WhackyNation

There it was, a sign in the Seattle hotel elevator boasting just how green the hotel was being in order to save the planet.

Get me the barf bag.

The hotel was boasting four room policies:

1. Shower constrictors to reduce water consumption;
2. Shower soap dispensers to reduce refuse disposal;
3. Compact flourescent lightbulbs to reduce carbon dioxide pollution;
4. and optional linen and towel replacement to reduce water pollutuion.

Was the motivator mother earth or reducing costs and increasing profits?

I suspect the bottom line as managers justified cost cutting by labeling it “green.”

I don’t mind managers cutting costs, but I do mind having smoke blown up my ass.  Do marketeers think the public is that gullible?

Pick up any Northwest focused magazine or newspaper and you’ll see ads for communities “built green,’ or ads for interior decorators who use only “organic” and “natural materials.”

It’s nice to know that as the wealthy high tech couple builds their 6,000 square foot McMansion, they are only using green materials.

These latest environmental buzzwords in advertising ring hollow to me most of the time.  Advertisers are pandering to America’s latest political fashion, environmentalism, but keep encouraging America’s all-time habit, consumerism.  I guess you can still consume and think yourself green.

That’s the power of belief.

“Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” Although that very familiar saying is often erroneously attributed to Mark Twain, it is correctly credited to Charles Dudley Warner, who included it in an editorial he wrote for The Hartford Courant on August 24, 1897.

Substitute the word “traffic” for “weather” and you’ll immediately understand what this commentary is about. Everybody in cities from coast to coast complains, sometimes bitterly, about the traffic mess on America’s roads, but nobody — meaning officials who run the cities and towns — does anything to alleviate the mess.

Perhaps that’s because nobody in authority seems to know where to begin to eliminate the daily jams. I’m pretty sure I know where to begin, and I hope you don’t flinch when you hear me out. I know from the very beginning that my proposal will make two very important groups terribly angry: Young people 16- and 17-years old and the automobile industry in America and overseas.

All right. Here it is: I don’t think anyone will dispute my contention that there are far too many autos on the road and that we have a mounting traffic problem that threatens national gridlock. OK? Right. Now, I propose that the driving age everywhere in the U.S. be raised from 16 to 18 or even higher if legislators dare.

Let me explain. It has become a custom nationwide for youngsters about to become 16 to apply immediately for a driver’s license. Their second step, also immediate, is to demand a car of their own, whether it’s brand new or a jalopy that is just an accident away from the junkyard.

What has happened in the past two or three decades? Every family sports four, five, or more autos in the garage, on the driveway, or at the curb. The American family home has a parking lot of its own! That wouldn’t be so bad if only one those autos were used at a time. But, no, it’s far more customary for every one of those cars to be going somewhere.

It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Raising the driving age to 18 would result in an immediate improvement in road traffic. A corollary to all this is the desperate financial situation most transit systems are in across America because they have lost many riders.

Forcing the 16- and 17-year olds to start taking the bus or streetcar to their destinations would increase transit patronage in large numbers. And, presto again! We have solved two problems at the same time!

I should mention another crucial advantage. Sixteen- and 17-year olds are among the most likely drivers to get into serious accidents resulting in severe injuries and even death. That calls for another Presto! In addition to everything else, we would be preventing many serious injuries and saving precious lives!

One of the most pronounced signals of the advancing American decadence is the disgusting view of what the young rock-n-roll generations are doing to their bodies. Well, it isn’t only the young, because many middle-agers are doing it, too. But it is mostly the teen-through-30s rockers who are “uglifying” themselves, if I may be permitted to coin a word.

Years ago, it was no surprise to find a seagoing man come home with tattoos on his arms, back, or legs. And no one complained loudly — as maybe they should have. But today, thanks to the evil influence of rock musicians — and I bite my lip as I use the term “musicians” in this case — body-piercing and tattooing has become not just a tradition but, it seems, a requirement.

If it were possible to get a law passed banning all tattoos and body piercings, I would be happy to get behind such a campaign and help get it approved. But I realize that such a move would not be constitutional, so it would be wasting time to try it.

