Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in August 2021

What’s in a name?

meador

I am a RINO. That’s one of the names they call me, along with clever gems like “libtard.” I’ve been called much worse, some of it, no doubt, deserved. For the most part, I don’t take it personally, recognizing that name-calling is a tool of those who have limited thinking and vocabulary skills. But I am becoming enamored of this little RINO label.

A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. The term has been around for decades, gaining increasing popularity in the 1990s. It’s usually used by conservative Republicans when they’re displeased with a moderate caucus member. People like John McCain and Mitt Romney were called RINO fairly regularly. As you might imagine, with the G.O.P. tacking right and sharply tightening its ideological rigidity, the term RINO is being used rather a lot these days — at least with those RINOs like me who are too stubborn to desert the party that long ago deserted us. With the bold insistence on ideological purity the party boasts today, enough of us have departed that the numbers of moderates remaining is fast dwindling. This is the natural outcome when a once-welcoming party tightens the requirements of membership to the point of strangulation.

I’m not sure what the endgame is, but I find it difficult to believe current party leaders are unaware their insistence on ideological lockstep is, by its very definition, the narrowest possible interpretation of the party’s breadth. In other words, when you hone your doctrine to a razor point, you exclude all the people you once embraced — people who were once solid allies, even if they didn’t see eye-to-eye with you on an issue or two. When your ideology is narrow and rigid — when you demand adherence to that dogma — you have reduced your party to its purest form. While this might be satisfying from a purely dogmatic perspective, it makes no sense if you care about growth and sustainability. The only way I could see this strategy working is if the membership of the New Republican Party got busy having babies to raise in the umbra of the party ideology.

When Craig Berkman’s party was in place, Republicans actually had a chance at winning statewide offices in Oregon. Back then, Republicans usually played well with others, eschewed conspiracy theories and had little trouble using the resources of academia, media and government to research and fact-check, even if some of those institutions did seem to tilt a little left. We were bright, reasonable and reasonably dignified. Best of all, we were respected — we didn’t do a whole lot to earn scorn and mockery.

How times have changed.

Today’s G.O.P. would be laugh-out-loud funny if it wasn’t both destructive and dangerous. What was once the big-tent party has become the my-way-or-the-highway party. What was once the party of optimism has become a cesspool of cynicism, inflexibility and conspiracy. What was once the party of light, is increasingly a pit of dark brooding and suspicion. This is not the party I joined and it’s not a party that gives me a lot of hope for the future.

For thousands of years, each successive generation has positioned itself slightly left of the one that preceded it. Think about it — it’s a sure thing that the people of my kids’ generation will collectively be slightly further left than the people of my own generation. Likewise, my generation tacked left from that of my parents. These inexorable shifts have redefined aspects of conservatism and liberalism before and they will do so again. Thus, a political party must from time to time reexamine its precepts, adjusting things when necessary. Where conservatives once stood vehemently opposed to women’s suffrage, for example, today most conservatives would fiercely defend a woman’s right to vote.

Back during the Reagan years, we loved the guy. Reagan’s optimism was contagious — his speeches made us proud to be Republicans, proud to be Americans. Even if hindsight has shown many of Reagan’s core policies to be deeply flawed, most of us remember the Reagan years fondly. For us, it seemed a happy and stable era. We’ll come back to this in a moment.

Moderates like me can look back and acknowledge that trickle-down economics was a failure — supply-side policies make dangerous assumptions. Deregulation did more harm than good in the long run. Scrapping the Fairness Doctrine was probably a bad idea. We can recognize plans that sounded good at the time were, in fact, bad plans. We can remain true to our core values while sculpting our party’s future based on learned knowledge — including our mistakes.

A moment ago, I said the 80s seemed good to us. The current iteration of the G.O.P. pines for that milquetoast stability of the 1980s, that halcyon period when law-abiding, middle-class white people had it good, Black people weren’t clamoring for change, new pronouns weren’t on the agenda, a Latino majority was over half a century away and Portland didn’t reek of pee.

I hate to break it to them but those days are long gone and there’s no way to get them back.

Aside from the Taliban-style hijacking of a once-great party, what bothers me most is that the not-so-G.O.P. effectively ignores our mistakes, claiming many weren’t errors at all even in the face of very obvious evidence. As a grand example, consider the litany of policies and practices that effectively hobbled Black Americans from achieving the so-called American Dream — a college education, home ownership, business ownership, savings, et.al. Why shouldn’t the party of Lincoln be perfectly positioned —indeed, even eager — to help right the intentional wrongs inflicted on Black Americans over the last hundred-or-so years?

