A place for the writings and the ideas of the people in and around (and coming to the attention of) the Ridenbaugh Press.


Of all the downright stupid “shoot-himself-in-the-foot” statements Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has made this campaign season which alienate different voter groups – and there have been many – one of the more incomprehensible was the charge he made at the Al Smith charity fund-raising dinner in New York City.

The tradition is that the dinner is a chance for the candidates to put partisanship aside, engage in some light-hearted humor and recognize that their opponent is not the devil incarnate.

Trump, however, despite initially looking and sounding almost presidential, blew it all by accusing Mrs. Clinton of being insincere even by being there because she allegedly hates Catholics.

Really, Donald? The Clintons are many different things to many different people, but no one has ever accused them of being stupid.

Catholics constitute the largest religious group in America with an estimated 82 million people, or about 25% of the population which translates into one fourth of all eligible voters. A key constituency supporting Mrs. Clinton is the Hispanic vote which is heavily Catholic and a rapidly increasing demographic group.

The head of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics is Pope Francis I, one of the world’s and this nation’s most admired individuals.

Nonetheless, in a futile and ham-handed effort Trump was attempting to develop a wedge between socially conservative, blue collar, working class Catholics who are on their way to voting for Mrs. Clinton despite this constituency having opted largely for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

It was classless and clueless, especially when put in the larger context of his effort to keep Evangelicals, many of whom are deserting him in droves, in his coalition of base supporters. If anyone on the dais at the Al Smith Dinner could be charged with hating Catholics it is the Donald himself.

In doing so Trump is trying to tap into a dying almost dormant tradition of anti-Catholicism in America. The Al Smith honored in name at the dinner was the first Catholic to carry a major party’s nomination for the presidency. John Kennedy was the first Catholic elected president.

The ideal in America is complete separation between Church and State. The reality is that so many issues today have a moral and religious context to them, that inevitable intermingling occurs. Life issues in particular are fertile grounds for such. The Catholic Church is and always will be inalterably opposed to abortion on demand and physician assisted suicide.

Gray areas become obvious when Catholic hospitals are the recipients of federal funds, but will refuse to allow abortions to be performed on site and will not give privileges to doctors who perform abortions.

While appreciating the importance of life issues (I chaired the campaign in Washingtton state in 2008 against Initiative 1000 which sanctioned physician assisted suicide) I don’t appreciate being lectured from the pulpit by a conservative priest who feels compelled to spell out in a not too subtle manner why those in the pews should oppose Mrs. Clinton.

Such occurred a couple of Sundays ago when I was attending Mass at St. Rita’s in Kellogg. The former (for 11 years) pastoral priest, Father Tom Loucks, was substituting. Imagine my surprise when he started in on how much anti-Catholicism still exists. He even claimed Idaho’s Constitution still contains anti-Catholic language (He must be reading a different copy than I have), but made no mention of the extensive anti-Mormon language that was stripped out in the early 70’s.

He even sang the praises of Philadelphia’s Archbishop Chaput who makes a point of saying he will deny Holy Communion and the Host to any Catholic politician who may privately abhor abortion but recognizes the woman’s right to choose.

The vast majority of bishops in the United States take the position that they cannot judge the heart of a person seeking communion and their role is to administer, not deny.

Father Loucks should know that the days of “pray, pay and obey” Catholicism are long gone. Both he and Donald Trump should show more respect for the separation of Church and State, that the mixing of the two can become a toxic mixture that poisons whomever imbibes.

Share on Facebook



I’d never heard of the movie Gabriel Over the White House until a few days ago, when a friend (who also had just recently learned of it) screened it for me. If you’re in a mood to be frightened, this one will do the job.

It was set for release early in 1933, within days of Frank Roosevelt’s swearing-in, and at a peak (or depth) of the Great Depression. The film, technically advanced for the time, was set in that time and place, and focused on Judson Hammond (played by Walter Huston), the newly-elected president of the United States. At first he seems ineffectual, until an accident leave him in a coma. He revives from it, apparently with the help of the angel Gabriel, and becomes decisive – extremely decisive. He dissolves Congress and the Supreme Court, wipes out any remaining opposition within the country (the army is employed), then imposes his will on leaders of other countries – and miraculously saves the country. Whereupon, he dies.

