Readersforum.

Where Have the Workers Gone?

I read your article "Defense Secretary Says Industrial Base Decline is 'A Serious Problem.'" (President's Perspective, May 2001, p.4), and I could not agree more. I have had many opportunities to talk to various members of the military at MacDill Air Force Base assigned to the Unified Commands and other organizations.

One of the concerns I have, which very few people recognize today, is the gross lack of skilled workers. One does nor have to look any further than in our schools, both public and private, to see that there are very few vocational courses offered. Contractors I have talked with all agree that finding carpenters, electricians, welders and other craftsmen is very difficult today. It appears that few teenagers care about learning a trade. I have discussed this with Ken Goss, the National Defense Issues director for the Air Force Association. We agree that opening a factory today presents a challenge. A message I sent to former President Clinton last year concerning this subject was forwarded to the Education Department which, in turn, sent me a package agreeing that this situation has deteriorated over the last 20-30 years. There are two generations of people today who have shunned working for a living. It will take a miracle to return our schools to those days when it was not a sin to learn a trade instead of trying to go to college. My generation has worked hard, but we are the minority today.

Ronald N. Hoelzer Colonel, USAF -Ret.

TAMPA, FLA.

I am responding to the piece, "Defense Secretary Says Industrial Base Decline is 'A Serious Problem"' (May 2001, p.4). Your basic tenet appears to be the long term solution, e.g. predictability, uninterrupted growth, patent protection, immunity from criminal prosecution, etc., that lies entirely in the hands of the government or others, but you neglect to mention that the responsibility for preserving defense industries rests on the actions or inactions of the industries themselves. For example, diversification, e.g. thinking of themselves as not just weapons suppliers, but equipment suppliers, could provide a cache to alleviate the rises and falls in demand for weapons. Any other industry would consider this and related options.

John Casana

ANNANDALE, VA,

The Drug-War Business

Our leaders can't afford to have an exit strategy ("War on Drugs: U.S. Has No Exit Strategy, May 2001, p. 18). Truth to tell, the drug warrior politicians, officials, media and civilians (secretly) don't list victory as an objective in their expensive and oppressive trillion dollar war. When they do spout their zero tolerance/total victory" rhetoric, how many of your readers actually believe them? How many actually believe that this year's multi-billion dollar drug-war budget will be the one that will achieve total victory?

Just remember that the drug czars' jobs depend on the perpetual prosecution of, but never a victory in, the drug-war. Also, remember that the politicians depend on the drug war and its rhetoric to scare up votes (by scaring voters). The politicians also rely on the drug war to sustain their constituent industries that depend on the economics of prohibition in order to make generous profits and campaign contributions that keep the drug warrior politicians in power and, therefore, keep themselves in business.

Myron Von Hollingsworth

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 

I thought this was a very interesting article ("War on Drugs: U.S. Has No Exit Strategy, May 2001, p. 18). I'm a conservative Republican and not a drug user. I'd like to add my two cents.

Prohibition has never worked in the history of the world. Since the beginning of time, people have ingested a variety of drugs in pursuit of religious enlightening, recreation and for medicinal purposes.

Only in the past 70 years or so has a government tried to legislate what people can and cannot put into their bodies for medicinal, recreational or other purposes and the whole idea is flawed. This is demonstrated by the dismal failure called the war on drugs, which is ignorant of history, human nature and the basic economic laws of supply and demand.

The war on drugs is a war waged by the government against the people of the United States. Despite billions spent, many innocent people killed and the loss of many of our freedoms, this war is the biggest failure in history. Street drugs are cheaper and purer than ever and more readily available. The U.S. has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the civilized world. This is insanity, and people are getting sick of it. Our politicians have waged a war against the people who elected them. The past two presidents and many, many elected officials have admitted to using illegal drugs....what kind of hypocrisy is this?

Robert Tops

MIAMI, FLA.

Art and Science

I greatly enjoyed your article "Stakes are High in Competition for Naval Air- Defense Program" (May 2001, p. 16).

I would just like to make a couple of comments regarding statements in the article. I had to laugh when reading Tony Gecan's comment about CEC being "...more art than science...." In fact, CEC is based on a very simple (and dated) set of sensor networking principles. But even if it were art, it is not Raytheon's and Gecan's art, as his comments imply. It would be the art of the people at Solipsys Corporation who created it with members of Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). As Gecan would have it, the person responsible for dusting the paintings in the Van Gogh museum is primarily responsible for their beauty. Raytheon has done an adequate job of dusting the creations of APL.

W. Clifford Clegg's comment about TCN not being ready for years is based on what, wishful thinking? In fact, TCN is far more mature a product than CEP and has been ready for fielding for over a year. It has been subjected to live and field tests far more stressing than anything that the legacy CEP has been subjected to.

Finally, I would like to corroborate Conrad Grant's statement about APL not competing with industry. That is, unfortunately, true. APL, for which he works, would not stand a chance if it were to fairly compete with industry. Rather, it is funded non-competitively by the Navy to build fielded "prototypes" that undermine industry's ability to provide far better solutions to the Defense Department's needs. It does this under the guise of being a disinterested, not-for-profit, technical direction agent for the Navy, something that would be considered laughable if it were not so counter-productive for the U.S. military. Their disinterested attitude is certainly not evident in their opposition to TCN without credible explanation to those they serve. Could it be that they detect a threat to their CEC/SIAP/JCTN prospective cash cow?

Warren Citrin

LAUREL, MD.