Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in March 2019

Fond farewells to Dennis Richardson

jorgensen

People from all over Oregon gathered Wednesday, March 6 at the state capitol in Salem for a memorial service honoring Secretary of State Dennis Richardson.

Richardson, 69, was the first official to lay in state at the capitol rotunda since the passing of former Governor Tom McCall in 1983. He served for over a decade in the Oregon House of Representatives and was Oregon’s 45th Secretary of State.

A U.S. flag draped his casket as Richardson’s family was joined by a wealth of well-wishers and former and current lawmakers who served with him.

Former Secretary of State Phil Keisling praised Richardson for his “fierce fidelity.” Deputy Secretary of State Leslie Cummings said Richardson had a vision for the agency that centered on transparency, accountability and integrity and valuing Oregon’s people and its character.

Cummings praised Richardson for his work ethic and energy, saying he was like the “Energizer Bunny” and would work from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
“He wore us out trying to keep up with him,” she said.

Governor Kate Brown said Richardson’s first priority was his wife Cathy and their nine children and 31 grandchildren. Richardson had a kind heart that guided him and his work, Brown said.

U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR 2) compared Richardson to former Secretary of State Norma Paulus, who also recently passed away. Both were “transformative figures” who used the talents of the agency’s audits division and ran elections divisions that were free of political interference.

The often-somber ceremony featured a pledge of allegiance lead by Oregon’s Kid Governors, a program Richardson started once taking over as Secretary of State. It also saw performances by one of his granddaughters and three of his daughters singing his favorite hymn. A closing prayer was led by Rep. Duane Stark (R-Grants Pass), who represents the House seat Richardson held for so long.

Richardson, who served as a U.S. Army helicopter pilot in the Vietnam War, was diagnosed with brain cancer last year and passed away February 26.
 

Wait. Wait.

johnson

By all appearances Idaho State Senator Brent Hill, the Rexburg Republican who is the president pro tem of the state senate, is a thoughtful, nice guy. He runs the state senate with a light tough, frequently invoking a “come let us reason together” demeanor. He seems far removed from the angry, fearful, resentful base of the Republican Party in the Era of Trump.

Yet, Hill’s recent decision to shelve again for another year any legislation that would extend human rights protections to Idaho’s LGBT community is, sadly, very much in keeping with current GOP orthodoxy of marginalizing communities that fall outside the party’s fearful, overwhelmingly white, religiously conservative base. Hill is practicing, or more correctly allowing to continue, the old conservative politics that preach that “the time is not yet right” to bring full human rights protections to fellow citizens too often left in the dark shadows of discrimination and hatred.

In a recent op-ed calling for more talking and no legislative action again this year, Hill struck what seems on the surface to be a moderate, caring tone. No doubt he meant to strike such a tone, but his language is as disappointing as it is misleading.

As Hill wrote the “only viable solution [to LGBT protection under Idaho’s human rights statute] is a balanced approach—one that will provide protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation while simultaneously safeguarding the right to fully exercise religious convictions.”

He called for more dialogue because, as Hill wrote, “it takes time … for people to better understand the concepts of this balanced approach and focus on the benefits it provides them.” It takes time, Hill said, time that Idaho’s overworked lawmakers just “do not have in the current legislative session.”

We just need more time. More time to talk. More time to reason. More time. More time.

Brent Hill surely did not intend for his manifesto for more talking to echo the calls of many religious leaders of the 1960s who counseled Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to go slow in the pursuit of civil rights for African-Americans. Hill perhaps didn’t intend to imitate those who counseled King to slow down, but he did just that. And King’s answer in 1963 remains today’s best answer to those, like Senator Hill, who counsel delay rather than provide moral leadership.

“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” King wrote from the Birmingham jail where he was imprisoned for demonstrating not for “a balanced approach,” but for immediate justice and equality.

“Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ‘well timed,’” King wrote to those who were critical of his aggressive efforts. “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”

Currently the Idaho Human Rights Act provides statutory protection for someone with strongly held religious beliefs, but a LGBT citizen has no protection under the law from discrimination related to employment, housing, public accommodation, and education.