The picture was pulled from general distribution after producers and others observed what was happening at the time in Germany. But it has a strong and eerie resonance now.

But for the last plot bit, Gabriel seems to be what a large portion of Trump supporters seem to want. Trump’s statements have all the earmarks of a dictator-in-the-making, but he has never applied that term to himself. (Yet.) Some of hs followers have, though, and enthusiastically.

Huffington Post on July 29 reported how “Hundreds of posts in Reddit’s The_Donald forum ― where Donald Trump this week participated in a Q&A session ― refer to the Republican presidential nominee as “God Emperor.” The practice of using this name for Trump apparently caught on last spring. New York Times reporter Jonathan Weisman wrote in May about the deluge of anti-Semitic hate he’d received from self-identified Trump supporters, including “Nazi iconography of the shiftless, hooknosed Jew” from a user called “Trump God Emperor.” Among Trump’s active online supporters, using the nickname is now commonplace. The post announcing Trump’s participation in the Q&A heralded “our God Emperor,” and a search of the phrase returned over 200 posts in the day after Trump’s appearance.”

I don’t mean to overstate here: “Some forum members say “God Emperor” is simply a tongue-in-cheek attempt to rile up Trump opponents who fear he would be a strongman as president. The term is attributed variously to God Emperor characters in the science fiction series Dune and a tabletop game called ‘Warhammer 40,000’. ‘We know he can’t literally be one,’ wrote member NewJersey908, but the phrase whips people ‘into a frenzy saying that we literally want a dictator.’”

I’ve learned to be wary – and often dismiss – followup statements from this crowd saying something to the effect of, “We were only kidding.” When eyes look away, that’s often followed by statements that more clearly say, “No, we weren’t.”

The idea of We the People as the big boss of this country, of democracy as our form of government now and always, is so ingrained that many of us have a hard time imagining anything else – or that any significant number of Americans do think in any other way.

But there’s no mistaking it. Quite a few Americans do think otherwise, and that’s one of the scariest realizations of electiono 2016: That a lot of Americans really would prefer it be the last. – rs

Share on Facebook



There is evidence that Oregon voters are showing some fatigue over Democratic management of the State.

It appears M97 is going to be defeated. Perhaps handily.

A poll released October 17 conducted for OPB by DHM research shows 48% would vote no while, 43% would vote yes. with only 10% undecided. The cross tabs show that 38% are certain no votes and 30% are certain yes votes. This is consistent with the Survey USA poll released last week showing 44% opposed the measure while 28% supported it with 29% undecided.

The Governors race: The DHM poll showed Brown with a comfortable 46% to 33% lead, but the Survey USA poll showed a tight contest, with Brown leading just 46% to Pierce’s 42%. The DHM poll showed the same level of support for Governor Brown, though still under 50%. The Survey USA poll was conducted October 10-12 while the DHM poll was done October 6-13. That could mean that many undecideds are breaking towards Pierce. However, Brown can easily break the 50% mark by capturing only a few undecideds.

If the race continues to tighten, the wildcard here may be Independent Party candidate Cliff Thomson who is polling at about 4%. Thompson has an eclectic platform including support of a sales tax and reduction of real estate tax (to produce a reliable revenue stream) Support for the marijuana and hemp industry, and returning local control to various State functions. Of course, his voters may also be swayed by the name of the party, promising a break from the Democratic and Republican Party feuds.

With Oregon’s looming fiscal crisis, general voter unhappiness and the fact that Democrats have been in charge of Oregon’s State government for some time, could the 2016 results reflect some Democratic fatigue? There is some data to suggest that could be the case.

