Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in March 2025

Remembering Vietnam

March 31, 2025

March 29 is Vietnam War Veterans Day, the day set aside to remember and honor those who served in that ill-fated war. A phone call earlier this month brought to mind a perfect example of what dedicated service-to-country looks like. My friend, James Peterson, called to say that he would be undergoing surgery for a dangerous cancer, likely the result of his substantial exposure to Agent Orange during two tours of service with the Special Forces (SF) in Vietnam. It hit me hard because here was a man who had dedicated his life to standing up for his country and now was faced with a hefty price.

I met James in August 2006 at the 40th reunion of the Twin Falls High School’s Class of 1966 (my wife, Kelly, is a member of the class). We were at the City Park, refurbishing the memorial dedicated on Memorial Day in 1967 to those from Twin Falls County who died in the war. Seventeen names, starting with Major James H. Allred in 1963 and ending with PFC Fred S. Smart in 1970, were eventually placed on the memorial plaque. James spent many hours over the years, helping to keep up the memorial.

In that initial conversation, we established that we’d both been stationed in Tay Ninh Province in 1968–he at the Thien Ngon SF camp 71 miles northwest of Saigon and me with a heavy artillery unit near Tay Ninh City. The strangest thing happened when I mentioned that, as an aerial artillery spotter, I’d destroyed a river bridge south of Thien Ngon that enemy fighters used to transport weapons and supplies. James went to his car, opened the trunk, and brought back a picture of that very bridge. We bonded immediately.

It was not until years later we pieced together the fact that we had likely met at the Thien Ngon SF camp on September 30, 1968. He was the communications specialist at the camp; the SF commander for the Province was flying me around to introduce me to the artillery customers I would be serving. The Thien Ngon camp was in extremely hostile territory. Two days previously, it had been ferociously attacked by an estimated two battalions of North Vietnamese soldiers. The scars of the battle were still evident.

As Stars and Stripes described the battle, the Communists fired about 1,000 rockets, mortar rounds and grenades into the relatively small camp, then suffered 130 dead in trying but failing to overrun it. The six companies of Vietnamese defenders suffered 4 dead. Thirteen were wounded, including 4 SF advisors. James was not one of them. James described the event as just business as usual those many years later.

James’ service to the country did not stop there. Although I never asked him how he used his remarkable communication skills during the next several decades and he never explained, I have the abiding feeling he kept serving the country in a clandestine capacity. He commented in one reunion booklet that he’d had the “opportunity to work in communications and other fields and live in so many different countries both friendly and unfriendly.” James lived in The Bahamas for 19 years on his catamaran “Bifrost” until it was destroyed in a hurricane in 2019.

James made frequent visits to the Boise VA Hospital for a variety of conditions related to his service. Having been a gung-ho parachute jumper in his Army days (and perhaps in his later endeavors), his lower extremities needed frequent medical care. For a while, he parked a camp trailer on one of the two camper lots at the facility. He was and is a big fan of the VA Hospital.

We spoke after his recent surgery and he reported doing well. He has three daughters and one son, ten grandchildren and eleven great-grandchildren. He should have plenty of time and opportunity with them in this final chapter of his life to make up for his numerous years of dedicated service to his country.

In everything James has done, he has shunned publicity and recognition by way of medals, decorations and the like. He would be rather unhappy to know that I’m paying this tribute to his life of service. However, I can’t think of a better person to remember on Vietnam War Veterans Day than James Peterson, who came from tough beginnings to be a true patriot and fine example. Thanks, Brother.

 

A bigger frame

A bigger frame

March 30, 2025

On March 19 Oregon’s legislative budgeters released a framework for state spending for the next two years.

It brought to mind a famous response in the movie Jaws, to the appearance of the giant shark: You’re going to need a bigger frame.

By conventional standards the budget proposal, released by Joint Ways and Means Committee Co-Chairs Sen. Kate Lieber, D-Portland, and Rep. Tawna Sanchez, D-Portland, was, well, conventional, and their calling it “prudent” made sense. Along with some increases for education and human services, there were limitations and even cuts in safety, transportation and other areas.