And Senator Hill must know the argument that someone’s religious beliefs should allow them to deny another person’s fundamental human rights is, unfortunately, as old as America’s long toleration of racial hatred and as wrong as segregation.

As Dr. King knew – and died proving – rights are not merely granted they are won through demands and political action, including shaming the reluctant and those who counsel patience. Unfortunately, slow rolling before doing the right thing is part of Idaho history. Idaho was very late in adopting a day honoring Dr. King with some arguing as recently as 1990 that the country’s greatest civil rights warrior was a troublemaker unworthy of celebration.

It took four tries to adopt legislation authorizing kindergarten in the 1970s and now the fearful, resentful caucus stalls legislation to begin to provide pre-K education. Republicans can’t even agree on a measure outlawing child marriage.

Not liking that voters can actually put issues on the ballot and pass them into law Republican Senator C. Scott Grow of Eagle would make Idaho’s already extremely difficult initiative process next to impossible by adding new requirements for signature gathering. Grow talks about his proposed limitations on citizen political action as though it were a mere tweak of the law that implements what is embedded in the Idaho Constitution. His argument is flimsy and dishonest. Grow is proposing a fundamentally undemocratic measure designed not to empower citizens, but to diminish them. Other lawmakers would happily thwart the overwhelming will of Idaho voters by imposing conditions on access to medical care.

Make no mistake, the Idaho Republican Party, the party that has embraced a leader who, as conservative columnist Michael Gerson has written, “has made the denial of dignity to certain people and groups a political rallying cry,” is acting true to form.

Year after year, the party purposefully denies basic human rights to a sizeable group of Idaho citizens because they can’t get beyond their own intolerance. To give into such fear, resentment and old-fashioned bigotry, particularly in the guise of protecting religion, is an odious failure of moral leadership.

It takes courage, an attribute often lacking particularly in a one-party state, to stand up and be counted on what simply amounts to doing the right thing. Imagine if Brent Hill, a widely acknowledged decent and intelligent politician, would put the moral weight of his powerful position behind pulling Idaho forward to the benefit of thousands of his fellow citizens? Would he catch some grief from the fear mongers and haters on the far right? Of course he would. He should wear that pushback as a badge of honor.

Delay can be comfortable for those who know no discrimination.
 

Ages of consent

stapiluslogo1

Here’s another stat of interest to anyone inquiring about the Gem State:

Idaho has the highest percentage in the nation of - wait for it - children (persons under the age of 18) who are married. More specifically, that’s “Number of children married as percent of average of 2000 and 2010 state population” based on an analysis of the last two U.S. Census numbers.

The raw number in the decade leading up to 2010 was 4,080; that’s children aged 13 (there were some at that age) to 17. The Idaho percentage was .29 percent, which is only half again as high as Wyoming and Utah but far higher than the reported numbers of other nearby states. (The full roster of numbers is available on the site unchainedatlast.org.) There’s no particular reason to think that the numbers have been falling in years since.

You could say the numbers are not enormous, but what we’re talking about here nonetheless is the lives of thousands of children and their ultimate freedom to shape lives for themselves. A Facebook comment from last week on this subject put it this way: “A child cannot consent. To have her parents do this for her is institutionalized statutory rape.”

Or try this, from Ada County Democrats Legislative Chair Chris Nash: “When it is legal for a 30-year-old to marry a 15-year-old that is not marriage because they are not equal partners. That is institutionalized child abuse. That is arranged rape.”

Does that sound hyperbolic? Let’s unpack the circumstances surrounding the law. The unchainedatlast.org site (which has well-worth-reading studies on this and related topics) noted that of the underaged marriages in the United States, “these were not ‘Romeo and Juliet’ situations. Some 77% of the children wed were minor girls married to adult men, often with significant age differences. Some children were wed at an age, or with a spousal age difference, that constitutes statutory rape under their state's laws.”

Be it noted that this specifically is what the Idaho House, in its 28-39 vote a week ago on House Bill 98, chose in effect to endorse.