In the Secretary of State race, DHM poll shows that Republican Dennis Richardson with 34% and Democrat Brad Avakian with 29%. There are still a lot of undecided voters in that race and a lot of support for various third party and Independent Party candidates. It appears many Democrats and Democratic leaners simply don’t want to vote for Avakian. Avakian has been one of the more partisan candidates this election as well.
Both polls also show that the POTUS candidates are viewed more negatively than positively by Oregonians. Trump is viewed negatively by 66% and Clinton by 54%.
Finally, the DHM poll shows that 44% of Oregonians believe the State is headed in the wrong direction while only 40% believe it’s headed in the right direction.

Maybe the 8 year cycle will manifest itself down ballot

Historically, when a party has held the White House for 8 years, it has a down election cycle. But this is an unusual year in the POTUS race and while many voters were prepared to vote Republican for President this election, given our options, we are going to end up electing a Democrat again.

In State races, particularly in a State like Oregon where Democrats have controlled the State for years, voters may be showing their frustration with the status quo by with holding their votes from Democratic candidates. There is evidence of that in the number of voters opting for third party or alternate candidates not just in the Presidential election, but also in the races for Governor and Secretary of State. While there is no risk that the Governors race will be won by a third party candidate, The Republicans have a great shot at the Secretary of State race, and we should watch the State Houses of Representatives to see if in some of the swing seats the Democratic candidates don’t do as well as they historically have.

And, in races where an Independent Party candidate has a one on one race against either a Democrat or Republican, voter discontent at the status quo -regardless of party – may result in some surprises. In particular I’m watching these races that don’t appear to be on the radar of the main stream media:

House District 17: Incumbent Republican Sherry Sprenger against Sweet Home City Councilperson and Independent Party Jeffrey Goodwin.
House District 23. Independent Jim Thompson running against very conservative incumbent Republican Mike Nearman.
House District 35: Independent Party candidate Jessica Cousineau is running against Incumbent Democrat Margaret Doherty
State Treasurer: This is a three way race between Independent Chris Telfer, career politician Democrat Tobias Read and Republican Jeff Gudman.

With the overwhelming voter registration edge and munificence from the Public Employee Union treasure that the Democrats enjoy, it’s not likely that there will be too many upsets this election. But Trends are important. If the Democratic majority, or total vote, is chipped away this year when Oregon falls over the fiscal cliff in 2017, the Democratic brand will be battered in the next Legislative session. 2018 could be tough for many Democratic incumbents. That could open the door to some modern Republicans or well funded Independent candidates.

Share on Facebook



Some of the sharper political analysts have speculated that the result of this year’s election could be far more than the normal in this way: We could be seeing the fracturing of the two-party system.

The United States has had a two-party electoral system in place since very nearly the beginning. On those long-ago occasions when it did fracture, with the Federalists and the Whigs, the system of having to major parties – no more and no less – proved so durable that it quickly reconstituted itself. The two current parties, Republican and Democratic, have gone so far as to nearly exchange their historical positions in our country, but the structure of just two – as opposed to an ever-shifting collection such as most European countries see – has endured. And for good reason, since it has served us well for a long time.

Now one of those parties, the Republican, is on the verge of splintering, and the immediate, proximate, cause is Donald Trump. To a great extent of course he simply has brought into view forces and people and ideas that already were there. But they might stayed unnderground and eventually faded, left to themselves. With a leader to follow, the alt-right and its allies have shown themselves in confidence, and however the election turns out, they’re not likely simply to go away after next month.

The problem will be greater if Trump actually wins election. The Democrats probably will be at least as united, in opposition, as they ever have been. But a Trump presidency would rip Republicans in two, as conventional Republicans struggle with what to support or oppose in “their” administration.

Not a few Republicans have warned that they would be far better off serving as the opposition to what they think is wrong, than having parts of their own organization in place and then having to oppose it.

So fierce might this become that some analysts even talk of splinter into three parties on the American right.

Some Democrats might cheer all this. But most probably realize that such an extreme internal war in half of America’s political system could be dangerous for the country. There’s some risk of this however the election goes. But the risk becomes a near certainty if Trump actually won. – rs

Share on Facebook



Ask a Donald Trump supporter about the developer’s appeal as a candidate and you’ll likely hear – at least in the early days – about how, since he was so rich, no one could buy him. For many, it was an article of faith that the guy would simply underwrite his campaign.

