WhackyNation

It was left for a Los Angeles Times reporter, Stuart Glascock, to discover and bring to light the serious problems of a small Spanish-speaking town, Mattawa, in Washington State’s Grant County in the heart of the fruit-growing Columbia River Basin. Clearly, it is a problem faced by an increasing number of communities in the West and Southwest – as well as in many Eastern and Southern regions of the U.S.

In 20 years, the town has grown from a total of 300 people to 3,200, thanks primarily to the continued use of migrant Mexicans in the farms of Central and Eastern Washington. Over the years, the workers have come to work, then to stay on permanently, without learning the English language or applying for citizenship.

Ninety percent of the town’s residents speak Spanish and the remaining ten percent speak it very poorly. What brought the problems of the town to the attention of the federal government was the increased number of criminal cases in which the suspects could not be interrogated in English.

Although many members of the Mattawa police department speak some English Spanish, handling criminal cases has become extremely difficult. When the Justice Department stepped in to solve the problem, it prescribed a plan “that requires Mattawa to employ at least one bilingual employee during regular business hours and to make vital information available in Spanish, as well as English. It also requires police to have qualified interpreters on call at all times.”

That’s all well and good, but, in my judgment, a much stronger solution is needed in Mattawa and in all the other Spanish-speaking communities of the West, South, and East. Why pussyfoot around with inadequate plans that will not solve the basic problem — but, in fact, will make it worse?

That stronger solution should be for the Justice Department to order all Spanish-speaking residents of Mattawa or any other town like it to make two immediate decisions. One would be to enroll in a school to learn English, and to learn it well enough to turn things around to make it a true “American” town.

The other decision should be to apply immediately for American citizenship and, in doing so, learn the essentials concerning U.S. history. I think that failure to do both things should make the person involved immediately eligible for a return to his or her Mexican homeland.

Decisions of this kind should not be relegated to Spanish-speaking townspeople. It should be general policy across the U.S. whether the citizens of any town speak only German, Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, or any other language.

Dual citizenship should not be permitted anywhere in the U.S. While we’re at it, we should also terminate all Indian treaties that have bestowed dual citizenship on tribes everywhere in America. Congress, in the meantime, should get off its lazy backbone and declare that English is the primary language of our country.

Is all that too much to ask? Hardly. By the way, if the nation is to invest in a second language, it should be the newest and latest version of sign language — a sign language that can be understood by all the people of the world.

A measure the Democrats are certain to bring up once again in the new Congress, which they control, is one they barely failed to pass in the early 1990s. It was an ill-conceived measure to expand the Environmental Protection Agency into a full department and raise it to the status of cabinet level.

No one can argue against the philosophy that environmental issues deserve priority attention in the federal government and all the states — nor oppose that attention because of our dealings with other nations, since what happens to the air, land, and sea affects the world, not the U.S. alone.

But it is a typical political response — a copout, if you will — to solve a sticky problem simply by creating another unnecessary bureaucracy, then walking away from a problem, as if that action solved the problem. We certainly don’t need still another massive, paper-shuffling, cabinet-level department.

As it stands today, the President already has the formidable task of trying to control 15 cabinet-level departments, and he actually can’t manage them, as it is. Adding another one like the complicated E.P.A. and its close relationship with similar agencies in all 50 states doesn’t make sense.

All the ingredients for managing national environmental affairs are already available in the E.P.A. And many, including this writer, have also argued that the E.P.A. has too much authority and often administers regulations that go beyond the authority in the law passed by Congress.

What’s needed is not another layer of overpaid administrators and the added expense those unneeded workers cost taxpayers — but a determination to make

Big Environment --- represented by pressure groups that are interested in headlines and contributions to their treasuries, rather than scientific truth --- needs as much public surveillance as Big Industry, Big Oil, Big Labor, and, yes, Big News Media. Another massive federal department would simply create more headaches than it would cure.

While I’m at it, I’m compelled to bring up another environmental issue that needs the nation’s attention. This one relates to the culpability of environmental extremists for the damage and, yes, the many deaths they have caused since environmentalism became a universal factor in the middle of the 20^th Century.

For example, DDT, a superior pesticide developed by scientists, successfully stopped the spread of malaria in the world and brought the annual death toll of 3,000,000 persons down to a few hundred. Then, the worldwide ban on DDT engineered by the environmental extremists sent the annual death toll back up to the 3,000,000 mark. Why haven’t the enviros been called to account for what amounts to genocide?