It’s worth noting that the process is still in early stages. Budget work is likely to take two months or more, and much of the picture ordinarily does not settle until after the May revenue forecast.

But the real, big-storm impact that could come from federal cuts or policy adjustments could make a hash of many current assumptions. Legislators should be prepared for Oregonians looking to the state as a provider and protector of last resort if Trump Administration cuts and policy changes, some not yet in place or in uncertain status but strongly hinted at, come to fruition.

Almost a third of Oregon’s state budget, and large chunks of local government budgets, come from federal agencies. The Trump Administration appears intent on slashing large parts of that pass-through money. In some cases, that could mean putting off or abandoning planned-for projects.  In others, it can mean an inability to pay for what long have been considered basic services.

The federal developments did not escape notice in Salem, and budgeters already have been considering them - to a point. Lieber said "Oregon's budget is not designed to plug federal holes," Lieber said. "If the federal government cuts programs, they are inevitably going to hurt Oregonians."

There has nonetheless been reaction at the Statehouse already. One very visible piece of extra state activity has come in Attorney General Dan Rayfield’s office, which has initiated or participated in a long list of lawsuits against the Trump Administration. That extra activity, not really planned for a year or two ago, is not likely to slow.

On January 29, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement that “Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance.”

Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Stein responded, “Through the state’s responsible fiscal management, the state treasury has an adequate balance of funds to sustain vital federally funded programs in the short term. Oregonians depend on federal funds to ensure public safety, keep early learning programs and schools open, deliver health care, support farms and small businesses, maintain roads, care for seniors and other vulnerable people, fight wildfires and more. These funds support thousands of jobs in Oregon.”

All of that and more soon will be dumped in the lap of the legislature.

Small amounts - tiny in the context of the federal budget, but sometimes large and critical locally - are implicated for museums and libraries, and a long list of other organizations.

Cuts at the National Weather Service can affect the whole country, of course, but reported cuts among weather watchers on the Oregon coast can have drastic impacts locally.

Like many other states, Oregon state government spends much of its revenue on education. In the 2024 fiscal year, federal agencies gave the Oregon Department of Education $1.8 billion, and about 95% of it went to school districts. There’s no telling what that amount will look like now, especially with the projected demolition of the Department of Education.

Funding for the University of Oregon and Portland State University has been threatened.

The Trump Administration is likely to press for local law enforcement agencies to work on immigration issues. Oregon state law argues the other way. What happens to federal funding when the two conflict?

Local governments have been scrambling to find out if federal funds which had been expected for streets, water and sewer systems and more will actually materialize.

Many of these areas of federal fallout are well within the normal scope of state government activities.

The Trump Administration has proven so unpredictable that no one realistically can say what the federal funding picture will look like in three or four months. But if it resembles the administration’s impulses, there will be calls for Oregon’s government to do more to fill in gaps. Maybe much more.

This session is likely to get more difficult as it goes - and may become very difficult toward the end.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Message sent

Message sent

March 28, 2025

Higher education got a couple of messages in the last few days about where it stands in Idaho, and hints of where it might go. Taken together, the meaning is unmistakable.

One data point came in an obvious place: the legislature, and more specifically the budget-writing Joint Finance Appropriations Committee. On March 25 the committee was considering its final round (the procedure has gotten more complex the last couple of years) of budgeting for higher education, at a time when - it should be reminded - the state is flush with revenue and student populations and other activities at the institutions are expanding.

The committee has approved, more or less, a sliver of an increase for higher education generally. But on March 25, some of the members argued for dropping the ongoing funding for the University of Idaho and Boise State University by $2 million. (Back in the day, JFAC carefully avoided budgeting for individual institutions to avoid regional conflicts; but never mind.)

That $2 million is only a small piece of either university’s budget. Senator Codi Galloway of Boise, who opposed the move, accurately said, “The money here is not very important.” Galloway continued: “$2 million, when you take the balance out, the money is small. A message we send is big. If we ask our agencies to make changes, they make significant changes and we refuse to change course with them, then our power of the purse is no longer relevant.”