It sounded plausible, on the surface: If a man worth $10 billion, as Trump liked to proclaim he was, really wanted to run for president, surely he could come up with a tenth of that to fund a campaign.

It didn’t work out that way, of course. Trump is surely worth less than $10 billion – how much less is unclear – but he is evidently unable to get his hands on more than a few million at a time. He has spent some money on the race (some of which has been recycled through his businesses), but he most certainly has taken campaign contributions.

At one point last summer, NBC TV reported the Trump campaign was planning to fundraise enough that the candidate can be repaid for his own “contributions” to the campaign.

Trump has been raising contributions.

A lot of contributions, in fact.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Trump’s campaign has raised $218.8 million. About $92 million have come from individuals, but a sizable chunk of that comes from big contributors.

Beholden? He’s plenty beholden. – rs

Share on Facebook



We’re told in our youth “change is the only constant.” As we age, we pass that piece of wisdom to our young. With elder perspective, we realize how much lifelong change we’ve adjusted to and how much of it we survived.

I’ve recently been confronted with a need to deal with a couple of significant changes. They’ve caused me to look both deep inside and, quite realistically, outside myself with some starkness I’ve not experienced before. Not about me. About life in general. More specifically, changes in our nation.

Since our founding, change has been a constant. For most of the last 300 years or so, we’ve slowly evolved through crisis after crisis, learning and relearning, adjusting and trying to keep up. For nearly all those years, the process was mostly doable. Whatever the change – peace or war or anything else – we adjusted, modified, eliminated the old ways and evolved into the new information or other realities. Pretty successfully.

Then came the instant communication of the Internet. The world’s learning curve for change went nearly straight up. Time was compressed. Changes – good or bad – now come at warp speed and in multiples so staggering we barely have time to adjust before we’re hit again. Most of us have kept up. Some haven’t. As that’s happened, we’ve experienced a growing communications gap which has, in turn, become a chasm between what really is and what really was. Or perceived as what was.

I believe this accelerated information flow – and the inability of millions of Americans to keep up – underlies many of the growing divisions in our country and has been successfully exploited. Coupled with hate radio/TV, anti-social media, well-paid hate mongers spewing vitriol and unchallenged lies, politicians unfit for public office and ignorant of the real constitutional role government plays in guiding our nation, billionaires buying and selling politicians and wannabe politicians, paying for and spreading divisive public legislation for private gain, our divisions are being exploited.

If you look at any demographic breakdown, those Americans most likely drawn to this destructive stew are older, white, male and with less education. They’re also less likely to have adapted to change and are, instead, clinging to and promoting a past that seems more comfortable to them, if it ever existed. They reject political, social, racial and other rapid changes while refusing to accept or support any information different from what they already “believe.”

Unfortunately, this cutting off of “suspect” societal, political communications or other inputs is not confined to the far right. Many moderates and some liberal folks do the same. I know Rachel Maddow followers who wouldn’t be caught dead tuning in to O’Reilly or Hannity. And they haven’t listened to a Limbaugh or a Coulter for years. So, with daily exposure to only a single viewpoint, knowledgeable communication with others who think differently is lost and the chasm widened.

Another factor of national divisiveness is the loss of the “melting pot” characteristics that existed in this country for a couple hundred years. That’s largely gone now as people of like races, nationalities or religions separate themselves from all others. Or are forced to. We now tend to hold to our differences rather than accept, learn or enjoy the lives, skills and beliefs of people different from ourselves.

Social media is playing a large, new role dividing us. With this unedited flow of information we face daily, there are two factors. One is there are no checks and balances to determine fact from lie. Hardly a day goes by I don’t see an entry that’s false, facts selectively avoided or copy entirely made up. We all see postings that appear as fact which are copied and re-sent so the lie expands in widening circles.

The second social media affect on our division is it offers people of like minds – rational or not – direct contact with each other, feeding only information they accept. Real or not. Again, a closed circuit without benefit of a reality that may be entirely different. Often a few can be regarded as a large group when that’s not really the case. But, again, causing divisiveness and feeding ignorance of other viewpoints.