The bill as written was actually just a gentle scaleback of existing law. It didn’t go so far as to restrict marriage to people age 18 and older - that being the age, remember, when people are first allowed legally to vote, consume tobacco, join the military or (with the exception of the marriage contract) sign a binding contract. Three years more than that are required before a person is considered mature enough, under Idaho law, to sip a beer.

Or maybe the decisions made by those 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds simply aren’t relevant as far as the state of Idaho is concerned.

The bill, proposed by Boise Representative Melissa Wintrow, limited itself to putting a floor of 16 years of age on marriage, and tightening a little the marriage permissions needed for 16- and 17-year-olds. It was a change, but a gentle one. It might have been seen, in whatever quarters were concerned with defending this particular status quo, as a first step; and that may have been the case.

Wintrow’s comment on Facebook was that the bill “turned out to be too progressive for too many of my republican colleagues. Arguments against: parental rights and a disagreement with aligning marriage laws with the statutory rape laws. I’m at a loss …”

Or you might say, shocked - a shock to the conscience - but not surprised.
 

Standing up to the public

schmidt

In a noble effort, Idaho Representative John Vander Woude is bravely standing up to the bully majority voting public and protecting his fellow aggrieved minority legislators. He has vowed to fight the will of the “uninformed” voters. “We don’t always let the majority make all the decisions because our Constitution is to protect the rights of everybody, not just the majority,” he said.

Thank God for brave legislators standing up to protect us from ourselves. We need it don’t we? After all, Idaho voters have made so many mistakes in our initiative votes.

The Fish and Game Commission (passed by initiative in 1938) ought to be thrown out; why do we need such folly? At the very least we should require some means testing for all who wish to take public game from the taxpayer’s trough.

And the publicly passed Sunshine Laws (1974) to insure open government might need a test too. Vander Woude should champion IQ testing of all those who want to run for office and gain income and health insurance at taxpayer expense.

The first trouble with losing is how it makes you feel. Wayne Hoffman and the Idaho Republican Party felt so bad about losing their fight over Medicaid Expansion that they took their pouting all the way to the Idaho Supreme Court. Well, the only thing they won there was being excused from paying the winning sides (the voters) legal fees.

The second trouble with losing is what you learn from it. In this case, “wrongness” is not being considered by Republicans. It was wrong for the Idaho legislature to avoid this topic for six years while many of our working poor citizens were without access to health insurance. It was and is wrong to wastefully spend taxpayer money for medical bills for catastrophic and indigent care.

Losing can teach humility. It shouldn’t teach shame. There is nothing wrong with losing if you have done your best and you fought for what was right. Believe me, I know this; I’m an Idaho Democrat.

If Representative Vander Woude has the honest intent of making Medicaid expansion work best for Idaho, let’s ask questions through clear, not red Republican or blue Democrat, but clear glasses at Medicaid Expansion. After all, many Republicans voted for it. And it is now law for all Idaho.

Here are some questions to help you frame your decisions.

Do you believe all Idahoans should have health insurance? If the answer is NO, you should be fighting for full repeal. 40% of Idahoans agree with you. If the answer is yes, then the next question:

Do you think the program to get all Idahoans covered by health insurance should be done at the lowest expense to the taxpayer? If the answer is YES, then you should support Proposition 2 unaltered. If the answer is NO, then the choices become wide and range from cheap to costly.

Honestly, these are the sorts of questions that are critically important to public policy. If you want people to participate in a program (immunizations, sex education, car insurance) then you design the program to maximize participation. You would automatically enroll them and give them the choice to “opt out”. If you don’t want them to participate, you require them to “opt in”. There are all kinds of incentives to use. It just comes down to where do you want to go.

Here’s my bias. I wanted the most Idahoans covered by health insurance at the lowest cost to the Idaho taxpayer. I support enacting Proposition 2 unaltered. But if you can show me how an investment of taxpayer dollars makes our citizens healthier, more productive, more engaged, better parents, better students, maybe clearer underwear, show me the plan and how much it will cost, and I might support it. It’s all about our vision for our state. I’m fiscally conservative. Show me what my tax dollars earn.
 

