Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in December 2025

Are we in Kansas?

The Idaho legislature and our Governor have noted the influx of disenfranchised Californians moving into our state. They have heard the boom of the economic growth. And they have asked, as Dorothy did, “Is this Kansas?” And they have said “Yes Dorothy, we are in Kansas.”

The Idaho legislature and our Governor have cut taxes so much we now face a budget deficit while our population grows. I know Governor Little thought this was unwise, but he signed it. Our Republican legislature voted for this whole hog. We will pay. Our population increases and our state funding declines.

Kansas did this. In 2012, the Kansas legislature and Governor Brownback passed huge income tax cuts. The supply side people cheered. Grover Norquist, the pseudo economist who argued he wanted government to be so small he could drown it in a bathtub, was in ecstasy. The Koch Brothers, Texas billionaires who pull Idaho state legislators strings grinned. The Kansas model would prove all their points.

But it didn’t.

Cutting taxes does not make an economy boom. It didn’t for Kansas. They depleted their reserves and struggled to fund schools. Idaho has this on the horizon.

Especially when tax cuts just benefit the wealthy and corporations. Us pogues drive the consumer economy, and we have not gotten these Idaho gifts. We are hurting. But our schools and our roads and our lives will suffer.

So how did the Kansas Experiment work out? Not so great.

Kansas is almost as Republican as Idaho, but Governor Brownback ended up leaving the state to serve as “Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom”. A Democrat succeeded him in the Governor’s mansion in Topeka.

Idaho would never do that. And we don’t have a Governor’s mansion.

I doubt Brad has international ambassadorial dreams.

He loves Idaho. And he knew these tax cuts were stupid. He said so. But he signed them.

Idaho has seen growth. People love the Treasure Valley. Do they need schools and roads? Maybe they are over 60 and just want a small ranchette. At least they have escaped the liberals in California.

Is this the Idaho Brad Little said he wanted?

No.

He said he wanted this to be a state where the kids born here would find good jobs and want to raise their  families. I can’t think of a higher aspiration. Three of my four daughters are Idaho taxpayers. I love this state too. It’s why this Idaho Democrat voted for him.

I realize such an endorsement might not be welcome. That’s his problem.

But then he signed the ruby slippers tax cuts. And he’s holding back money to balance the budget. That’s his job. But he did sign the bills. We will dip into reserves, so the pain isn’t felt this year, but it’s coming. The budget will be balanced. And we will feel it.

Brad knows state finances better than anyone. And he can see the coming crash. But he signed the bills.

The problem is the Idaho legislature, who we elect from these bizarre districts. Our legislators write these laws.

But then Brad signs them.

We, the voters, need to be seeing this issue. Please study Kansas. They did the experiment. Why do we need to redo it here?

Maybe the problem isn’t with Brad or those clowns in the Capitol. It’s with us. We don’t learn.

Maybe we don’t care about Kansas.

Maybe we’ll just have to learn this lesson here in our beloved state.

We deserve the representation we vote for. And they, no we have brought this upon us. When it comes, look in the mirror and think what you/we could have done different.

For the twister comes.

 

We have Christmas because

Were it not for the sanctuary that Egypt provided to Jews during the reign of Caesar Augustus, Christians might not have a Christmas to celebrate. The Gospel of Matthew says that the new-born Jesus and his family fled to Egypt from Bethlehem to escape his death at the hands of King Herod. Matthew’s account of events tells us that Jesus and his family were refugees--forced to leave their home to escape mortal danger. They had asylum in Egypt until Herod died and it was safe to return home.

Jesus became a powerful advocate for the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. He spoke of our responsibility to love one another, including the “stranger.” In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus makes it clear that those who treated strangers with kindness would inherit His kingdom. On the other hand, those who refused to take in strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and give drink to the thirsty would not.

These words were in keeping with a strong biblical tradition that preceded Christianity. Deuteronomy and Exodus are replete with verses admonishing the Jews to treat foreigners with kindness and compassion--Deuteronomy 27:19, “Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner” and 10:19, “And you are to love those who are foreigners.” Exodus 12:49, “The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you” and 22:21, “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” Almost every religion on Earth extolls similar values.

