers could be reviewed by the public and the news media. Among the papers were surprisingly revealing, detailed accounts of the nuclear research Saddam’s scientists had already undertaken. The research included a basic guide to building an atomic bomb.

As soon as the research was revealed, however, the director of U.S. intelligence shut down the web site, because the International Atomic Energy Agency protested action making the web site information public. The I.A.E.A. said it was afraid the information disclosed would help Iran and other nations develop nuclear bombs.

The news media and many official sources emphasized the fear that Iran and other nations would now have a quick blue print for manufacturing atomic bombs. It seems to me that everyone concerned forgot the most important factor in the release of the information concerning Saddam.

That factor is one that should have been emblazoned on the front pages of all American newspapers and given the No. 1 spot in television and radio news reports. It is this: It offered additional, irrefutable proof that Saddam and his scientists and military leaders were on the trail of weapons of mass destruction — and that the critics of the President’s decision to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam were dead wrong!

I am most anxious to know why the print and broadcast news media across America did not recognize the importance of the Iraqi documents. In their zeal for keeping the heat on Bush and denying other reports that Saddam had, indeed, been plotting the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction, they refused to accept the truth.

The fact remains that, early on in the conflict with Saddam, the Iraqi dictator had refused to cooperate with U.N. inspectors seeking information that he and his military leaders were developing W.M.D.s. For reasons that now seem obvious, the Liberal, anti-Bush news media glossed over the fact that Saddam stopped the inspectors’ probe and ordered them out of the country.

It seems to me that U.S. intelligence officials were somewhat naïve in their belief that Saddam’s guide to building a nuclear bomb had to be kept secret in order to keep Iran and other nations from hastening to build the bomb. It has been evident for some time that any nation interested in creating the bomb already had the “secret” guide or could obtain it from several sources — one of them being our new ally, Russia, and others being Pakistan and North Korea.

This is no time for naivete in such matters. I say, “Open up the new web site and permit the world to see that President Bush and the U.S., along with the coalition Bush formed, were absolutely right in making the decision to invade Iraq and remove one of the most dangerous and vicious tyrants the world has known since Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.” Bush should be hailed for his courage and wisdom, not reviled, as the Demos have done.

I don’t like repeating myself, but sometimes it has to be done to bring great new ideas to the fore. In this case, the “repeat” is occasioned by the Metropolitan Opera’s present season and the unusual tactics employed by the company’s new director, Peter Gelb, to draw attention to opera and all the glamorous things that attend it.

When the Met opened its season, Gelb decided to erect giant screens in the plaza of New York’s Lincoln Center so that spectators could get a firsthand look at the glamour attending the season opener, with special play given to the elegant fashions adorning the first-nighters at the opera.

It was a reflection of Gelb’s wish, he said, to “revive and broaden the appeal of opera.” Well, congratulations, Mr. Gelb, on a worthy wish, but if you and other opera-company directors would pay just a little attention to an idea I have been proposing for several years, your wish would be granted instantly — and you wouldn’t have to be erecting giant screens anywhere to popularize your season’s offerings.

All Gelb and all the rest of the opera promoters and producers in America need to do is broaden the repertoire of the opera company to include the great hits that have been produced by the Broadway musical stage and Hollywood’s major studios. Why, I have argued, shouldn’t great musicals like “South Pacific,” “The King and I,” “Call Me Madame,” and so many other hits be offered alongside the traditional fare, like “La Traviata,” “Aida,” “Rigoletto,” and all the other operatic standards?

Certainly, there are stylistic differences that mark the American musicals and the operatic standards, but, so what? One wonders whether “snob appeal” hasn’t prevented opera companies from including the American musicals on the list of season offerings each year. If so, a true music fan might say, “to hell with snob appeal.”

As I have indicated on previous mentions of this idea, some opera aficionados might be inclined to say something like this: “Well, real opera is a vehicle of singing from the beginning to the final curtain, while American musicals are actually dramas, with occasional songs tossed in.”