The Garden of Eden on Idaho Day

jones

March 4 is Idaho Day, the day Idahoans commemorate the establishment of Idaho Territory by President Abraham Lincoln on March 4, 1863. Former State Representative Linden Bateman, a dedicated history enthusiast from Idaho Falls, convinced the Legislature to designate the 4th of March each year as the day to celebrate the birth of our great State. What a great idea!

The theme of Idaho Day this year is “My Town Idaho.” When Linden suggested I write an Idaho Day column, I wondered what could be said about Eden, my hometown in the Magic Valley. After all, it only had 456 people when I was growing up - according to the sign as you entered town. And, I was never sure how it got its name. Was there really a garden involved?

On the other hand, Eden served as the springboard for Terrel Bell, who served as U.S. Secretary of Education for President Reagan from 1981 to 1984. He began his teaching career at Eden High School in 1946. I started grade school across the street in 1948. Bell is credited with convincing President Reagan not to do away with the U.S. Department of Education.

My father, Henry Jones, put Eden on the map for a number of years--operating the largest cattle-feeding operation in the area at that time. He was well known as a man of his word in all of his dealings, often paying above market price for cattle feed. He was a great example.

But Eden played a role in the larger world. In 1942, the federal government shamefully set up a camp that imprisoned about 9,000 people of Japanese ancestry for the duration of World War II. It was known locally as the Hunt Camp and located about 6 miles northwest of Eden, as the crow flies.

Over 60% of the people incarcerated in what was officially called the Minidoka War Relocation Center were U.S. citizens, but that did not make any difference. President Roosevelt was advised that these folks did not pose a security threat, but that did not make any difference, either.

War hysteria, much of it whipped up by demagogues and pandering politicians, overcame common sense and decency. It goes to show the power of fear-driven policy, especially where an easily identifiable group of people is the target.

These loyal Americans were housed in drafty tar-paper barracks. It is interesting that this and other such concentration camps produced a crop of patriotic young soldiers who fought and died for the country that was incarcerating their families at home. William Nakamura, who enlisted from the Hunt Camp in 1943, died fighting for the United States near Castellina, Italy, on the Fourth of July, 1944. The Congressional Medal of Honor, recognizing his extraordinary heroism, was awarded to his family on June 21, 2000-- 56 years later.

Idaho citizens have come to recognized the injustice visited on these good people. Governor Brad Little issued a proclamation on February 18 to remember those who were incarcerated at what is now known as the Minidoka National Historic Site.

There is little left at the site nowadays. In the late 40s and early 50s, there were still quite a few of the decrepit tar-paper buildings located there. Most were moved off-site to serve as houses or outbuildings for veterans who homesteaded the Hunt Project. I think some of them were used at the Eden schools as auxiliary buildings.

On April 17, 1952, CBS Radio (for younger readers, there was no TV to speak of and almost everyone listened to the radio stations for their news) was at the Hunt Camp to conduct a national broadcast of Farm-In-A-Day. A farmstead was built pretty much in one day by 1,500 volunteers, who constructed a house, corrals, and outbuildings for a military veteran and his family. There were reportedly 11,000 spectators, including me and the Schutte boys, Jim and Burton. It was a big deal.

So, in light of all that, maybe Eden was not such small potatoes in the eyes of the Potato State. Actually, it was a great place to grow up--a nice little town and wonderful people. Happy birthday to our dear State and its remarkable people, especially the good people of and from Eden.
 

What happens if . . .

rainey

I’ve harbored a thought for some time that’s seemed like pure fantasy but now others in the opinin’ business are talking about it. Even the loquacious George Will. Something that’s never happened in our system of government. But, it might.

Suppose D. Trump either doesn’t get to finish his term for some constitutional - or criminal - reason or he loses at the polls in 2020. Will he walk peacefully out of the White House?

Or, if he makes it to the 2020 election, and he loses, will he accept the results and step aside? Ex-Presidents always have. But, would he?