America’s founding fathers heartily embraced these compassionate edicts. In 1783, George Washington told us: “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respected Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges…” That same year, John Adams said: “It is our business to render our country an asylum, worthy to receive all who may wish to fly to it.”

America has a proud tradition of providing asylum for the oppressed from every corner of the Earth. We are obligated to do so under international and domestic law. The United States also has a high moral duty to provide refuge to endangered foreigners who have had to flee their country because of improvident military actions the U.S. has engaged in over the years, including wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

After retiring from the Idaho Supreme Court in 2017, I had the privilege of working with refugees who came to Idaho from across the world. I can attest that they are truly remarkable American patriots. They understand the value of living in a society where there is opportunity for all, as well as freedom from fear and arbitrary governmental action, at least until recently. Like all of the nationalities that came here before them to this great melting pot of humanity, they will be model citizens, if given the chance.

This country, as great and warm-hearted as it is, has had momentary lapses in the past when it has treated refugees and other immigrants badly because of anxiety stirred up by fearmongers. Irish migrants who fled the Potato Famine in 1845-1852 were subjected to great abuse, even after their sons fought valiantly to save the Union during the Civil War. After imported Chinese workers risked life and limb to build the western section of the intercontinental railroad, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, based on unfounded fears. The Immigration Act of 1924 was designed to hinder immigrants from Italy, East European Jews and East Asians and, again, was driven by the politics of fear. Japanese Americans on the West Coast were rounded up and unjustly imprisoned during World War II, even while their sons were fighting and dying for America in the European Theater of that war.

As a Vietnam veteran who had many South Vietnamese friends, I was highly incensed by the behavior of some of my fellow Americans after the fall of South Vietnam in April of 1975. They claimed that the refugees from Vietnam would endanger our country and should be denied asylum. The fearmongers were wrong because we resettled over one million Vietnamese refugees and they have proven to be valuable additions to American society. Those Afghans who served with and protected U.S. forces in Afghanistan should have the same opportunity.

After each of these shameful episodes, we have looked back and regretted giving into fear stoked by demagogues. Let’s not let it happen again. Remember that we are only able to celebrate Christmas because Egypt gave sanctuary to Jesus and his family.

 

The Idaho year in Trump

The regional news site InvestigateWest summed up its take on Idaho in 2025 in this headline: Unchecked prison sex abuse, Christian nationalist influence and police welcoming ICE — a year of investigative reporting in Idaho.

Well, it is an investigative site, so it’s focusing on some of the darker corners.

But Idaho sure did have its darker side this year. What comes first to mind was the Wilder horse-track mass arrest in October, when about 200 law officers including masked and anonymous ICErs descended on a peaceful crowd which was in part zip-tied (evidently including children) and hauled off. It was the most visible of many immigrant roundup activities in the state which have had sweeping social and economic effects. Maybe - we’ll see - political as well.

The year in Idaho overall was inescapably intertwined with the Trump Administration, in areas ranging from economics at the Canadian border to measles outbreaks to food stamps to threatened salmon runs to selloffs of federal buildings to major shifts in state and local government budgets to air flight schedules, and much more. It’s been impactful. The case will be hard to make that much or any of it has been helpful. But it was what Idaho voted for, strongly.

The results are visible, at least as much in Idaho as elsewhere. Idaho has a big federal presence, and actions by the DOGE cutbacks in federal agencies directly affected people, land use (and management), safety and more across the state.

Donald Trump was the proximate cause of what may have been the single most decisive event affecting in-state politics last year: His endorsement of Brad Little for re-election to a third term as governor. Before that, expectations were widespread that Attorney General Raul Labrador would challenge him in the Republican primary. At present, while that’s still possible, it seems increasingly unlikely, since so much of Labrador’s base is so solidly on the Trump train. As the year turns, then, Idaho seems likely to have a quiet rather than a raucous primary campaign season.

At the moment, the most interesting non-Republican Idaho candidate for next year might not be a Democrat (at least at present) but rather an independent, Boisean Todd Achilles, who is running for the Senate. Achilles was all over the state in 2025 launching his race for the U.S. Senate (against Republican incumbent Jim Risch), and the usual measures suggest he’s a distinct underdog. But he is rejiggering the usual calculus with his independent run, and his progress seems worth watching.