Phooey on what the aficionados think! If they will bother to go to the library and do a little research on the history of opera, they will discover that, early on, composers like Handel, wrote many operas that were basically spoken dramas, with musical interludes, called recitatives, tossed in for good measure. And that’s a format that links opera directly with the modern musical.

For years, opera companies have had to rely on large donations from wealthy opera lovers, foundations, or other contributors to stay out of the red.

But, if they adopted my idea, I am positive all opera companies would draw so many more attendees and patrons that their financial worries would disappear permanently.

Maybe it would be a good idea to get rid of that word, “opera,” in the production and promotion of musical works for the stage. Over the years, the word has come to connote a certain type of musical performance — and militated against the “intrusion” of any other stage production that didn’t boast one or two over-weight divas and tenors.

Now that the all the exaggerations and misinformation of another Earth Day have subsided, it’s a good idea to take a good, hard, long look at those who have taken what was once a good idea and turned it into an elaborate, tarnished event that has become a national and even an international joke.

Not only that. The extremists who have distorted the Earth Day idea are responsible for the terrible excesses of an environmental movement that has thwarted what its originators had proposed — a careful, sensible movement to protect the forests, rivers, valleys, lakes, and streams of one of the most beautiful countries in the world.

I should know. Way back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, my old friend, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, and I pioneered the environmental movement in the Pacific Northwest. Of course, we were not alone, but we were the most outspoken persons in the brand-new movement that struggled to be recognized.

I did my part as a daily columnist airing the need for a beautification plan for Seattle and the surrounding area and for planting and saving trees, bushes, ponds, and the shore lines of rivers, lakes, and even the oceans. Dixy was also an outspoken environmentalist, and on one occasion coaxed the state legislature to protect important rivers from incursions by certain industrialist expansions.

All went well, and the exhortations made frequently by Dixy and me had much to do with the early gains by the new environmental movement. In the meantime, similar phases of the movement were making headway in various other parts of the nation, and it seemed that the U.S. was finally on its way toward a sensible, manageable environmental policy.

Then all hell broke loose. It came in the form of a miserable, scientifically wacky book by Rachael Carson, Silent Spring, which signaled the entrance of the power-mad, radical element that used the Carson manual as a springboard for turning a sensible movement into a politically motivated, power-hungry force.

What the extremists have done with their radical demands is to virtually destroy the very movement they have pretended to support. Consider, for example, what their noisy objection to the insecticide, DDT, accomplished. DDT, one of science’s most successful chemicals, brought a virtual end to malaria in the U.S. and throughout the world, bringing an end to the annual deaths of 3,000,000, most of them children.

Thanks to the Carson treatise, the extremists said DDT was harming the eggs in eagles’ nests, and gullible politicos bought it an banned the insecticide. Other nations followed suit, and the annual death rate from malaria rose from a few hundred back to the 3,000,000 total — which it is today!

On other fronts, the environmental extremists brought a halt to the much needed expansion of nuclear-power plants and oil refineries. The result has been that the U.S. has not built a new nuclear plant nor an oil refinery for more than 35 years. If you want to know why you’re paying outrageous prices for gasoline and why we’re at war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, as a result, you now have your answer.

I must repeat myself. We must return to an environmental policy that is not only sensible and scientifically reasonable but a policy that disregards Carson and all the environmental extremists and places the needs of human beings over those of plants and animals. If we don’t do so, we can eventually say “Goodbye, America.”

I’ve encountered so many unforgettable people and incidents in my years as a newspaper columnist and editor, critic-at-large, and TV/Radio commentator that it is difficult to categorize them by their importance and special significance. But there is one that is indelibly imprinted on my mind and will be there forever. It began with a letter from a woman who wrote to me while I was serving as a TV commentator.

Throughout my years as a newsman, it’s been hard to startle me. But this letter alarmed me, because the writer said she was preparing to kill herself and that, in doing so, she might take others with her, although she did not identify who the “others” could be. My immediate thought was that I hoped the “others” did not include children. Now, I knew from experience that most suicide threats, if not all of them, are simply cries for help and that the person involved really hopes someone will appear to dissuade them from the deed. But this letter was so well written that it seemed to me to be more than a threat of suicidal intent.