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth produced as opera?  Yep, that’s what La Scala is planning to do for the 2011 season.

I suggest the composer Giorgio Battistelli consider the genre of the Italian farce.  Some sugested arias: “Don’t thinko, just panicko!”  “Passo the Kool-Aid-o”  and “Ignor-o, my ‘D’-o in science-o from Harvard-o.”

President Franklin Roosevelt called December 7, 1941 a “day of infamy,” and it was most certainly that. It caused us not only to declare war on Japan, but Germany and Italy, as well. And three years and two atom bombs later, the Second World War finally came to an end and the world was, temporarily, at peace.

Today, the Japanese, German, and Italian nations are at peace with us and we can call them our friends and allies. With our good will and our seemingly inexhaustible funds and resources, we helped rebuild those nations and, in time, brought them along to rival us in economic stature and health.

However, much needs to be done to solidify the new friendships. All three of our onetime World War enemies are now relatively stable democratic republics, and indications are that they will stay that way and never again — we must hope — hasten to support another Tojo, another Mussolini, or another Hitler.

I am specially interested in Japan, because I have so many wonderful Japanese-American friends in the Pacific Northwest that I wonder how and why we ever became embroiled in a war that began with the despicable attack on Pearl Harbor in the beginning and the dropping of two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end.

Nevertheless, I flinch every once in a while when some Japanese remind us, critically, that we were responsible for the nuclear deaths of many thousands at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Like a few diehard anti-nuke protesters in this country, they even suggest that we should never have dropped those two bombs, despite the fact that they ended the war and undoubtedly saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese if we had been forced to invade Japan.

While the Japanese remember and sometimes even salute their armed forces on Pearl Harbor Day on December 7^th each calendar year, we similarly salute our military forces on August 6 and 9, the days our nuclear bombs ended the Second World War. Japan and America don’t make national holidays of those events, but there is no doubt that there remains some uneasiness and even pride on the part of both nations.

Many years ago, in newspaper columns, editorials, and, later, in TV commentaries and speeches delivered on the national lecture tour, I offered a suggestion I hoped would catch on in both nations and help erase past history and bring the two nations together in even a stronger relationship that should extend to trade and other resources.

Instead of having the Japanese mark Pearl Harbor Day in December and the Americans the war-ending nuclear attacks in early August, why not put both events on a back burner and come up with what I have called Reconciliation Day? On that day, both nations would celebrate their new relationship and their peaceful association.

I know that historians will never permit us to forget the sad days of history, but why shouldn’t we make an earnest effort to work at peace and reconciliation? For that matter, I suggested, why not make Reconciliation Day a very special day to be observed and celebrated by all the nations on the planet?

I still think it is a great idea that could be a starting point for that elusive world peace so many talk about but do little to attain. It’s an idea that is specially important these days as an international religious war rumbles on between the Western World and the extremists of Islam.

Newt Gingrich, the feisty former Speaker of the House, whose leadership in the 1990s led to a Republican rebirth and control of Congress, recently announced a new program he labeled “American Solutions for Winning the Future,” which is patterned after the Contract With America, with which he revived the G.O.P.

I say “Bravo!” to Newt and all members of the Republican Party who follow his new lead. He is just what the party needs after losing control of Congress in the last elections. However, I would say that a movement that is even more important is a much needed rejuvenation of the Democratic Party!

When I have made that pronouncement in speeches lately, the audience has been quick to express surprise. But when I explain to listeners what I have in mind, they soon start nodding their approval and then ask, please, to provide some detail to what I have proposed.

In addition to my English major at college, I minored in political science and learned quite a bit about American political history in several classes and in the reading that was required. In tracing the history of American political parties from the creation of the U.S. Constitution, I learned that, in time, two major political parties evolved and became permanent fixtures of government.

The two major parties that remain to this day are the Republican and Democratic Parties. However, the changes that have come over both parties in the past half century would have made our founding fathers shudder. And for good reason. Until the middle of the last century, the 20^th, the two parties disagreed frequently in their platforms and in their actions in and out of Congress.