It was a year when stresses on the subject of abortion reached new levels. Keep watch on the upcoming Idaho legislature, and you might find those stresses haven’t peaked yet.

There was a flip side to all this during 2025, which also might accelerate in 2026: No Kings. Massive protests happened nationally across the year, from coast to coast and in small reddish as well as large bluish communities. Idaho was not exempt, and thousands of people in most of its larger cities (Boise, sure, but also Twin Falls, Idaho Falls, Coeur d’Alene and other unlikely locations) took to the streets in protest. And many smaller places as well. It's hard to imagine there won’t be more as the mid-term election year comes up.

There were big stories that didn’t fit the pattern, like the ending of the Kohberger murder case and the collapse of the proposed obtaining (for lack of a better verb) of the University of Phoenix by the University of Idaho. (Both Moscow-based, oddly.)

It was a year of continued economic growth, at least in the metro area, and of continued growth to the northwest and southwest of Boise.  And a time of continued exceptionally high housing prices, something that has become a major topic of discussion nationally and applies in parts of Idaho as much as anywhere.

Still. The common thread through so much of what happened in Idaho last year isn't hard to see.

Welcome to 2026 …

 

Book report

Once again, a disproportionate share of my reading this year was a reflection on what was going on in the world at large; maybe the realities were just too compelling to avoid. (That's while I also was spending more time watching DVDs and streaming, the bulk of that fiction, so may be these were balancing sides.) If 2024 was (I wrote a year ago) "a year in which more people could have used a little more reflection," then 2025 was a year that got in our faces and climbed all over us. Reading non-relevant material most of the time would seemed like a copout. The sole function entry here is as pertinent as any of the nonfiction.

As before: These are a few reflections on books I read for the first time this year - not necessarily the 10 best, exactly, but those which had the largest impact on me. Not all were recently published, though most were, but they all were new to me this year.

And once again, they're listed here in alphabetical order (by author name), not preferential ranking, which would be too problematic for books as different as these.

 

Zeinab Badawi - An African History of Africa: From the Dawn of Humanity to Independence (2025). The title overstates a little,in that (as the author quickly acknowledges) this isn't really a fully comprehensive history of the continent: Even if it were skimming, that would require quite a few large volumes.

What it does do, very well, is to pick out key turning points and instances that show what Africa's history generally was like and how it developed. Large parts of this have appeared in other book over the years (as in the empire of Mali) but others seem to have slipped into real obscurity until Badawi brought them forth (as in the Nubian kingdom).

Among Americans, there's probably a widespread sense that Africa had little history other than in the context of its interactions with Europe and America. It fact as much as going on in that continent as in Europe or Asia, but developed in different ways, as the nature of the continent provides different constraints and incentives. A view of the continent from the continent has been long needed. If you want to find out what you've been missing in a less-explored part of world history, here's a good place to start.

Darryl Campbell  - Fatal Abstraction: Why the Managerial Class Loses Control of Software (2025). There's a concept here addressed in other books but more broadly: That as business managers move away from the direct ownership and control of the people who invented and personally operated and created the goods or services, into the hands of people who knew how to manage but lack the hands-on understanding of the substance of the business ... that, well, things go wrong.

Managing the numbers - which is what management training largely is about ("you can't manage it if you can't measure it") - is useful, but it only gets you do far, and it can easily send you down blind alleys. That has happened in many kinds of businesses, as many consumers (or employees or suppliers or simply citizens) could tell you. But the implications may be especially vast when it comes to software, and the companies - titans like Meta and Apple and Microsoft and Alphabet - that rely on it.

The original intended uses of software in places like Facebook were vastly different than what has emerged in the last decade-plus. Campbell gets int the guts of how and why that happened, and it's not a pretty story.

Paul Thomas Chamberlin - Scorched Earth: A Global History of World War II (2025) As I read this book, it didn't seem to support the shorthand version of what it seemed to be arguing: That World War II wasn't so much the good-vs-evil conflict most of us have come to understand, but rather a massive conflict between long-established and upstart empires.

The strength of the book, though, is that Chamberlin doesn't try to push his premise too hard. He makes good cases for the relative positioning of various nations, and their aspirations, as key components in how the war developed: It's more a slightly adjusted lens than a whole new world view.