The letter writer said she had been a mental patient — as so many of them are — and had once nearly killed her own child. She also said she had no family nor friends and that she had just recently lost her job. Her husband had died years ago and her two children were being cared for by others who were miles away. She didn’t explain how she came to be separated from her daughters nor if she had divorced before her husband died.

The woman said she was about to destroy herself, but she provided me with no name nor an address, leaving me virtually helpless to act. But I knew instinctively what I had to do. I took her case to the Crisis Clinic and its psychiatrists. With their advice, I tried to reach the woman with a direct appeal on a KIRO-TV newscast, since there was no return address on her letter. Since she had written directly to me, I hoped she was a regular listener and that I might reach her with a telecast.

The producer of the newscast gave me a good spot up front, and I made my appeal directly to her, telling her that I and many others at the station cared deeply about what happened to her. I told her over the air that help was immediately available to her at the Crisis Clinic or some other psychiatric facility and that I would like to talk to her.. It was important to buy time, but I didn’t tell her that.

It worked! Two days later, she called me at the station and, in a quiet but deeply troubled voice, told me she had taken my advice and that she had sought professional treatment and was on her way to a mental-health clinic. I remember saying a quick prayer of thanks to heaven for a life I hoped had been saved. I never heard from her again, but a friend at the Crisis Clinic told me that a woman fitting the letter writer’s stated case had been in, had received psychiatric care, and appeared to be dissuaded from any thoughts of suicide. My friend said he was quite certain that she would never again be suicidal.

I have related her story, as I have on several other occasions, with the fervent hope that other similarly troubled minds with intentions of suicide will be encouraged to seek help. Most importantly, I’d like to reach those families who have a young person with disturbed behavior who needs attention — before it’s too late.

The rate of teen-age suicides has never been higher. We must do all we can to bring it down or eliminate the act altogether. If you’re reluctant to seek private professional advice, call the Crisis Clinic or one of the many Mental Health Clinics in your area. Mental illness is a curse ONLY if you and I do nothing about it.

Not too many years ago, Paul McCartney, the British darling of the rock-n-roll madness and the kingpin of the Beatles, tried his hand in the field of what is too frequently referred to as “serious music.” His latest work was performed in England, drew perfunctory and unenthusiastic reviews. My reaction was a loud yawn. And now he’s back at it again.

The reason for my disinterest dates back to the night about 17 or 18 years ago that I decided, out of curiosity, to turn on the “telly,” as Britons like to call it, and listen to a performance of McCartney’s first venture into the field of “serious music.” It was a videotape of the premier performance in Liverpool, England of the guitarist’s “Oratorio,” and it lasted an agonizing two and a half hours of boredom.

The onetime star of the Beatles was honest in admitting he could not read nor write music, and, after two and a half hours of excruciatingly uninteresting musical and verbal sounds, his lack of training was all too clear. But at least he confessed he had little to do with the musical score, because that was entrusted to Carl Davis, conductor and composer, who should have known better than to hook up with McCartney.

In fairness to McCartney, it should be acknowledged that he made it clear that he had written the libretto only and that he had left the musical composition to Davis. All of it was dull, dull, dull. One hoped that it would be not only the first but the last attempt by McCartney to invade the field of “serious music.”

The rock-n-roller also acknowledged that his libretto was autobiographical in nature, but my ears soon told me it was of soap-opera vintage. That, too, could be excused, since the libretti of most other oratorios and operas going way back in musical history have also been of the soap-opera variety.

Why Davis, a somewhat talented composer, agreed to waste his time on the effort remains a mystery. However, he could take no bows for his musical score, which seemed to alternate between refrains from Broadway musicals and rewrites of the German-British composer, Handel, at his worst. As the British themselves like to say, the whole effort turned out to be “a crashing bore.” Its monotony was highly forgettable.

