Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in February 2013

Security options

From an opinion piece submitted here last week; the source is a security firm.

In the wake of the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary, gun control has resurfaced in the public eye as a controversial issue.

Should everyone have the right to bear arms, as mandated by the second amendment?

Or should the government step in and regulate the sale of firearms?

When it comes to self-defense, many states have extensive laws that allow a person to use deadly force for self-defense. The law, sometimes referred to as the “Castle Doctrine,” stipulates that deadly force is legitimized if a person reasonably feels they are in grave danger, in their home or anywhere else they feel they have the right to be.

There is also another element to self-defense law that involves the “duty to retreat.” In jurisdictions where this component exists, the defense must prove that a criminal defendant took reasonable steps to avoid conflict before ultimately using force. Essentially, it requires that a person is only permitted to use deadly force in self-defense only when retreat is not possible, or when retreat poses an imminent danger to the victim.

Regardless, it’s imperative that you are familiar with the laws in your particular state if you own a firearm for self-defense purposes. Several states have a “stand-your-ground” law, which means there is no duty to retreat, regardless of where the attack occurs. Meanwhile, a number of other states legislate that there is no duty to retreat only if the attack occurs in the victim’s home. Furthermore, a few states may rely on case law instead of specific legislation to determine the validity of a self-defense claim.

Currently, Idaho relies on case law to interpret justifiable homicide. The state doesn’t have a stand-your-ground statute or duty-to-retreat statute, but allows a person to use justifiable homicide as a defense. Idaho’s case law, under State v. McGreevey, decrees that “One may stand one's ground and defend ... oneself ... by the use of all force and means which would appear to be necessary to a reasonable person in a similar situation and with similar knowledge.”

(more…)

The costs of sequestration

trahant MARK
TRAHANT

 
Austerity

Tuesday night President Barack Obama will lay out his case that Congress ought to reverse the $1.2 trillion worth budget cuts that are beginning March 1.

The White House message is that there should be a debate about the long-term deficit, but that Congress should “permanently turn off the sequester.”
That package should have balance and include spending cuts and revenues. As Dan Pfeiffer, a senior advisor to the president, wrote: “And over the long-term, we need to find a solution that does this in a balanced way. The president has already reduced the deficit by over $2.5 trillion, cutting spending by over $1.4 trillion. And he's willing to do more. And we can't just cut our way to prosperity. Even as we look for ways to reduce deficits over the long term, our core mission is to grow the economy in a way that strengthens the middle class and everyone willing to work hard to get into it.”

Grow the economy. Those three words should be the heart of the debate because the economic evidence is that the sequester will do just the opposite. (The Congressional Budget Office calls this a “subdued” economy. And, according to The Washington Post, the administration has started preparing to reduce the number of federal employees. “The memo also told agencies to “identify the most appropriate means to reduce civilian workforce costs,” including with hiring freezes, by releasing temporary employees and through early retirement or voluntary separation incentives. In other words: Think hard about how to get rid of people,” The Post said.)

Friday the White House released new details about the stark nature of those cuts, including deep cuts to food safety, mental health, head start, teaching jobs, workplace safety, in other words, across virtually all platforms of the federal government. The total tab: $85 billion, half from defense and half from domestic programs.

“Tribes would lose almost $130 million in funding from the Department of the Interior,” the White House said. Native American program “reductions would be necessary in many areas including human services, law enforcement, schools, economic development and natural resources.”

The White House said “Indian Health Service and Tribal hospitals and clinics would be forced to provide 3,000 fewer inpatient admissions and 804,000 fewer outpatient visits, undermining needed health care in tribal communities.” (more…)

Journalists inside/outside

idaho RANDY
STAPILUS
 
The Idaho
Column

In 2001 I contracted with the Lewiston Tribune, then inconveniently between political reporters, to cover that year's Idaho legislative session. I handled some aspects of it, though, differently from the years before when I'd covered for other daily papers. I worked out of my home, for example.

And declined to join the Capitol Correspondents Association. I had been a member of it for more than a dozen years up through 1990, and my decision not to apply surprised a few people. But I had reasons.