Talk about a “constitutional crisis!”

Now, you can add another voice to that thesis: Michael Cohen. In last week’s testimony at a congressional hearing, he said “Given my experience of working for Mr. Trump, I fear that, if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.” BOOM!

We’ve always prided ourselves on the ability to elect one or more candidates to office and change administrations without a fuss. Even in the worst of times, we’ve always transitioned and kept right on going.

Out here in the desert, I’m beginning to think the odds of Trump acknowledging a loss at the polls are about 60-40 no.

He’s said before - in 2018 - he wouldn’t accept losing. “Election fraud” and “voter fraud” and all that. A number of times, he’s railed against all sorts of imaginary enemies and promised, if the results went against him, he’d ignore them.

There are several options to enforce an election outcome. One is in the Electoral College. But, suppose some delegates refuse to follow the popular vote at home and vote their own way. It’s happened before but only in small instances. Remember, too, Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but still won the election. In that same Electoral College.

Then, there’s Congress. Congress must verify election results. But, the basis on which to do so is - wait for it - what’s certified by the Electoral College. Would the present Congress refuse to verify? Would Congress authorize a second election? Could it? Very, very deep constitutional waters there.

How about the courts? Would our Supreme Court step in? Happened with Bush-Gore and the Florida outcome. Would SCOTUS tell Congress to do it all over or accept the numbers it has. Would Trump accept a loss in a court decision?

And, how about a possible faceoff at the White House front door. What would the Secret Service and the FBI do? After January 20, 2020, Trump may not be president but will he leave?

Then, there’s the possibility of a nervous military.

I know all this is imaginary at the moment. A lot of rambling by an old guy. But, I’m not the only one with an imagination fueled by Trump. Some of the national writers are moving the possibility of a Trump refusal to vacate from discussions at the corner watering hole to the pages of respectable media forums. And there’s Cohen.

In his own disastrously mercurial way, Trump has operated as if the rest of the world was his personal fiefdom. He’s ignored protocols, treaties, contracts and, in some cases, even the law. He’s made enemies of friends and supposedly “friends” of enemies. Wildly unpredictable. He also has a following of some 30-million or so folks that have and will likely continue to support him in whatever he does.

So, maybe a little speculation about Trump refusing to accept the outcome of losing re-election to our nation’s highest office is not totally far-fetched. Maybe it’s worth thinking just a bit about the possibility. What if ...
 

Urban renewal under attack

frazier

Two bills before the Idaho Legislature, clearly aimed to restrain Boise City councilors and the mayor, are worthy of support from voters.

In a nutshell they seek to require citizen approval before urban renewal funds can be used for construction of either a library or sports stadium.

Urban renewal has been abused state wide with cities and the Greater Boise Auditorium District leading the way in a scheme to launder property tax money through local urban renewal agencies to avoid a citizen vote on “profound debt projects.”

Idaho’s constitution (article VIII, sec 3) mandates that local governments seek permission from voters to go into debt. Typically this would be a bond for a school, city hall, auditorium, library, sports stadium, etc. By laundering tax funds diverted to urban renewal agencies, the politicos avoid a public vote.

Here’s how it works. Once an urban renewal district is formed (a designated area within a jurisdiction), the tax on any improvements or appreciated value is diverted to the UR agency–the CCDC in Bois’s case. The original idea was to improve an area, increase the property value along with taxes, and everyone was a winner.

Somewhere along the line the crafty politicos changed the rules to allow urban renewal agencies to finance projects for 20 years without citizen approval, thus diverting the taxes while requiring cities to provide services like police, fire and schools for free. Money laundering, euphemistically termed “tax increment financing” is the method used.

Even more egregious is the practice of local governments getting the urban renewal agencies to use their bonding authority to build major structures such as auditoriums, libraries, and police stations making an end run around the constitutional mandate of citizen approval. The scheme has the urban renewal folks owning the building–even a city hall–and rending it back to the local government. The Ada Courthouse was owned for years by CCDC to avoid citizen approval of the project.

The two proposed laws deserve public support and approval to rein-in the overzealous local governments.
 