Well, accurate except maybe for the last few words, because ...

What was the problem the legislature was trying to telegraph here? One of the cut backers, Representative Josh Tanner of Eagle, said  “I’ve had a real tough time with universities. The more I dig in, the more frustrated I actually get. The more I actually look into – whether you look into the DEI aspects, critical race theory, the actual professors and some of the classes that are actually being taught – it saddens me to see the direction that our universities have taken.”

The one specific he mentioned here was DEI. But Galloway and others pointed out that the legislature has already acted against DEI, while the state board of education and the institutions have acted to cut it back even before being required to. (Obeying in advance, in other words.) Messaging on that subject was received and has been acted upon some time ago. As, quite reasonably, per Galloway: “We cannot ask people to make change, watch them make change and then continue to punish them.”

JFAC was deeply split on the cuts, which (because of the way one co-chair but apparently not the other interprets the now-complicated voting rules) was then sent to the Senate floor for action. Whatever the floor does, what you’re seeing here is something way short of a full-throated endorsement of higher education in Idaho - in fact, quite the opposite.

Now, the second recent news item, from March 20: The hiring of the new president of the University of Vermont - Marlene Tromp, who since 2019 has held the counterpart job at Boise State University.

She has an overall good track record at BSU, probably excellent if you consider the political environment she has faced, but people I’ve talked with were less surprised that she left than that she stayed so long. In many places (Vermont for example), and in the Idaho of years ago, the college and universities were seen as crown jewels in the state. Now they’re viewed - in many halls of power at least - as objects of disgust to be kicked at and hacked apart.

What does that suggest about the applicants to replace Tromp at BSU? For all Boise State’s recent growth and variety of successes, who would want the grief, or the risk that the institution might be wrecked under a DOGE-style administration?

Says a lot about the future, for a while at least, of higher education in Idaho.

(image)

 

The rub

The rub

March 27, 2025

Here’s the rub. In the old days, local news got very interested when the legislature, and our local representatives were messing with us down in the marble halls of the State Capitol.

Here in Moscow, Idaho, home of the flagship University for the state, THE University of Idaho (Go Vandals!) those days are gone. Our local paper no longer questions our representatives. And our representatives no longer talk to us. So, if the shiv is coming to our backside, we have little warning in the chow line.

The U of I has long been the home for the first-year medical students of the WAMI->WWAMI program. In 1972 Idaho joined with Washington, Alaska, Montana, and later Wyoming to form a consortium to train MD’s.

Back when it meant a couple professors and ten first year students, it didn’t mean a lot of cash for the local economy. But the program has grown. There are now 40 first year students, and that many second-year students are in town for another six months. And the well-paid faculty numbers have grown. And many graduates have returned to Idaho. I’m one.

So why would one of our local elected representatives be working to move this cash cow elsewhere?

Brandon Mitchell has served this district for five years. He lives here. He claims to be a good friend of the Director of the Idaho WWAMI program. But he has consistently voted to dump WWAMI.

His first effort was back in 2021 when he supported the “No Public Funds For Abortion Act”. This modest bill prohibited any entity getting Idaho taxpayer dollars from, among other things, “Provide training to provide for abortions.”

So, the University of Washington, whom we have this WWAMI deal with must comply with Idaho law if they want to keep getting Idaho dollars and students.

Here’s the rub. And it’s a rub you should all know. It comes down to definitions. How do you define “abortion”?

This “Act” says: “the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child.”

That might make sense to you but consider this. Under that definition, I should be in an Idaho prison.

There are some babies who are alive in the shelter of their mother’s wombs but will die upon birth. The doctor who delivers that baby, under current Idaho law is a felon, will lose their license. And Idaho required the University of Washington to not train our students how to care for these women.

Brandon Mitchell cosponsored this law. And he supports the current bills in the Idaho legislature to cut our affiliation with the University of Washington.