This is inside baseballish stuff (my non-membership was never mentioned to Tribune readers, for example, and no one saw any need to) but the latest blasts involving the CCA and writers for the Idaho Reporter web site, carry implications worth sharing outside the Statehouse echo chamber.

The correspondents association, one of many similar organizations at statehouses around the country, is an odd beast. Its members are journalists who cover the legislature. A group aimed at letting people meet and associate is not a matter for controversy (Idaho lobbyists, by the way, have one too) But the CCA also has an official standing with the legislature, it negotiates, for example, where and when on chamber floors, and some other office space, journalists – not the public, and not lobbyists – can go.

All this had more significance once than it does now. I started covering the legislature using manual typewriters, and had to have needed a dedicated land line phone at a desk in the Statehouse. Now, the excellent and extremely productive Spokesman-Review reporter Betsy Russell (for years head of the CCA) jogs with her wireless computing devices from meeting to meeting, filing stories from events as they happen. The Statehouse has a good wireless system. That clunky comm of yore is irrelevant.

Even in 2001, I found no practical disadvantage functioning as a member of the public rather than a CCA member, and I see less difficulty with it now. (more…)

Failure is an option

mansfield DENNIS
MANSFIELD
 

Welcoming the first of occasional columns by Dennis Mansfield, a veteran of Idaho Republican politics. His book "Beautiful Nate" will be published next month.

America’s future is found in its children, the saying goes. We must center our lives on them. All children must be allowed to succeed. And if we truly love our children, such individualized formula will work, the saying continues. Each of us feels this to one degree or another. As parents, Americans have ensured the success of their progeny via a highly controlled environment and well executed plans.

What if we’re all wrong?

In my own case, as evangelicals my wife and I raised our oldest son, Nate, in an atmosphere of faith-based formulae. Cocooning is too strong a phrase, but not by much. And it didn’t work. In time, he became a drug addict; arrested several times, placed in jail and ultimately he went to prison. His drug of choice was oxycodone and other prescription opiates, until they ran out and then heroin became the suitable substitute.

The result for a family, steeped in formulaic fear-based living, is often that we’re surprised and shocked by the teen that emerges.

It should all work, right?

But again, what if we’re wrong? Apollo 13’s famed comment that “failure is not an option” may in fact be incorrect. Learning from failure changes all of our lives. Why would we exclude our own children from that truth?

When something jars us from our formula and the unthinkable happens – our child gets high, she crashes a car, he physically hurts people, they rob a store, he escalates his drug of choice, becoming an addict.

Or as in the case of my son Nate, he dies from his involvement in drugs.

The child-centeredness of a fear-based parenting model can create the exact opposite of what we wanted, of what we planned for. My reliance on formulae was convenient, but invalid. Rather than the joyful smile of our little 4th grader at the table we began to stare into the surly, self-focused, uncaring and arrogant face of our young adult.

You too? And at twenty, or thirty-something, many adult-sized children still demanding the keys to the family’s car.

What in the world happened? (more…)

Smart/dumb?

library
image/courtesy, Seattle Public Library

 
So, last week the Infallible Gallup Organization revealed that Oregon is a teeny bit more liberal than Washington. This week that bastion of “institutional research and assessment” – Central Connecticut State University – found that Seattle is the nation’s second “most literate city,” while Portland – home of the eighth wonder of the world, “Powell's City of Books” – straggled in at No. 10.

At least they beat San Francisco this year.

The Other Washington came in No. 1 in 2012, while Minneapolis took the third spot. Over the last eight years, Seattle’s been duking it out for the top spot with Minneapolis and DC, with Seattle perched on top four times. Portland has ranged from ninth to twelfth since 2005, except for a sixth-place blip in 2009, when something suddenly sent Portlandians into a reading frenzy.

Boise didn’t quite make the population cutoff of 250,000, but we’re sure the City of Trees would be up there somewhere. The study focuses on six key indicators of literacy: number of bookstores, educational attainment, Internet resources, library resources, periodical publishing resources, and newspaper circulation.