That question was rhetorical — I know there’s not a chance in hell of today’s G.O.P. correcting a moral evil when most of its members blithely deny wrongdoing was committed in the first place. Yep, Black people had a totally level playing field, same as whitefolk. The whites-only G.I. Bill, redlining, employment and income disparities, sentencing and incarceration rates, none of these had any effect on anyone — well, no effect on white people, anyway.

Today’s Republican Party doesn’t want me because I want to fix mistakes they don’t believe exist. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t want me because I believe some aspects of conservatism might need updating. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t want me because I think for myself and I don’t march lockstep with the party’s non-negotiable ideology. Viewed this way, calling me a RINO is an affirmation far more than a pejorative.

So go ahead, call me a RINO, I’m cool with that.

But while we’re on the topic of names, let me offer you a small tip. When you call me a libtard, you make yourself look like a dullard.

Is it legal?

rainey

Something’s happening in our country that’s, thus far, escaped much attention. But, in the name of good, lawful government, we should acknowledge what could eventually be a bad situation.

The nub of it is this. When it is right to ignore a lawfully issued order from proper authority? Given such an order to do - or not do - something, when it is proper -and legal - to say “No?”

Local school boards - honest, hard working local school boards - are facing that quandary right now in several states. States, wherein, governors have issued legally proper executive orders banning masks for teachers and children in public schools.

Now, right here, I’ve gotta say, I don’t agree with such orders, either. We should be taking whatever measures we can - everywhere - to insure the safety of our kids. All of ‘em.

But, the issue becomes which lawful orders do we ignore and which lawful orders do we follow? If it’s O.K. to disobey on this issue, what about some other order? On some other important matter?

Suppose a governor - by executive order - closes a state park because of recent animal attacks. Do you stay out, obeying the order? Or do you go to your favorite campground, well-armed? Disobeying the order.

What if your governor - by executive order - orders closure of four favorite lake because of deadly algae? Do you stay away, obeying the order? Or, do you launch your boat anyway? Disobeying the order.

While agreeing school boards should take every opportunity to keep kids and their teachers safe, how do we deal with opposing an executive order from the governor? A legal order? Even if it goes against the best medical authority?

Well, some school districts are not obeying. They’re ordering everybody to “mask up” and take such other precautions as necessary. “Damn the order - full speed ahead” sort of thing. Legally, can they do that?

One Texas school district - faced with such a conundrum - came up with a loophole of sorts. It simply rewrote the mandatory dress codes and included masks. Neat. Others are issuing mask orders before the effective date of the executive action. Cute.

Here in Arizona, our Governor is offering parents and school districts who support his “no mask” order grants of money. Yep, he’s paying people for their support! Up to $7-thousand a student! “Kill a kid, make a buck.” Damn!

Governors in Florida, Arizona and other states, trying to implement “no mask” orders, are wrong. Full stop! Each swore an oath upon taking office to provide for the safety and well-being of the citizenry. Allowing COVID to kill people is a violation of that oath, I would think.

It’ll be interesting to see if governors, faced with contrary school boards, take them to court. Normally, I’d say doubtful. But, we’re dealing with DeSantis in Florida, Ducey in Arizona and a few elsewhere. So, normal may not hold up if they’re determined to seek court decisions to back up their dubious orders.

If it comes to that, judges will be faced with a tough decision. Do they support chief executives by declaring the issuance of such orders are lawful and, therefore, require obedience? Or, despite legal strictures, do they allow “exemptions” for millions of kids and teachers?

And one more question. If school boards are supported by the courts, will there be other cases in which people ignore an executive order based on some school board precedent?

As I said, this question of disobeying lawful orders of a duly recognized authority isn’t getting much attention.

Maybe it should be.

(image)

A solicitor with Idaho background

jones

President Joe Biden has nominated a native Idahoan, Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar, to serve as next Solicitor General of the United States. If confirmed by the U.S.Senate, she would be the second woman to head that office. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who served from 2009 to 2010, was the first. Prelogar would be the forty-sixth U.S. Solicitor General (SG) since Congress established the position in 1870.

The SG is a powerful legal position in the U.S. Department of Justice, just below the Attorney General. The office represents the interests of the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court, deciding which cases to appeal to the Court on behalf of the government and defending cases brought against the U.S.