Despite the disagreements, the two parties managed to get along harmoniously and help run the country without serious conflicts. Third parties arose on occasion, but their platforms were usually absorbed by one of the major parties or scrapped as being not worthy of consideration.

Perhaps the most important point is this one: Throughout our history — except in the past few decades — members of both parties supported the sitting President whenever the nation became involved in a foreign entanglement or in an outright war. It had been taken for granted by both parties that they would join forces whenever the nation’s security and protection were a factor.

At first, it appeared that the longtime tradition would hold when terrorists attacked on 9/11 and we invaded Iraq to depose dictator Saddam Hussein. Then the Democrats tossed historic tradition in the ashcan, opposed the President, and withdrew its support of our effort to free Iraq — all to pursue a political, rather than a patriotic, goal.

In addition, the Democratic Party has left no doubt that it intends to pursue its socialistic intentions and support of Big (and Bigger) Government. In fact, it is no longer the Democratic Party of historic tradition but America’s out-and-out Socialist Party. That has meant that the nation’s onetime political strength has been frittered away, and that the two parties no longer can function together to solve the nation’s serious problems.

My hope is that the Democrats will listen to a wiser head, Senator Joe Lieberman, return their party to the principles enunciated by our forefathers, and abandon their Socialist and anti-President stands. The nation’s future depends on it.

Remember that old Broadway show tune, “Promises, Promises”? Well, it has come to mind with reference to the current session of Congress and the fact that early in the session the controlling Democrats in both houses promised rapturously and often that they supported an end to pork, which they began calling “earmarks,” as if to take the curse off the “pork” label.

It didn’t take long for the Demos to forget their political “Promises, Promises.” In the worst display of forgetfulness, the lawmakers poured pork items into the new $290 billion comprehensive farm bill, despite the fact that President Bush had pledged to veto the legislation if it came to him with all the millions of dollars’ worth of pork in it.

True to his word, the President vetoed the bill. But that didn’t faze the Demos, who knew they had the support of all the lawmakers who had laced the farm bill with home-grown pork. Sad to relate, many Republican congressmen, who had invested the bill with their own brand of pork, joined the Demos in both houses to override the veto.

Without the help of the Republicans, it is probable that the President’s veto would have been sustained and the bill would have died the death it deserved. It was another indication that the G.O.P. lawmakers have failed to support their President when he needed their help most.

Fully two-thirds of the enormous farm bill will go to the much abused nutrition program, such as food stamps. The rest will go to equally unnecessary farm subsidies and the program designed as a “charity” allotment to farmers to keep them from planting crops deemed unneeded.

Is it any wonder that the national budget and the nation’s economic reins are out of control and food prices, gasoline prices, the housing crisis, and virtually everything else are leading us to a severe recession — or worse? Unfortunately, the Demos’ love affair with political pork has blinded them to the serious issues that need the lawmakers’ attention.

For example, if the Demos would end their blind love affair with the environmental extremists, they could join the Republicans in approving measures that would put the nation back on a prosperous economic path. One of those actions should be to end the extremists’ campaign to block the creation of new oil refineries.

Thanks to the extremists’ negative action, the U.S. has not built a new oil refinery for more than 30 years. It’s one of the reasons prices at the gasoline pumps have skyrocketed and are now at the $4-a-gallon level. The lack of refineries has placed us at the mercy of the foreign oil-producing nations.

Another equally significant issue related to the gasoline shortage is the failure of the U.S. to build nuclear-power plants, so vital in furnishing the people with inexpensive electric power. We have not built a nuclear plant for more than three decades, while other nations in Europe and Asia are surpassing us in power supplies.

There are many other areas in which the Demos should “divorce” their extremist bedfellows and start taking care of the day-to-day needs of the American people. If American voters are aware of the serious needs, they will vote the Demos out of office at the federal, state, and local levels in November.

I’ll never forget the time several years ago that a well-meaning but misinformed teacher from Clarkston, Washington, made a trip to Japan on an exchange program and apparently was too close to the forest to see the trees. On her return, she stated that Japanese school children are overworked and should goof off more often, as American school children do.

Like many others who visit Japan, she overlooked the fact that Japan’s tremendous resurgence as an industrial power in the past 60 years stems directly from the rapid rise in the quality of its education — and the discipline of its children in schools at every level.