The surest senator of all

johnson

When he speaks about big issues Idaho Senator Jim Risch, the new chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, likes to invoke his experience, the dozens of times he’s been on the ballot, his leadership of the Idaho State Senate and his early years as the Ada County prosecutor. One of Risch’s go-to lines is “I’ve been at this a long time.”

In the increasingly rare interviews Risch grants or when he, also rarely, entertains questions from voters his setup often goes something like this: “I’ve been at this [politics] a long time, I’ve been through 34 elections, I was a prosecutor and [in the context of the Russia investigation] I know what evidence looks like.”
Idaho Senator James E. Risch

All politicians display a certain level of confidence. It goes with the territory these days. The humble, self-effacing public servant is a relic of American political history, if indeed it has ever existed. But Risch has raised self-assurance to a new level, unlike anything Idaho has seen, well, ever and it’s gotten him into trouble.

Risch’s first real controversy as chairman came over his initial handling of the Senate’s demand for information from the Trump Administration on the murder of Washington Postcolumnist Jamil Khashoggi. When senator’s demanded that the administration follow the law and report on who had ordered Khashoggi’s brutal murder, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – Risch calls him a close friend – essentially said: “Mind your own business.”

Risch’s initial response was to fully back the Trump line. “We asked for the information. They sent it. And I put out a press release,” Risch told reporters. Then the proverbial organic matter hit the fan. Senate Republicans on Risch’s own committee demanded more and he did schedule a closed hearing earlier this week, but not before apparently misleading fellow Republicans on just how forthcoming the administration had been. All in all it was a stumbling, incoherent performance by a guy who has “been at this a long time.”

You have to wonder why?

Why has Risch worked so hard to shield the president from confronting the murder of a journalist, a murder the nation’s intelligence agencies have placed squarely at the feet of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman? Why are fellow Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley and Mitt Romney confronting the administration over reprehensible Saudi behavior, while Risch has been carrying Trump’s water on both shoulders?

Remember that Trump has said of the Crown Prince, a pal of his son-in-law, that “maybe he did and maybe he didn’t” order the journalist’s murder.

During a contentious recent television interview, recorded while Risch was attending the annual Munich Security Conference in Germany, the senator invoked his “I’ve been at this a long time” certainty with another wrinkle he likes to use – “I know more than you, but because it’s classified I couldn’t possibly comment.”
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, identified by U.S. intelligence agencies as the man responsible for ordering the death of Washington Post columnist Jamil Khashoggi

Asked by veteran journalist Tim Sebastian whether he agreed with Graham’s characterization that there “was zero chance” that bin Salam had not ordered Khashoggi’s murder, Risch spun into a linguistic tap dance, first refusing to answer whether he agreed with the South Carolina senator and then invoking secrecy.

“I’m on the Intelligence Committee,” Risch said, “Lindsey isn’t. I’ve looked at every scrap of evidence there is on [Khashoggi’s murder] and unfortunately because of my position on the Intelligence Committee I can’t sit here and reiterate that for you, and in that regard I can’t comment on that.” Risch then said he could comment on the 17 Saudi nationals sanctioned by the U.S. government, but apparently his opinion about the Crown Prince is classified.

Again the question is why? Does Risch so value his access to the White House that he won’t summon moral outrage at the murder of a journalist whose body was dismembered with a bone saw and has still not been found? Why was he willing to launch his chairmanship by alienating fellow Republicans who must increasingly see him as an apologist for the heinous? Is Risch so concerned about a primary challenge from the far right that there is no “red line” of support for Trump that he will not cross?

In the same period that the senator was covering for the president and the Saudi Crown Prince he was effectively dismissing concerns about Trump campaign involvement with Russia. “It is simply not there,” the former prosecutor explained of his reading of Trump-Russia collusion. That certainty comes even as we now know that Paul Manafort, the convicted former Trump campaign chairman, was meeting with Russian operatives and sharing polling information literally while Trump was securing the GOP nomination in 2016.