Check it out all you data junkies: http://www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=15619. – Tom Menzel

Going up

new building
photo/Randy Stapilus

 

Anyone who hasn't been to downtown Boise in a while will notice something new: That hole in the ground at Main and 8th, which has been a hole in the ground for many years, is now being filled. Something like five stories (the basic skeleton thereof at least) is filling the spot, and an actual new building is only, it seems, months away. (You can see it here in the background, toward the center, still partly covered with plastic layers, under the crane.)

Also, there's a good deal of work a few blocks from there on the "Jack's Place" development, between the connector.

Karl Rove outed

rainey BARRETT
RAINEY

 
Second
Thoughts

I’ve long believed Karl Rove is a secret agent, probably on the payroll of – and operating secretly for – the Democratic National Campaign Committee. I’ve been reluctant to blow his cover because he’s obviously been effective at electing Democrats and confusing the hell out of Republicans for so long. But now, he’s very close to being forced to “come out” as it were. So the game is up.

I’m beginning to actually feel sorry for my Republican friends. They belong to a fine old Party – the “Party of Lincoln,” you know – with a long history of laudable accomplishments. They’ve produced some excellent officeholders who’ve made significant contributions to the nation’s welfare for more than 150 years. The GOP provided leadership in hard times, cared for those who needed a hand up and was a stabilizing force when the country faced dangers. You remember that Republican Party, don’t you? The one we had before the one we have?

In many ways, Rove has been the most effective – and most destructive – mole any political party has ever had. He first went under cover for the Democrats in the 1990′s, gaining the confidence of G. Bush Junior in Texas. In no time at all, he was little George’s most trusted advisor. There’s even a book about that connection calling Rove “Bush’s Brain.” He became so successful in the role that his mentor soon gave up thinking – politically. “Whatever Karl says,” he’d tell his staff.

Karl rode his Bush “horse” in Texas, then eight years in the White House. Pretty plush duty for a guy with no significant political life before the Bush clan took him in. Or, he took them in. Whichever.

From his suite of power just down the hall from the Oval Office, he operated all things Republican. Like a balding, smiling spider at the center of a large web hosted by the President of the United States. Talk about access for a guy who never previously had any of his own! Eight years. And Republicans were thrilled with their new “brain.”

Then after the Bush “horse” was put out to pasture, Rove had to come up with something to keep that national “brain” working for the GOP. So, using the unlisted phone numbers of billionaires he’d collected during his White House years – and aided by a tragic “Citizen’s United” decision from the U.S. Supreme Court – he built a SuperPAC. A couple of them, actually. And he conned otherwise intelligent rich people into parting with hundreds of millions of dollars. All those dollars – less Rove’s generous “expenses” – were thrown into the bottomless pit of trying to buy a couple of national elections. With some state contests thrown in where available.

Democrats pretended to be furious. “That damned Rove” became a rallying cry. Republicans bought it. Rove was thoroughly “in.”

Then the elections. And none of Rove’s horses won. Not one. More than $300 million down the drain. The rich folks who’d made fortunes wound up getting “skunked” and Rove got rich. The Democratic Party’s dream come true! Rove was inside and it was all working as planned. (more…)

Evergreeners vs. Beaverites

Menzel TOM
MENZEL

 
Washington
My Home

Listen up here all you liberal Evergreeners. It’s time to get back into the ring and fight! I know you’re a bit bruised and bloodied by the news, but you can still win this battle if you just do the right thing (actually, the left thing).

In case you haven’t heard the news, Washington The State came in an embarrassing sixth place in the battle for liberal supremacy in these United States, according to the infallible Gallup Organization. (Check it out: http://www.gallup.com/poll/160196/alabama-north-dakota-wyoming-conservative-states.aspx#1) Not only that, but we had to share the sixth spot with Rhode Island, a state about the size of Franklin County where you can’t yet marry your same-sex sweetheart and you can only smoke weed legally with a prescription. Talk about demeaning.

But this story gets even worse. For crying out loud, we got beat by the Beaver State, which stands alone in the No. 3 position right behind The Other Washington and Massachusetts. (Slipping in at No. 4 is Vermont, followed by Delaware and Connecticut in a tie for fifth.) I’ll get to Idaho in a minute.