The newest appointee to the SG office was born in Boise to Rudy and Jeanne Barchus in 1980. I don’t recall meeting Prelogar, but I knew her father, Rudy. He was an irrepressible individual and a talented lawyer who served as first head of the Consumer Protection Division in Idaho Attorney General Wayne Kidwell’s office. Rudy provided a good start for Prelogar’s remarkable legal career.

Prelogar graduated from Boise High School in 1998, graduated summa cum laude from Emory University in 2002 and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 2005. In the interim she earned a master’s degree in creative writing from the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

Law clerkships with distinguished jurists are highly prized by new law school graduates and it is extremely unusual to get more than one. However, Prelogar managed to get three. Her first was with then-judge Merrick Garland on the influential District of Columbia Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Garland is now The U.S. Attorney General. She then clerked for two Supreme Court Justices, first Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and then Elena Kagan.

Prelogar joined a prestigious law firm’s appellate practice division and later, from 2014 to 2019, served as an attorney in the SG’s office. Perhaps because she is fluent in Russian, she was briefly assigned to the investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 U.S. presidential election being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. After six years in the SG’s office, Prelogar went out to private law practice, but was named in January of 2021 as principal deputy solicitor general and acting SG.

Prelogar is more than a talented lawyer. She is reportedly blessed with a good sense of humor, like her father. In December 2016, she squared off with then-judge Brett Kavanaugh (before his elevation to the Supreme Court) in a comedic mock trial involving the “wrongful death” of Romeo and Juliet.

Some may also recall that Prelogar was Miss Teen Idaho in 1998, Miss Idaho U.S.A. in 2001 and Miss Idaho in 2004. As Miss Idaho, she spent a year traveling to classrooms around the Gem State to raise awareness about showing sensitivity to individuals with disabilities.

In my estimation, President Biden has made an outstanding selection to run the government’s legal business before the Supreme Court. Prelogar has impeccable qualifications to advocate for the people and to support the legal foundation of this country. I expect to see even bigger things in her future. Idahoans can be proud of this fine product of their State.
 

Give him a break

mckee

President Biden made absolutely the correct decision to dump Afghanistan. There were no good options. We had to get out and chaos was imminent the moment we left. It is significantly better to get the loss we are bound to suffer behind us now than continue the agony of delay. Nothing would be gained by remaining, with much more to be lost.

American involvement in Afghanistan was hopeless. The military occupation of Afghanistan was a mistake from the beginning. It was an outgrowth of President Bush declaring a “war” on a common crime. Prior to 9/11 all terrorist activities were prosecuted in civilian criminal courts. After 9/11, with Bush’s “War Powers Act” enacted in response to the attack, terrorists could also be tried in military courts. Since 9/11 civilian criminal courts have continued to try individuals of terrorist activities and have convicted more than 660. Military tribunals have convicted eight, two of which were overturned on appeal. Guantanamo was created and continues to exist as a military, diplomatic and constitutional cancer, ignored by the powers of every administration to inherit it, and with no end in sight.

Afghanistan attracted the attention of Bush’s forces because it was thought to be the hangout of Osama Bin Laden and the location of Al Qaeda training facilities. The initial military objective was to find Bin Laden and to destroy the Al Qaeda training facilities. What we should have done is treat the situation as the remnants of an ordinary crime, gone into the country with targeted military maneuvers to get in, destroy Al Qaede resources, and get out.

Instead, we instituted a major military operation under the War Powers Act. We did clean up the training facilities, but Bin Laden slipped away. Once in country with a major military force, we appeared to sweep out the Taliban. The U.S. established military bases near all major cities in the country and settled down to assist in reforming the government.

It is not clear when the mission changed from pursuing Al Qaeda to assisting the Afghan government remain in power, but it did change – to national activity the U.S has proved itself to be notoriously inept at accomplishing. Whether we acted militarily or diplomatically, history is strewn with our failures in the area bringing about productive, positive change in the government of any country that has not invited our participation.

Initially in this case, we were taught that the Taliban were allies of Al Qaeda, beset with the same international goals, and therefore justifiably declared enemies of the West. We now know this to be wrong. The Talban are an intensely nationalistic sect of radical Islam, with no international aims of any kind. It is a brutal regime, to be sure, but it did not and does not share any of the international aims of Al Qaeda. The Taliban had no bone to pick with us outside of our involvement and interference with their country.

Compare our initial impression of VIET Nam’s Ho Chi Min, whom, we were told, was an international communist and an ally of Red China. As it turned out, nothing could be farther from the truth. Uncle Ho had no interest in international communism and was intensely distrustful of his Chinese neighbor; his only interest was in the people of Viet Nam and fin seeing reunification of the country. We were led down exactly the same path with respect to the Taliban in Afghanistan as was fed to us about Ho Chi Min in Viet Nam.