It was obvious that Davis had succumbed to the lure of great publicity and even a handsome profit in agreeing to collaborate with McCartney on the oratorio. It was evident to me that he may have received the “great publicity,” but that he never made a dime on repeat performances of the oratorio.

When it was over, I thought sadly about the hundreds of truly serious and gifted composers, young and old, in the U.S. and abroad whose works are so much better than the McCartney-Davis oratorio — but whose efforts are seldom given a hearing until their lives are ended and music historians revive their best work.

Whatever McCartney’s latest “serious music” is, I have no interest in devoting another two and a half hours — or even two minutes — of my time to hearing it. Nevertheless, I had this pregnant thought: Thanks to his Beatles records and concert appearances, McCartney is a very rich man. Someone should coax him to invest some of it in advancing the careers of truly talented British, American, or other nations’ young composers of honestly serious music. He would, thereby, earn the plaudits of music lovers everywhere. Maybe even mine.

Something most certainly is “rotten in Denmark” when a city like Seattle, which is one of the most supportive cities of all pro sports, has its Sonics franchise stripped away from it by a bunch of greedy, wealthy owners in the National Basketball Association and transferred to Oklahoma City.

The owners are the main “thieves” in this case, but there is plenty of blame to go around, and Seattle’s sports fans should remember in November’s elections that Democratic officials are also the culprits. Now, two years too late, Washington’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, and leaders of the Democratically controlled legislature are bemoaning the loss of the Sonics.

They are joined by two other Democrats, Senators Maria Cantwell and Senator Patty Murray, who are also very critical of the Sonics “robbery” but are doing nothing about the N.B.A. owners’ action. If they were really concerned, they would immediately introduce legislation in Congress to take away the owners’ sports dictatorships and order that all pro-sports franchises should belong to the cities and their sports fans, whose dollars at the turnstiles make pro sports possible.

Speaking of blame, it is now quite clear that the wealthy manipulators from Oklahoma City, led by Clay Bennett, intended to move the team from Seattle to Oklahoma City from the beginning. Their promise to keep the team in Seattle was so much boloney, as was their demand that the city needed a much larger arena, or else….!

Look at it from the N.B.A. owners’ perspective: Their profits are tied directly to ticket sales at arenas around the country — and the larger the arenas, the greater are their profits. It’s as simple as that! Thus, one can see why they voted for the city in Oklahoma over Seattle because the Oklahomans have voted to build an arena larger than Seattle’s.

When Seattle’s Sonics delegation went to the legislature to present its problem and to inform the legislators that the team could be long gone if something wasn’t done, the lawmakers just yawned and refused to take any action. That was despite the fact that the private sector, led by Steve Ballmer, John Stanton, and Jim Sinegal, offered millions of dollars to help refurbish the Arena or build another structure.

Now Howard Schultz, the Starbucks mogul who sold the team to the Oklahomans, says he is going to file suit against Bennett and his clan because they promised they would keep the team in Seattle when the deal was made. The city also has filed suit to keep the Sonics here till 2010, the contract’s end.

I don’t think either of the court actions will keep the Sonics in Seattle. The most important action should be taken by Washington’s congressional delegation to declare that all sports franchises should be owned by cities, not by greedy owners. The cities would then award ownerships to worthy individuals or organizations. Simple, no? And it’s the action that would reward all sports fans for their support and loyalty.

Somewhere in the middle of the 20^th Century, something went terribly awry in America’s once balanced and healthy political system. Up to that time, the nation’s continuing equilibrium was graced by the presence of two sensible, practical major political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Throughout early American history, the two parties frequently disagreed on domestic or international matters, as well as the conduct of the nation’s economy. But both parties obeyed the principles of the United States Constitution and settled even the most serious matters amicably and for the good of the country.

In essence, the Democratic Party followed Liberal principles and the Republican Party conservative principles, although the two parties sometimes crossed over when they sensed the needs of the American people. However, one principle was maintained at all times: Whenever the nation was drawn into a war or other dangers abroad, the sitting P