We’re also becoming less tolerant and accepting. Look at the current irrational rejection of all things Muslim by too many Americans. Politicians wanting religious tests for immigration or allowing only “Christians” entry to our country. “Ship home11-million possibly illegal immigrants already here,” they say. Attacks on places of worship, threatening acts on their private property, ignorant derision in some media for others religious beliefs and practices. You may say that’s not how you feel or not how others you know may feel. But, too many of the folks who do are in elective office. And that’s a large – and divisive – difference.

These factors – and more – cause me to believe we’re in the throes of becoming a country much different from what we’ve known. Not necessarily a better country. But, certainly, much different. More segmented. More prone to violence with each other. Less communicative with people with whom we have differences. Certainly much more angry. A nation of less participation in organized religion or social/fraternal groups which, in the past, provided a social “glue” which helped tie us together. A nation of fewer direct, face-to-face social contacts which further isolates us, one from the other.

I don’t mean to be too dour in all of this. But platitudes (“It’ll all get better” or “It’ll all work itself out” or “We’ve survived thus far”) are meaningless. While we’ve always had factors separating us and we survived, we’re living with real divisions of issues, religions, races, politics and even families all at the same time. Divisions being actively driven by bought-and-paid-for hate-mongers with seemingly unlimited cash backing.

The distrust of government and each other have never been as real or as widely practiced in my four-score years. In too many instances, the electronic umbilical chord tying all of us together is also providing a means of separation we’ve never dealt with before.

I pray I’m wrong. And maybe I am. But, tell me, what meaningful, effective, concrete solutions can you cite being taken by anyone – or any group – to bridge the problems we face? To solve the problems we face. Taken separately, or as a whole, what real and lasting improvements do you see at work? Not what might or might not happen in the future, but now.

I can ask the questions. But I cannot provide realistic answers.

Whatever emerges as a nation in the next decade or two is guaranteed to be something very different.

Share on Facebook



You don’t need to be of any particular religious persuasion to to get the point of this religion-based question and answer.

In an interview before an audience (the point being that Trump knew he was in public), moderator Frank Luntz (a sharp Republican message consultant) asked Trump whether he has ever asked God for forgiveness for his actions.

Trump’s reply: “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”

He did say that he has performed other religious rituals, such as Holy Communion: “When I drink my little wine – which is about the only wine I drink – and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed. I think in terms of ‘let’s go on and let’s make it right.'”

No, that doesn’t fit at all, because it’s not related to any particular thing the participant did, just a more generic “have we got the books balanced? okay?” sort of thing.

There’s no surprise that these statements from a year ago got the attention of a significant number of Christians, for whom seeking forgiveness for the inevitable sin in life is central. But the import is much broader: This is a man for whom he has nothing to apologize to anyone, not to God and not to any person. The rare occasions when words like “I’m sorry” have crossed his lips have in no real sense been an apology; they have been no more or less than an attempt to get him past some controversy he’d rather see in the rear view mirror.

He does not see himself as flawed, or in any need of self-reflection.

That is the real point here, and for a prospective president, the scariest. – rs

Share on Facebook



Previously I’ve made the point about Donald Trump as a persistent purveyor of outright lies – not just the number or kind that happens periodically in political discussion, but of a volume and expansive falseness that runs far beyond the norm, to the point of …

Gaslighting the American people?

There’s a separate point to be made here about the larger picture, the bigger sense of what is happening when the canvas of lies becomes an epic picture of disinformation.

Here’s the difference, in two successive fact items in a James Fallows post about a Trump speech from July:

“Trump makes his claim that America has grown so dysfunctional that people were asking for “a moment of silence” for the man who murdered five police officers in Dallas. Maybe I’ve missed it, but I am not aware of any real-world evidence for that claim. Translation: I believe he is yet again making this up.”