That said, with the strong analysis here over a mass array of scholarship which has continued to develop decades after this conflict, there's also this: Scorched Earth is just about as good a one-volume history of World War II, where it came from and why it happened as it did, as you'll find. A longish but smooth read that will leave you better informed, with some new thoughts along the way.

Marc J. Dunkelman - Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress?and How to Bring It Back (2025). Why have bridges and roads become so unimaginably expensive and time-consuming they seem almost impossible to build anymore? Why is the price of an elevator massively higher in the United States than in Europe? Why, seemingly, can we not do big things any more?

There's no single answer to this, and the weakness of Dunkelman's book is that it directs over-much focus to one big reason. But it is a big reason, as the Amazon book description notes: "America is the victim of a vetocracy that allows nearly anyone to stifle progress. While conservatives deserve some blame, progressives have overlooked an unlikely culprit: their own fears of 'The Establishment'.”

His view here may be a little limited, and he may be trying to shoehorn some data into his theory. But the problem Dunkelman outlines is real, and at least in theory it should be well within our ability to correct. If we have the will, and the desire to compromise, to do it. This is a valuable read even with qualifications.

Brian Goldstone - There Is No Place for Us (2025). Any of us could be a few missteps or misfortunes away from the kind of stories told in There Is No Place for Us, the most remarkable book I read in the first half of this year. And that ought to be enough to keep us all awake, because those stories are a series of revolving nightmares - close enough to our own realities that they ought to kick home hard.

The subtitle for the book, by journalist Brian Goldstone, is Working and Homeless in America, which is accurate enough but, like the title, needs some definition and clarification. That in fact is part of what the book does.

The book follows the lives, over about a five year time period (up to about 2022)  of five families in Atlanta, Georgia, describing in detail what they're going through as they try to find an affordable place to live. Here's one of the twists: All of them (or at least the head of household in each case, and sometimes others in the family as well) work full time. With one exception, they are not substance abusers (the significant exception is an alcoholic, driven to it in part because of the housing nightmare). Nor are they (again, with one debatable exception) contending with mental issues. These are people struggling with a web of bad options and no clear way out.

The more recurring theme is the lack of affordable housing - or put another way, the astounding high cost of rent and real estate in recent years. These people are working for minimum wage or not much more, but they are consistently working, and they cannot find a place to live that fits anywhere close to their budget. That is a situation many of us should be able to identify with.

On the rental side, Goldstone writes the nation now has a deficit of 7.3 million low-income apartments - a vastly higher deficit than in decades earlier. "Giant private equity firms, institutional investors and corporate landlords have been buying up properties en masse and then jacking up rents beyond the rate of inflation, 're-tenanting' buildings (replacing poorer tenants with wealthier ones), and neglecting basic maintenance because they know that if one household moves out, another will quickly take its place."

In Atlanta, he writes, a few mega-firms have swept up tens of thousands of residences, raising rates and making them all but unaffordable to most people - in fact, nationally, only about 15% of people can afford the standard basic apartment rates. This sounds like a broken business model, but it yields massive income at least in the short time, as Goldstone explains.

Remember: However secure you may think you are, you're not all that far away from joining their ranks. May you have better luck than these people have had.

Jonathan Haidt - The Anxious How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (2024). A bestseller, and on merit from the standpoint of putting a useful framework around a serious complex of social problems which had not been so well defined before. Here, specifically: The effect smart phones and related electronics have had on children in the last 16 years or so (basically, since the advent of the iPhone).

Author Adam Grant had this reaction: "Jonathan Haidt makes a powerful case that the shift from play-based to phone-based childhoods is wreaking havoc on mental health and social development. Even if you’re not ready to ban smartphones until high school, this book will challenge you to rethink how we nurture the potential in our kids and prepare them for the world.”

Haidt doesn't actually go that far; he is working in matters of degree and a balancing of benefit and harm. This isn't a hard-edged manifesto. But that careful reliance on solid research helps, and so does the relatively modest set of steps he recommends that could have an outsized positive effect. Quite a few public officials seem almost to have been reading this in the moves nationwide to scale back the use of phones during school days. That and more could provide a great turnaround in years to come, for a while generation that wasn't prepared for the technology they're now living with.