Honestly, I wouldn’t doubt the UW cares much. They state they regret the divorce. But why? Who wants a radical legislature telling them how to train physicians. According to many evaluators, WWAMI is the preeminent primary care program in the country. Why not build on the best?

And why send these dollars away from your local community to Utah, or BYU, or the private, for-profit medical school in Meridian?

These are decent questions our local paper should be asking of our elected representatives.

The U of I is also deflecting on these questions. They sound like a teenager explaining away their parents’ acrimonious divorce.

The U of I spends our taxpayer dollars to have a lobbyist, Brandon Mitchell’s predecessor, Caroline Nilsson Troy, in the Capitol. And we elect these clowns who want to shiv us in the chow line.

Why doesn’t the local paper cover this?

Do we even care?

I do. Don’t stab me in the back.

 

Quantum teleportation

March 25, 2025

Russian hacking.  Chinese hacking.  Iranian hacking.  We've been inundated with threats of internet hacking - real and dangerous - for many years now.

It's real, no matter the culprit.  Also real is the fact that American operatives have been doing the same thing to other nations and organizations.  We just don't talk about it.

We've repeatedly been made aware the Russians - and possibly the Chinese and others - have been electronically messing around in our national elections for several years.

But, what about our pitifully poor, exposed power grid?  What about military operations on which our security depends?  And our national data and other communications systems?  Anyone able to effectively block foreign hackers?

I'd like to be assured there are some very smart people developing really secure internet systems for our military, government operations, power plants, power grids and elections.  Problem is, if there are - and I'm sure there are - they can't openly tells us what they're doing.

But, some very smart people are telling us what's happening in other nations.  And their work is way over my head.  Yours, too, I'd guess.

In Holland, for example, the Dutch have created a secure trial link among three cities for data transmission using "quantum teleporation" and "quantum entanglement."  Not only is that a mouthful to pronounce, it's a science only a few really understand.

Regular internet transmission uses  "1's and O's."  Hackers have learned to intercept what's being transmitted.  But, using quantum physics, an atom, an electron or (for transmitting along optical cables) a photon of light, the "1's and O's" can be sent simultaneously.  It's called a "quantum bit" or "qubit."

When a hacker tries to get into a stream of qubits, the quantum information downloaded is unintelligible and the hacker leaves a clear signal of its presence.

The Chinese are already using "quantum key distribution" (QKD).  They have a satellite called "Micius" to transmit quantum keys to ground stations in Beijing and Austria.  The keys encrypt data for even secure video between the stations.  Attempts to intercept would destroy the keys and the hacker would get nothing because the data couldn't be decrypted.

China has another such link between Beijing and Shanghai for banks and large companies using commercial data.

There are limitations.  Photons can be absorbed in the atmosphere or by the cable materials.  The data will only travel fairly short distances.  So, "trusted nodes" or relay boosters are used at various points to operate like repeaters.  Data is amplified and sent along to the next station.  Better than we commonly use, but still problems to overcome.

So, the Dutch are trying "quantum teleporation."  They've been successful and are still working.  But, the system they have up and running only goes 35-40 miles between stations.

So, there's good and not-so-good news.  The good news is it works and appears to be "hack proof."  The bad is, thus far, there are distance limitations.  But, you know the Dutch.  "Finger in the dike" and all that.  They're committed to the system.

I know all this "quantum-nodes-entanglement-teleportation" stuff is not your everyday conversation.  To most of us, it's just a lot of words describing almost impossible-to-understand activity.

But, just knowing that somebody - somewhere - is deeply invested in development of seemingly hack-proof internet systems can be comforting.  I have to think this country's scientists, engineers and electronic "think tanks" are similarly digging around in the photons and electrons to make our vast world of data more impregnable.

Who knows?  Maybe we'll finally get a national election system that's hack-proof.  Then all we have to do is work on improving the quality of the candidates.

 

Defending our vets

Defending our vets

March 24, 2025

Veteran programs are in the sights of Russell Vought, who currently controls America’s purse strings. The US Constitution gave Congress that crucial responsibility, but our present GOP Congress has largely given over its power to Vought, who is now the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House. While multi-billionaire Elon Musk is slicing and dicing governmental agencies, Vought is making the financial calls that guide both Musk and the Congress. The consequences are starting to show up both on the national level and here in the Gem State.