It took years to convince the leaders of our country – through three administrations and into a fourth – that strange as it may appear, most Afghans prefer the Taliban to anything the West was proposing in the way of leadership for their country. Despite how brutal the Taliban were to their own people, we continued to lose ground in the country. We were making no progress in reorganizing the government or finding competent leaders to take over. Corruption was rampant, incompetence everywhere, and the government in place was ineffective. There were, and are, no realistic prospects of positive change.

Exactly the same result was occurring in Afghanistan to our efforts to reform the country as happened to us in our efforts to establish a viable government in Viet Nam. A return to the brutal government of the Taliban was expected by everyone – the only issues were how long it would take once we were out of their way. For us to remain longer would only postpone the inevitable, it would not have resulted in any difference in the result. The disaster that resulted was completely predictable to anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of history.

Certainly, Biden should pursue rescue missions to bring out those most in danger of any Taliban take over. But this is a new mission, centered on U.S. and humanitarian interests, and is not in any wat connected to the existing Afghan regime. It’s a new mission, not a continuation of the old and the distinction is significant. Perhaps the Taliban might even assist us in our new efforts.

Get off Biden’s neck and give him a break. Let’s see what he does next.

Whither the federal money

hartgen

In just a few days, Idaho will begin its annual budget process with agencies submitting their initial proposals for the upcoming budget year. But already, the state is working on how to spend and manage a federal windfall from federal COVID-19 payments of over $1.4 billion.

A working group has already started on how the money can best be leveraged for the best long-term goals. Some on the left want to see increases in salaries for teacher pay and a long list of social welfare programs. They see the new money as a “need” which never ends.

Looking further ahead, others think the money would best be invested in Idaho’s many infrastructure needs, including community sewer systems, broadband, water purification and similar projects. (IdahoPress, 7/30).

They make a good case. Social service spending is always going to be part of Idaho’s budget, and there has rarely been money beyond routine state revenues to deal with infrastructure. That’s why it makes sense to direct this windfall to capital projects that will benefit Idahoans for years to come.

Put simply, it’s either now or piecemeal later. Take transportation for example. Idaho is a huge state (over 80,000 square miles) with long stretches of highways, important bridges and increasing traffic volume. While the state roads have ranked relatively well in national surveys, (Reason Foundation) there’s much to be done, particularly on secondary and county roads.

Take a drive anywhere this month in southern Idaho and you’ll see numerous agricultural trucks, and heavy farm equipment moving about the highways to bring in the harvest. A good transportation system is essential for Idaho products to move, from then production to processing to shipping to a hungry world.

Against this rapid growth, many Idaho communities, particularly small ones, are relying on water and sewer systems that are obsolete. These systems often date back to when the towns were first founded more than 100 years ago. They are badly in need of upgrades virtually everywhere and many are under the watchful eyes of new federal water and sewer regulations on contaminants like arsenic. Using the federal money to work on reducing these federal mandates would also give taxpayers relief from having to fund them out of property taxes, a welcome change indeed.

The same is true with broadband expansion. If we want a vibrant rural economy, we need to provide the broadband infrastructure to deliver it. This is similar to the 1920s and early 1930s, when farsighted lawmakers first approved rural electrification across America. That decades-long initiative brought electricity to rural users and thus brought rural prosperity to much of the country.

Wisely, legislators and the office of Gov. Brad Little have put together working groups to prioritize uses across this far-flung state. Additional money is expected on the transportation side through the state’s plan to increase roads and bridges funding from a growing portion of online sales.

And that’s before the recently-passed federal infrastructure money comes down to the states. Projects like the third bridge over the Snake River near Twin Falls and Jerome, as well as improvements to roads and highways in the Treasure Valley, are high on the radar of needed work. So are improvements to Highway 95, Idaho’s, Idaho’s primary “goat path” corridor connecting North Idaho with the rest of Idaho.

There are those who think Idaho should reject all federal money as a way of asserting our so-called state sovereignty. These legislators, led by arch-conservatives like Ron Nate, R-Rexburg, and backed by the Idaho Slavery Foundation, want to keep Idaho a backward and ignorant state in which their out-of-state monied interests can dominate governmental affairs.

But failure to invest in our future needs is indeed shortsighted. Nate and others want to dismantle government at every level. The state they envision would indeed be a backward place.