By contrast, America’s faltering education system can be attributed in large part to our penchant for requiring less and less of our students, and, in fact, promoting more time at the malls and at the Big Mac stand — as well as the many hours we are permitting our children to spend in front of the television set, instead of reading or studying.

Japan’s students are in school about 220 days of each year, whereas ours in the U.S. spend about 180 days in the classroom. Discipline reigns everywhere in Japan’s schools at every level, whereas discipline has virtually disappeared from public and private schools in America.

We demand less and less of our students, while the Japanese demand more and more of theirs. It’s little wonder, then, that the Japanese are outstripping us these days in education, as well as in industrial productivity. The penchant for discipline goes beyond the schoolroom in Japan.

Discipline also resides in the family in Japan, something American families should study and emulate. For the most part, the Japanese family is the crux and foundation of today’s society in Japan. That includes a remarkable trait — children and adults are taught to respect their elders and especially the grandparents and great-grandparents — and that respect includes the seniors’ disciplining of the young.

Whereas divorce and family breakups have become commonplace in American society, family ties are extremely strong in Japan and are reflected in Japanese society, as well as in education. As an example of the strong familial life in Japan, one has only to look at its recent ascendance in the arts.

When a child goes to a private lesson for instruction on the piano, violin, cello, clarinet, or any other instrument, members of the family also attend so that they can absorb the elements of the lesson. Then, when the child returns home, the parents help with the study time — and, once again, practice that important Japanese trait, discipline.

The same applies in training for the arts and letters. Little wonder that, in the past four or five decades, Japanese instrumental soloists and artists have spread across the world to astound audiences and museum and gallery goers with their spectacular talent.

It’s important to reiterate the underlying theme of the amazing progress the Japanese have made in education and all the arts. The theme is discipline.  And it’s a theme I’d like to see copied in the U.S.

Memories! Memories! I worked in the United States State Department for only a year back in the 1970s, but it provided me with more humor — some of it bitter humor — than any other place I have worked for much longer periods. I don’t know what it was about the place, but I’m guessing the humor stemmed from the fact that the department’s workers were always in a state of flux — away from the department, that is.

The travelingest man of them all, by far, at the time was the secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, who was rarely in the office. In fact the standing joke of the day was that a security guard spotted the secretary in the hall one day and asked him to produce his identification card.

When I was there, an official said laughingly that the executives and employees of the department were passionately dedicated to the task of keeping diplomats of other nations from knowing what the staffers were doing — but that, unfortunately, they were so successful that the members of the department didn’t know either! Oh, yes, and speaking of Mr. Kissinger, it was said that he came very close to resigning once because he had to stay in Washington for three days!

By far the funniest incident I saw firsthand occurred the day I attended a meeting of executives called together for a message from Tom Foley, former Speaker of the House and, at the time, our ambassador to Japan. Assembled in the room were all of the men and women in charge of our relations with all the countries of the world.

One by one, the foreign-desk secretaries told Foley what the U.S. was doing for the various nations and how much money we were sending each one in aid. Finally, Foley, apparently exhausted by the litany of U.S. giveaways, told the group:

“You’re all doing your jobs well. But I earnestly believe that what we should have in the State Department is an American desk working on bringing some of those millions of dollars back to the U.S. treasury.”

There was laughter in the room, but it seemed to me that many of the staffers were grimacing because Foley had touched a most delicate nerve.

In the summer time that year — 1975 — the natives were, as usual, suffering through days in the upper 90s and 100s. I remember that the joke of the day came from a columnist who wrote that “the greatest villains of the day were those who equipped Washington offices with the air conditioning that kept Congress in session.”

It was left to a Japanese foreign official to supply the most delicate incident I can remember from those days. I worked as communications director of the department’s Bureau of Oceans and Scientific and Environmental Affairs, as well as an aide to the bureau’s chief, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray.

It was common knowledge that Dixy detested cigarettes and cigarette smoke. I seated the Japanese gentleman in a chair opposite Dixy in her office. Of course, her faithful dog, Jacques, a French poodle, was also there. Just as the Japanese fellow pulled a cigarette from his pocket, playful Jaques leaped upon his lap and nestled there.

‘You’re not going to smoke that, are you?” snapped Dixy. The visitor smiled and said: “If I must put up with your dog, you should put up with my cigarette.” Taken aback, Dixy finally smiled and nodded approval, saving the day.