A little background provides insight into what America’s veterans can expect. Vought was an architect of Project 2025, which called for major changes to veterans programs.

The plan is to slash staffing, reduce the disability rolls and privatize many services now performed by the VA. Those changes are now being implemented by Vought’s OMB.

The chaos started with the firing of about 2,400 VA employees. That disrupted treatment studies for advanced cancer cases and interrupted patient care across the country. The effects were felt at the Boise VA Hospital, where 14 employees were let go. Some were mission-critical personnel, who provided direct services to veterans. A federal judge found that the VA employees were unlawfully terminated and ordered their reinstatement. It remains to be seen whether the VA will obey the order.

Those initial firings are to be followed with the termination of about 83,000 more VA employees. A significant number of those staffers were hired to administer the PACT Act. That legislation was enacted in 2022 for the purpose of providing health care and benefits to veterans who suffered cancer and other ailments from exposure to toxic elements dating back to the 1960s.

Following the First Gulf War, veterans began complaining about a myriad of health problems they attributed to breathing toxic fumes from burn pits that were used for disposal purposes. The VA routinely denied benefits unless the veterans could furnish proof positive of the service connection. That was virtually impossible without strong scientific evidence. Similar claims were raised by veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of those claims were similarly denied.

The service connection between the exposure to toxins and the resulting diseases was firmly established by scientific evidence in 2009, leading to the eventual passage of the PACT Act. The Act extended care and benefits to veterans with illnesses related to burn pit toxins, as well as those suffering from several types of cancer caused by exposure to Agent Orange, dating back to the 1960s.

Previous to the PACT Act, claims for pancreatic cancer were routinely denied. The Act presumes pancreatic cancer to be service connected where exposure to Agent Orange is shown. I mention that because I was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2017 and always thought it was related to my exposure to Agent Orange. I’d managed to beat the cancer and never needed or obtained VA help to get the job done. It cost about $750,000 to overcome the disease, mostly Medicare and private insurance, but I often think of veterans who did not have those resources available and could not get VA help. The country finally came through for them.

Passage of the Pact Act was not easy because Vought and his allies strongly opposed it. As head of OMB, he is in a position to completely defund it. All four members of Idaho’s Congressional delegation voted against the PACT Act. Senators Risch and Crapo voted against the bill on three separate occasions.

OMB Director Vought, Project 2025 and the Idaho delegation may have the last say in denying medical care and benefits to veterans who are suffering from exposure to burn pit toxins and Agent Orange. The continuing resolution to fund the government until September does not provide funding for the PACT Act. I sincerely hope Congress will deal separately with this critical issue in the meantime. If not, there will likely be a need for more military funerals in the next six months.

 

The weighted vote

The weighted vote

March 23, 2025

The premise behind two constitutional amendments proposed by Republican lawmakers is that it’s too easy to place an initiative on the ballot in Oregon.

Buried inside that premise is that idea that some Oregonians’ clout in the initiative process should count more than for others.

Both House Joint Resolution 3 and HJR 11 aim to change the number of petition signatures needed for initiative backers to win a spot on the ballot.

Now, Oregonians who want to pass laws at the ballot need to gather valid signatures from 6% of the total number of votes cast for governor during the last gubernatorial election — just more than 88,000 signatures. The threshold for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments is higher at 8%, or nearly 118,000 signatures.

HJR 11 would raise the initiative requirement from 6% to 8% — increasing the requirement by a third — and require  the signatures be “divided equally” among Oregon’s six congressional districts. For citizen-proposed constitutional amendments, the requirement would rise from 8% to 10%.

HJR 3 would require initiative backers to collect signatures from 6% of voters in each of Oregon’s 36 counties — an even more difficult mark to reach in a politically polarized state.

A March 10 hearing on both measures showed widespread opposition and, at the Legislature at least, limited support. HJR 11 drew 104 testimony submissions, with just 24 in support (and two neutral). For HJR 3, 78 witnesses submitted testimony — all in opposition.