 

Brian Hill - Unconstrained (2024). The lone faction title here, but rooted in one of our big actual concerns (and terrors). As computing power, and its free-standing independence, grows, it can seem bewildering It may feel like a big problem, or potential problem, but is this something that can actually be potentially serious?

This feels almost like a counterpart to a book I read last year (and published about the same time) called Nuclear War by Annie Jacobsen, which outlined a fictional but highly plausible doomsday scenario showing how an actual nuclear war in our age might happen. That one was categorized as non-fiction, but it is an extrapolation, and a warning.

This "near-future sci-fo thriller" about artificial intelligence is set in September 2032, focusing on a next-generation AI that has developed a sort of independent sentience and the ability not only to re-program itself but also reprogram any other computing device (think of a car or refrigerator or outdoor cooking stove as well as the more obvious) for its purposes. Its intent is not defined as malign, but its activities could be enormously damaging to our kind of life forms.

The point here is that AI can "think" faster and with fewer errors than humans can. All of the instructions to creating such a device have been up to now crafted by humans, but we're either at or approaching a point where the coding inside an AI may be so complex that no human can comprehend it. That's the point reached (by a human research and development tech firm, which creates "the Intelligence") at the beginning of this story. Where the "intelligence" takes things from there is the meat of the story.

Hill does something else useful here by way of reinforcing the independence of this creation in writing scattered chapters in the books from the viewpoint of the AI itself - making it in effect another character in the book, and as active as any of the humans. While Hill outlined one way an AI creation could go rogue and do damage, it's far from the only way. If guardrails aren't placed around this tech sometime soon, we all could find out about some of the others the hard way.

Patrick McGee - Apple in China: The Capture of the World's Greatest Company (2025). By all rights, a richly-reported and thickly-detailed book about informational finance and business dealings on a large scale shouldn't have the tightly-knit plotting and thematic through liner of a pulp novel. And yet this one does, which fact ought to send a shiver down your spine.

The reason is that the biggest (depending on how you count) company in the United States and maybe the world,m and certainly on the very short list of most influential, has inb essence been captured by China. It's an old movie plot really, maybe that of a screwball comedy or a Loony Tunes cartoon: The overconfident hunter becomes the prey. Apple needed a massive amount of cutting-edge production work done at high speed and low cost, and couldn't get it done almost anywhere but China. Over time, China became not only the production core but also a central market for Apple, and the balance of power shifted. Saying Apple now is at China's mercy would not be going too far.

Do you use Apple products - an iPhone, a computer, an online service, something else? Many millions of Americans do. The implications are vast, and getting vaster at a time when no one in the United States seems willing or able to deal with it.

Tim Minshall - How Things Are Made: A Journey Through the Hidden World of Manufacturing (2025). Here's an entertaining book about how the hidden (from the public) side of manufacturing businesses actually work. (It's one of several on that general subject I've read in recent years, and maybe the best.) It's even short, fewer than 200 pages. But it covers the general field of how manufacturing is getting done, and how it is transforming.

The stories have a homely rather than cutting-edge kind of base. Minshall opens, for example, with the story of how you make a roll of toilet paper (and why it's a more difficult process than you might imagine).

This could amount to a collection of trivia except that Minshall also has some prescriptions for how to improve our often-flawed systems. As a description said, "along the way, he explores how we can improve the fragility of our global manufacturing system and the impact it has on the natural world, pre4senting a path to a trult sustainable future."

It's actually one of the more hopeful books I read during the year.

Jeff Pearlman - Only God Can Judge Me: The Many Lives of Tupac Shakur (2025). If you're not a fan of rap, well, fine; I'm not. And still wasn't after reading this book (though it did prompt me to check out a few specific recordings). But this artful biography, my favorite bio of the year, got to me precisely because it got behind the stereotypes and explored, among other things, what happened when a highly unusual and individualistic person tried to live up to a stereotyped image.

In this case, he died.