However, there must be a way to stop this dastardly trend that challenges civilization and return our young people, at least, to sanity and to persuade them to regard their bodies as something the Lord gave them to preserve unsullied. Let’s face it: No matter how artistic the tattooers may be — or assumed to be by the tattooed — any carving up of the skin to portray anything from animals to humans is terribly ugly and deserves to be banned.

The tattoos are bad enough. I think the body piercings are even worse. They are not only ugly; they are dangerous, and the medical profession should have declared war on them years ago. No matter what may be said in defense of the piercings, they are an abomination and an invitation to a body and skin ailment.

Thanks again to the Rock Era influence, we’ve seen pierced nostrils with rings or beads in them, pierced tongues (Ouch!), pierced belly-buttons, and even pierced vaginal labia (and even penises, for goodness’ sake!). What else is there left to be pierced and embellished with rings, precious stones, or some other trinket? Have these young people lost their minds?

Now, having said all that, what can the rest of us really do about it without curbing the constitutional rights of these rockers to mutilate their bodies with tattoos and hanging adornments?

First, of course, I would hope that the medical profession would take a strong stand against the piercing practice and the tattoos and campaign to get them stopped for health reasons. Then I would hope that all the news media, including TV and the news magazines, joined the campaign to demonstrate what foul practices tattooing and body piercings are.

Parents of these rockers should also join the campaign and crack down on their youngsters if they get the mutilation urge. Girls especially should speak their minds, since it is obvious that young male rockers get tattooed and pierce their body parts because too many female youngsters think “it’s cute” or “manly.”

Those who justify the foul practice “because the aborigines do it” should be reminded that our civilization has progressed far beyond the aboriginal standard. I have one last horrifying thought on the subject: If we don’t stop the miserable practices of tattooing and body piercings, where will it lead us? What are the next steps in the mutilation parade?

Now that the alarms have gone out coast to coast, the people who watch the American diet are devoting much more time to putting the heat on adults to tighten their belts literally and to watch their calories, or else.

Foremost in the fight against obesity in the population is the venerable American Heart Association and all its members across the nation. They aren’t kidding. They have put the screws to us chubby adults in particular — adults who believe unwisely that calories should be swallowed, not counted.

If you’re more than a few pounds overweight these days, you had better pay attention to the advice of the Heart Association, its doctors, and its nurses and workers wherever you are, because, if you’ll pardon the expression, what they have to tell us carries a lot of weight.

For many months now, the association has been saying that we shouldn’t take in any more cholesterol in a single day than you’ll find in one egg. And they are also saying that we should absorb no more salt in a single day than would measure any more than a level teaspoon.

We’re told by the medicos and their collaborators in the American Heart Association that the great heat in the new diet is on cutting back those saturated fats that clog the arteries. However, I have a problem with these dictums that are designed to keep the rest of us from an early date with the Grim Reaper.

The warnings, the diets, and stuff like that are fine and, in fact, life-saving. I’ll acknowledge that, and I’m sure you will, too. But I’m afraid that the latest warnings about diet and over-eating are aimed primarily at adults like me. I think the association is too late!

We need to concentrate on better diets for infants and the very young. Bad eating habits that lead us onto the road to obesity and all the serious ailments that come with it are learned in the first few years of life and are actually prompted and promoted by parents and other adults who keep teasing the young children to eat more “because it’s good for you, Dear”!

An overfed baby may draw raves from Uncle Ned and Grandma Mary. But the poor kid is already gearing his muscle, his mind, and his impulses to be a chow hound. A child must think that ramming food down his throat must be the right thing to do, since Mama and Papa, as well as Uncle Joe and Aunt Polly, tell us we should.

So, what the Heart Association and all its workers need to do is to quit pointing an accusatory finger at chubby adults. They should be aiming that finger and their warnings at those who prepare meals for the small fry. I think a “junior heart association” should be created to show new mothers and dads how to hold down the cute double chin in little sweetie pie!