The level of criticism shouldn’t surprise, given Oregon’s historical background with ballot issues.

Oregon was one of the first states to adopt the idea of developing legislation or constitution changes directly to the public. Throughout the state’s history, voters have decided 881 ballot issues (almost a quarter of them related to taxes), but reaching the ballot has been no guarantor of passage. Fewer than half (411) of the measures won voter approval, which has evidently given no one a slam dunk at the polls.

The argument that it’s too easy to place an issue on the ballot might have some currency if the number of initiatives on the ballot has been exploding. But it hasn’t: In fact, the number continues to fall.

After a large number of initiatives presented shortly after the method was started, the number of initiatives slumped in the mid-20th century, then grew in its latter third, to 92 ballot issues in the 1970s, 73 in the 1980s and 105 in the 1990s. Then, in this century, the number has fallen steadily, from 86 in the 2000s, to 39 in the 2010s and just 13 so far in this decade.

Besides that, significant numbers of ballot issue campaigns fall short of the ballot qualification even under current rules.

The stronger support for these new resolutions — at least to judge from the amount of supportive testimony received — seems not to be for raising the overall petition signature level, but rather ensuring that every county provides significant support for it.

Sen. Todd Nash, R-Enterprise, argued for example: “This should be more representative from all of Oregon to gather those signatures. Right now, we’re not seeing that shape up that way. It’s coming from one concentrated area.”

Eastern Oregon rancher Katie Baltzor said many ballot initiatives, “are crafted by extreme groups that have a specific agenda that would be harmful to specific livelihoods, such as ours. Many conservative and moderate Eastern Oregonians feel they do not have a voice in the legislative or initiative process. It is too easy for these groups to gather all the signatures they need for a ballot initiative by going to a highly populated area.”

Some of this ties into the Greater Idaho protest, or the idea that eastern Oregonians aren’t being adequately heard in Salem — and there’s a good argument that they sometimes aren’t.

In Idaho, because of legislative action, rural votes do count more because of per-county signature requirements, which have reduced the number of initiatives that hit the ballot. That, of course, has come at the expense of urban and suburban dwellers.

The core problem the Oregon initiative limitation backers have is simply the large number of people in the more urban and suburban areas, mostly in the Willamette Valley: They’re outvoted. The only way around that is to weigh some votes (or petition signatures) more heavily than others.

Dan Meek of the Independent Party of Oregon offered an analogy: “If HJR 11 is a good idea, then let’s apply it to votes in the Oregon Legislature: In order to pass, a bill must be approved by members of the Legislature representing every CD. If the 10 state representatives and 5 state senators who represent districts within any of the 6 CDs do not provide majority votes in favor of a bill, then the bill fails. Thus, representatives and senators within each CD get to veto every bill. That is equivalent to the system proposed by HJR 11.”

People cast votes, and make other decisions in state politics. Land acreage doesn’t. Most likely, the Oregon Legislature will factor in those directions when it comes to these two resolutions.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

From Church to Risch

From Church to Risch

March 22, 2025

On Feb. 17, 1965, Frank Church, a 41-year-old United States senator from Idaho, became one of the first senators to openly question U.S. policy in Vietnam. On that same day, George McGovern, a 42-year-old senator from South Dakota, expressed similar reservations. The Senate speeches were reported, among other places, on the front page of the New York Times under a headline “Johnson Asserts U.S. Will Persist in Vietnam Policy.”

In their Senate speeches, Church and McGovern warned against the administration of President Lyndon Johnson becoming involved in what each correctly viewed as a post-colonial war of national liberation. Vietnam was, in fact, of little strategic importance to the United States. As the war intensified over the next 10 years, criticism of Church and McGovern increased, even as others joined their critique of what famed journalist David Halberstam pronounced at the time “a quagmire.”