A recent article points in a better direction. Led by Gov. Little, and including key legislators, agencies, and outside groups, these working groups are planning ahead. They want to build a better state, not one that wallows in conspiracy theories, archaic economic notions and cherry-picked constitutional clauses. (Idaho Press, 7/30).

Advocates for spending on social programs and pay raises typically overlook where Idaho’s revenue really comes from, which is from hard-working folks in industries like natural resources such as agriculture, forest products, mining and energy research. Without these, we’d be a state of recreationalists crowded onto limited rivers and waterways. We’d still be a beautiful state in the travel brochures, but not so much for people living and working here.

There’s nothing wrong inherently with recreation activities nor industries like tourism and retail shopping. These are important features of a mixed economy. But without investment in the basics, Idaho’s appeal would be certainly lessened. There are lots of national parks in America and open spaces, and people don’t want to drive on inadequate roads to get there.

As with other common-sense issues, the Idaho Legislature is likely to focus on these infrastructure needs, along with aquifer replenishment and water storage. Many legislators know how important their local economies are. It’s a matter of keeping things in balance.

With money now available to make important improvements, Idaho would be foolish indeed to turn away from these essential tasks.

Stephen Hartgen, Twin Falls, is a retired five-term Republican member of the Idaho House of Representatives, where he served as chairman of the Commerce & Human Resources Committee.  Previously, he was editor and publisher of The Times-News (1982-2005). He can be reached at Stephen_Hartgen@hotmail.com.

This is on us

johnson

In his first book, published in 1898, the solider, politician, historian and future British prime minister Winston Churchill wrote about The Malakand Field Force, a military unit that fought native tribes in the wild region along the Indian-Afghanistan border. As junior cavalry officer in the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars, Churchill was a first-hand observer of the campaign.

With words that ring down through the years, Churchill, very definitely a proper English gentleman, wrote: “The difficult language, and peculiar characteristics of the tribesmen are the study of a lifetime.” To operate in this place, Churchill suggested, required mastery of the local conditions, the role played by the tribal power brokers in every village and region, and “the general history and traditions of the country.”

“Men are needed who understand the whole question,” Churchill wrote, “and all the details of the quarrel, between the natives and the Government, and who can in some measure appreciate both points of view. I do not believe that such are to be found in an army.”

Re-read that last sentence as you think about sorting through the debris of 20-years of American military intervention in Afghanistan. Then consider the words of John Sopko, the special inspector general at the Pentagon, who just released what can only be termed a scathing report on the American misadventure.

Among the inspector general’s conclusions: Not only did the United States – both militarily and diplomatically – lack a coherent strategy in Afghanistan – another way of saying we didn’t know what we were trying to accomplish – but the entire $145 billion effort was crippled by the lack of “a detailed understanding of the country’s social, economic, and political dynamics … U.S. officials [were] consistently operating in the dark, often because of the difficulty of collecting the necessary information.”

Nearly the same words Sir Winston penned at the end of the 19th Century.

The recriminations and blame assigning are in full flower, a typical if wholly ineffective Washington, D.C. reaction to a military and diplomatic failure. American politicians are terrific at hyperbole and denial, not so good at solutions.

Idaho’s Jim Risch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to cite just one example, helpfully noted this week: “We cannot treat [the Taliban] or its leaders as a legitimate government.” Risch went on to assign all the blame to the current occupant of the White House, who has lived there for eight months. “President Biden and his administration must answer for this disaster,” Risch said. “It didn’t have to be this way.”

But of course, Risch offered no real policy ideas. What would he do not to have it this way? When Risch chaired the Foreign Relations Committee for two years during the Trump Administration not once did he hold a public hearing on American policy in Afghanistan. He could have summoned any “expert” in the world to testify. He didn’t, and only one time did Risch succeed in getting the secretary of state before his committee, and that hearing was almost entirely devoted to the department’s budget and Mike Pompeo’s ethics, or lack thereof.

You’ll search in vain for any Risch concern about the Trump negotiated deal that released 5,000 Taliban fighters and effectively did recognize the Taliban as “a legitimate government.” In June, Risch was meeting in Washington with Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, who it is now reported fled the country with bags filled with millions of U.S. dollars.

Risch said at the time, “there are options in-between departing Afghanistan entirely or remaining there forever.” Risch did not – and still has not – spelled out what he meant by that. One suspects because what he said sounds better in theory than in practice.

To be sure, Risch is not alone in embracing the attitude of “don’t do anything, fail to suggest any workable approach, but keep you options open to complain.” It’s the modus operandi for official Washington. Risch is a good example, however, if only because he is so blatantly obvious about playing the game.