Oh, by the way, you flabby adults who think that food alone is your problem should know that the Heart Association also warns you to cut down on the consumption of alcohol, because it contributes to over-eating. So, my dear chubby friend, put away those bottles of bourbon, scotch, and vodka, ‘cause they’re gonna help put on the pounds.

When I went to bed the other night, I was in a good mood, despite the chilly winds blowing up in a fury and the threat of foul weather. I slept like the proverbial rock. No silly dreams. Nary a sneeze nor a running nose. And no midnight phone calls.

Then, after a great breakfast, courtesy of my loving wife of 65 years, my roommate and I settled down to what I hoped would be a pleasant day. Happy 24 hours ahead. But, no! As I read the morning newspaper, my smile turned to a frown. An article on Page 1 informed one and all that we could expect snow; then, it went on to report that some medical researchers had said it was OK to shovel snow, but “for heaven’s sake, don’t jump out of bed to shovel it, because that could be curtains for your heart.”

Holy Toledo, Batman! That bothered me not a little. However, I calmed down after realizing that I would not be fool enough to “jump out of bed just to shovel snow.” Just as my temper calmed down, another page in the same newspaper announced that other medical researchers said drinking decaffineated coffee could play a role in boosting the bad cholesterol in a person’s body by 7 percent or more!

I said it again: Holy Toledo, Batman! That did it! I had a strong suspicion that my very own doctor had planted that piece in the morning newspaper because he had run out of ideas on how to get to me. After I suffered a stomach ulcer, he took away my cocktail hour. Then he removed the wine list from my dinner menu. He knew I was a chocoholic , so he banned all candy, laughing like this — Hah! Hah! Hah! – as he did it. Sugar and salt, he said, were definite No-Nos. Then, with another series of Hah-Hah-Hahs, he put me on a diet that sounded like Mahatma Ghandi’s fast.

However — and this is the point of this entire essay — he didn’t rule out decaf coffee. In fact, he recommended that I quit drinking regular coffee and turn to decaf whenever I felt the need for a breakfast drink. Of course, the breakfast drinks he really favored were grapefruit juice, orange juice, milk, and stuff like that there.

Ruling out decaf coffee was left, then, to those persnickety medical researchers, who, I muttered with a distinct grudge, probably had a lot of money in hot-chocolate stock or some other non-caffineated products. At any rate, I told myself that I’d be willing to bet a bundle that the researchers secretly drank half a dozen cups of caffineated coffee as they pondered how to phrase their report.

Reading the newspaper article that morning reminded me immediately of the classic story about that old curmudgeon of films, W. C. Fields. He was sitting at a bar one day, when his longtime bartending buddy asked him if he would have the usual double scotch on the rocks.

“Of course,” Fields replied. Then he proceeded to tell the bartender that he had just read in the newspaper that alcohol wrecked the linings of the stomach and the entire inner body, and that it was bound to shorten a man’s life. At that, the bartender scratched his head for a moment, then asked Fields:

“Well, does that mean you’re going to give up drinking alcohol?” Without a pause, Fields grunted and shot back at the bartender:

“Hell, no. It means I’m going to give up reading the newspaper!” (I’m still drinking decaf, 40 years after the doctor died!)

Year after year, without fail, American fishermen and the U.S. Coast Guard keep reporting that foreign fleets, most of them from Asian nations or Russia, are taking fish illegally in our waters off the Pacific Coast. And for years our federal government has looked the other way or said it could find no violations.

In fact, the U.S. has not only ignored the complaints, but in many instances defended the fishing tactics of Japan, Korea, Russia, and other violators. I think that, at times, our State Department is the best foreign ministry other nations have, and that feeling persists each year.

It is not unusual, for example, for foreign ships to cross into our North Pacific waters under cover of darkness or low clouds and illegally catch an estimated 10 billion pounds of fish. And all this happens despite the fact that Congress declared several years ago that no ships could come within 200 miles of our Northwest and Western shorelines without our permission.