The Senate action by Church and McGovern, Democrats from traditionally Republican states, marked the beginning of what became a sustained debate in Congress of Vietnam policy. That debate ultimately spilled over to street protests in many cities and on the campuses of its colleges. Pursuing the war would eventually claim more than 58,000 Americans and as many as 2 million Vietnamese.

Sixty years later, the historical consensus holds that Church and McGovern were right about both the war and Vietnam’s lack of strategic importance to the United States. Yet, political prescience aside, and measured against the fraught and divided politics of the country today, what remains fundamentally important about the stands made by the two was their principled criticism of the policy of a president of their own party.

Privately and with selective leaks to reporters, Johnson berated both senators for their stand. “But Frank Church spoke out,” as the Washington Post noted in Church’s obituary in 1984, “even as joking staffers wondered when President Johnson would send the Army Corps of Engineers to begin dismantling Idaho’s dams.”

Johnson viewed the young Idaho senator as a protégé and had engineered Church’s appointment to the Foreign Relations Committee, a plum assignment then that has become less plummy in our time. Johnson used the celebrated “Johnson treatment” on both the senator and his wife, Bethine, flattering, cajoling, praising, threatening, while always angling for public support.

When Johnson campaigned in Boise in 1964, he laid it on particularly thick, calling Church, “your eloquent and able young senator and his charming wife who helps Frank do such a good job.”

“I have always agreed with the people of Idaho on your choice of Churches,” Johnson said. “There is no senator that Washington respects more, and none that the nation needs more, and none that your president values more, than Frank Church.”

Yet, weeks later Church was pointing out the flaws in Johnson’s Vietnam policy and suffering for doing so. As his dissent became more intense, Vietnam became a central issue in Church’s reelection in 1968. His Republican challenger, Congressman George V. Hansen, slashed Church for being a “dove” providing “aid and comfort” to Communists.

Church biographers LeRoy Ashby and Rod Gramer detail the almost slapstick story of a St. Maries dogcatcher, Gene Mileck, who led a recall campaign against Church. Mileck’s efforts were supported by the John Birch Society, the far right of the Idaho Republican Party and wealthy out-of-state millionaires, in large part because of Church’s stand on the war. The recall effort was clearly unconstitutional and eventually collapsed, but the constant attacks on Church took a political toll, even as he proved he could fight back. Using language that might well resonate with some in Idaho today, Church said, “I think the people of Idaho have too much sense to allow this state to be taken over politically and economically by carpetbaggers from California.”

Church would go on to win four terms in the Senate — he defeated Hansen in 1968, winning 60% of the vote — becoming a leading advocate for a foreign policy based not on military intervention in the world’s revolutions but squarely focused on the nation’s vital interests. Church’s historic investigation into the abuses of the nation’s intelligence agencies remains his enduring legacy. Late in his last term, Church assumed the chairpersonship of the Foreign Relations Committee, a lifelong ambition.

Today, the United States faces a foreign policy challenge as existential as Vietnam proved to be in the 1960s: How does the country confront the ambitions of a brutal Russian dictator who aims to recreate much of the former Soviet empire and end American leadership of the most successful military alliance in the history of the world?

While the circumstances of America’s role in Vietnam and its posture in Ukraine are vastly different, the role of the United States Senate in helping shape American policy — or at least demanding debate of foreign policy issues — has all but disappeared. And today, another Idahoan helms the Foreign Relations Committee, a position that — would Sen. James Risch use it — could help define and shape U.S. policy in central Europe and elsewhere.

Risch has been silent as the Trump administration has demanded concessions from Ukraine while browbeating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While Trump wages a tariff war against Canada and threatens Canadian sovereignty, the leader of the Foreign Relations Committee says nothing. Threats to NATO, senseless posturing on Greenland or Panama, nothing prompts the least bit of pushback from Risch.

Risch, who seemed steadfast in support of Ukraine before Trump’s return, might use his position to conduct hearings on U.S. policy, drawing on the expertise and experience of diplomats and military leaders, much as then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright did in the 1960s or Church did in the 1970s.