Standing before a joint sesion of Congress on May 25, 1961, President John F Kennedy said:

While we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last.

I, therefore, ask the Congress above and beyond the increases I earlier requested in space activities to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.

No space project of this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long range exploration of space; none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

I thought his words were worth remembering today.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq has once again handed President Bush the opportunity he needs to resolve the complicated mess Iraq has become — and to solve the problem before the Democrats use their newfound majority in Congress to foul up the Middle Eastern stalemate so that it can never be resolved. That opportunity came with the announcement from al-Maliki that he wants the U.S. command to hand security affairs in Iraq turned over to the newly formed Iraqi army and, in effect, to begin the American withdrawal from Iraq. The prime minister said the Iraqi military could crush the violence in his country in six months.

In reporting the announcement, the Associated Press said the U.S. commander in Iraq doubted that the Iraqi army was capable of accomplishing the cleanup feat in such a short time. But, so what, I say! The crisis in Iraq has become so serious, thanks to the squabbling between Muslim factions, that the prime minister should be given a chance to prove his boast is legitimate.

It has become almost impossible to tell the “good guys” from the “bad guys” in the Iraqi struggle. The deposed tyrant, Saddam Hussein, was a Sunni and the Sunnis ruled the roost in the nation. When American forces captured Saddam, the rival Shiites took control and led the movement to establish the democratic government and to become the leading faction in the new nation.

However, many of the Shiites seem to have joined the insurgency and they are killing Sunnis, as well as American soldiers, in raids, ambushes, and even suicide bombings. It is more an internal religious war than the “civil war” some observers insist on calling it.

The question President Bush should ask himself is this: Even if the U.S. insisted on “staying the course” and keeping its military force in Iraq, isn’t it likely that the internal religious squabble will never be resolved and that the bickering, bombing, and slaying of innocent Iraqis on both sides of the religious tangle will go on for years and even decades?

I think President Bush should accept the prime minister’s proposal, give the Iraqi army six months to “crush the violence,” as al-Maliki put it, and see what happens. If the Iraqi army succeeds in stopping the violence, the U.S. would then be free to withdraw virtually its entire military force. And, if it fails and the Iraqi killings and internal religious war continue unabated, we would be free of all obligations and could withdraw our troops.

With this scenario, no one in the U.S. or in other nations could be critical of Bush and the Americans for pulling out. Our objective in getting rid of Saddam and helping the Iraqis form a free, democratic government would have been fulfilled. And we would not have “lost a war,” as was the case in our struggle with the Vietnam Communists.

If President Bush decides to ignore al-Maliki’s plan and no resolution of the conflict is attempted before the Democrats force the issue in Congress, it is probable that the Democrats will cut off funds for the troops in Iraq and thus force a withdrawal from that nation immediately and invite chaos there — and the probable takeover of the country by a Muslim theocracy and the introduction of another tyrant in the Saddam mold.

Republican leaders would do well to pressure the President to give al-Maliki the chance he wants to “crush the violence.” It might also enhance the G.O.P.’s chance to retain control of the White House in 2008.

The Mainstream Republicans of Washington have passed the following resolution for members of Congress:

A MOTION supporting withdrawal of federal appropriation for the Airbus tanker and supporting a new competitive contract for the building of certain military hardware.

WHEREAS, the United States Air Force recently awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and European partner Airbus a $35 billion contract to build airborne refueling planes, rather than the Everett, Washington-based Boeing facility, and

WHEREAS, there are serious, credible allegations of improprieties of the procurement process, including midstream-changes in the Request For Proposal (RFP) not communicated to all bidders, and

WHEREAS, the awarding of this multibillion dollar contract, to be paid by American taxpayers to Airbus’s parent company, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space company, could ultimately mean the loss of thousands of local and state jobs and thousands nationwide at a time when such highly skilled and well-paying jobs are greatly needed to spur economic growth, and

WHEREAS Airbus has never built a tanker in cooperation with Northrop/Grumman, has no factory to build a tanker and has not hired or trained the skilled workers necessary to do this work, and

WHEREAS, much of the infrastructure and many of the skilled laborers and engineers that would be needed to build parts for the new tanker in Mobile, Alabama, do not yet exist, as opposed to the facility in Everett, Washington, which is ready, willing and able to build the American-made tankers immediately, and questions remain as to whether these additional costs were considered in the Award, and