Ten billion pounds of fish is nearly three times more than scientists say should be caught without endangering the ocean’s fish supply. We seem to be the only fishing nation that does nothing about international poachers, but we restrict our fishermen severely.

However, Japan, Korea, Russia, and other nations do nothing about restricting their fishermen in their own waters. For example, you don’t see Japanese or Korean fishermen taking fish in Russian waters, nor do you see the Russians fishing in Japanese and Korean waters — and for good reason.

Our do-nothing federal government should take a tip from the Russians, for instance, and remove the wraps from the Coast Guard, the Navy, and the Air Force and give them full authority to patrol our waters, taking the strongest action necessary to chase poachers out of our waters.

To do it, we will have to give the State Department a shot of starch in the back and a swift kick a little farther down to force it to take action against any fishing vessel or fleet that dares cross into the 200-mile zone without first getting permission from the Coast Guard or the Navy.

Something must be done to stop the illegal poaching and, also, to cut back on the fishing fleets that drag the ocean with expansive nets to take millions of fish in one operation. I wish the federal government had listened to my old friend, Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, before she died in 1994.

Known internationally as a highly experienced marine scientist and oceanographer, Dr. Ray tried often to warn government and everyone concerned that, as she put it, “The fish population in all the earth’s oceans and other waters is not unlimited. If we keep up the constant scooping up of sea life in those horrendous nets, we will one day discover that most species of fish are gone forever.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Ray’s warnings were not heeded by the federal government, nor by commercial and sports fishermen. And, worse yet, her warnings have had no effect on the ears of officials and the fishing industries of other nations around the world.

In this wacky but wonderful nation, history has a habit of repeating itself in the most remarkable and surprising ways. For example, a New York Times report just this week tells us that “the Army and Air Force discharged a disproportionate number of women in 2007 under the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the military.”

My mind went back immediately to those Second World War days, when the Women’s Army Corps was created and a flood of women volunteers entered the military, most of them to do clerical and similar work in order to free males for duty in the infantry and other divisions, as well as for flight duty in the Air Force.

The year was 1943. I was in the Army then, and my buddies and I could not help notice the caliber of women who had decided to join the military. It didn’t take long for us to recognize the fact that a large number of the new women recruits — perhaps a majority of them — were lesbians.

That didn’t bother us. The fact that so many women had volunteered to join the service to relieve men for frontline duty encouraged us to congratulate the women. We didn’t really care what their sexual preferences were, so long as they had enough patriotism to take an active role in the military.

All went well in those early war days as the major task at hand — the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi forces and Japan’s armies — occupied everyone’s mind in our battles on two fronts.

After Hitler’s defeat and the atomic bombing of Japan, we noticed a decided change in the attitudes of the WACs, most notably the lesbians.

The lesbians wanted out, and the sooner the better. And the Army and Air Force were just as eager to bid them farewell.<. That’s why this week’s report seemed to be a case of history repeating itself, even though the wartime background was missing with the new announcements from the services.

The Pentagon refused to divulge the exact number of gays and lesbians in the large number of discharges in 2007 and this year, but it was clear that many of them were due to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, under which openly gay men and women are prohibited from serving.

It was also disclosed that the Army discharged 302 soldiers under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, signifying that the discharges were for men and women who were openly gay or lesbian. That was an increase in the number of such discharges from the 280 of the year before.

Under the policy, the Air Force dismissed 91 persons in 2007. The Navy, meanwhile, disclosed that it had discharged 166 persons under the policy. For the same period, the Marine Corps discharged 68, an increase over the 64 the year before.

Has the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy been a success one, or should the Pentagon revise it or get rid of it altogether? It seems to me that the large number of gay-and-lesbian discharges indicates that a totally new policy should be created. Why not find out at enlistment time whether recruits are gay or lesbian — and deny them entry into military service. Wouldn’t that save all hands a lot of grief?

One of the most vexing unsolved problems of America’s present and future economy is the gradual exportation of jobs from the nation’s industries to industries in foreign lands. The rush to take advantage of cheap labor overseas to enhance profit-taking at home is picking up pace, and no one seems to have a solution that will satisfy both labor and management.