So what gives here? In Oregon they're OK with weed, but still don’t allow same-sex marriage. Just a couple of months ago Evergreeners approved same-sex marriage and recreational pot simultaneously. We partied in the streets like it was New Years. Shouldn’t that catapult Washington into the No. 3 spot, at least? Nope, it doesn’t work that way. This isn’t an issue-driven poll. It’s about our perceptions of ourselves.

You see, Gallup called nearly 212,000 people in all 50 states and DC throughout 2012 and asked responders to “self-identify” their ideology. During that phone call you could admit to being conservative, moderate or liberal, which, of course, could depend on your mood on the day of the phone call. This is social science, not rocket science. Give Oregonians credit for feeling a teeny bit more liberal on the day of the Gallup phone call.

However, the numbers for both states pretty much break evenly into one-third portions for each category. While Oregonians claimed to be more liberal than Washingtonians by a 1% margin (29.3 to 28.3%), they said they were more conservative by a whopping 0.1% margin (33 to 32.9%). Evergreeners, meanwhile, felt a tad more moderate than the Beaverites on the day of the Gallup call (36% to 35.1), if you ignore the margin of error. (more…)

(Canadian) penny for your thoughts

trahant MARK
TRAHANT

 
Austerity

I was in Vancouver last week for a couple of days and I went out of my way to not spend any cash. I paid for my hotel with a credit card, used a cell phone for a cup of coffee at Starbucks, and walked to a meeting so I wouldn’t need to pay for a taxi. I didn’t want the hassle of trying to spend my Canadian dollars at the last minute; I usually end up with Canadian coins with no recourse other than to “collect” them.

But staying cashless in Canada meant I missed out on the last penny. As of today, the Canadian mint will no longer make the penny. People won’t be able to use that coin at the store for purchases. Instead the clerks will round up or down the sale price to the nearest nickel. (Credit card or check purchases will still be the exact amount.)

I have been writing a lot about saving programs from the budget axe. This is a good example of something that would be easy to do, save a significant sum of money, and send a signal that it’s OK to end traditions of the past.

The United States now spends twice as much on production of the penny, and the nickel, than the coins are worth. It also makes no sense to print dollars. We should have done what Canada did twenty-five years ago with the Loonie and Twonie, the one and two dollar coins.

Slate magazine says the U.S. loss on the penny and nickel is about $116 million. However the magazine says the U.S. could really save money - big money -- by eliminating cash all together. That would force people to use electronic transactions for everything. One study says it would save 1 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, roughly, $150 billion. (more…)

Labrador probabilities

carlson CHRIS
CARLSON

 
Carlson
Chronicles

First District Congressman Raul Labrador is a smart, charming, articulate, up-by-the boot-strap, 45-year-old attorney known for his fearlessness in taking on the establishment within his Republican Party in Idaho as well as Washington, D.C.

A darling of the Tea Party types (those to the right of Attila the Hun) and the Club for Growth as well as the Grover Norquist never-support-a-tax-increase of any kind for any reason crowd, he is being urged to come home to seek the governorship.

Odds are, he will, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is a sincere desire to spend more time with his wife and the four of their five children still living at home in Meridian. Labrador and his wife are both devout members of the LDS Church, and family togetherness is a cherished value and tenet of their faith.

When a practicing attorney he specialized in immigration law and has parlayed that expertise skillfully while in Congress. He is viewed by leadership as a credible Hispanic face who will lead the Republicans to the promised land of a larger slice of the future Hispanic vote as he works with Florida Senator Marco Rubio to fashion a fair and more reasonable Republican position on immigration reform.

What many pundits are overlooking is that for Labrador immigration
reform is a double-edged sword for him and in a different sense for his party.

For Labrador it is a classic case that any final reform no matter how it is phrased will ease the path to citizenship for the millions of illegal largely Hispanic immigrants within our borders. To critics of reform, especially the many in Labrador’s Tea Party base, anything that rewards the illegal immigrant for their scoff-law attitude is unfair to the many million others who played by the rules.

Sandy Patano, former Senator Larry Craig’s state chief of staff, once told me that no issue generated more mail including hate mail aimed at the Senator than immigration reform. In all her years working with the Senator she had never seen such outrage, down-right hate, and such raw emotion regarding any issue they had ever faced.