Rap and especially gangsta tap is largely about attitude (it has that in common when many fields of entertainment), and in a popular or commercial environment the attitude has to be match to the lifestyle and action if popularity is to continue. But the Tupac Shaker (his real name, which I hadn't realized - count that as my falling prey to presumptions) that Pearlman describes here was a highly artistic and sensitive, not to mention extremely talented, man. (He was almost shockingly sweeping in his music appreciation, which ranged to unlikely influences including the Indigo Girls and Don McLean.) He evidently capable of performing on stage in almost any of format needed. (His limited acting performances apparently included some extremely strong appearances, stealing scenes and reaching depths far more experienced actors didn't match.) He might have gone on to a wide range of unexpected successes had he lived.

It's another cautionary take, leading me to wonder who else I've misunderstood, and not least this: Don't prejudge people, maybe and even especially if they want you to.

 

The legality of the killings

Idaho’s Senator Jim Risch proclaimed in a December 11 meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the “attacks in the Caribbean are absolutely, totally and 100% legal under US law and international law.” Those strikes have produced a body count nearing 100 since September 2. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley effectively debunked Risch’s argument, pointing out that only Congress has the power to declare war under the US Constitution. Risch incorrectly claimed that the killings were “clearly not a war, but kinetic action,” as though that somehow got around the Constitution. His response makes no sense because the violence of war is always kinetic action.

There is no need to get into the legal weeds about the legality of Trump’s Caribbean killings because their unlawfulness has been well established in the last three months. Even the DOD’s new AI chatbox, which Pete Hegseth proudly announced on December 9, said that an order to kill two survivors of a boat strike would be “an unambiguously illegal order.”

During the Vietnam War, I spent hundreds of hours flying over the jungle as an artillery spotter in a small two-seater “bird dog” aircraft. I could call deadly artillery fire upon practically any suspected enemy in certain “free fire zones.” Those were defined areas from which the South Vietnamese government had removed all civilians. Nevertheless, the rules of engagement prohibited firing upon civilians and I would not have done it anyway. If there was any uncertainty as to whether a person was hostile, we did not fire.

Had I been overhead for any of the Trump/Hegseth strikes, I would not have pulled the trigger–no declared war, no enemy combatants, clearly civilians and no justification for “kinetic action.” The proper course of action would be to call the US Coast Guard to interdict and search the boats, like they have historically done. Last year, the Coast Guard seized 225 metric tons of cocaine. The US would have to destroy a heck of a lot of narco speed boats to equal that tonnage.

These present boat strikes have a feature that was not in existence back in Vietnam days. Then, artillery spotters and their pilots were the only people who knew the situation on the ground. We were largely on the honor system in deciding who should live or die. Now military personnel up and down the ladder may have eyes on the situation. Not only that, but a video record is being made of each strike. Any person who sees a strike being carried out and does not raise concerns about its legality may be called to account, even years later.

Keep in mind that both Trump and Hegseth have gleefully announced the strikes and vowed to kill all other alleged “narco-terrorists.” They might be surprised to learn that several victims of the September 2 strike were not drug merchants. The US Supreme Court essentially immunized Trump against any kind of charges that could result from the strikes, but Hegseth and the military personnel with eyes-on participation in the strikes could find themselves in legal hot water down the road for these summary executions.

 

Is a bigger college, better?

Willamette University is located across the street — State Street, in Salem — from the statehouse, and that has sometimes been a good metaphor for its status in Oregon.

Its website labels it “the Northwest’s Leading Private University” and it has had a long alliance with the state of Oregon. It was founded in 1842, the oldest university not just in Oregon but in the western United States, older than not only the state of Oregon but even the territory of Oregon.

Mark Hatfield, one of the most celebrated of Oregon’s governors and senators, attended school there while starting work next door for the Oregon secretary of state, and for decades regularly crossed the street between the university — where he also taught political science and was dean of students — and the statehouse as he moved up the political roster.

Pacific University is in the same collegiate neighborhood: U.S News & World Report named it Oregon’s top private national university, and it was highly cited a few months ago as a leading research college & university by the American Council on Education. It is nearly as old as Willamette, also older than the state since its forebear institution (Tualatin Academy) was founded in 1849.

Both are, broadly speaking, successful, productive, academically and financially healthy. So why should they consider, as they both now are, merging into something new called the University of the Northwest? What would be the point, besides turning it into Oregon’s largest private higher education institution?