Is there a solution? I think there are several potential solutions, and the sooner we adopt one or more of them the better chance we will have to forestall an economic crisis in our nation.

Before we consider the solutions, we should take a look at all the factors in the dangerous situation. Hampered constantly by rising costs of operation, labor, production materials, and, yes, taxes of all descriptions, industrial executives can hardly be blamed for looking abroad to find cheaper ways to produce the products they sell.

The leaders of industry must answer to their boards of directors, their shareholders, and the public, too, as they strive to create products that will sell in a very competitive marketplace — and do it at a profit that will insure the continued economic health of their industry. In our free-enterprise system, that is an absolute “must.” It is a question of survival, pure and simple.

How, then, can we nurture the health of American industry on one hand and counter the loss of jobs to cheaper factories overseas? I don’t have a specific answer, but I believe we should consider one or more of the following possibilities:

• Should Congress consider a special tax incentive that would apply to industries that, say, hold the percentage of jobs going abroad to 10 percent of the total work force at home? Or something like that…?
• Instead of transporting the jobs overseas, might it be feasible to transfer the American workers to the jobs overseas, provided the workers agreed and that they were well taken care of in foreign lands? I admit that idea is somewhat tricky, but it is worth considering.
• Should we consider writing agreements with foreign nations that would require that foreign industries accepting American workers paid those workers the same comparative wage that they were earning in the U.S.? And should that comparable wage also apply to native workers doing the exported jobs?
• Would it make sense to levy a special tariff on goods brought back to the U.S. that were produced by workers in exported jobs?

There are many more such ideas. Surely, some formula would work — perhaps a combination of several ideas.

The worst thing we could do is to do nothing and let the problem exacerbate to the point of bringing on that dreaded economic crisis. We must act before it is too late. America’s economy and its progress as the world’s greatest exponent of free enterprise and freedom demand action.

Woe to us if we lose our dominance as a producing nation and become a “user” nation that is dependent upon other countries for its manufactured goods.

This coming election just may come down to the gas gap.

As a nation we don’t have enough gas so the price is going up.  Everybody is noticing it.  And the two presidential candidates are differing on the fix.

Senator John McCain says we need more oil, so we need to re-visit our decades-old policies and re-open drilling including off-shore.  Drilling technology has greatly improved in 40 years since the Santa Barbara oil spill, he says.  In fact, no oil spilled in the gulf during Hurricane Katrina.

Senator Barack Obama says no to that.  He’s sticking to the same policy that has prevented any substantial increase in domestic oil production in decades.  Today the senator issued a memo criticizing his opponent:

The question is whether we are going to offer the American people real answers and genuine relief or the same, tired Washington gimmicks and special interest favors that have failed our families and country for too long.

Obama needs to do more than criticize McCain with his own gimmick of false criticism.  After all McCain is reversing his (and Congress’ position) by saying he now favors drilling.  McCain’s call for drilling, despite Obama’s rhethoric, is not “the same” policy and Obama’s criticism rings hollow.  If anybody sounds like the “same politician,” it’s Obama this week.

It’s apparent we have a gap at the gas pump.  This week it’s becoming more apparent that the biggest gap in American politics is between Senator Obama’s ears.

Hat Tip to David Postman.

Writing at Crosscut today, former State Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald says what a lot of us on the Republican side have been saying for years: light rail does not give you the bang for the buck.

MacDonald says Sound Transit would double the sales tax you pay (0.4 percent).  With that it would raise about $6 billion in working capital.  Two-thirds, or $4 billion, would be spent on extending the existing corridor two miles south and 4.3 miles North as well as a new 12 mile line connecting Seattle with Mercer Island, Bellevue and Overlake.

You spend a lot, and, I mean, a lot of money to lay down rail corridors and you get relatively paltry ridership numbers for the dollars spent.