WHEREAS, a Machinists Union-member-built Boeing tanker would have provided nine thousand jobs in Washington state, more than forty-four thousand family-wage jobs in the United States and added $400 million to our state’s economy, and

WHEREAS, the Airbus tanker’s substantial size will require additional billions of dollars in construction costs to expand air bases and landing strips and to construct new hangers, and

WHEREAS, the Boeing Company has formally protested the decision and asked the Government Accountability Office to determine if the tanker acquisition process, including the cost analysis, was unfair and flawed, and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mainstream Republicans of Washington:

A.  Mainstream Republicans of Washington urges the United States Congress to take action to halt the procurement of Airbus EADS-made tankers to be used by the United States Air Force, pending completion of the GAO review of the process.

B.  The staff is directed to forward this motion to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and each member of Congress from the state of Washington.

Boy, that man-made global warming is some powerful stuff.  Not only are the polar caps on Mars melting, but now Sicence Daily is reporting that Jupiter’s atmosphere is heating up as well.  Another red spot has shown up!

We better go stone age as fast as we can in order to keep the whole solar system from over heating.

By the way, if you want some laughs to explain why surface temperatures in the United States are rising check out www.surfacestations.org … Some of our official recording stations have air conditioners or trash burners next to the official thermometers.  What a hoot!

Like many other large state-run colleges and universities, the University of Washington has announced it has been forced to reject 8,000 of the 20,000 applicants seeking to enter the university next fall.  It’s the largest number of rejections the Seattle-based school has ever turned away.

The record numbers of high-school graduates seeking entry to the state-run colleges and universities is attributed directly to what has been called the “baby boom echo” — the result of the extraordinary number of children born to the baby boomers and who are now graduating from high school.

In fact, more records are expected to be broken in the next few years as more and more offspring of the baby boomers receive their high-school diplomas and apply for entry to one of the state-run schools.  Of course, one of the reasons for the record-breaking applicants is that the state colleges are much less expensive than the private colleges and universities.

Educators say they see no reduction in the number of applicants for some time.  All of which prompts me to hark back to a suggestion I have made many times in recent years to any state-college administrators who are willing to listen.  Why not create “IT Colleges” — or Internet Colleges — to accommodate high-school graduates who are unable to matriculate at the colleges or universities of their choice?

I know a newly established IT College won’t have a football, basketball, baseball, or soccer team — or whatever — but many, many more youngsters will be able to receive a college education for a lot less money than present-day colleges require of their students.  Run properly, an IT College could prepare students just as well as traditional colleges can — or perhaps even better.

I know the IT students will miss the “rah-rah” atmosphere and the camaraderie traditional colleges and universities offer, but, in time, they won’t miss it one bit.  And, I dare say, it is quite possible that a well-run IT College might prove to be superior in the long run than the schools with football, basketball, and all the other teams.

In fact, I can see the day that all schools, from the grade-school through the high-school levels, could be run on the same plan, with youngsters learning from lessons provided by qualified teachers through the Internet.  Learning via the Internet would also give parents and other family members a chance to oversee the school child’s work and make sure that a child understands lessons and does his or her “homework” properly.

Is all this a fantasy that will never happen?  Certainly not.  First, it is not a fantasy;  the Computer Age has already made it possible.  It is only a matter of time that it will come about.  We can see by the bulging college classes that the day of Computer Age schooling will have to come about to accommodate future generations.

Oh, yes, one more important point must be considered.  As more and more youngsters go to IT schools or colleges, the drain on the American taxpayer is bound to be lessened and, in time, vanish.  Now who could complain about that?

My friend Allan Martin spoke for five minutes at the Mainstream Republican’s Cascade Conference, and I urge you to listen to him.

Most people do not know what the State Treasurer does, but it’s a very important job running the biggest bank in the state, the State of Washington.

In time of partisanship, most politically activists vote by party line.  I urge my Democrat friends to consider voting for this most highly qualified banking professional.

Martin is currently the Assistant State Treasurer, the number two in the state agency, and he is endorsed by his boss, State Treasurer Mike Murphy, a Democrat who has crossed party lines to endorse Martin, a Republican.

Author of Cool It, economist Bjorn Lomborg writes it the Wall Street Journal today:

The pain caused by the global fo