These days, maybe that is the point.

The proposed merger is only in early stages and presumably the universities’ communities will be weighing in on whether they think this is a good idea. There’s plenty to think about.

A merger could yield some benefits in the grass roots, possibly allowing students to obtain access to more classes and resources. It also could result in some efficiencies of scale in administration and shared costs, and a larger support based in the institutions’ alumni and other networks.

And the plan for a merger evidently would be limited. The proposal seems to call for a “collegiate university,” in which “distinct schools and colleges maintain their character, identities, and historic campuses while unified under a shared administrative structure as a single institution. The undergraduate colleges at Pacific, Willamette, and PNCA would continue to operate with their current names … and would maintain separate admissions requirements, academic programs and athletics.”

In other words, much of the change wouldn’t even be very visible.

But there seems to be a larger picture here.

Steve Thorsett, president of Willamette University, said in the announcement that “If finalized and approved, this merger would be a defining moment for private higher education in the region.” How would it do that? He went on: “Together we seek to expand that legacy at a greater scale.”

The “greater scale,” the matter of sheer size, may be important. These two private institutions have far smaller student enrollment than the larger public universities in the state; together they would have about 6,000 students, compared to about 24,000 at the University of Oregon or about 38,000 at Oregon State University. About 200,000 students attend Oregon’s public colleges and universities (including community colleges), far ahead of the private institutions.

Universities like Pacific or Willamette do have a distinct role in the state, and their influence probably is outsized compared to their raw numbers. At the same time, their smaller size can make them easy to overlook.

Which begs the question of whether this merger, if it proceeds and seems to work, might be just the beginning. Maybe Linfield University at McMinnville, which is just a little smaller in overall size compared to the other two (but would bring some distinct specialties), is located directly between them and has had some finance issues in recent years, will want to join in.

Or maybe other private institutions around the state, such as Reed College or Lewis and Clark College, might consider similar kinds of linkups.

Something could go away in all this, too. Smaller colleges have more room for idiosyncrasy, distinct characters and different approaches to learning and research. If the smaller institutions start clumping together, would much of that be lost?

Merger into bigger seems to be the way of our society. Sometimes it can be a good idea. But nothing comes without its price.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Reading the fine print

Every election cycle, I edge closer to advising this: Just ignore all those political ads. If they come by mail, trash ‘em. If they’re on the tube, mute the sound and go get something to eat. If they come in social media, scroll past.

Not all are dishonest or useless; some carry valid information, though that seems to be a diminishing portion. But in many cases one way to tell the bad from the good is to hunt around for any available evidence about who created or paid for the piece (especially a hit piece) - which often is not a candidate or an issue supporter, but some third party, often from far away. Independent groups, often styled as political action committees, have been dominating that paid-for conversation increasingly.

Idaho Republican Chair Dorothy Moon addressed this in a December 4 opinion piece, winding up with: “Take everything with a grain of salt. Do your own research, talk to candidates yourself, and vote for the one who most reflects your values and principles. Don’t take the word of some PAC from out of town—or even out of state.”

Agreed. But there was, as you might imagine, a little more to her argument. Moon’s column had a couple of particulars in mind, related to the recent and heated Idaho Falls mayoral race, and some of the support for eventual winner Lisa Burtenshaw: “Boise-based Idaho Liberty PAC, which has close connections to Governor Brad Little. In November alone, it spent nearly $30,000 in favor of one mayoral candidate. Stop and think about that: $30,000 flowing from Boise to Idaho Falls, trying to tell voters who they should choose for mayor.”

She also said a $20,000 expenditure came from a group called Defend and Protect Idaho which said it is a  “coalition of members of law enforcement and the military, small business owners, faith leaders, farmers and ranchers, and more dedicated to combating political extremism in Idaho,” but gets significant money “from left-wing groups across the nation.”

All of which, assuming its accuracy, is worth knowing. But it’s just the part of the story Moon wants to tell, because her side of the fence, which backed defeated candidate Jeff Alldridge, is more than amply represented by similar groups.