In the face of mounting evidence of ongoing Russian efforts to interfere with American elections Risch told the Boise Chamber of Commerce recently “Russia is the most overrated country on the face of the planet. They get so much ink here. They get so much attention here, simply because of Trump, of course. These guys are incredibly inept. They are a nuclear power, there is no question about it. They certainly have some juice, there is no question about it. These guys, they are all bluster.”

Put that comment in context and again ask yourself why?

On July 27, 2016, then-candidate Trump looked straight into television cameras in Florida and said, “Russia, if you’re listening. I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” — messages Hillary Clinton was said to have deleted from a private email server.

“Actually, Russia was doing more than listening,” as the Associated Press reported last week. “It had been trying to help Republican Trump for months. That very day, hackers working with Russia’s military intelligence tried to break into email accounts associated with Clinton’s personal office. It was just one small part of a sophisticated election interference operation carried out by the Kremlin — and meticulously chronicled by special counsel Robert Mueller.”

And ask yourself why wouldn’t the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee want to get to the bottom of that and so much more?
 

Saving daylight

stapiluslogo1

Count me among the sympathizers for doing away with the twice-a-year changes between daylight savings and standard time. It may not quite deserve the label “the modern world’s dumbest ritual,” which seems to have been circulating with greater frequency the last few years, but, well ...

As long as care is taken how you do eliminate the changing times.

Idaho returns to daylight savings time soon, on March 10, so the recent move in the Idaho Legislature to take the state off the daylight savings schedule had timeliness going for it. That measure, House Bill 85, was defeated in the Idaho House overwhelmingly, 55 to 15. The debate against the bill (which evidently drew a lot of legislative support) centered on the idea that daylight savings time allows more time for summer recreational activities; baseball games seemed to be a major point of concern.

I’m skeptical that the change would have much effect on baseball. Its enthusiasts are often too invested to give up that easily, and schedule and lighting changes ought to be enough to solve most timing problems. I never much bought the original argument, either, that the change in daylight hours to savings time helps with farming in the spring planting season. As the bill sponsor said, reasonably, “We don’t change how many hours of daylight there are, we don’t change how many hours you have to enjoy it, we’re just adjusting the clock.” So adjust your wake-up time if you need to.

Idaho may not be looking to make day savings changes this year, but the issue isn’t dead everywhere. In Oregon, one state senator is calling her proposal “ditch the switch” (a cute slogan with some appeal to it) but would - in contrast to Idaho - keep Oregon on Daylight Savings Time year-round rather than eliminate it. (This proposal would go to Oregon voters as a ballot issue if the legislature approves it, which seems less than likely.) That would put Oregon in an unusual category of DST-only jurisdictions: Argentina, Belarus, Iceland, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Singapore, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan plus the Canadian province of Saskatchewan.

Adjustments like these do carry a few issues with them. And those have to do with the idea that individual states probably are not wise to go entirely freelance on setting their clocks.

The world is highly variable on DST; much of the planet doesn’t observe the clock change. (I sometimes listen to a radio station in Australia, where - in this sector at least - time changes not just once but twice each spring and fall.) The pattern is not checkerboard, however. Nearly all of Europe uses DST, as do Syria, Jordan and Israel. The bulk of North America does as well, though not all.

The reason such large regions tend to clump together on their use or disuse of DST seems to be that keeping track of what your neighbors are doing can be complicated. The whole system of standardized clock time started, after all, because train systems had trouble making their departure/arrival systems work properly if local jurisdictions all did their own thing on timekeeping. If Oregon switches to permanent DST, how do Idahoans - who at present know they’re one hour ahead in the south, and the same time as Oregon in the north - relate to that? (And what about that little jagged piece of Malheur County in Oregon that’s on Mountain time? Those Ontario people could be stuck on a temporal island.) If Idaho moved to standard time only, how would Washingtonians or Utahns keep track?

Oh, sure, they’d all probably get used to it. But it’s one more complicating factor.

The reason most of these changes probably won’t pass is this: If you aren’t careful with how you manage things like this, the world can get a lot more complicated. And not too many people want that.