Reaching that gain in ridership 22 years from now represents the equivalent of growing today’s regional transit boardings of almost 540,000 by less than a fifth. That’s the equal of growing today’s ridership at an annual compound rate of growth of just under 0.8 percent. Of course, if you think about it, even that is a big overstatement, because lots of those so-called new riders are already on the buses to be replaced by the light rail lines, so they really aren’t new riders to transit at all!

You’re better off, spending your transit dollars for good ol’ buses, says the former transportation czar.

It’s interesting that MacDonald who sat on Sound Transit’s Board for six years and voted for the original light rail line now has a more economical evaluation of transportation needs.  MacDonald credits his epiphany to becoming a regular bus rider in Seattle as he doesn’t drive anymore because of failing eyesight.  Riding the buses and rubbing elbows with people who really use transit he has changed his opinion.

Maybe more of our politicians like Ron Sims and Greg Nickels and Christine Gregoire should ride the bus more often.

You want transit to succeed?  Take the tax revenue that would be spent on useless choo-choos and make bus transit free.  Simple.  But the Democrats seem to feel that Seattle won’t be a world class city until it has 19th century transportation solutions.

My treasured and much admired friend, Bill Wippel, is executive director of Tape Ministries Northwest, an organization that records books for the blind. He wrote a piece, published by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which was so poignant and significant that I had to repeat it here for many more to read.

At an annual convention this year, the Washington Council for the Blind gave a commendation to the DoubleTree Hotel at the Seattle Airport for the way the hotel accommodated the 244 delegates in attendance.

It shouldn’t have been necessary. It should have been routine, not only for the hotel but also for other businesses in the Puget Sound area to accommodate the blind. Not so, according to the horror stories I’ve heard from W.C.B. members.

Most people look the other way and pretend they don’t see them, because they don’t know what to do, and it feels safer to do nothing.

When you see someone who is blind or disabled, speak and relate to him or her as you would anyone else. Extend your hand and introduce yourself.

Most of the blind or disabled persons you will meet have minds that work as well as yours does. Talk directly to them, not to a third person about them. Don’t shout at them; they are not hard of hearing.

If it looks like the person needs assistance, ask if you can help, listen to his or her answer, and then do only what he or she asks you to do. If the person is visually impaired, and you are walking with him or her, tell him or her about stairs, curbs, corners, or other obstructions. The person may want to put a hand on your shoulder or arm as you are walking.

Walk at a speed that is comfortable for both of you, pausing slightly before ascending or descending. When dining out, you may need to assist by directing the person to a chair and describing the room layout. Save your blind friend from the embarrassment by introducing him or her to those at the table or in the room.

In a restaurant, ask if he or she would like to have you read the menu to him or her. Describe the food and offer to help serve your friend, telling him or her where each food is located on the plate.

These are simple ways to make the holidays and any day more inviting and friendly for the blind. Another tip: Try walking around your home with your eyes shut for five minutes. It will give you a ‘glimpse’ into the world of the blind. Caution: Have someone walk with you to guide you. Do not try it alone.

Wonderful advice for anyone to heed! My compliments to Bill, who devotes his life to helping others — not only the blind but all those who are ailing or in need. He is more than a friend. He is a saint. And we need more Bill Wippels in this world.

Washington Post writer David Ignatius writes at RealClearPolitics.com today that

We speak of the airline industry as a market failure, but in a deeper sense, it’s a political failure. The next time you’re sweltering in an airport, ask yourself why government doesn’t start helping to fix this mess.

Whoa! my friend.  As President Reagan once said, “Government is the problem.”

We all can agree that airline travel is a lot less pleasurable than it was in years past.  Airports and airplanes are crowded.  But isn’t that the testament of success?  More people are flying.  That much is good.

Like our highways, the federal government has not done much to expand the system.  How many new major airports have been built in the last 35 years?  I can think of only two: Dallas-Fort Worth and Denver.  How many more passengers are flying in those 35 years?  Think, “what if we had put all those billions in Amtrak subsidies into the airport system ….”