Instead of hearings or speeches or even an interview with a reporter, Risch actually blocked a Senate resolution last week that condemned Russian action and demanded an immediate end to the war. In doing so the Idaho senator’s particular brand of arrogance was on full display, lecturing Sen. Bernie Sanders – the sponsor of the resolution – that he didn’t know what he was talking, while make the preposterous claim that the only person “on the planet” who can end the war in Ukraine is “Donald J. Trump.”

Watch the video of the exchange, but you might consider doing it on an empty stomach.

The senator’s posture is a case study of the dreadful decline of influence of the U.S. Senate as an essential institution shaping the nation’s foreign policy. When Idaho and the nation requires a Church, it has a Risch. History will remember one for independence and another for carrying the briefcase of a president apparently determined to hand Vladimir Putin the first of what is likely to prove to be many victories in the heart of Europe, while frightening and alienating allies that have been with America for decades.

It would be sad if it were not so dangerous.

 

For you, too

For you, too

March 21, 2025

I don’t do a lot of predictions. But odds are good for a particular news story happening in Idaho soon, and with a reasonable set of probability about where it will happen.

Though it could happen anywhere - or to anyone.

This thought grows out of a pile of recent news stories around the country about activity by federal (and sometimes state or local level) immigration forces. A wrapup by Pro Publica said “Federal immigration authorities have a history of wrongfully detaining U.S. citizens. Advocates warn that the Trump administration’s immigration policies mean that more citizens will get caught up in raids and sweeps.”

It’s not that prior administrations never grabbed citizens and treated them, in the immigration system, as they shouldn’t have. It’s happened before. (If you’ve never seen the Cheech Marin movie comedy Born in East LA, it’s not a bad introduction - informative as well as entertaining.)

But things are moving into a whole new level under the Trump Administration.

The agencies even have been given arrest quotas; the pressure is coming on to ramp up those numbers. There seems to be less concern about making mistakes than about failing to hit the targets.

In making its assessment, Pro Publica of course had receipts. They cited a Philadelphia car wash employee who was handcuffed and facing the business side of a gun before he could demonstrate that he was, in fact, a citizen.

The news site went on: “In Utah, agents pulled over and detained a 20-year-old American after he honked at them. In New Mexico, a member of the Mescalero Apache nation more than two hours from the border was questioned by agents who demanded to see their passport. Earlier this month, a Trump voter in Virginia was pulled over and handcuffed by gun-wielding immigration agents. In Texas, a 10-year-old citizen recovering from brain cancer was detained at a Border Patrol checkpoint and eventually deported to Mexico with her undocumented parents and other citizen siblings in February.”

As a side indicator, there’s the case of an academic from France headed to a professional conference in Houston who was detained by customs, his phone seized and himself deported to France - because messages critical of Donald Trump were found on his phone.

Much of the recent activity has been happening toward the southern border states. But not all of it, and more will be coming north.

Won’t be long before Idaho sees some of this action - meaning I think it highly likely it will show up in news reports - if it hasn’t already. When large-scale “sweeps” happen, their agents tend to be not especially picky about who is seized.

Is this likely to happen more in some parts of Idaho than in others? Probably.

If I were to bet on the next Idaho occurrence, I’d go for Canyon County. About 26% of its population (more than 50,000 people) is Hispanic, according to census information, and Caldwell is thought to be the third most Hispanic city in the state, with Nampa coming in seventh. That could put a major bullseye on that area.

But consider too the northern Magic Valley. Here are the other cities topping that list of Hispanic populations: Rupert, Jerome, Burley and Hailey. Jerome County’s population is about 38% Hispanic - the closest in Idaho to a majority-Hispanic county.

It’s immediately followed (at 37.5%) by Clark County, which is Idaho’s smallest-population county, but might be attractive to immigration forces looking to simply swamp an area.

The point there is that if large numbers of people are swept up in these areas, they easily can include citizens as well as non-citizens.

If you’re thinking to yourself: I’m a citizen, I have every right to be here, or even ‘I’m not Hispanic’ - don’t get too comfortable. If you’re caught up in a sweep, none of that may matter until after your life already has been turned upside down.

You’re not safe now. None of us are.