Labrador recognizes the volatility of the issue and that he is riding the proverbial tiger. What makes sense is what he is doing---getting the debate started, helping to frame the issues, but then getting out of town and back home to run for governor. He can capitalize on his notoriety but can also provide himself the ability the side-step the final product.

The reform issue is a two-edged sword for the Republican Party
nationallyas well. The reason is simple and was verified by recent
research from the renowned Pew Research Lab. Their analysis shows
that out of the pool of several million illegal immigrants expected to
benefit from reforms as many as six or seven out of every ten that
becomes a citizen will become also a Democratic voter.

Thus, in the global sense, the Republicans expect some modest gains in Hispanic ranks for votes for them because they finally got it and adopted progressive reform policies. The raw national political sense the reforms will create is several million more votes for the Democrats.

All this adds up to powerful incentives for Labrador to return home.

Nor will Labrador be afraid of taking on a sitting governor if Governor Otter decides to seek a third term. He has challenged Butch before, both over his transportation reform proposal during Otter’s first term and his support for a gas tax increase. He beat him both times. Doubtless he is not afraid of a third round with the governor.

Here is the clincher: it is even money bet that the funds to finance Labrador’s gubernatorial bid will be supplied by a fellow Mormon, Frank Vandersloot, the multi-millionaire owner of Idaho Falls-based Melaleuca Corporation. Don’t be surprised either if the campaign manager turns out to be Damon Watkins, the son of former Idaho Falls State Senator Dane Watkins, and the campaign chair of the Idaho Mitt Romney for President Campaign.

Oregon Legislative Assembly opens for business

Duly noted, with the proper verbiage.

This has the feel, it seems here, of a lower-key and less-ambitous session, this despite the fact that control is unified this time, unlike the last couple of years. After the major structural redos of the state's medical and education systems, and more, it would seem a little surprising if this session matches or outdoes those.

Still, it might. Some adjustments - massive "reform" doesn't seem either in the cards, or needed - of the state's public employee retirement system would be a very big deal. So would a significant alteration of the tax system, which is under discussion.

And off they go. All three regional legislatures are now in motion.

Do you drive a red or blue state car?

rainey BARRETT
RAINEY

 
Second
Thoughts

Bet you’ve never thought about how your personal politics might be related to the brand of car you drive – or if that brand might be a reflection of your politics? I hadn’t either until I came across some research the major car companies are paying a lot of attention to. And there’s nothing like combining a guy’s two favorite subjects – cars and politics – to get my attention.

Edmunds.com is a favorite web haunt dealing with all things automotive – vehicle values, road tests, consumer reviews, government safety testing and the like. If you’re into cars, it can keep you digging around on the subject for a long time. But I’d never thought of it as a place to go for political or economic news. Seems it is.

Our “Big Three” automakers are totaling the numbers to see how well they did in 2012. Two key factors used to measure success are sales and market share. These are reliable – though shifting – benchmarks and the news is expected to be good. As far as it goes. But Edmunds has begun pointing out a third measure for a successful year. And that factor is not good for domestics. In fact, it’s troubling.

Edmunds researchers have found brands of the Big Three are becoming “regionalized.” Each may have a strong following and a sales lead in one area of the country while losing share in another part. In fact, core markets can be rooted so deeply that sales for any one of the three can go way up. Or drop way off.

Let’s call it the “Red State-Blue State” phenomena. State-by-state sales data strongly indicates cars made by the Detroit Three are largely Red State cars, popular with people in the heartland that vote Republican. Yep, it’s true. And imports, by contrast, do better in Blue States where the majority of voters are Democrats. Usually on or near both coasts.

“So what,” you ask? “Who cares?”

Well, the Big Three care. A lot. Because the news doesn’t favor domestic brands. Red states tend to be more rural, less populated and slower-growing than the rest of the country. The top 10 in order: Michigan, North/South Dakota, Iowa, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Indiana. They have in common stable or declining populations (except for North Dakota which is temporary), are mostly ignored by national media and have little impact on broad national trends.

Now, Blue States. Mostly import brands. In order: Hawaii, District of Columbia, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Florida, Maryland and Washington State. Coastal states with higher populations (potential buyers) and more traffic. Smaller import cars sell much better than the Big Three. (more…)