This was a clear falsehood, but compare with Fallows’ next item:
“Right after that, Trump goes into his ‘we never win any more’ riff, about how the United States is an all-fronts failure. Lord knows that the United States has more than its share of grave economic, social, racial, public-safety, civic-culture, educational, infrastructure, and other problems … But if you’re talking in crude “we win” / “we lose” terms, you have to ask: OK, which major nation is ‘winning’ more often, in more ways, than the U.S. now?”

But he repeats this stuff – the broad-brush “we never win any more” stuff – so regularly that much of his audience seems to internalize, accept it as received truth, and not bother to question it, when a sober-minded review of the world around us tells us otherwise. As in: We’re sure not without problems, but lose all the time? The most powerful, richest, most influential country on the globe? Really?

Ask yourself how many of his larger conclusions, not to even mention his “facts”, stand up to serious, sensible reflection? The answer is, not very many. Try it the next time you see him speak. – rs

Share on Facebook



Ken Robison was a public man, in many senses of the term. He was a journalist, one of the most visible in Idaho for a decade and more. He was a state legislator (and in between his many successful elections, a candidate) over a span even longer. He was a civic activist and, more recently, an author.

Even so, after his death at Boise last week, no public services were held – at his request. And that seems entirely in character.

Though Robison was a public man, he did not go public because he enjoyed publicity or acclaim, or because he was such a social person – he did not seem to reach out for any of those things. Robison was a public man because of the cause, or rather causes, he was captivated by and that he undertook, and dominated much of his life.

To do that meant moving out of his profession. Robison was a news reporter at Pocatello (for the Idaho State Journal), the Associated Press in Boise and Denver, and for the Idaho Statesman at Boise. He had been in the trade for only about a decade when he was named editorial page editor at the Statesman, relatively young for that job, and he might have moved upward in the news business.

Instead, he moved more and more toward wild lands and wildlife conservation, writing about Hells Canyon and the White Clouds, about protecting wildlife and designating wilderness. Much of what he wrote was several years ahead of the general public discussion, for which he received national attention for his editorials but which also led him increasingly away from the news business. He became active and involved in conservation efforts around the state.

He became interested in taxes, too, but not in the way many tax activists, fixated on tax cuts, are. True to his in-depth researching nature, he dug into the way taxes are structured, into who paid what and who seemed to be overpaying their share. He was one of the leaders behind the 1982 initiative for the 50 percent homeowner property tax exemption, which has reshaped Idaho tax law ever since.

Quiet and low-key, Robison didn’t present himself the way most gregarious politicians do, but having concluded he could make more progress as a public official, he decided to run for the legislature. Thorough as always, he threw himself into intensive campaigning. He lost his first race for the state Senate in 1978, won his second (in the Republican year of 1980), lost his third. Four years later he won election to the House in Boise’s north end district, and kept on representing it for the next 18 years.

The Idaho Legislature proved a tough crowd to convince, more so as the years went on, and Robison was often on the minority side of things.

But the causes never went away, and he never forgot them.

After leaving the legislature he intensively researched and wrote a book, Defending Idaho’s Natural Heritage, which was published in 2014. It consists of a series of stories about the battles over conserving Idaho’s wild places and creatures, and it was dedicated “to all those who spoke up for fish and wildlife habitat, for flowing rivers and for exceptional natural areas.”

When eventually someone writes a successor book to that one, they’ll have to include Ken Robison.

And not just because of the specific contributions he made toward those efforts, but also because of the way he provided a role model for civic activism.

Share on Facebook

Idaho Idaho column Stapilus


You might be able to argue there’s an up side to this one: The spreading of hate, attack and fear into new quarters of America, to the ranks of people who never had to worry about this kind of garbage.

What kind?

Meet David French, a political activist but the sort of activist – a writer, a conservative message crafter for the almost archly-civilized magazine National Review – who observed problems with the Donald Trump campaign and called them out.

He did that, he recalled in an article out this week, in a short post about a year ago, “calling out notorious Trump ally Ann Coulter for aping the white-nationalist language and rhetoric of the so-called alt-right. Within minutes, the tweets came flooding in. My youngest daughter is African American, adopted from Ethiopia, and in alt-right circles that’s an unforgivable sin. It’s called ‘race-cucking’ or ‘raising the enemy.’ I saw images of my daughter’s face in gas chambers, with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press a button and kill her. I saw her face photo-shopped into images of slaves. She was called a ‘niglet’ and a ‘dindu.’ The alt-right unleashed on my wife, Nancy, claiming that she had slept with black men while I was deployed to Iraq, and that I loved to watch while she had sex with ‘black bucks’.”