The best comment on that came soon after the Moon column from Gregory Graf of the Political Potatoes Substack. First he went after her rationale: “Moon did not publish this piece because she uncovered a sudden concern about PAC transparency. Her op-ed came only days after a series of bruising political defeats for the far-right faction with whom she presents herself as the leader.”

Then he pointed out that her side of the Republican Party has been doing the same thing, in a big way, for years. One example is The Stop Idaho RINOS PAC, “operated by California transplant John Hedia, who entered Idaho politics during the COVID migration and quickly embedded himself in Republican primaries.” Another is the Citizens Alliance of Idaho PAC, “the Idaho arm of a national political operation run by Clint Maloney, the former president of Young Americans for Liberty.” A third is the Idaho Freedom Act, in effect the Boise-based PAC of the Idaho Freedom Foundation.

Graf noted that Moon mentioned none of them, and “All three omitted PACs attempt to have more influence in Idaho elections than the PACs Moon condemned. Their exclusion from her op-ed reveals her motive. Her article was an attempt to protect the machine she represents from scrutiny.”

Candidates will typically say, often with some justification, that they can’t control these outside groups, and in many cases that’s true. But a loud, and especially public, complaint about allied groups going too far could have some effect.

Meantime, before you absorb the content of paid political messages, be sure and check out the source. If it’s from the candidate, you know at least what you’re dealing with, for better or worse. If it’s from anywhere else, your best move probably is to send it and its message to File 86.

If enough people did that, one of the recurrent ugly symptoms of our politics could ease off considerably. And local elections might become a little more local again.

 

National insecurity

Donald Trump shocked America’s allies when he made a late night release of his National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 4. The document contends that the international order the United States established with its allies following World War II has undermined “the character of our nation” and must be replaced by a system focusing on the Western Hemisphere. The concept is to dominate our neighbors to the North and South with what the NSS calls “commercial diplomacy.” That is, the “U.S. Government will identify strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region and present these opportunities for assessment by every U.S. Government financing program.” This is mercantilism in its rawest form.

On the other hand, the NSS suggests that America should distance itself from our European allies who have stood with us and against Russian aggression since Western Europe rose from the ashes of war. Pentagon officials told European diplomats in Washington last week that Trump wants Europe to take over the majority of NATO's conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles, by 2027. That would be disastrous for America’s national security interests. Our extraordinary control of NATO and cooperation with its partner nations have provided bases to project American power and greatly facilitated our rise as an unrivalled military and economic power.

Trump's NSS essentially dismisses Russia as a threat to the United States, which is a dramatic change from previous versions of the document. The strategy complains that “European officials…hold unrealistic expectations” for an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. If those expectations are unrealistic, it is only because Trump has essentially cut off critical military assistance to Ukraine, while making nice to Vladimir Putin. His NSS gives voice to Putin’s demands for ending “the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.” There is much in the strategy to warm the heart of Trump’s favorite dictator. A fair reading of the document indicates a plan to dump Europe, NATO and Ukraine.

The NSS also answers the question of why the U.S. has positioned such a formidable military force off the shores of Venezuela. Trump’s claim that it was to interdict drugs never rang true. Trump has shown how much he cares about fighting narco-terrorists by pardoning a creep who was convicted in 2024 for trafficking over 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez once boasted that he would “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses” and he certainly stuffed a mighty tonnage up those U.S. nostrils. Trump falsely claimed the prosecution was unfair but failed to point out that the investigation of Hernandez began during Trump’s first term as president. Nor did he mention that his sycophantic lawyer, Emil Bove III, who worked as a federal prosecutor from 2015 to 2021, had played a major role in the investigation that led to Hernandez’ conviction. Trump recently appointed Bove to an important federal court position. And, he has granted clemency to about 100 other people accused of drug-related crimes during his time in office.

Trump’s purported drug war with Venezuela was merely a pretense to insert U.S. military power into southern waters to carry out the Western Hemisphere strategy set out in the NSS. America has no strategic interest in waging hostilities against Venezuela or any other of the Latin American countries. We do have important strategic interests in placing American military power in close proximity to the real and dangerous threats posed by our major adversaries, Russia and China. Those powerful and menacing nations apparently get a free pass under the NSS. It makes absolutely no sense to adopt a national security strategy that diverts the nation’s attention from the real and present dangers facing our country.