Responding to populist fears of reducing competiton, the government has also denied airline mergers the past 20 years which resulted in some of those airlines declaring bankruptcy.  Operating under bankruptcy protection, those carriers offered cheaper tickets which the “healthy” carriers had to match thus dragging down the industry even more.  Maybe, if the mergers had been allowed to go through, the industry would be healthier today.

The government problem is not just federal.  It’s mostly local; mostly local port authorities.  Local politics is especially sensitive to NIMBYism.  Just look at the politics of Paine Field in Snohomish County or the politics in South Pierce County about the future of McChord AFB.  Washington State, like many parts of the country, needs more paved runway, but the people and the its government lack the resolve and competence to solve the problem.

Instead, what local governments all around the country have done the last the last 20 years is put lipstick on the pig.  Government has turned our airport terminals into expensive shopping malls and pseudo art museums.  Who do you think pays for that?  Do you think adding a dollar to the cost of your airport Starbucks does that?  Hell no.  It’s added to your ticket price along with the cost of the post 9/11 airport security.  Who do you think pays for the federally-mandated TSA?  It’s added to your ticket price.  Hope you feel safer.

Most consumers have no idea what the cost of government is in their airline travel.  It probably ranks just under fuel costs and ahead of labor costs.

Airlines know that consumers have sensitivity to ticket prices.  Go above a certain price-point and more consumers will postpone the trip to go see grandma.  So, as the airlines have absorbed added government costs, and then get shocked by soaring jet fuel costs, the airlines started cutting the luxury aspects of flying.  You want a snack or a beer?  It’s going to cost.  And so on.

How many of you are willing to pay more for better service?

I suspect in time the systems and services will work itself out.  Would I pay $20 more so that the airline will give me a meal on a 3 hour flight?  Probably not, because I hate most of the food I get on an airplane.  I’d rather spend $20 at an airport restaurant.  But I want better than a Pizza Hut meal. So I suspect airport restaurants will get better in time.

There’s an old saying I learned from the lectures of Professor Woodrow Borah at UC Berkeley at the height of People’s Park:

When there’s a dollar to be made, somebody somewhere will make it.

The market will respond in time and airline travel will get better.  Just keep government out of the market decisions!

Despite our bitching and moaning, we must all consider the most important matrix for analyzing our aviation system: American carriers are the safest in the world.  Right now we might have to put up with older airplanes, crowded cabins and fewer amenities, but we are safe.  The airline industry is filled with competent and professional employees.  I have faith in them.  Just get government and its huge costs (taxes) off their backs.

Have we forgotten so soon? Two years ago, University of Washington researchers working in Africa, produced a new study, published in the journal, Science, that gave dynamic support to my contention and the contention of many scientists that the greatest mistake made by the U.S. and foreign nations in the 20^th Century was the decision to ban the miracle pesticide and insecticide, DDT.

The U.W. study, reported by the Associated Press, told us that malaria

is fueling the spread of AIDS in Africa by boosting the HIV in people’s bodies for weeks at a time, pinning down the deadly interplay between the dual scourges. It’s a vicious cycle, as people weakened by HIV are, in turn, more vulnerable to malaria.

It’s necessary to repeat some history. The new pesticide, DDT, was created by scientists to combat malaria primarily, and it soon proved its worth when it was introduced in the 1930s, not only in the U.S. but also in those countries with climates and conditions conducive to promoting malaria in mosquito-laden swamplands.

At the time, the total number of deaths attributed to malaria was approximately 3,000,000 a year! After the application of DDT in swamplands everywhere, the number of malaria cases dropped to a few hundred and by mid-century was headed for total elimination! It was a remarkable achievement, one that has never been matched in the world.

Then, along came Rachel Carson’s scientifically inaccurate book, Silent Spring, which sparked extremists in the new environmental movement to demand that DDT be banned everywhere, because, they said, they had discovered it was harmful to the eggs of eagles. It was not only a ridiculous assumption but one which eventually would cost the lives of millions of people, most of them babies and children.

After the extremists succeeded in forcing the U.S. to order its ban on DDT, many nations the wo