French goes on to describe his family’s experience over the last year, which actually gets much worse, jaw-droppingly bad, and is by no means over yet. He said at one point, “I share my family’s story not because we are unique or because our experience is all that extraordinary, but rather because it is depressingly, disturbingly ordinary this campaign season. The formula is simple: Criticize Trump — especially his connection to the alt-right — and the backlash will come.” He cites a substantial list of other conservatives who are enduring similiar attacks. And if fact if you Google the many other names in the article, you’ll find some astonishing stories – stories of abuse for political activity unlike anything we’re accustomed to in this country.

Political party activists have sometimes colored outside the lines before, but never, never, not in either party until now, on this kind of scale.

It’s eerily reminiscent of an updated version of Jim Crow, aimed in new directions. Not that the old directions have gone away, which could mean that – and here’s one small element of good that might come from this – these atrocities perpetrated by the alt right activists might actually draw a very widely based front of opposition.

It has to be opposed, because these kind of cowledly bullies traditionally accellerate their behavior if they’re not called on it.

It also provides a compelling reason that Donald Trump must not become president. These alt righters are plenty bad now, but imagine how many of them will feel emboldened if their candidate is elected – a candidate who would have neither the guts nor the inclination to rein in this mob of incipient brownshirts. – rs

Share on Facebook



In his article for the Atlantic previewing this year’s presidential debates, James Fallows talked with a variety of people offering perspectives relating to the event. One of the less expected was Jane Goodall, the renowned researcher of chimpanzees.

“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” she said. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

In the first and third debates, Trump (like his opponent Hillary Clinton) was locked in place at a piece of furniture. But in the second, he was able to move around. When he did, he instantly reminded many people (Fallows, for one) of Goodall’s description – not only how the male chimps moved, but why.

To express dominance.

If you’re looking for a through line connecting the disparate things Trump has done in this campaign, you can find it with the single word “dominance.” It’s not enough to defeat an opponent; he needs to dominate them. It’s not enough to have a good positive outcome; what’s necessary is to win, which means someone else has to lose.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has been arguing all year that the way to make sense of what Trump does, and why he does it, is through the lens of dominance: Either you dominate, or you’re beaten and humiliated. There’s no middle ground and no other outcome. Whether the United States or its people are prosperous and free is not the point, according to Trump speeches; the question is whether we “win” or “lose.”

“Trump is the master of GOP ‘dominance politics’, the inherent appeal of power and the ability to dominate others. All of this has a deep appeal to America’s authoritarian right, especially in a climate of perceived threat, which has been growing over the last two decades – something political scientists are now catching on to,” Marshall said in March.

By July, he wrote, “the entirety of Trump’s political message is dominance politics. To paraphrase McLuhan it is both the messenger and the message. Trump attacks, others comply and submit. Whether or not that is always true it is the story and the promise he has sold his supporters.”

The way he treats New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as his valet? The way he introduced his vice presidential pick, Mike Pence, by spending a half hour talking by himself, bringing Pence on stage and then leaving? It’s all about dominance.

And if he fails to dominate in a given setting? Look closely at the picture of Trump, in the seconds between the end of his third debate with Hillary Clinton, and before his family got to the stage to surround him. He stood there motionless, head down, seemingly lost in space. (Clinton had already bounded off stage to shake hands and greet supporters.) Trump had to have known he lost the debate, and with it his last good chance to change the trajectory of the race. But that was not all: He was beaten, humiliated, surely in his own eyes at least.

That may almost be cause for some sympathy. But imagine a Trump invested with the power of the office of the presidency, with a drive to dominate and humiliate all around him.