Let’s stipulate at least two things: Joe Biden is the responsible party. He made the call and set the timeline, but he also inherited a colossal mess that has bedeviled four presidents, two from each party.

Second, the Americans who fought, were injured and died in Afghanistan deserve our respect, admiration and thanks, even as we must hold to account those who sent them and commanded them; those who lived for 20 years in a la la land of self-delusion.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius has consistently offered some of the most important insights into our Afghan debacle. “The hard truth is that this failure is shared by a generation of military commanders and policymakers,” Ignatius wrote this week, “who let occasional tactical successes in a counterterrorism mission become a proxy for a strategy that never was. And it was subtly abetted by journalists who were scratching our heads wondering if it would work, but let the senior officials continue their magical thinking.”

In his narrative of “magical thinking,” Ignatius quotes Admiral Mike Mullen, the former Joint Chief’s chairman, during one particularly rough patch in the long history of rough patches in Afghanistan. “We need to tell our story,” Mullen tells a group of military and diplomatic officials during a video conference, to which Ignatius remarks: “With all due respect to Mullen: The problem isn’t with the story. It’s with the reality.”

Here are two big realities in the wake for the chaotic U.S. departure from Kabul:

Americans who say they venerate our military must quit asking those soldiers to do impossible things in our names, while we largely ignore the reality of their sacrifice and steadfastly refuse to focus on serious issues. Truth be told many Americans couldn’t find Afghanistan on a map. We autopiloted this catastrophe, handing it over to a bunch of petty partisans like the junior senator from Idaho and then fell back on our tribal divisions.

Next week it we’ll be on to something else because, as Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic, we are unserious people governed by unserious politicians. By huge margins we originally embraced the effort in Afghanistan only to lose interest and then ignore things, at least until this week.

Unless we wise up, we’ll do it all again, and again.

“But before we move on, before we head back to the mall,” Nichols wrote, “before we resume posting memes, and before we return to bickering with each other about whether we should have to mask up at Starbucks, let us remember that this day came about for one reason, and one reason only. Because it is what we wanted.”

Next time you’re tempted to thank a veteran for his or her service, ask yourself whether you’ve exercised your responsibilities as well as they have.

Kicking the can

stapiluslogo1

Last November, I started a column with this barbed quote from Washington Governor Jay Inslee:

“I have urged the Idaho leaders to show some leadership. One of the reasons we have such jammed up hospitals in Spokane is because Idaho, frankly, has not done some of the things we’ve found successful.”

The states are still doing things differently, though both have experienced recent protests from people complaining about nearly anything the states have done to curtail Covid-19. The results between the two are distinctive. One study placed Washington among the 10 states with the highest vaccination rates, and Idaho among the 10 states with the lowest. An article pointed out, "In the 10 states with the lowest vaccination rates, there is an average of about 34 deaths per 1 million residents, and in states with the highest, the average is six deaths per 1 million, according to data from Johns Hopkins University."

This gets echoed, in turn, in Covid-19 cases loads and death rates.

The pandemic could largely have been over by now. Vaccination has worked; as with other vaccines, some cases still slip through even with the inoculated, but populations which are more thoroughly vaccinated have either avoided Covid-19 entirely or experienced few impacts from it. The return of masking is a direct result of people failing to obtain free and easily available vaccines. Blame usually is a tricky thing to conclusively assign, but it’s not hard to do in this case.

The pandemic is not over. Here are some headlines on the Idaho Statesman web site during a single day last week:

“Canyon County hit with largest COVID-19 case increase since last November.” “More Idahoans are using ivermectin to treat COVID-19. Officials warn it could be dangerous.” (The newest member of one of Idaho’s regional health boards repeatedly has promoted ivermectin for the purpose.) “North Idaho health system nears capacity as COVID-19 surge worsens. State adds 22 deaths.” “Sheriff vows to still fight Washington COVID rules after being hospitalized with virus.” “Christian radio host who asked if vaccine is form of government control dies of COVID.” “Unvaccinated dad dies of COVID in Texas months after child is born.”

Those headlines come a couple of weeks after the state narrowly averted an Idaho legislative session for which the plan was in essence to prevent almost anyone - including private businesses, most of which have been acting very responsibly - to take steps to avoid illness and stay healthy.

One of the top stories of last week was a warning from state health officials that some Idaho hospitals are two weeks away from being swamped with Covid-19 cases - this, months after vaccines have become widely available and only a little longer than that since Idaho hospitals previously were pushed to the breaking point.