That means you, too. – rs

Share on Facebook



University of Idaho President Chuck Staben is living on borrowed time. His days are numbered and the reason is simple: He just doesn’t get the fact that in today’s environment of winners and losers, the key to the perception that a university is exceptional and successful is whether it has a winning football (and to a somewhat lesser degree a winning basketball) program.

A statewide survey the University commissioned four years ago appears not to have been read by the then new and incoming president. That survey indisputably demonstrated that Idahoans all across the state rate Boise State number #1 in almost all categories measured. This position of superiority is a direct outcome of BSU’s football and basketball success.

When alumni identify with a university’s success they more quickly reach for their checkbooks. This becomes self-sustaining and self-fulfilling as success breeds more success. Respondents to the survey appear to believe that BSU is more efficiently run, a safer campus with a better faculty, and a better school for delivering a post graduate job. Few of these views are correct.

Staben’s major sin was deciding Idaho would be better off dropping down to the second tier FCS (Football Championship, the former Division I-AA) Big Sky Conference as opposed to staying at the FBS (Football Bowl – the big dogs like the PAC-12) level.

In Staben’s defense he did talk to the university’s many shareholders and did contract with Collegiate Consultants to review athletic spending at both peer universities and other schools. Staben is keenly aware that the Spokane television market is large enough to support just one major collegiate program, and in the Inland northwest that is Washington State in football and Gonzaga in basketball.

Idaho, Eastern Washington and Montana have to scramble for the crumbs left over.

Ironically, Staben’s decision comes in a year when the Vandals have a shot at the six wins needed to qualify for an invite to a bowl. Coach Petrino appears to have turned the program around, but to the chagrin of Athletic Director Rob Spear (whose crunching of the numbers shows it may cost Idaho more to step down) it may be too little too late.

It’s not so much Staben’s decision, it’s how he made it and when. Also, many are speculating who he listened to last before deciding. Critics are especially angered that Staben announced his decision in April after promising to wait until the fall football season was over. They also point to his use of the Operational Study by Collegiate Consulting not released until May 2nd but cited in April as part of the justification.

Many of Staben’s critics are large athletic donors who feel he lied to them by making a premature announcement. They charge Staben with deliberately sabotaging ticket sales and contributions to assist in making his decision a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Furthermore, Staben allegedly claimed the Big Sky Conference had given Idaho a “drop dead” date for deciding, which the Big Sky commissioner later denied.

Staben is further faulted for not really listening to those with differing opinions, and for who he does listen to last. Some point to Mike Parry as one of those overly influencing Staben. Others throw out other names.

Parry came to Idaho as part of a “package deal” that brought his spouse, Mary Kay McFadden, the highly successful vice president of development, family and alumni relations at Olin College of Engineering in Needham, Massachusetts, back to Idaho as the new vice president for advancement.

Whoever or whatever, Staben was led to believe a solid majoriy of large donors supported the move to the Big Sky.

This is absolutely not true critics say and claim Staben can cite few large athletic donors other than former interim Idaho president Gary Michael (the former chief exeuctive of Albertson’s ) and former Vandal football coach Keith Gilbertson, who now resides in Coeur d’Alene, as move supporters.

Staben does appear to have a tin ear regarding Idaho politics and just how political his job is. He is faulted for awarding much higher salaries to his new hires. Critics charge this has come at the expense of increasing student tuition which in turn has led to declining enrollment that is fast becoming a major issue within the university community.

Additionally, they point out Idaho no longer participates in the “good neighbor” tuition reduction program that used to be in place for applicants from any state touching Idaho’s borders.

Staben also received some poor advice telling him that it was illegal to offer a tuition reduction incentive program for alumni children to enroll at the University of Idaho. He also has long promised to start acting on a strategic plan that would restore the image and prestige of the University. So far little success has been noted.

Critics note the Idaho Board of Education which has the dual duty of being the University’s Board of Regents, appears to be totally in the thrall of Boise State partisans.

The real bottom line here, and why Staben should dust off his resume, is he has lost all credibility with a major constituency of the University of Idaho. When a chief executive of any kind of entity loses his credibility, its best for both the executive and the entity that the person pack his bags.

Share on Facebook