Dr. Kathryn Turner, the state's deputy state epidemiologist, seemed to suggest in a news story that may be only the beginning: “The surge is driving our projections upward to about 30,000 cases per week by mid-October. This is beyond what we saw last winter, when our cases peaked in December.”

And hospitalizations in the state could run to 2,500 a week.

This could have and should have been not much more than a one-year pandemic: Three or four months ago, we were on track to containing it, with an end or near-end to the masking and all the rest.

Now, because of specific groups of people determined to wage culture war - and sorry if that offends you, but that is the reason - it continues on, and we’re stuck with having to contain a health fire that should be mostly extinguished by now.

We’re past the point where a newly mutated virus is doing this to us. We’re now more at a point where we’re doing it to ourselves.

A tiny minority

meador

I am disgusted with what we’ve become. It’s all or nothing, one extreme or the other, not even a fleeting consideration that perhaps the edges are wrong and maybe a bit of truth lies near the center.

A guy named David Lidstone — River Dave to his friends — has apparently been squatting for 27 years on private property in Canterbury, New Hampshire. Squatting, if you were unaware, is the act of a person or people living on or in property that doesn’t belong to them. As you might expect, squatting is illegal.

River Dave, a U.S. Air Force veteran, has spent nearly three decades living in the woods along the Merrimack River. The 81-year-old’s tiny cabin is cluttered inside, tidy outside and adorned with bird feeders, a thriving climbing rose and even solar panels. Or I should say “was” — River Dave’s little home was burned to the ground today after he was arrested and jailed, charged with squatting. None of these facts are in dispute.

Here’s where the disgust with my fellow humans comes in. While reading about River Dave’s plight, I also read many dozens of remarks my fellow Americans penned about the man.

The remarks were about evenly split between River Dave’s supporters and detractors, unsurprisingly grouped in bursts or clusters of like-minded sentiment. Dave’s supporters voiced what seemed like genuine concern and compassion for the jailed octogenarian, vigorously condemning anyone who would remove him from his little plot. Not one of them — not one! — acknowledged that what River Dave had been doing for 27 years was illegal. On the other side, Dave’s detractors had awful things to say, ranging from heartlessly urging his permanent incarceration to much, much worse. Not a shred of compassion.

Are we collectively so polarized that we can no longer demonstrate compassion for a fellow human being? I’m not talking that false 1980s-style tough-love type of compassion — that was little more than virtue signaling then and is no different now. It’s empathy in name only, allowing its giver to appear as if he actually cares.

On the other hand, are we so hell-bent on thwarting the other side that we can’t admit that what River Dave was doing was, in fact, illegal? We only have to look about 30 miles to the northeast to see the poster city for what happens when you celebrate tolerance without accountability.

Is there no middle ground?

To be sure, River Dave was breaking the law and had been doing so for many years. But arresting an 81-year-old man and destroying everything he owns — even if what he owned wasn’t sitting on his land — is not the solution of a humane society. I assure you, the irony of New Hampshire’s state motto “Live Free or Die” does not escape me.

Those who say a law is a law and a lawbreaker deserves whatever he gets are missing the point. River Dave isn’t guilty of bank robbery or rape. He’s an old man who built a little cabin on land he didn’t own and lived in it for almost 30 years. For the bulk of that time, no one knew Dave was there except for the kayakers and canoeists who paddled the Merrimack River and befriended the kindly bearded old guy who lived on the shore.

Reports say River Dave grew his own food, cut his own firewood and tended to his cat and his chickens. His little cabin included a small garden plot and neatly stacked firewood. Dave’s place was quirky but it was nothing like the public image of a homeless encampment.

The property on which Dave was squatting is a 70-plus acre plot once used for timber harvesting. It’s been owned by the same family since the 1960s — the family has no plans to develop the land. According to River Dave, one of the owners gave him permission to live there many years ago but it was an oral agreement, nothing written. The listed owner of the property, Leonard Giles, 86, lives in Vermont and denies Dave’s claim. Giles says he was unaware River Dave was even there until alerted by the Canterbury city administrator’s office in 2015.

Again, there is no doubt River Dave was breaking the law. As such, Dave should expect an appropriate penalty and his living situation clearly needs to be changed. But is incarceration and destruction of his possessions a solution an advanced and humane society should laud? Is the hateful venom directed toward an old man who just wanted to be left alone something we should accept as normal? Are we not both clever and kind enough to envision a solution that doesn’t include incarceration and destruction for one old man or the taking of land from another?

On a much larger scale than River Dave and his little plot of land that’s not his, I believe this ugly divide illustrates what U.S. society has become. These days, it’s almost embarrassing to be an American not because of anything in our collective history but because our current behavior has devolved to that of myopes, morons and unabashed assholes.

I feel bad for River Dave and his cat and chickens. I also feel bad for Mr. Giles, the property owner who didn’t ask for or deserve all the less-than-uplifting attention he’s now getting.

I wish I didn’t feel like my position makes me part of such a tiny minority.

UPDATE: Contrary to early reports, after River Dave was jailed on July 15, many of his personal possessions had been removed before a suspected arsonist torched his cabin.

After a whirlwind of publicity, River Dave was inundated with offers of help, including $180,000 from Alexander Karp, CEO of Palantir Technologies. River Dave has been given temporary housing at least into spring 2022, until construction on a new — and legal — home can begin. According to kayaker Jodie Gedeon, one of River Dave’s friends and advocates, the location is being kept secret to protect the 81-year-old former hermit’s privacy. A trust has been established in River Dave's name.

Reports say River Dave has been reunited with his cats — two cats, not one — and chickens and many of his personal possessions.

It’s nice to see a happy ending, now and then.

The Critchfield argument

malloy

Officially, State Superintendent Sherri Ybarra is undecided about seeking a third term, spending her energies preparing for the start of a new school year.

Debbie Critchfield, a Republican candidate who is vying for Ybarra’s job, assumes that the state superintendent is running again and is campaigning accordingly. Critchfield, a former president of the State Board of Education and no fan of Ybarra, thinks she has the leadership skills to move Idaho public schools in a better direction.

A third candidate, Brandon Durst – a former Democratic state representative who aligns himself with the right wing of the GOP – gives Republican primary voters a wide range of options in next year’s election.

Critchfield says eight years of Ybarra is enough. Critchfield is a communications officer with the Cassia County schools and was a school board member there for 10 years. She served seven years on the state board and two of those years as president -- enough time to observe Ybarra’s job performance.

“I spent seven years at the state-education table and had a front row seat on setting policies and everything associated to assist schools,” said Critchfield. “Although the work has been satisfying, I have been frustrated with the response from our elected official (Ybarra) with the lack of cohesiveness and lack of thinking and the lack of partnership between the appointed board and an elected official. I think, overall, the state system has suffered from that fractured relationship. And I feel that over the last seven years, education has fallen flat at the state level.”

Critchfield has heard plenty of complaints about the superintendent, including missing important meetings, going lengthy periods of time away from the office, a poor working relationship with Republican legislators and generally being ignored by administrators and teachers throughout the state. Ybarra, no doubt, will have a different perspective if she goes for a third term. But Critchfield says the critics are on solid ground.

“I repeatedly hear from school officials that they are looking for leadership and support. They are looking for a state superintendent who will be their advocate and champion. It doesn’t take the form of micromanaging, that’s not my style. But along the way, you develop a plan, determine how much money it’s going to cost and the expected results. Then, you take that to the Legislature. I have not seen that kind of action from (Ybarra) over the last seven years,” Critchfield says.

“When you have a person who can work with the Legislature, the governor, the state board and other stakeholders, you have cohesiveness and efficiency in the system,” she said. “People are frustrated with the lack of progress. For instance, 85 percent of students take some sort of dual credit (for college), but only 40 percent go to college. I can go through every category and tell you exactly where the problem is. We don’t have anybody serving that critical role right now – saying here’s the plan and here’s how we’re going to do it.”

She takes a relatively safe stand on three hot-button issues – the wearing of masks (let local districts decide), vaccine requirements (parents should decide) and Critical Race Theory (more discussion is needed).

On CRT, she says, “School officials are saying that it’s not being taught, but that’s not enough. This is an issue that people are talking about and want to hear about, so let’s address it. In the end, it’s either a bigger problem than we thought, or not much of a problem at all.”

Politically, Critchfield has a tough task going against an incumbent who is an effective public speaker with a proven ability to win over Republican voters. Ybarra has been more vulnerable in general elections, winning both of her races by razor-thin margins.

Crutchfield thinks she can win by more convincing numbers in November elections.
“What do we have to show in seven years under her? Nothing,” Critchfield says. I know the codes and pressure points, and I have developed relationships statewide. I would be ready to go from Day 1.”

With Idaho at, or near, the bottom of a number of education categories, Critchfield will have no shortage of talking points about the issues facing public schools.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com